Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Captain Obvious

looksee wrote: »

If you look carefully at the handshaking clip, the man with the mace actually transferred it to his right shoulder as he comes into picture. He was the one that didn't want to shake hands, put Trump's nose out of joint!

Yeah this seems like one of those things were Trump didn't do anything wrong. Don't know why people feel the need to make up scandals when there are so many real ones.

Itssoeasy

The meeting between Trump and Kim is back on like Donkey Kong according to the President.

Call Me Jimmy

If he does make it to 2020 he's gonna be in good shape if the economy keeps going well. Shoring up his base with gestures like the tariffs. When he was elected I was thinking 'ok the country got blindsided, people didn't take it seriously, no chance 2020'. If he survives until the next election I'm now starting to think he'll have a very good chance.

spacecoyote

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If he does make it to 2020 he's gonna be in good shape if the economy keeps going well. Shoring up his base with gestures like the tariffs. When he was elected I was thinking 'ok the country got blindsided, people didn't take it seriously, no chance 2020'. If he survives until the next election I'm now starting to think he'll have a very good chance.

What's even scarier is, most presidents tend to be a little more conservative in their first term as they have to be aware of the re-election. Then if they get the 2nd tern they go all in on their plans as the next guy will have to deal with the fallout.

If this is safe trump, imagine how nuts term 2 trump could be??

pixelburp

I don't honestly believe Trump qualifies under the normal line of thinking of presidents truly kicking off in their second term. Given the man didn't want to actually win the election, nor has much in the way of a quantifiable portfolio beyond MAGA, I'm sceptical he thinks in terms of keeping his powder dry til the 2nd term... if he thinks of anything it's likely how he can further line his pockets during the "campaign"

Call Me Jimmy

spacecoyote wrote: »

What's even scarier is, most presidents tend to be a little more conservative in their first term as they have to be aware of the re-election. Then if they get the 2nd tern they go all in on their plans as the next guy will have to deal with the fallout.

If this is safe trump, imagine how nuts term 2 trump could be??

Just thinking now as you say that, I think it will be the opposite. I think his more liberal side will come up. We know what a fiend he is for popularity, validation. Winning the election was the prize. And winning a second term will be another prize. I think he is being off-the-scales cynically strategic to ensure his best chance of winning the second term. He sets out his stall, makes clear goals (in terms of demographics) and goes all out to satisfy them, even just aesthetically to consolidate support. Doing things that any other mainstream politician couldn't even dream of (like the tariffs).

But fundamentally he spent most of his life being much more liberal 'live and let live' and I think once he has secured his final trophy of a second presidency, he will shed his republican persona and look for broader support, seeking presidential approval ratings while continuing to make the economy boom with little concern for any potential bubble the next guy inherits.

2 Scoops

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't honestly believe Trump qualifies under the normal line of thinking of presidents truly kicking off in their second term. Given the man didn't want to actually win the election

What's your basis for this? From what I remember he was giving large speeches 6 and 7 times a day in the final few weeks of the election

Leroy42

I don't think he set out to win, it was a PR stunt and something to do.

But it became increasingly clear as the election got closer that he had a real shot. But even then I don't believe he wanted to won it to be POTUS, to actually deliver an agenda. He simply wanted to beat HC. So its not that he didn't want to win, he just only wanted to win for the fact of saying he won.

His policy position really were no more than the soundbites and slogans.

pixelburp

2 Scoops wrote: »

What's your basic for this? From what I remember he was giving large speeches 6 and 7 times a day in the final few weeks of the election

Hoenstly it's from piecing together rumour and tattle, but for me the strongest indicator was the utter absence of preparedness in Trumps team after the election win. If reports were to be believed they never had any transition plan whatsoever in case he won, the kind of exhaustive documentation every other successful modern candidate had before him (hence the media circus around the protracted meetings in Trump tower). Clearly Trump is not the kind of person to admit the thing was a PR wheeze, but logistically the campaign was chaos.

Inquitus

zom wrote: »

So we can close that Russian Alumina Plant in Aughinish. USA will use Australian aluminium now..

650 jobs, not relevant in an Irish, EU or Global context.

2 Scoops

pixelburp wrote: »

Hoenstly it's from piecing together rumour and tattle, but for me the strongest indicator was the utter absence of preparedness in Trumps team after the election win. If reports were to be believed they never had any transition plan whatsoever in case he won, the kind of exhaustive documentation every other successful modern candidate had before him (hence the media circus around the protracted meetings in Trump tower). Clearly Trump is not the kind of person to admit the thing was a PR wheeze, but logistically the campaign was chaos.

