Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

jooksavage

RIGOLO wrote: »

The trade rebalancing has begun, some may call it a trade war, people have a penchant for 1930s and militarism I guess. 

Trump himself referred to it as a trade war so maybe you're right about the 1930s miltarism fetishists.

Also, to echo othet posters, what happened with that bill?

everlast75

I'm tired of replying to content dumps by certain posters who then scurry away when asked for specifics, so I wanted to raise another issue.

Would it be possible for all news networks, to refuse to give time to "surrogates" or spokespeople for politicians.

I am bone weary of Trump's reps going on tv and spewing all sorts of BS without any back up.
At least if those defending his position were elected representatives, they could be held to account in any future election.
Instead, what we have is KAK and others lying through their teeth with absolutely zero consequences. It's nothing short of facilitating propaganda.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm tired of replying to content dumps by certain posters who then scurry away when asked for specifics, so I wanted to raise another issue.

Would it be possible for all news networks, to refuse to give time to "surrogates" or spokespeople for politicians.

I am bone weary of Trump's reps going on tv and spewing all sorts of BS without any back up.
At least if those defending his position were elected representatives, they could be held to account in any future election.
Instead, what we have is KAK and others lying through their teeth with absolutely zero consequences. It's nothing short of facilitating propaganda.

But what is the alternative? That only elected people can speak? So the majority of voices in the media would have to be GOP in that case?

The media need to do a better job at asking the follow up questions. It seems they prepare for an interview with a set of questions and will not deviate for it. There have been a few exceptions, I recall Jake Tapper cutting off Millar in some interview, and I know they do ask some follow up, but then after what seems like a set time they simply move on.

They need to put more money into researchers who can feed the real info into the interviewers as they go. So KAC mentions Bowling Green Massacre. Hey we just checked Google, no such thing. Care to elaborate. When, how many were killed, you did it etc etc.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Donald Trump called it a trade war.

trade wars are good

RIGOLO wrote: »

...
The trade rebalancing has begun, some may call it a trade war, people have a penchant for 1930s and militarism I guess. 
...

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is the alternative? That only elected people can speak? So the majority of voices in the media would have to be GOP in that case?

Members of the party? Somebody more accountable than a mouthpiece who can spout nonsense and not face any consequences perhaps.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The media need to do a better job at asking the follow up questions. It seems they prepare for an interview with a set of questions and will not deviate for it. There have been a few exceptions, I recall Jake Tapper cutting off Millar in some interview, and I know they do ask some follow up, but then after what seems like a set time they simply move on.

They need to put more money into researchers who can feed the real info into the interviewers as they go. So KAC mentions Bowling Green Massacre. Hey we just checked Google, no such thing. Care to elaborate. When, how many were killed, you did it etc etc.

Agreed. Here is a prime example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKuRMXkKNBw

manual_man

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So you want the people crossing the border to respect the law, but the US themselves don't have to no??

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that and you know that. 10/10 to you for nonsense hyperbole though. I guess addressing the actual point I made would have taken a little bit more effort.

20Cent

Interesting piece by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today.

If you assume trump is not an idiot but there is reason behind what he does (I'm not convinced of this tbh) the contention is that he is pushing the boundaries of acceptability to test the waters for full blown fascism. Seems his tests are working Fox and Murdock rolled right in supporting caging children. What else will they support him with, will it be too late before someone calls stop?


Fintan O’Toole: Trial runs for fascism are in full flow
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375

Zubeneschamali

20Cent wrote: »

If you assume trump is not an idiot but there is reason behind what he does

Ha ha ha!

No.

I am looking forward to the tell-all books in years to come - I am quite sure that however insane we imagine the White House is under Trump, it is actually much, much crazier than that.

Gwen Cooper

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ha ha ha!

No.

I am looking forward to the tell-all books in years to come - I am quite sure that however insane we imagine the White House is under Trump, it is actually much, much crazier than that.

I've been hoping for Melania's tell-all since the election.

Professor Moriarty

20Cent wrote: »

Interesting piece by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today.

If you assume trump is not an idiot but there is reason behind what he does (I'm not convinced of this tbh) the contention is that he is pushing the boundaries of acceptability to test the waters for full blown fascism. Seems his tests are working Fox and Murdock rolled right in supporting caging children. What else will they support him with, will it be too late before someone calls stop?


Fintan O’Toole: Trial runs for fascism are in full flow
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375

Unless he convinces the military, which he won't. With a few possible and notable exceptions (Kelly and Flynn spring to mind), the generals wouldn't support a dictatorship.

