Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

pixelburp

Leroy42 wrote: »

Didn't he come out shortly after taking office and state that he know accepts climate change and mans responsibility for it? I was pretty sure he had said that when he reviewed the information he had no option but to agree.

Maybe I was dreaming all that?

It's Trump, it's entirely possible he admitted climate change was real, in the same breath calling it a Chinese hoax. He can't keep a story straight for an entire sentence, let alone year in office.

Also corrected my own post to say "America continues to see environmentalism as a Partisan issue" not "refuses". Big difference there. It's actually quite sad how America has let something so basic as "let's not turn the Earth into an unliveable swamp" mutate into a partisan issue.

amandstu

pixelburp wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Didn't he come out shortly after taking office and state that he know accepts climate change and mans responsibility for it? I was pretty sure he had said that when he reviewed the information he had no option but to agree.

Maybe I was dreaming all that?

It's Trump, it's entirely possible he admitted climate change was real, in the same breath calling it a Chinese hoax. He can't keep a story straight for an entire sentence, let alone year in office.

Also corrected my own post to say "America continues to see environmentalism as a Partisan issue" not "refuses". Big difference there. It's actually quite sad how America has let something so basic as "let's not turn the Earth into an unliveable swamp" mutate into a partisan issue.

Does anyone know how the American acceptance of man made global warming has evolved since Trump came to office?

I see this as one of his vulnerable areas as I feel it is only a matter of time until climate change denial becomes socially unacceptable.

Quin_Dub

amandstu wrote: »

Does anyone know how the American acceptance of man made global warming has evolved since Trump came to office?

I see this as one of his vulnerable areas as I feel it is only a matter of time until climate change denial becomes socially unacceptable.

Socially unacceptable to who though , Trump Supporters??

Less socially acceptable than their Racism , Misogyny and Homophobia?

amandstu

Quin_Dub wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

Does anyone know how the American acceptance of man made global warming has evolved since Trump came to office?

I see this as one of his vulnerable areas as I feel it is only a matter of time until climate change denial becomes socially unacceptable.

Socially unacceptable to who though , Trump Supporters??

Less socially acceptable than their Racism , Misogyny and Homophobia?

Yes (sadly).When people see which side their bread is buttered on their views will change accordingly.

Those people you mentioned have children .They are in the firing line and at some stage will,I expect not put up with environmental ignorance from any quarter.

Nody

EU offers to remove all tariffs on cars that Trump been whining about; his response?

Hours earlier, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told the European Parliament's trade committee that the EU is "willing to bring down even our car tariffs to zero, all tariffs to zero, if the U.S. does the same."

Trump said that the offer is "not good enough," adding that European "consumer habits are to buy their cars, not to buy our cars."

So because US car makers makes ****ty cars it's EUs fault that it's consumers don't buy them and hence the deal "is not good enough". I guess EU should offer a cash discount to increase sales or something for Trump to be happy because god forbid that US companies would have to be competitive on their own.

Dohnjoe

Sam Patten, associate of Manafort, charged with "operating illegally in the US as an agent for pro-Russia politicians from Ukraine"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/paul-manafort-sam-patten-charged-cambridge-analytica

Not massive news, but another addition to the "swamp"

26000 Elephants

amandstu wrote: »

The strength of T's base seems to me reminiscent of the parts of Russia that strongly support Putin.

For Russians, this is rooted in the pragmatic reality of the economic benefits that Putin can hand-wave in their direction. As yesterdays pay-freeze announcement will attest, Trump has no such magic powers. Even his most slack-jawed Yokel supporters will begin to tire of this.

amandstu

26000 Elephants wrote: »

amandstu wrote: »

The strength of T's base seems to me reminiscent of the parts of Russia that strongly support Putin.

For Russians, this is rooted in the pragmatic reality of the economic benefits that Putin can hand-wave in their direction. As yesterdays pay-freeze announcement will attest, Trump has no such magic powers. Even his most slack-jawed Yokel supporters will begin to tire of this.

I didn't know Putin had that power,but won't disagree as there is lots that I don't know and perhaps you are right.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sam Patten, associate of Manafort, charged with "operating illegally in the US as an agent for pro-Russia politicians from Ukraine"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/paul-manafort-sam-patten-charged-cambridge-analytica

Not massive news, but another addition to the "swamp"

In another administration, this would be news but alas, this administration has such a stench of vodka and pickles off it that this news gets a "meh" rating from me. As you suggested, it's just another one to add to the pile.

