Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

mcmoustache

dublinbuster wrote: »

You will be stunned when the penny finally drops, fooking stunned!

Is this some QAnon stuff?

BabyCheeses

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is this some QAnon stuff?

Usually when not even his supporters can spin to make it a positive they pretend it's just some part of master plan that the mortals lack the capacity to understand.


We have yet to see one of these plans play out but just you wait, one day it will happen.

mcmoustache

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Usually when not even his supporters can spin to make it a positive they pretend it's just some part of master plan that the mortals lack the capacity to understand.


We have yet to see one of these plans play out but just you wait, one day it will happen.

I see. So Mueller is going to round up Hillary and Soros etc? And Trump is playing 32d chess?

These are interesting theories and all but they're so evidently insane now that they've become memes.

Chips Lovell

Several posts deleted. If you haven't read the charter please do so.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Thanks

EDIT: Few more inappropriate posts removed and quoting of them.

Itssoeasy

Donald Trump is saying he doesn't need to prepare for his summit with the North Korean leader in Singapore. It's all about attitude apparently. Unfortunately, trumps attitude and aptitude is lacking in many ways. Kim might be an arsehole and he's turned his country into a real life version of the Truman show, but it's fair to that the good chairman is a bit clued in that Donald trump.

derb12

aloyisious wrote: »

Just before I opened up Boards I saw a TV interview piece by Rudy while he is/was in Israel and the clip referencing forcing Kim to his hands and knees was part of the interview. Rudy was saying that the way Israel should treat the Palestinian Authority was the way the US treated Kim, get them on their hands and knees begging.

I saw that interview. Unbelievable. The man is totally unhinged! I mean what is he even doing in Israel? I think those Kim comments got overshadowed by the sick comments he made about stormy. But surely these words are worse than the whole "Libya model" fiasco. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more blowback.

Itssoeasy

I know it was yesterday but the spokesperson for the state department had a beauty of a comment. She said on the anniversary of D-day that the US has a very strong relationship with the German government( I mean the US and Germany had a link post WWII) but using the example of D-day to say there is a strong relationship between the two countries is utterly daft. Or maybe it's the Trump policy of saying there were good people on both sides.

derb12

Yes, heather nauert is proof that people are more accepting of nonsense when it's filtered through a smiling pretty face!

Overheal

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,'" and in 2017, he said, "Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate." In 2010 he told the National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

He is now cancelling the August recess, for what he calls “historic obstruction by the democrats.”

I mean... does he mean it’s historic in the sense that it’s historic *for the democrats* to be doing? McConnel does love to crow to the low information voter, he always pretends as if the electorate has a 15 minute memory.

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-senates-august-recess-blames-dems-historic-obstruction/

Christy42

Overheal wrote: »

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy,'" and in 2017, he said, "Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is not to confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate." In 2010 he told the National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

He is now cancelling the August recess, for what he calls “historic obstruction by the democrats.”

I mean... does he mean it’s historic in the sense that it’s historic *for the democrats* to be doing? McConnel does love to crow to the low information voter, he always pretends as if the electorate has a 15 minute memory.

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/mitch-mcconnell-cancels-senates-august-recess-blames-dems-historic-obstruction/

He may well be right that the electorate has a 15 minute memory as well. Republicans will eat up the message that their guy is trying to get stuff done while democrats are stopping all progress even when they fully agreed with saying no to anything Obama did no matter how sensible.

Hande hoche!

Sounds about par for course. Similar to deficit spending, when you're in opposition the national deficit is of key concern. Not so much when you have the executive branch. Likewise the opposition party suddenly become fiscal hawks.

RIGOLO

Busy schedule for DT,  first we had yesterdays state visit from Abe of Japan, I was watching the NHK Nippon coverage, and their message was very positive about the efforts DT is making. The Japanese are not just concerned about the de-nuclearisation but very high on their list is the repatriation of Japanese citizens. Abe has other homegrown financial scandals of his own , so he too will be looking for a win at the summit.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/03/30/national/families-demand-abe-keep-abduction-issue-spotlight-trump-kim-jong-un-denuclearization-talks/#.Wxouv0gvwdV

But before that summit  we have the G7 meeting this wekend. 
Macron has launched a pre-summit salvo across DTs bows, calling Trump out on both the tariffs and climate change. 
When the EU has a trade SURPLUS of  $100+ billion with the US its very hard to see  how Macron can claim theres not an im-balance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-g7-canada/index.html
Either way , rolling from Japan state visit, to G7 to Kim NK meeting, its a crucial 10 days . Theres alot at stake , alot to  win and alot to lose.