Gwen Cooper

Donald currently going through a Twitter temper tantrum about Harley-Davidson.

Early this year Harley-Davidson said they would move much of their plant operations in Kansas City to Thailand. That was long before Tariffs were announced. Hence, they were just using Tariffs/Trade War as an excuse. Shows how unbalanced & unfair trade is, but we will fix it.

We are getting other countries to reduce and eliminate tariffs and trade barriers that have been unfairly used for years against our farmers, workers and companies. We are opening up closed markets and expanding our footprint. They must play fair or they will pay tariffs!

When I had Harley-Davidson officials over to the White House, I chided them about tariffs in other countries, like India, being too high. Companies are now coming back to America. Harley must know that they won’t be able to sell back into U.S. without paying a big tax!

We are finishing our study of Tariffs on cars from the E.U. in that they have long taken advantage of the U.S. in the form of Trade Barriers and Tariffs. In the end it will all even out - and it won’t take very long!

A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country-never! Their employees and customers are already very angry at them. If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end - they surrendered, they quit! The Aura will be gone and they will be taxed like never before!

I'm thinking about getting popcorn.

20Cent

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Unless he convinces the military, which he won't. With a few possible and notable exceptions (Kelly and Flynn spring to mind), the generals wouldn't support a dictatorship.

Doesn't have to be a dictatorship.

The warning signs for fascism from the holocaust museum.
He's ticking all these boxes.

aloyisious

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Donald currently going through a Twitter temper tantrum about Harley-Davidson.



I'm thinking about getting popcorn.

But he doesn't see the anomaly of Daimler, a German Co, producing cars in the US for export to the EU, as well as sales in the US. Tariffs on the first in Europe as a response to Don's tariffs. I'm surprised that Don hasn't suggested that the cars from the US plants should be tariff-taxed as well.

Does anyone know if the Harley plants will be on the continent [north or south of US borders] or on another continent?

VinLieger

aloyisious wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Harley plants will be on the continent [north or south of US borders] or on another continent?

They already have a setup in Brazil and somewhere else in Asia, I presume they will go wherever currently has the friendliest trade setup with the EU and they already have a base of operations.

Christy42

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Donald currently going through a Twitter temper tantrum about Harley-Davidson.

Early this year Harley-Davidson said they would move much of their plant operations in Kansas City to Thailand. That was long before Tariffs were announced. Hence, they were just using Tariffs/Trade War as an excuse. Shows how unbalanced & unfair trade is, but we will fix it.

We are getting other countries to reduce and eliminate tariffs and trade barriers that have been unfairly used for years against our farmers, workers and companies. We are opening up closed markets and expanding our footprint. They must play fair or they will pay tariffs!

When I had Harley-Davidson officials over to the White House, I chided them about tariffs in other countries, like India, being too high. Companies are now coming back to America. Harley must know that they won’t be able to sell back into U.S. without paying a big tax!

We are finishing our study of Tariffs on cars from the E.U. in that they have long taken advantage of the U.S. in the form of Trade Barriers and Tariffs. In the end it will all even out - and it won’t take very long!

A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country-never! Their employees and customers are already very angry at them. If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end - they surrendered, they quit! The Aura will be gone and they will be taxed like never before!

I'm thinking about getting popcorn.

Once again going ballistic at those who just won't do as ordered. Attacking individual companies, except for gross violations - say for safety or reckless endangerment of the public, should be beneath the president.

Actually scratch that. I reckon Trump feels like this is a serious violation. He has set everything up as USA vs the world so this is betrayal and traitors in his eyes. He uses the term trade war a decent bit which one poster implied a 30s militaristic mindset. I reckon they were closer to the truth than they thought with that.

Not sure he has figured that Harley are leaving some of their manufacturing in the US and so unless he wants to put tariffs on US manufactured goods they are completely safe.

robinph

VinLieger wrote: »

They already have a setup in Brazil and somewhere else in Asia, I presume they will go wherever currently has the friendliest trade setup with the EU and they already have a base of operations.

Brazil, India, Thailand and Australia are their current plants. Not going to make a whole lot of difference in shipping costs for getting stuff from Brazil to the EU or from the US to the EU.

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

Members of the party? Somebody more accountable than a mouthpiece who can spout nonsense and not face any consequences perhaps.



Agreed. Here is a prime example

Just watch the last minute.

Trumplodyte spokes-hag: "Obama separated families. His DHS chief Jay Johnson said so."

