President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

No. Trump is continuing the same policy.

Obama warned China of consequences over economic and the South China Sea issues.
Under the Clinton administration a UN resolution filed by the US and passed, warned Iraq of consequences...5 years later there was war.

I was pointing out that policy had not changed under Trump towards China. You find it hard to accept things.

And you continue to argue with points I never even made. You've even bragged about pretending Trump said something Obama said, despite me never having an issue with the statement in isolation.

Did Obama insist on recognising Taiwan's head of state?
Did Obama constantly denigrate and insult China speaking publicly or on Twitter?
Did Obama try to repeatedly vilify China over trade and currency?

Until you can answer those, well... we've been here before...

straw man
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

gormdubhgorm

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Have I said that it wasn't a fact?

The popular vote is a lot more important than those examples you used btw, because it's more representative of the opinions of the entire voting population of the US, not just ones in particular states.

Still though, he won. I just won't stop questioning his mandate, especially since his poll numbers are also in the gutter.

But the popular vote is not important because it had/has no bearing on the actual result.

It may lead to America changing its electoral system in years to come. But for the moment Trumps mandate has come from the American electoral system.

The reason why Britain did not move to PR years ago was fear of the Republican vote in Ireland.

I fail to see the relevance of the popular vote when the American system is designed to function without it.

It is funny in an Irish context the person who always goes on about mandate is Gerry Adams!

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

No. Trump is continuing the same policy.

Obama warned China of consequences over economic and the South China Sea issues.
Under the Clinton administration a UN resolution filed by the US and passed, warned Iraq of consequences...5 years later there was war.

I was pointing out that policy had not changed under Trump towards China. You find it hard to accept things.

Obama did not go out of his way as much to piss off the Chinese which is a big issue with Trump. Maybe the pentagon does set foreign policy but they did not send the tweet blaming them for global warning hoax or the random stuff from his twitter about them. War with China is a lot more likely than it was a few weeks back. In fact during the election run up it wasn't mentioned even here as an issue if the Democrats won. It was all war with Russia being mentioned here. There was certainly tensions with China and what they were doing in the south Sea but nothing that could be seen to devolve into an actual war anytime soon. Trump insults on twitter have told the Chinese he wants to be more aggressive against them which in turn has lead to more aggressive language from the Chinese. The pentagon had no control over the words from either of them. During the election Trump was the only candidate promising a trade war with China.

He has certainly changed the outlook on China and anything else is more massive false equivalence. Note even the difference in reactions to the red carpet snub. Trump said he would fly home. Obama passed it off as if nothing happened.
Actually why were you worried about Democrats starting a war with Russia if any war was down to the pentagon decisions?

Christy42

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the popular vote is not important because it had/has no bearing on the actual result.

It may lead to America changing its electoral system in years to come. But for the moment Trumps mandate has come from the American electoral system.

The reason why Britain did not move to PR years ago was fear of the Republican vote in Ireland.

I fail to see the relevance of the popular vote when the American system is designed to function without it.

It is funny in an Irish context the person who always goes on about mandate is Gerry Adams!

It matters as it affects the odds of his re election and the election of Republicans who support him in down ballot races. If he does not have popular support they will be looking at the demographics in their constituencies and wondering how they should play their cards. Some will be safe anyway, some may rebel to save their seats. Some politicians may even see their constituency not liking Trump and go against them to represent their wishes. Democrats can also feel safer taking a hard line against him.

Thus it affects the decisions he is making now. He should absolutely be president with those powers. I disagree with his policies but he won the election. However other people also have power in Washington who have elections to fight before 4 years are up and need to look at his popularity for their own decisions. It has no bearing on who won the election but may well have a bearing on how people vote and act in congress/senate.

The other reason it keeps coming up is that he keeps bringing it up and claiming he won the popular vote.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

And you continue to argue with points I never even made. You've even bragged about pretending Trump said something Obama said, despite me never having an issue with the statement in isolation.

Did Obama insist on recognising Taiwan's head of state?
Did Obama constantly denigrate and insult China speaking publicly or on Twitter?
Did Obama try to repeatedly vilify China over trade and currency?

Until you can answer those, well... we've been here before...

straw man
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

You keep telling me you are doing straw man posts.