Christy42

The issue is tariffs will just encourage European tariffs which will hurt both economies but largely balance out in trade terms. The US would be better off increasing standards so it has more stuff the EU wants because as a nation they are not known for quality items.

Trump's thoughts on balancing the trade imbalance is simply to stop the EU exporting more to the US as opposed to getting US companies more markets abroad. This means that the US is denied the cheap access to the relevant goods it had with the EU and their exporting opportunities are severely reduced due to the EU's own tariffs.

Indeed in itself a trade imbalance is not necessarily a bad thing as many US companies make good use of what it imports, if used well imports can generate a lot of value for the US. Now many US companies will be hit by Trump's own tariffs.

RIGOLO

Between 1997 and 2017 the EU has had a SURPLUS trade imbalance of over $2 TRILLION with the US  
Between 1992 and 2016 China has run up a SURPLUS trade imbalance of near $4 TRILLION with the US ... 

Last year China had a $370 BILLION trade SURPLUS with the US 
The EU ran a +$100 BILLION trade SURPLUS with the US last year

DT is tackling this problem. Thats what he promised his voters and thats what he is trying to deliver on . 
Time will tell if it works out.

Christy42

Random capitalisation makes it very hard to read. It also just makes the post look like it is attempting to drive a narrative without supplying facts as that is how the tactic is normally used.

Why is it a problem and why is reducing trade the best way to deal with the imbalance instead of attempting to increase trade to reduce the imbalance? How will jobs that rely on EU goods fair? How will companies that rely on exporting to the EU fair with increased tariffs from importing to the EU?

If you want to convince anyone that what he is doing is a good idea you need to start answering those questions. Otherwise you are saying its good cos its good.

jooksavage

Christy42 wrote: »

The issue is tariffs will just encourage European tariffs which will hurt both economies but largely balance out in trade terms. The US would be better off increasing standards so it has more stuff the EU wants because as a nation they are not known for quality items.

Trump's thoughts on balancing the trade imbalance is simply to stop the EU exporting more to the US as opposed to getting US companies more markets abroad. This means that the US is denied the cheap access to the relevant goods it had with the EU and their exporting opportunities are severely reduced due to the EU's own tariffs.

Indeed in itself a trade imbalance is not necessarily a bad thing as many US companies make good use of what it imports, if used well imports can generate a lot of value for the US. Now many US companies will be hit by Trump's own tariffs.

Military budget is going to skyrocket. Practically everything they buy is made from aluminium or steel.

TRS30

RIGOLO wrote: »

Between 1997 and 2017 the EU has had a SURPLUS trade imbalance of over $2 TRILLION with the US  
Between 1992 and 2016 China has run up a SURPLUS trade imbalance of near $4 TRILLION with the US ... 

Last year China had a $370 BILLION trade SURPLUS with the US 
The EU ran a +$100 BILLION trade SURPLUS with the US last year

DT is tackling this problem. Thats what he promised his voters and thats what he is trying to deliver on . 
Time will tell if it works out.

Why is it a problem?  There can be many reasons why a country has a travel surplus with another country. It doesn't mean that one is 'screwing' the other. As christy42 outlined above, imports can add value to a country.
Is DT looking at why these surpluses are happening or just making a blank decision they are bad and doing something to make them worse?

Chips Lovell

Trump has quite an odd obsession with trade deficits. The most plausible explanation for this is he doesn't relaly understand them. The Economist put it best a few months ago:

The president’s more fundamental error is to see trade as a zero-sum game, in which exporting is for winners (or cheats, if they are foreign) and importing is for dupes.

I doubt he's for turning given his propensity to see things in this kind of binary way.