From what I remember him saying post election he didn't expect to win, on election day the exit polls were very bad and he said if he lost at least he didn't leave anything on the field giving how hard he campaigned. I think that's slightly different from not wanting to win, rather an acceptance that he couldn't win hoping for the best. The media played a large role in that imo. Given all the scandals throughout the campaign it was somewhat shocking he managed it, if the Dems ran a Biden or even Bernie I don't think he would have won. The Wikileaks stuff damaged them very badly, I remember DWS getting booed off the stage, those emails definitely changed votes. They surely won't make the same mistake in 2020 again when nominating a candidate.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

What's your basis for this? From what I remember he was giving large speeches 6 and 7 times a day in the final few weeks of the election

In addition to all said above, it was in Fire and Fury, from a number of sources.

And you'll find, quite like the Steele dossier, more and more of it is turning out to be true...

briany

amandstu wrote: »

Unless there is a smoking gun then it looks like the Repubs will stick with him (so no impeachment) so long as they have a majority in the House(s). Will be fun watching them scatter if they don't.

Even if Trump does get impeached, do things get much better? You know he's still going to be on Twitter rallying his base with rants about a crooked political system, biased media, MAGA, and everything else. All the stuff he says how but with added rage and bitterness.

That's not to mention that the genie is out of the bottle in terms of the populist insult politics Trump has spearheaded and there are candidates in the wings ready to run with that. And as well as that, you still have Pence to take over - the equivalent of finding refuge from a horde of angry bees in a thicket of brambles and nettles.

Point being what would the impeachment of Trump do to remedy the toxic political atmosphere that brought about his election in the first place?

amandstu

briany wrote: »

Even if Trump does get impeached, do things get much better? You know he's still going to be on Twitter rallying his base with rants about a crooked political system, biased media, MAGA, and everything else. All the stuff he says how but with added rage and bitterness.

That's not to mention that the genie is out of the bottle in terms of the populist insult politics Trump has spearheaded and there are candidates in the wings ready to run with that. And as well as that, you still have Pence to take over - the equivalent of finding refuge from a horde of angry bees in a thicket of brambles and nettles.

Point being what would the impeachment of Trump do to remedy the toxic political atmosphere that brought about his election in the first place?

I see that and agree with it but what alternative is there if the man actually deserves to be impeached (and sanctioned)?

If there is afterward no majority in the USA for an intelligent politics then this has to be taken on the chin but Trump should not be given a free pass as some kind of "better the devil you know" .

That could be seen as a form of "political appeasement"

The "toxic political atmosphere " looks set to continue until maybe some kind of a boil is burst .

If that happened under Trump then I doubt much would be learned as to the extent he controls the message the message will be gibberish.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

In addition to all said above, it was in Fire and Fury, from a number of sources.

And you'll find, quite like the Steele dossier, more and more of it is turning out to be true...

Give it up honestly..

Do you have any idea how much the media hates Trump, it would be the golden nugget to prove one of the claims, it's been 18 months and they can't prove any of them, at least the salacious ones. That's why they didn't publish it.

Igotadose

2 Scoops wrote: »

Give it up honestly..

Do you have any idea how much the media hates Trump, it would be the golden nugget to prove one of the claims, it's been 18 months and they can't prove any of them, at least the salacious ones. That's why they didn't publish it.

Most of it's true: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-dossier-christopher-steele-fake-true-mi6-putin-moscow-hotel-cohen-a8315046.html

The only thing unverified in it, is the salactious bit about the prostitutes and the bed. So, you're wrong to say 'they can't prove any of them.' They've proven *most* of them, which were around Trump and Cohen being in Russia around the time of the dossier - all repeatedly proven.

And, we know about Trump's pecadillos, like Stormy Daniels and the lengthy list of other women he's catted around with.


And, lest we forget, if this is a witch hunt, there's something like 19 indicted witches.

The only ones that need to give it up, are the liars supporting Trump.

Manic Moran

Some minor controversy in California: Gavin Newsom's tactics to ensure he becomes Governor next election is gaining the ire of the Democratic party as a whole. He is doing what he can to encourage folks to vote in the primary next week for the leading Republican candidate, John Cox, which is great for Gavin: Being a Democrat in California, if his opponent in November is a Republican, it is highly likely that Gavin will win. He absolutely does not want to be running against a moderate Democrat, as it is entirely possible he may lose to someone like Villaraigosa or Chiang. Gavin absolutely has more Democrat voters voting for him than any other candidate, but there are more independents and Republican voters in California than there are Democrat voters (The breakdown is about 8 million D, 4.7million I, 4.6 million R), so if it's a choice between Newsom and a moderate Democrat, you can see where the balance of probabilities might fall.