CNN guy: "Here's the interview with him"
CNN plays the interview where he says, "No, we didn't have this policy, wouldn't allow it, rare cases due to health and safety reasons."


CNN guy: "Fact. Fact. Fact."

Spokes-hag: "I don't remember what I read. I'll tweet it."

end of interview.

everlast75

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Donald currently going through a Twitter temper tantrum about Harley-Davidson.



I'm thinking about getting popcorn.

So basically
* he promised lots of "winning" in a trade war
* when a company said they had to move because of his war, he criticises that company
* when he sees how badly it is playing in the polls he threatens the company.

Wow - he really is looking out for america!

Igotadose

Another company suffering due to Trump's trade war:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/missouri-midcontinent-nail-trade-war-layoffs-donald-trump-a8417411.html

Company claims it'll close due to increased tariffs on the materials they purchase to make nails. The Senate candidate McCaskill is going to have a rally outside the plant, which might close in September.

Captain_Crash

manual_man wrote: »

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that and you know that. 10/10 to you for nonsense hyperbole though. I guess addressing the actual point I made would have taken a little bit more effort.

You literally said;


"I honestly can't buy the idea that non citizens that have just broken a serious international law by crossing a border illegally should have the right to a day in court"



Then some sentences later;


"Respect the law".

Once they enter the US, they are protected under the US constitution, which gives them the right to a day in court! So I ask again, if they have to respect the law (which I agree they do) don't the US themselves have to respect the same laws?

jooksavage

manual_man wrote: »

I think you're really out of touch here. A major, if not THE major issue that Trump got elected on was his stance on illegal immigration and wanting to clamp down on it. I honestly can't buy the idea that non citizens that have just broken a serious international law by crossing a border illegally should have the right to a day in court (at yet MORE expense to the state) in relation to their said breaking of the law - it's absolutely absurd. Now don't get me wrong, i know there's people that genuinely want a better life and may be in danger in their home countries, but i don't believe that any country should ever be forced to accept ANYONE who crosses illegally. A nation gets to choose who they take in and that's how it should be. Respect the law. Go through the legal ports of entry like other people do and apply. It's not complicated.

Actually crossing the border improperly for the first time is a misdemeanor offense under federal law.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Just watch the last minute.

Trumplodyte spokes-hag: "Obama separated families. His DHS chief Jay Johnson said so."

CNN guy: "Here's the interview with him"
CNN plays the interview where he says, "No, we didn't have this policy, wouldn't allow it, rare cases due to health and safety reasons."


CNN guy: "Fact. Fact. Fact."

Spokes-hag: "I don't remember what I read. I'll tweet it."

end of interview.

The most telling and symbolic part of that is "I'll tweet it." A perfect summation of The Donald's White House.

robinph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The most telling and symbolic part of that is "I'll tweet it." A perfect summation of The Donald's White House.

They were talking over each other at that point, but I thought he was making fun of her and suggesting that if she were to tweet it then it would make it true as after the clip was played she suddenly wasn't quite so sure of her stance on what the guy had said.

Manic Moran

So those arguing for Trump, you need to consider that none of the points that you are making have anything to do with Trumps position.

I'm not arguing for Trump. I am arguing for myself, and making objections to things I see being argued which are either factually incorrect or which I disagree with as a matter of policy. I agree with you that Trump appears not to be aware of or care about the details of (or even general concepts of) many pieces of relevant material. That does not excuse everyone else. Being against Trump on a false standing isn't much of an improvement.

everlast75 wrote: »

well if there is an argument to strengthen the border, or augment current practice, then how about this wild idea - educate people at the rallies, or through civil spokespersons with logic and facts.

You and I both know however that Trump's approach is to whip up a frenzy using hyperbole and lies. What you should know is that's incitement to hatred to those that have sleeper racist cells in their bodies.

Take the ****ing higher ground for once, instead of always trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Carry out independent studies, produce bi-partisan reports.

That won't be done though, and anyone who can't see reasoned and factual debate as the way forward are rubbing their grubby little mitts at what is happening in the U.S. right now.

Oh, I agree, there is little to be said for Trump's... public awareness methodology. The GOP as a whole is rather disappointing on this. However, the Democratic party isn't much better, so I am very much in the 'a pox on both their houses' position.

However, since I cannot really affect the operations of government beyond my occasional vote and email, the best I can do, just like pretty much everyone else on this thread, is conduct myself as best I can and hope that some folks are receptive to the evidence-based argument. However, I'm not sure that's happening, as anything posted against the anti-Trump rhetoric seems immediately to be poisonous to many folks. It's not as if I haven't quoted the relevant international convention or cited relevant US law. Not just said "the law says this", but cited the exact chapter and verse. Sadly, such seems to be a rare technique from either side. Witness the statements below, based on false understanding.