Professor Moriarty

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Trump has quite an odd obsession with trade deficits. The most plausible explanation for this is he doesn't relaly understand them. The Economist put it best a few months ago:



I doubt he's for turning given his propensity to see things in this kind of binary way.

No, he's too obtuse and shallow to change his mind. The good news is that this will deepen the rift between the WH and those in the GOP who are up for election and whose voters are being targeted by tariffs (Mexico has applied tariffs with surgical precision). He has also created a rift between the GOP and many of its corporate donors (the Kochs in particular). The law of unintended consequences might turn The Donald's flight of fancy into something that damages the GOP. Reasons to be cheerful.

Leroy42

From a purely simplistic POV, there is no reason that the US needs to trade with any other country. They can produce pretty much anything they actually need. Unlike, say Ireland, which needs energy imports, has no vehicles manufacture, no raw materials to speak off.

But the other side to that is that the resources required for that work is then not used in other areas. First off you are looking at higher domestic prices (the example of the military has already been provided). Take for example all the stuff that comes from China. Are Americans prepared to pay more for all these goods?

Second, the resources. The US has traditionally quite low unemployment in comparison to other countries, and particularly now it is pretty close to full employment. Where are all the people that are going to operate the new steels factories, the coal mines etc. Who is going to produce the stuff previously coming from China?

Finally, one needs to consider the opportunity cost. While America was exporting the production of steel etc to foreign countries they were able to focus on other areas such as IT, military hardware etc. That has allowed the US to leap ahead of all other countries. Is Trumps idea that they should stop with that and go back to simply producing the basics?

Chips Lovell

Folks,
If you've a problem with other people's posts, report them and leave it for the mods to decide. Discussing the merits of someone else's posting style drags the thread off topic and amounts to backseat moderation.

Thanks

everlast75

In preparation for the meeting re Nuclear disarmament with a notorious despot, Trump, when asked about his preparations, said the following;

"“I said I've been preparing all my life. I always believe in preparation. But I have been preparing all my life,” President Trump says. "These one-week preparations, they don't work. Just ask Hillary [Clinton] — what happened to her in the debates"

I'm struggling to find some words... other than of course what a ****ing a**hole!?

looksee

Trump keeps saying that other countries treat the US unfairly on trade, which sounds like a childish whinge to me, surely its his responsibility to sort trade rather than suggesting that other countries make provision for him. I am clueless about trade and tariffs (though probably not as clueless as Trump :rolleyes:) so, questions, is the situation as he presents it? Is the US at a trade disadvantage? How do countries normally approach adjusting trade imbalances, not, I imagine by demanding that other countries stop being so nasty to them!

Christy42

everlast75 wrote: »

In preparation for the meeting re Nuclear disarmament with a notorious despot, Trump, when asked about his preparations, said the following;

"“I said I've been preparing all my life. I always believe in preparation. But I have been preparing all my life,” President Trump says. "These one-week preparations, they don't work. Just ask Hillary [Clinton] — what happened to her in the debates"

I'm struggling to find some words... other than of course what a ****ing a**hole!?

Like masses of students everywhere. I remember class mates claiming to do no study. Some of them saying this did none and some did loads of study. If you did well then you are awesome for doing well in spite of no study and if you do badly ah sure you would have done well had you studied.

The state department will be doing ridiculous amounts of work on this and probably have for quite some time. They will be on hand to brief him quickly and accurately.

He may or may not have put work into this. There is no evidence either way and certainly a claim by Trump is not worth the few bits of storage it is taking up on a twitter server somewhere. Granted not putting effort into the presidency would fit with his usual operational strategy.

Leroy42

looksee wrote: »

Trump keeps saying that other countries treat the US unfairly on trade, which sounds like a childish whinge to me, surely its his responsibility to sort trade rather than suggesting that other countries make provision for him. I am clueless about trade and tariffs (though probably not as clueless as Trump :rolleyes:) so, questions, is the situation as he presents it? Is the US at a trade disadvantage? How do countries normally approach adjusting trade imbalances, not, I imagine by demanding that other countries stop being so nasty to them!

It is quite funny looking at it all as one of the central mantras of the GOP is the free market, to the extent that individuals can starve and have no medical care as they should look after themselves, yet they are championing a POTUS that is basically putting massive Federal restrictions on free trade.

