Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75

Thargor wrote: »

Would hate to see Warren in the running alright, that would be Trumps best chance of reelection.

Why couldnt Al Gore just have won it back it in the day?

Rumour has it, he did...

Sand

Penn wrote: »

But many senior Republicans don't want him to go the National Emergency route because it'll likely be challenged in the courts by the Dems and likely overturned, and it gives precedent to the Dems to call a National Emergency when they inevitably get back into power (whether 2020 or beyond) for things like climate change (aka actual emergencies).

I think their best bet now might be to try claim they're taking the higher ground by not shutting down the government, say they'll go for wall funding again next year, accuse the Dems of being obstructionist, and blame them for every minute transgression by an immigrant. They'll take a hit because it'll be played in the media like the Dems won, but I don't think at this stage the GOP want any of the alternatives they'd have to go with in order to win (shutdown or national emergency).

A national emergency precedent being exploited by the Democrats is only a problem if the Republicans lose. The bigger problem at that point is they lost. And if, as you say, it can be challenged in the courts and likely overturned then it can just as easily be overturned should the Democrats attempt it.

The Republicans likely do wish this wall issue would go away. But accepting defeat on this issue is just planning for defeat in 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040, 2044, 2048. The Democrats are approaching the 2020 election as an existential struggle against Trump and everything he represents. Trump tapped into a similar energy in 2016, and to rekindle it, he needs that wall. Planning out a graceful defeat on the issue or seeking moral victories is not a good strategy for the Republicans, regardless of their personal feelings about it.

Leroy42

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think Warren is a damp squib. She is no match for Trumps lies. Calling out his lies isn't really working. Anyone making off Trump, such as the GOP, don't care quite frankly.
The Dems need a quick on his/her feet bullsh*t caller with a good record. None seem to be high profile enough. Saunders has no hope. Biden might but he's not much cop and Warren is too tame.
They are selling this temporary stay on the shutdown as them, (Reps) trying to meet in the middle. If it shuts down again Trump will claim the Dems wouldn't negotiate.

Where is Trump going to get the extra votes. Did you think he will get more or less votes than 2016?

Warren is no where near as divisive as HC so based on many Trump voters that claimed they only voted for him as HC was so awful, any DNC candidate is going to walk it.

rossie1977

The big problem for whatever nominee Dems pick is to get media to shift their total 24/7 focus away from Trump and onto them. That's going to be extremely difficult. Hillary Clinton was a more high profile candidate than anyone that's likely to run this time and the mainstream media ignored her rallies at times to air Trump's empty podium..and that was candidate Trump not President Trump.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where is Trump going to get the extra votes. Did you think he will get more or less votes than 2016?

Warren is no where near as divisive as HC so based on many Trump voters that claimed they only voted for him as HC was so awful, any DNC candidate is going to walk it.

Warren is a member of the 'protected class' as was so well described by Peggy Noonan in an editorial. She's an ex-Harvard prof, whose main claim to fame was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which for awhile did some to reign in the banksters, but under Trump's been weakened - at least, you don't hear much coming out of them and it seems the worst things like payday lending are coming back into vogue. I don't see Warren so far as willing to get down and dirty versus Trump, which it'll need. Warren on a ticket though, is intriguing. Personally I think Sherrod Brown has it in him to take down Trump and if he delivers Ohio, that's a huge plus. But, not sure Brown's 'middle of the road' abortion stance will play on the coasts.

My other favorite's Kamala Harris. She, I can see, giving Trump more than he can handle during the campaign and in debates. She was a very successful prosecutor and I expect can get Trump to wither during debates plus she seems pretty hard-headed. Biden'd would make an excellent running mate for her, again someone with 'middle of the country' appeal. He's fairly old though, but old VP's aren't anything new (see: Cheney, Dick).

But a lot can happen between now and conventions and election day. This race'll consume a lot of popcorn.

I see Trump getting fewer votes in 2020 than in 2016, he's not going to magically get more popular or stop alienating people for the heck of it. With enough momentum behind the Democratic candidate I can see a pretty big loss for the GOP, Democratic party keeps the House and regains the Senate, too. 22 Republican Seats vs. 12 Democratic seats up for grabs. That favors the Democrats, too. Not sure exactly which Senators in what states (yet)

jochenstacker

rossie1977 wrote: »

The big problem for whatever nominee Dems pick is to get media to shift their total 24/7 focus away from Trump and onto them. That's going to be extremely difficult. Hillary Clinton was a more high profile candidate than anyone that's likely to run this time and the mainstream media ignored her rallies at times to air Trump's empty podium..and that was candidate Trump not President Trump.