You never answered my questions.

Did Obama try to repeatedly vilify China over trade and currency?
we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm,” added Obama. “And we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

Did Obama get the ok by the Chinese government to sell Taiwan defensive military equipment?If not, why?The US and Taiwan have set up offices in Taipei and Washington DC so they can engage, which allows the US to keep full diplomatic ties with China.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Obama did not go out of his way as much to piss off the Chinese which is a big issue with Trump. Maybe the pentagon does set foreign policy but they did not send the tweet blaming them for global warning hoax or the random stuff from his twitter about them. War with China is a lot more likely than it was a few weeks back. In fact during the election run up it wasn't mentioned even here as an issue if the Democrats won. It was all war with Russia being mentioned here. There was certainly tensions with China and what they were doing in the south Sea but nothing that could be seen to devolve into an actual war anytime soon. Trump insults on twitter have told the Chinese he wants to be more aggressive against them which in turn has lead to more aggressive language from the Chinese. The pentagon had no control over the words from either of them. During the election Trump was the only candidate promising a trade war with China.

He has certainly changed the outlook on China and anything else is more massive false equivalence. Note even the difference in reactions to the red carpet snub. Trump said he would fly home. Obama passed it off as if nothing happened.
Actually why were you worried about Democrats starting a war with Russia if any war was down to the pentagon decisions?

You are wrong, why did the Chinese snub Obama then?

InTheTrees

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But the popular vote is not important because it had/has no bearing on the actual result.

Yes. Right. We get that. We're going round and round and round in circles.

The popular vote doesnt matter because he won.

The popular vote shows why he's so unpopular.

But the popular vote doesnt matter because he won.

But it shows why he's so unpopular.

etc etc.

trump won but he's deeply unpopular because he didnt win the peoples vote.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You keep telling me you are doing straw man posts.

You never answered my questions.

Did Obama try to repeatedly vilify China over trade and currency?
we have seen in some cases in the South China Sea or in some of their behaviour when it comes to economic policy, we’ve been very firm,” added Obama. “And we’ve indicated to them that there will be consequences.”

Did Obama get the ok by the Chinese government to sell Taiwan defensive military equipment?If not, why?The US and Taiwan have set up offices in Taipei and Washington DC so they can engage, which allows the US to keep full diplomatic ties with China.

I have answered your question, if you don't think I have then feel free to re-iterate what it is.

As for your second part... there's the straw man again. No president has sought permission from the Chinese government to sell weapons to Taiwan - and that is why I never once argued against that fact. Seriously Robert you really, really, REALLY should educate yourself a little further on the One China Policy of 1979 and Six Assurances of 1982. I am 100% convinced at this stage that you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about and are just in "defend Trump" mode with. Look them up, here are two links to get you started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances

And there's an example of Obama speaking diplomatically that you've given again. Diplomatic relations don't have to mean being BFFs, it's about being firm when needed, taking the high road when needed, and keeping distances when needed. Compare that to Trump's Twitter insults, crackpot conspiracy theories, and tirades in speeches -all of which you concede- and the difference is night and day.

Which makes the following entirely unsurprising...



AP reporting Trump has threatened to deploy US troops to Mexico.
https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/826935678718136320

Billy86

FOX News also reporting Trump threatening to send troops across the Mexican border.

And the tone does seem to fit in with his telephone conversation with the Australian PM that same day.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

FOX News also reporting Trump threatening to send troops across the Mexican border.

And the tone does seem to fit in with his telephone conversation with the Australian PM that same day.

The donald, keepin it classy.

He could always get the us ambassador to mexico to clear up the mess. Oh no he fired him. Well he has a newly confirmed secretary of state, except his entire staff quit.

super_furry

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

White supremacists who carry out bombings and mass shootings will no longer be targeted in the US' counter-terrorism program. Never mind that neo-nazis like Dylan Roof have killed vastly more people than ISIS have in the US, Trump is only interested in going after Brown people.

He is literally targeting the entire counter-terrorism program to focus solely on Islam. Can't see how anyone can still say he isn't racist and targeting Muslims.