This makes great sense for Newsom's position. The problem is that the same Republican voters he is encouraging to turn out and vote for a Republican candidate are also in the congressional districts currently held by vulnerable Republicans that the Democratic Party as a whole would like to turn out of office and claim the seats for themselves, to aid in the chances of turning the House of Representatives into a Democratic majority. And, whilst voting for Cox, they'll likely tick the "R" box on the Congressional ballot since they're already in the voting booth. Thus, by winning his battle, this significant figure in the California democratic party could lose the Democrats their war. At least, that's what the Democrats as a whole are worried about.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Give it up honestly..

Do you have any idea how much the media hates Trump, it would be the golden nugget to prove one of the claims, it's been 18 months and they can't prove any of them, at least the salacious ones. That's why they didn't publish it.

Read up on the news and then come back to me to argue the point. I'm not doing your homework for you

Nox

Reading the last few pages of posts, it becomes patently clear that the 'hate President Trump crowd' has forgotten about Bubba. The 'bimbo eruption' and its subsequent 'War Room tactics' have been forgotten. But more important was the sign Bubba kept in his campaign office ... IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.  And for all of the liberal press corps and this perpetual drivel on the bimbo and her self-promoting lawyer person … let us get back to the absolutely fundamental issue … IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY STUPIDS. And all this Maxine wishful thinking about impeachment remains the pipe dream it always was. The previous administration could brag about its 17,000 DJIA, its 1% GDP, and its galactically low unemployment figures (ooops, I forgot about them not bragging), President Donald J. Trump will resoundingly be re-elected in 2020. And this economy will be a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2018.   

BTW  …  Did I forget to mention something about  … IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID ?

Thepoet85

Nox wrote:

Reading the last few pages of posts, it becomes patently clear that the 'hate President Trump crowd' has forgotten about Bubba. The 'bimbo eruption' and its subsequent 'War Room tactics' have been forgotten. But more important was the sign Bubba kept in his campaign office ... IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID. And for all of the liberal press corps and this perpetual drivel on the bimbo and her self-promoting lawyer person … let us get back to the absolutely fundamental issue … IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY STUPIDS. And all this Maxine wishful thinking about impeachment remains the pipe dream it always was. The previous administration could brag about its 17,000 DJIA, its 1% GDP, and its galactically low unemployment figures (ooops, I forgot about them not bragging), President Donald J. Trump will resoundingly be re-elected in 2020. And this economy will be a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2018.

Can anyone translate this into something legible.

What on earth are you on about.

aloyisious

Nox wrote: »

Reading the last few pages of posts, it becomes patently clear that the 'hate President Trump crowd' has forgotten about Bubba. The 'bimbo eruption' and its subsequent 'War Room tactics' have been forgotten. But more important was the sign Bubba kept in his campaign office ... IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.  And for all of the liberal press corps and this perpetual drivel on the bimbo and her self-promoting lawyer person … let us get back to the absolutely fundamental issue … IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY STUPIDS. And all this Maxine wishful thinking about impeachment remains the pipe dream it always was. The previous administration could brag about its 17,000 DJIA, its 1% GDP, and its galactically low unemployment figures (ooops, I forgot about them not bragging), President Donald J. Trump will resoundingly be re-elected in 2020. And this economy will be a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2018.   

BTW  …  Did I forget to mention something about  … IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID ?

Is there a chance then that he'll walk back totally on his latest tariifs move against Europe, Canada and Mexico the same way he's walked back on the meeting in Singapore, that he's using the tariifs as a bargaining tool with no real risk to US jobs. He's walked back on his imposition of tariffs in the past.

Is he the great economist of his time, that this time what he's been doing for decades now in his deals will be the saving of America, or is there a risk that some other national leader/s will say "I'll raise you and see you" in the process making Don show his hand is a "bust flush" bluff, with severe damage to the US nation? Can the US take that risk itself with him holding the cards?

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a chance then that he'll walk back totally on his latest tariifs move against Europe, Canada and Mexico the same way he's walked back on the meeting in Singapore, that he's using the tariifs as a bargaining tool with no real risk to US jobs. He's walked back on his imposition of tariffs in the past. Is he the great economist of his time?

It's Trumpworld. Anything goes at any time. Sure, he'll walk back threats to China right after Ivanka gets a few trademarks from them. Whatever gets him clicks and attention.