Once they enter the US, they are protected under the US constitution, which gives them the right to a day in court!

Only if charged with a felony. As CLJG v Sessions in the 9th Circuit observed earlier this year, people facing deportation don't even have a right to a lawyer at an immigration hearing. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/01/29/16-73801.pdf

However, the most relevant case is the Supreme Court case from 1896, "Wong vs United States", which explicitly states that a deportation may happen without trial. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html

See also https://cis.org/Feere/Detained-Immigrants-and-Right-Counsel
The Supreme Court has held that deportation is not punishment, but rather an administrative procedure whereby an illegal alien is returned to his homeland. The alien has not been deprived of life, liberty, or property, so many constitutional protections do not apply.

I honestly can't buy the idea that non citizens that have just broken a serious international law by crossing a border illegally should have the right to a day in court

Followed by

They have a right to try and claim refugee status. That doesn't come down to you to decide (thankfully). They have a right to a hearing.

Your two positions are not mutually exclusive. They have a right to a hearing. However, in order to avail themselves of that right, they must follow the processes to do so, and CBP has made it relatively easy: Walk up to them and say "Hi! I'm claiming asylum". Illegally crossing the border without good cause waives that right.

Igotadose

robinph wrote: »

They were talking over each other at that point, but I thought he was making fun of her and suggesting that if she were to tweet it then it would make it true as after the clip was played she suddenly wasn't quite so sure of her stance on what the guy had said.

The spokes hag then indeed did tweet something about 'conflating 2 articles she'd read.' So, just massively unprepared but quick to shout out lies. Perfect fit for Trump.

Got called out on it by a White House journalist, too. And, that's as much Twitter as I can stomach in a day, what a pit.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your two positions are not mutually exclusive. They have a right to a hearing. However, in order to avail themselves of that right, they must follow the processes to do so, and CBP has made it relatively easy: Walk up to them and say "Hi! I'm claiming asylum". Illegally crossing the border without good cause waives that right.

Since when? It's the US - you commit a crime, you have rights. You can never wave them.

Hande hoche!

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html?adkey=bn

Travel ban allowed by the Supreme court. Will be curious as to how long North Korea remains on the list.

Manic Moran

Igotadose wrote: »

Since when? It's the US - you commit a crime, you have rights. You can never wave them.

Sure you can. You can waive almost anything. You can waive your fourth amendment protection against being searched without a warrant. You can waive your sixth amendment right to an attorney. You can waive your fifth amendment right to silence. You don't need to write anything down, just make the conscious decision not to exercise the right.

And since at least 1896, it's established law that you don't have a right to a day in court for deportation.

On other matters, a minor Supreme Court action on gerrymandering.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-gerrymandering/index.html

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, I agree, there is little to be said for Trump's... public awareness methodology. The GOP as a whole is rather disappointing on this. However, the Democratic party isn't much better, so I am very much in the 'a pox on both their houses' position.

This I do not get.

Trump has conducted himself in an awful manner - probably the worst in US history. The Dems may be bad in part, but seriously - they are not comparable. Therefore the logic of deeming a pox on both their houses, to me, seems seriously flawed.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, since I cannot really affect the operations of government beyond my occasional vote and email, the best I can do, just like pretty much everyone else on this thread, is conduct myself as best I can and hope that some folks are receptive to the evidence-based argument. However, I'm not sure that's happening, as anything posted against the anti-Trump rhetoric seems immediately to be poisonous to many folks.

Again, I do not agree. Most of the pro-Trump stance posts are generic info dumps. Those that are, and others, are challenged in a respectful way, using fact based comments. It most certainly doesn't flow the other way, present company excluded.

As for the law, I'm in work at the moment but will read those judgements. Thanks for the references

RIGOLO

Hande hoche! wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html?adkey=bn

Travel ban allowed by the Supreme court. Will be curious as to how long North Korea remains on the list.

Another good win for the Trump administration .

They have had quite a few this week , add this to the opioid bill passing thru the house,  NK returning US remains from the war and the Dems self-imploding over the RedHen-Sarah Saunders-Maxine Waters restaurant debacle . 
Democrats are putting all their eggs in one basket, win the house and impeach, whilst the Trump administration is constantly moving forward implementing its program taking the small wins as well as the big ones and in doing so winning over the moderates and destroying any chance the Dems have of achiving their one and only objective. .