Hank Scorpio

Good to see free speech is alive and well in America. After Milo was evacuated it wasn't enough, they proceeded to smash up Berkeley college, light fires, beat Trump supporters throw rocks and missiles at the police, then smash up several banks, a starbucks and other premises. Poke the bear enough and eventually it will fight back.

https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/827025278148947968

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Good to see free speech is alive and well in America. After Milo was evacuated it wasn't enough, they proceeded to smash up Berkeley college, light fires, beat Trump supporters throw rocks and missiles at the police, then smash up several banks, a starbucks and other premises. Poke the bear enough and eventually it will fight back.

https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/827025278148947968

Nothing to say on anything involving Trump and religious freedom? Yet again you come out with random stuff around the same time Trump is being controversial.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

You are wrong, why did the Chinese snub Obama then?

No one talked about the possibility of war though. I am not sure why they did it as it was a stupid move on their part. Trump's advice would have left the US without a voice at an incredibly important conference. Maybe they were after that. Obama looked down to earth and they looked pety in the end. There were certainly tensions and I am not a fan of their actions in the south seas. Going up and poking them with a stick is stupid though. Stay firm where needed, don't escalate when you don't have to.

As we can see from recent posts Trump p has a certain skill in annoying foreign leaders. He doesn't even seem to try and work with any of them (except Putin). I mean threatening an invasion? How is that meant to make any dealings with Mexico amicable. This isn't a zero sum game like business, countries can work together successfully to improve all concerned. Trump seems incapable of that though.

I can only hope that the racist change of focus for the CVE now that Quebec has proven a need for countering all forms of terrorism. I doubt it. Trump is obsessed with actions that firmly divide society even further after a divisive Electoral campaign. There has been no attempt at working with the opposition, just blindly following his own moronic ideas.

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Nothing to say on anything involving Trump and religious freedom? Yet again you come out with random stuff around the same time Trump is being controversial.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the thread title is called President Trump and surprising consequences which I believe includes facists beating Trump supporters with bars.

I can post what I want on this topic, when I want and I don't have to answer to you or anybody else with the exception of the moderators.

Billy86

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

White supremacists who carry out bombings and mass shootings will no longer be targeted in the US' counter-terrorism program. Never mind that neo-nazis like Dylan Roof have killed vastly more people than ISIS have in the US, Trump is only interested in going after Brown people.

He is literally targeting the entire counter-terrorism program to focus solely on Islam. Can't see how anyone can still say he isn't racist and targeting Muslims.

Target Muslims under the pretense of terrorism.

White supremacist fan just a few hours north of the border murders six Muslims.

Remove white supremacists from terror targeting.

No secret about what's going on here, I'm putting this down as primarily a Bannon decision - protecting his own.

Zubeneschamali

So, I think we have seen enough to be able to make a few predictions. One of Trumps core promises was a big infrastructure project which would rebuild America and create jobs.
I will now predict that:
1) there will not be nearly enough money to back up the promise
2) the money will go to rural areas (because "urban" areas are too black and Democratic)
3) the money will not go on broadband or clean water or clean energy - it'll go on bridges and roads, but not useful inter urbans, since that would benefit Democrats.
4)In ten years, there will be a heap of "bridge to nowhere" scandals about pork and waste associated with the programme.

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I can post what I want on this topic, when I want and I don't have to answer to you or anybody else with the exception of the moderators.

Yes - feel free to defend free speech for Nazis all you want. It's a good intro for new people reading the thread.

Mr. Incognito

Today's reported stupidity.

Trump apparantly threatened to send in Troops to Mexico
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/mexico-denies-report-that-trump-threatened-to-send-in-troops-to-stop-bad-hombres.html

Trump is fracturing Australian relationship hanging up the phone on the Australian PM.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/trump-reportedly-accuses-australian-pm-seeking-to-export-next-boston-bombers.html

Zubeneschamali

Remember how Trump was going to stand up to lobbyists? Allow Medicare to bargain for better drug prices?

One short meeting with Pharma lobbyists, and that's all history.

Before: “Pharma has a lot of lobbies, a lot of lobbyists and a lot of power. And there’s very little bidding on drugs,” he said at a press conference at Trump Tower in Manhattan. “We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world, and yet we don’t bid properly.”