Manic Moran

New trade deal with Mexico, to deal with the NAFTA concerns.

Actually does address, in theory, some known flaws with NAFTA. In practice, may not do anything at all. Doesn't seem to make anything worse.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17791430/trump-mexico-trade-deal-nafta-labor

Earlier post reminded me to look up Kavanaugh's nomination process. Interesting observation on SCOTUSBlog this week.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/empirical-scotus-without-a-swing-vote-its-game-over-for-the-democrats/
An additional problem for Democrats is that it seems more plausible that Democratic senators will flip and support Kavanaugh than that Republican senators will flip and vote against Kavanaugh. The last several Supreme Court confirmation votes help to shed some light on this. During Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, all voting Republicans voted in support of confirmation, along with three Democrats. During Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation, one Democrat voted against Kagan, while five Republicans voted for her. For Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all voting Democrats along with nine Republicans voted in support of her confirmation. In fact, the Bork confirmation vote was the only instance in the figure when more senators of the nominating party voted against confirmation than members of the opposing party voted for confirmation.

spacecoyote

Manic Moran wrote: »

New trade deal with Mexico, to deal with the NAFTA concerns.

Actually does address, in theory, some known flaws with NAFTA. In practice, may not do anything at all. Doesn't seem to make anything worse.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17791430/trump-mexico-trade-deal-nafta-labor

Earlier post reminded me to look up Kavanaugh's nomination process. Interesting observation on SCOTUSBlog this week.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/empirical-scotus-without-a-swing-vote-its-game-over-for-the-democrats/
An additional problem for Democrats is that it seems more plausible that Democratic senators will flip and support Kavanaugh than that Republican senators will flip and vote against Kavanaugh. The last several Supreme Court confirmation votes help to shed some light on this. During Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, all voting Republicans voted in support of confirmation, along with three Democrats. During Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation, one Democrat voted against Kagan, while five Republicans voted for her. For Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all voting Democrats along with nine Republicans voted in support of her confirmation. In fact, the Bork confirmation vote was the only instance in the figure when more senators of the nominating party voted against confirmation than members of the opposing party voted for confirmation.

A few Dems with elections coming up in November in fairly Red States, so good chance they'll confirm him in the hope to pick up some conservative voters alright.

I haven't seen a massive amount re the Mex deal, from one piece I read it stated something along the lines that a proportion of auto production will have to be completed in the US, which will increase the cost to American buyers, but can be sold as bringing jobs back to America

Captain Obvious

Manic Moran wrote: »

New trade deal with Mexico, to deal with the NAFTA concerns.

Actually does address, in theory, some known flaws with NAFTA. In practice, may not do anything at all. Doesn't seem to make anything worse.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/29/17791430/trump-mexico-trade-deal-nafta-labor

Earlier post reminded me to look up Kavanaugh's nomination process. Interesting observation on SCOTUSBlog this week.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/empirical-scotus-without-a-swing-vote-its-game-over-for-the-democrats/
An additional problem for Democrats is that it seems more plausible that Democratic senators will flip and support Kavanaugh than that Republican senators will flip and vote against Kavanaugh. The last several Supreme Court confirmation votes help to shed some light on this. During Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation, all voting Republicans voted in support of confirmation, along with three Democrats. During Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation, one Democrat voted against Kagan, while five Republicans voted for her. For Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all voting Democrats along with nine Republicans voted in support of her confirmation. In fact, the Bork confirmation vote was the only instance in the figure when more senators of the nominating party voted against confirmation than members of the opposing party voted for confirmation.

As far as I understand it it is not a deal yet. Mexico wants Canada to be a part of it and there is very little time for further negotiation due to the ratification process in Mexico.

sink

Donald Trump to visit Ireland in November, White House says

****, I'm probably going to have to avoid Dublin city that day.

aloyisious

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sam Patten, associate of Manafort, charged with "operating illegally in the US as an agent for pro-Russia politicians from Ukraine"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/paul-manafort-sam-patten-charged-cambridge-analytica

Not massive news, but another addition to the "swamp"

An undeclared agent might mean undeclared income to the Feds.

Patser

sink wrote: »

Donald Trump to visit Ireland in November, White House says

****, I'm probably going to have to avoid Dublin city that day.

I'll guess that if that happens it'll be into Shannon and on to Doonbeg

Shannon much easier to secure, and manage protestors. Doonbeg do Trump can play golf, plug his hotel, and pretend every one loves him.