Well, remember, Trump was a total joke back then.
The media and Hillary were laughing their asses off at him.
The media were getting all the mileage out of it that they could, because it was a bit of fun before President Clinton would take over and then it would be back to reality.
This time it's different though.
They know Trump is a snake and his followers mental. Plus, he did his level best to alienate every single news outlet against him.
This will (hopefully) be an entire new game, played entirely different.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

Last I heard negotiations have stalled, and the temporary re-opening of Government is due to end this Friday, possibly leading to another shutdown.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on government negotiations over border security (all times local):

9:40 p.m.

Three people familiar with Congress’ tentative border security deal tell The Associated Press that the accord would provide $1.375 billion to build 55 miles of new border barriers.

That’s well below the $5.7 billion President Donald Trump demanded to build over 200 miles of wall along the Mexican boundary. The money will be for vertical steel slats called bollards, not a solid wall.

Democrats dropped their proposal to limit the number of detained immigrants caught inside the U.S. to a daily average of 16,500. Republicans opposed that demand. There is currently no such limit."

VP Ann Coulter is not happy.

The ball is now in Trump's court....

everlast75

Trump's rally at El Paso full of toxic, vile lies.

Donny Jr was the warm up act.

Senior comes out with some lovely comments like this...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1095155778674143232?s=19

Leroy42

Those that are going to these rallies are not the ones that are going to decide the election. They are true Trump supporters, there is almost nothing he could do or say to turn them off him.

And to less extremes those voters are everywhere in the world, party before country etc.

But the mid-terms showed, and we must remember that HC won the popular vote, that this is not the prevailing mood in the US. These voters will not be even close enough to get Trump re-elected. And he needs to increase the rhetoric in order to keep them energised. He needs to keep upping the ante. Which is fine for these rallies, but will continue to turn off the more moderate voter.

It is telling that after two years, two years which according to the likes of Rigolo have been nothing but success, Trump is still left with nothing but attacking strawmen. No longer having a target such as HC he is left talking about some Senator in another state which has little to no impact on these peoples lives.

The politics of fear and division can be very effective, but it has a shelflife

The first round of tax cuts will be hitting people around now, and it appears that many are going to be in for a shock as any tax cuts are wiped out in large part by the loss of tax refunds.

seamus

Trump's 2020 issue is that you can't defend an election by making up lies about what the opposition have done and promises about what you'll do.

This works when you're trying to take power (worldwide - it's what our political parties do), but the incumbent is the one with a recent record to defend. And if you can't do that, you're finished. Sure, he'll make up lies about what he's done, and make claims that the Dems have been blocking him. But even now, nobody except his ~20% believe a word out of his mouth.

As Leroy points out, there are already reports coming out of the US of people deeply disappointed by their tax returns. It's always about the money in peoples' pockets. If someone is not seeing the money they expected there, then they will come to realise that Trump was full of it. Even strong supporters won't deny the evidence that's right in their hands.

pixelburp

So between this and the Trail of Tears joking, has he just decided to dive straight into full-blown extremism now, keep the more rabid elements of this base happy? It's not a stretch to say Trump craves attention and the adoration of crowds, maybe this is the only 'gig' he can get now with the poll numbers dropping, losing political capital and the media basically circling around the ever-increasing pool of suspects in the federal & Mueller investigations.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump's rally at El Paso full of toxic, vile lies.

Donny Jr was the warm up act.

Senior comes out with some lovely comments like this...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1095155778674143232?s=19

Well AOC did propose a 70% tax , he comments where does it end, 80, 90. That guy on twitter then says ‘trump said it was 90’ and then you call it ‘outright lies’

The ‘green new deal’ is a complete joke and needs to be aborted off the floor completely.

And Cuomo did sign the abortion up until birth bill, Trump painted a weird picture on that but late term abortions to birth were included in that

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The ‘green new deal’ is a complete joke and needs to be aborted off the floor completely.

Why is it a joke?

A massive tax on the rich could help fund the wall for example. Why not call a NE and increase tax rates for anything over 10m to 70% for a year to fund it?

BabyCheeses

A random congresswoman really has rustled a lot of jimmies for being what would probably be a fairly standard left wing politician in Europe.