After: "I'll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market. That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare, which is what's happening. "

MightyMandarin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html


So Neil Gorsuch founded a club called "Fascism Forever".

I guess that wipes any sort of legitimacy he had, right?

MightyMandarin

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Good to see free speech is alive and well in America. After Milo was evacuated it wasn't enough, they proceeded to smash up Berkeley college, light fires, beat Trump supporters throw rocks and missiles at the police, then smash up several banks, a starbucks and other premises. Poke the bear enough and eventually it will fight back.

https://twitter.com/JxhnBinder/status/827025278148947968

Congratulations Hank, I have absolutely no comeback for this so we should all just pack it in and accept everything Donnie and his childminder Steve Bannon are up to.

You win the internet argument today, well done.

Memnoch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Today's reported stupidity.

Trump apparantly threatened to send in Troops to Mexico
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/mexico-denies-report-that-trump-threatened-to-send-in-troops-to-stop-bad-hombres.html

Trump is fracturing Australian relationship hanging up the phone on the Australian PM.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/trump-reportedly-accuses-australian-pm-seeking-to-export-next-boston-bombers.html

The threat to send troops to Mexico is a thinly veiled strong arm tactic. Pay for my wall or else I'll send in troops under the guise of dealing with 'bad hombres.' American administrations have been using this strategy to invade countries for the last few decades.

I'm sure his supporters are fine with it though.

wes

MightyMandarin wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html


So Neil Gorsuch founded a club called "Fascism Forever".

I guess that wipes any sort of legitimacy he had, right?

Not with Trump and his supporters. With any other administration, he would be done with that reveal, but not when you have a full on facist like Bannon running the show.

Professor Moriarty

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Today's reported stupidity.

Trump apparantly threatened to send in Troops to Mexico
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/mexico-denies-report-that-trump-threatened-to-send-in-troops-to-stop-bad-hombres.html

Trump is fracturing Australian relationship hanging up the phone on the Australian PM.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/trump-reportedly-accuses-australian-pm-seeking-to-export-next-boston-bombers.html

I wonder how the 12,000,000 Mexicans living in the USA would react if Trump sent troops south of the border.

Harika

wes wrote: »

Not with Trump and his supporters. With any other administration, he would be done with that reveal, but not when you have a full on facist like Bannon running the show.

That was 30 years ago, I am always puzzled when details from someone's puberty appear and "prove" that he is unable to do a job, just because he was founder of a anarchist/communist or fascist club back then. Look at this track record since then, far more important. Still I think he is maybe not the best choice but for actions he did in the last decade.

Zubeneschamali

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Trump is fracturing Australian relationship hanging up the phone on the Australian PM.

And what was he yelling about before he hung up?

President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange.

In a conversation with the PM of an ally, in a disagreement about a deal on immigrants, he starts boasting about the size of his electoral win?

Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Just sayin'

Harika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder how the 12,000,000 Mexicans living in the USA would react if Trump sent troops south of the border.

Trump just can hope that those people do stupid things and prove his point. For your lunch break you can read the blueprint for him here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/ very long! And good! And Frightening

Rightwing

Not pleasant reading for Democrats:
Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in history, (but he did it nice and quietly), and the latte-fuelled leftists didn't even notice.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people.


Also signed up for the Mexican barrier as far back as 2006.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/26/when-wall-was-fence-and-democrats-embraced/QE7ieCBXjXVxO63pLMTe9O/story.html

“The bill before us will certainly do some good,” Obama said on the Senate floor in October 2006. He praised the legislation, saying it would provide “better fences and better security along our borders” and would “help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.” Obama was talking about the Secure Fence Act of 2006, legislation authorizing a barrier along the southern border passed into law with the support of 26 Democratic senators including party leaders like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer.

Some familiar name there, eh? Chuckle chuckle.

Harika

Rightwing wrote: »

Not pleasant reading for Democrats:
Obama deported more immigrants than any other president in history, (but he did it nice and quietly), and the latte-fuelled leftists didn't even notice.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people.

Where is the problem with that? From the same article "In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime." So Obama focused on convicted criminals to remove them, 2.5 million, more than anyone else before, and still the Reps give him hell for that?
Where do you think is the difference to Trumps actions?