This is dressed up as some sort of 'rebalancing' but has anyone asked the likes of Apple why they build the IPhone in China rather than Missouri?

Christy42

Normally they don't care about trade imbalances.

Really it depends on their economy as you need to take services into account as well. For instance London would do an enormous amount of business in financial services for foreign countries. This would bring money into a country. New York is obviously similar. You also have holidays so for instance Disney has likely spent millions abroad to get its theme parks up and running but also brings in millions from abroad via holidays.

Then you may go for targeted trade deals to bump up trade if they feel they need help somewhere or demand a certain standard to ensure that their own producers are not disadvantaged by shoddy practices in different countries. See the EU for both of these. Investing in specific industries is also a big one like Ireland and its financial services industry

If they feel a certain industry is under threat they can support them with subsidies like the US does with corn (hence the mass produced Corn Fructose taking the place of sugar).

Technically raising tariffs would work here but it is seen as an offensive manoeuvre these days likely to bring retaliation that hurts both countries. Hence WTO rules that make it difficult to raise current tariff levels. Sudden changes are likely to hurt businesses (in both countries even if only one applies tariffs as many will have been depending on those imports not being too expensive).

It is generally saved for security issues (like say if some country attempted to under cut you massively all of a sudden) or for stuff like Iran/North Korea as a punitive measure.

This is also likely why Trump wanted to declare China a currency manipulator so they could claim security issues and apply tariffs.

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/TM.TAX.MRCH.SM.AR.ZS/rankings

You can see most developed nations are pretty close together. I believe that if you get a weighted average (which that site argues against) it brings Canada way down due its crazy high tariffs on stuff like dairy but little tariffs on stuff that actually gets imported.

Disclaimer: All of the above is from someone with an amateur interest in all this. WTO rules are heavily complicated, at least from my view.

Frank Bullitt

US president Donald Trump said on Friday he is considering pardoning some 3,000 people “who may have been treated unfairly,” including late heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali despite the fact that Ali’s conviction for refusing to join the US Army was overturned 47 years ago.

“I’m thinking about somebody that you all know very well, and he went through a lot and he wasn’t very popular then,” Trump said. “His memory is very popular now. I’m thinking about Muhammad Ali. I’m thinking about that very seriously.”

Alis conviction was overturned in 1971.

RIGOLO

If you consider Trumps tariffs are unfair on Canada and China, then maybe you should spare a thought for farmers in the developing nations (what we used call the 3rd world) , who are suffering under the EU rules and regulations including the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) tariffs, and the EU farmer subsidies . 

Between making the EU harder for farmers in developing nations to sell into, it also makes it easier for the EU to dump food produce in developing nations. 
Im not sure why people are more concerned about Trumps steel tariffs , than they are about unfair EU tariffs on third world farmers thats been going on since the early 2000s.  
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/2789385/It-is-immoral-to-suggest-the-CAP-is-a-solution-to-the-food-crisis.html
The same journalist called the  CAP  borderline neo-colonialism this week, on CNN/Talk. 

Its far more complex than the simplistic synopsis other posters have tried to make it all out to be (Trump tariff bad, EU tariff good), there are a whole host of other major factors people are neglecting, forex, interest rates  , bond yield curve, cbot pricing, IP theft, equity market fraud to name but a few and probably 10 more but its Friday and its sunny and Ive got to run .

pixelburp

I think posters are more commenting on the fact Trump takes a very binary, simplistic view that often amounts to 'America is getting robbed!', which strikes as a little hollow, potentially false (but what's new there) and reductionist - all of which is coming from someone whose fortune originates from being, well, a trust-fund landlord in effect, so I'd take his knowledge of international trade with a pinch of salt.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Its far more complex than the simplistic synopsis other posters have tried to make it all out to be (Trump tariff bad, EU tariff good), there are a whole host of other major factors people are neglecting, forex, interest rates  , bond yield curve, cbot pricing, IP theft, equity market fraud to name but a few and probably 10 more but its Friday and its sunny and Ive got to run .

And you honestly think Trump has considered all of that?