I don't want the US economy to collapse. That would be a Bad Thing. Fortunately, Obama left it on the upswing, but I'm personally expecting a change come October when there's another huge debt offering coming. Dollar will sink lower still versus the rest of the world. If some 'shock' to the system happens, watch out then. October will tell (right before the midterms, doncha know...)

Manic Moran

2nd Amendment carries the same weight as the rest of the constitution, though you would be hard pressed to find those that advocate for the 2nd amendment to have the same almost religious zeal in terms of the 1st.

I really don't see that as being true. The whole "I will defend to the death your right to say what I disagree with" thing very frequently comes from those who have signed up to do just that: Military personnel who are a significant percentage of 2A supporters. The other point of confusion with the 1st is that conservatives view liberals as confusing "Freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion": The position is that the prohibition is that no government body may show a preference for any religion, whilst from their perspective, the counter-viewpoint is that no government may demonstrate an accommodation for any religion. Cases in point recently have revolved around war memorials, which are often crosses. See, for example, 4th Circuit in a 2-1 split late last year: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/maryland-cross-monument-unconstitutional/index.html (Note dissenting quote from the Chief Justice). Of course, things don't always fit the conservative narrative: The Obama administration was fighting to keep the Mount Soledad cross. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-cross-idUSBRE85O0WJ20120625

In general, I find that, generally speaking, both sides are equal advocates for the Constitution, they merely differ in their interpretations of the various clauses with the same intensity and zeal. Possibly with the exception of the 10th Amendment, which I -think- seems to be more enthused by conservatives: Being as they are fans of States Rights and a smaller, less dominating federal government.

This is something that I really struggle with in terms of the Conservative viewpoint.

Are the right really saying that the Constitution written a very very long time ago can never be re-interpreted based on a modern lens?

and that any and all new interpretations be subject to a Constitutional amendment?

Basically, yes. It's not an inherently flawed viewpoint, try getting hauled up in an Irish court and attempting to argue that some law which has been on the books since the Foundation of the State should really be interpreted a different way since things have changed in the last 80 years. It's why the government routinely issues amendments to all the various acts and why the Irish Constitution has had 36 proposed amendments since 1937. If the idea of 'living documents' were so simple, the Irish legislative system would not be forced to do so much amending so that the law means what folks of the present want it to mean.

Thus, yes, that is exactly why the US Constitution has an amendment process. If the document no longer is wanted by the population to mean what it says, goes the originalist argument, use the mechanism in the Constitution to modify it. It seems to be fairly uncontroversial in Ireland.

weisses

Manic Moran wrote: »

Thus, yes, that is exactly why the US Constitution has an amendment process. If the document no longer is wanted by the population to mean what it says, goes the originalist argument, use the mechanism in the Constitution to modify it. It seems to be fairly uncontroversial in Ireland.

What could the outcome be of a hypothetical referendum about the second amendment in the US? ..... Is there a clear majority either way you think ?

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

I really don't see that as being true. The whole "I will defend to the death your right to say what I disagree with" thing very frequently comes from those who have signed up to do just that: Military personnel who are a significant percentage of 2A supporters. The other point of confusion with the 1st is that conservatives view liberals as confusing "Freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion": The position is that the prohibition is that no government body may show a preference for any religion, whilst from their perspective, the counter-viewpoint is that no government may demonstrate an accommodation for any religion. Cases in point recently have revolved around war memorials, which are often crosses. See, for example, 4th Circuit in a 2-1 split late last year: https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/politics/maryland-cross-monument-unconstitutional/index.html (Note dissenting quote from the Chief Justice). Of course, things don't always fit the conservative narrative: The Obama administration was fighting to keep the Mount Soledad cross. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-cross-idUSBRE85O0WJ20120625

In general, I find that, generally speaking, both sides are equal advocates for the Constitution, they merely differ in their interpretations of the various clauses with the same intensity and zeal. Possibly with the exception of the 10th Amendment, which I -think- seems to be more enthused by conservatives: Being as they are fans of States Rights and a smaller, less dominating federal government.



Basically, yes. It's not an inherently flawed viewpoint, try getting hauled up in an Irish court and attempting to argue that some law which has been on the books since the Foundation of the State should really be interpreted a different way since things have changed in the last 80 years. It's why the government routinely issues amendments to all the various acts and why the Irish Constitution has had 36 proposed amendments since 1937. If the idea of 'living documents' were so simple, the Irish legislative system would not be forced to do so much amending so that the law means what folks of the present want it to mean.