Captain Obvious

sink wrote: »

Donald Trump to visit Ireland in November, White House says

****, I'm probably going to have to avoid Dublin city that day.

I don't think Ireland has the capacity to police such an event.

For Forks Sake

sink wrote: »

Donald Trump to visit Ireland in November, White House says

****, I'm probably going to have to avoid Dublin city that day.

What the hell did we do to deserve that?

Good a time as any to make plans to be out of the country.

listermint

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't think Ireland has the capacity to police such an event.

I don't think Ireland wants to police such an event.

It's another poxy waste of our money again. In a year of wasted finances.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Did anyone listen to Pence at the ceremony? "The President asked me to be here..." Did he happen to forget that Donald was not welcome at his funeral ?

relax carry on

sink wrote: »

Donald Trump to visit Ireland in November, White House says

****, I'm probably going to have to avoid Dublin city that day.

Donald's biggliest Irish adventure ever! Hope some syphilitic Leprechauns give him a golden shower.

Captain Obvious

Donald's big mouth has scuppered NAFTa talks.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html

WASHINGTON—High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.

In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”

For Forks Sake

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Donald's big mouth has scuppered NAFTa talks.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html

Read that earlier and couldn't find the link again. How can anyone negotiate with the US in good faith.

Leroy42

I was wondering what his tweet complaining about Bloomberg was about.

Whether off the record of not (and I would bet that he never actually agreed it was off the record before he said it and he asked for it to be off the record after he said it) it was a stupid thing to say and was clearly done in order to show off.

aloyisious

Canada's foreign minister: I'm going to let America speak for itself. We've negotiated with good will and good faith. We're going to stand for Canada's interests and a good good deal. Don Trump: if we get no deal, we'll slap auto trade tariffs on Canada. Re the Bloomberg leak, that's Don's way of negotiating. especially when he's not at the table but is represented there by a member of his Admin team.

UsedToWait

.

Donald Trump wrote:

....Actually, throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.

alchemist33

Patser wrote: »

I'll guess that if that happens it'll be into Shannon and on to Doonbeg

Shannon much easier to secure, and manage protestors. Doonbeg do Trump can play golf, plug his hotel, and pretend every one loves him.

Didn't he stay in his own place in Scotland too? I wonder what the story with expenses is here, because it'd be pretty dodgy if the American taxpayer was paying into Trump's business

Leroy42

alchemist33 wrote: »

Didn't he stay in his own place in Scotland too? I wonder what the story with expenses is here, because it'd be pretty dodgy if the American taxpayer was paying into Trump's business

If? Where have you been?

The FBI pays for them to stay at Mar-a-Lago, they had a floor in Trump Tower (or offices at least).

Foreign delegations pay to stay in the Trump Hotel. He has attempted to use his position to further Ivankas brand (KAC was held to have broken code over that).

There is no If.

alchemist33

Leroy42 wrote: »

If? Where have you been?

I try not to get too deep into Trumpism for the sake of my blood pressure! But thanks for the info there.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

I was wondering what his tweet complaining about Bloomberg was about.

Whether off the record of not (and I would bet that he never actually agreed it was off the record before he said it and he asked for it to be off the record after he said it) it was a stupid thing to say and was clearly done in order to show off.

And, he's pretty much shown who the chief WH leaker is - the POTUS.

pixelburp

Skimming the After Hours thread, comments from other sites and it's quite demotivating how taken some Irish (or those I presume to be Irish) seem to be with Trump as president. It reads as the usual cocktail of being sucked into the empty sloganeering, "MAGA" soundbites n all, as well as the standard "cheer anything causing liberal tears". Kinda petty in other words.

I don't adhere to this thread being a series of brainless bashing (even if its hard not to ... perversely revel in the clamity of it all) but it's obvious from the standard of discussion and digestion of facts, contributors on this thread are more keyed in than on average. I tip my hat to you all.

As for Trump visiting Ireland, assuming our government don't pay for it I'm a little ambivalent about the occasion tbh; at first blush anyway. As mentioned it'll likely be a trip revolving around Dunbeg and as long as the Taoiseach & pals don't prostrate themselves, he can visit then leave. The bare minimum of diplomatic niceties should be applied here.

I do somewhat expect a question on the Brexit border, so hopefully the answer will be as entertainly baffling as his last Brexit speech.