Thus, yes, that is exactly why the US Constitution has an amendment process. If the document no longer is wanted by the population to mean what it says, goes the originalist argument, use the mechanism in the Constitution to modify it. It seems to be fairly uncontroversial in Ireland.

weisses wrote: »

What could the outcome be of a hypothetical referendum about the second amendment in the US? ..... Is there a clear majority either way you think ?

But isn't that what the "arch originalist" Scalia did with his finding in the Heller vs DC case 10 years ago?

He introduced a completely new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that was totally different to how it had been viewed for the proceeding how ever many years.

RIGOLO

CNN are reporting that the 'Black' unemployment rate has hit an all time low. 
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/black-unemployment-rate-record-low/index.html
The black unemployment rate has never been so low. 
The black unemployment rate is decreasing at a faster rate than the white unemployment rate.
The black unemployment rate has never been so close to the white unemployment rate. 

And despite all the hysteria,  the 'money men' are not too alarmed by the tariffs being set by Trump, the good news on US jobless numbers have offset the impact the trade wars. 
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/jun/01/markets-shrug-off-trade-war-fears-ahead-of-spanish-vote-and-us-jobs-data-business-live

As another poster said , perhaps it is the economy stupid.... 

Liam Halligan, the CNN Talk show panelist, economist and Telegraph columnist made some great comments on Trumps tariffs ploy. To paraphrase, if you want to see protectionism you should look at the EU, its far more protectionist than the US, he also likened the CAP (Common Argicultural policy) as being almost neo-colonialist in terms of how it handles agriculture imports from the 3rd/developing world. CNN-TALK is  a good show, very balanced presenters with very different viewpoints.
Even with the EU-US trade deficit not being at the same level of imbalance as the US with other regions. 

Also lets not forget the next G7 summit is scheduled next week and is happening in CANADA with US-Canada-Mexico NAFTA talks currently stalled, DT tariff ploy has certainly got all parties focused in the run up to these 2 major meetings.

markodaly

Trump is doing very well with African American actually and is getting record poll numbers for a Republican.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/trump-kanye-african-american-poll-numbers-569166

Trump was apparently referring to a Reuters weekly tracking poll, which showed support for the president among African-American men jumping from 11 percent in a poll released April 22 to 22 percent in a poll released April 29.

Perhaps some African Americans are getting tired of voting Democrats for decades who do actual good for them, apart from screaming racism every day.

Also, lets not forget that curbing illegal immigration would also empower African Americans into finding work.

Professor Moriarty

Nox wrote: »

Reading the last few pages of posts, it becomes patently clear that the 'hate President Trump crowd' has forgotten about Bubba. The 'bimbo eruption' and its subsequent 'War Room tactics' have been forgotten. But more important was the sign Bubba kept in his campaign office ... IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID.  And for all of the liberal press corps and this perpetual drivel on the bimbo and her self-promoting lawyer person … let us get back to the absolutely fundamental issue … IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY STUPIDS. And all this Maxine wishful thinking about impeachment remains the pipe dream it always was. The previous administration could brag about its 17,000 DJIA, its 1% GDP, and its galactically low unemployment figures (ooops, I forgot about them not bragging), President Donald J. Trump will resoundingly be re-elected in 2020. And this economy will be a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2018.   

BTW  …  Did I forget to mention something about  … IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID ?

Indeed. Let's forget that The Donald was having regular sex with a porn star while his wife was giving birth to his son. And that he subsequently cheated on his wife and the porn star by having regular sex with a model. Admirable.

Oh and you're right, it's the economy. And America's economy is being sold down the river, via unsustainable tax cuts and puerile posturing on tariffs, for the short term gratification of a true narcissist's ego. You reap what you sow. Or your children will.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

Trump is doing very well with African American actually and is getting record poll numbers for a Republican.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/trump-kanye-african-american-poll-numbers-569166



Perhaps some African Americans are getting tired of voting Democrats for decades who do actual good for them, apart from screaming racism every day.

Also, lets not forget that curbing illegal immigration would also empower African Americans into finding work.

So 78% of African American men disapprove of The Donald? That makes sense.

markodaly

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So 78% of African American men disapprove of The Donald? That makes sense.

If Minorities, even a minority of them are turning to the GOP rather then the Democrats, it is worrying in the long term for the Democrats.

They have long alienated the white vote, especially the working class vote. If they start losing black and hispanic votes then they really need to change tact.

Looking at 2018 polls for November, where they should be shoe in to regain control of Congress, they are actually behind.