Again, she is just one person in Congress out of hundreds and the president is advertising her.

circadian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well AOC did propose a 70% tax , he comments where does it end, 80, 90. That guy on twitter then says ‘trump said it was 90’ and then you call it ‘outright lies’

The ‘green new deal’ is a complete joke and needs to be aborted off the floor completely.

And Cuomo did sign the abortion up until birth bill, Trump painted a weird picture on that but late term abortions to birth were included in that

70% above earnings of $10 million dollars. This affects a tiny, tiny percentage of the general population including Trump voters. It's disingenuous to suggest to his base that THEY will be the ones getting taxed to the hilt whilst struggling to make ends meet. This is intentionally misleading and as usual, gaslighting.

What's wrong the with the "Green New Deal"? Climate change is real, it needs to be tackled and since Trump took office the EPA has been effectively neutered and they are quickly moving towards deregulation. The only people this benefits is those who can gain financially from it. Not tackling environmental issues will only lead to the majority of Americans, especially the next generation, living in a country with an increasingly dangerous environment. This is possibly their biggest problem in the long run.

Abortion up until birth. We seen this during the Referendum on the 8th Amendment. Again, misleading. An abortion late in pregnancy is not a termination, it is either an induced delivery or c-section. Trumps suggestion that they then "execute" the baby after this is absolute bull****. If the baby is born with defects so significant that they cannot live without some sort of life support then it is up to the parents, and rightly so, to determine if they want to continue treatment for the child.

The abortion one really makes my blood boil. It's such an emotive issue and Trump is either knowingly throwing out falsehoods and making it out like there will be some mass genocide or he is genuinely stupid enough to believe this.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is it a joke?

A massive tax on the rich could help fund the wall for example. Why not call a NE and increase tax rates for anything over 10m to 70% for a year to fund it?

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case,

But back to the point, do you agree that the twitter poster that everlast posted blew what donald said out of proportion and he made an accurate reference to the 70% tax rate and late term abortion bill as has actually been proposed,

And i dont want any ‘do you agree to this other thing’ whataboutery

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case,

But back to the point, do you agree that the twitter poster that everlast posted blew what donald said out of proportion and he made an accurate reference to the 70% tax rate and late term abortion bill as has actually been proposed,

And i dont want any ‘do you agree to this other thing’ whataboutery

Donald is blown things out of proportion when he used the 70% figure to rile up his base

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Donald is blown things out of proportion when he used the 70% figure to rile up his base

Has AOC proposed a 70% tax rate - yes,

circadian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Has AOC proposed a 70% tax rate - yes,

Can you elaborate on how that tax rate works?

Eric Cartman

circadian wrote: »

70% above earnings of $10 million dollars. This affects a tiny, tiny percentage of the general population including Trump voters. It's disingenuous to suggest to his base that THEY will be the ones getting taxed to the hilt whilst struggling to make ends meet. This is intentionally misleading and as usual, gaslighting.

What's wrong the with the "Green New Deal"? Climate change is real, it needs to be tackled and since Trump took office the EPA has been effectively neutered and they are quickly moving towards deregulation. The only people this benefits is those who can gain financially from it. Not tackling environmental issues will only lead to the majority of Americans, especially the next generation, living in a country with an increasingly dangerous environment. This is possibly their biggest problem in the long run.

Abortion up until birth. We seen this during the Referendum on the 8th Amendment. Again, misleading. An abortion late in pregnancy is not a termination, it is either an induced delivery or c-section. Trumps suggestion that they then "execute" the baby after this is absolute bull****. If the baby is born with defects so significant that they cannot live without some sort of life support then it is up to the parents, and rightly so, to determine if they want to continue treatment for the child.

The abortion one really makes my blood boil. It's such an emotive issue and Trump is either knowingly throwing out falsehoods and making it out like there will be some mass genocide or he is genuinely stupid enough to believe this.

But the green new deal is really just an excercise in screwing over high earners under the guise of environmental savings. Its not really about climate change at all

Water John

Well go with 49% tax on any income over, say 2-3M/yr. That should stay on the right side of your arbitrary 'moral line'. Lots of funds to make US a more caring country for me, or build a wall for you, Eric.

mayordenis

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But the green new deal is really just an excercise in screwing over high earners under the guise of environmental savings. Its not really about climate change at all

Do elaborate.

circadian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But the green new deal is really just an excercise in screwing over high earners under the guise of environmental savings. Its not really about climate change at all

This is an extremely weak response. Could you elaborate further on how it is an exercise in screwing high earners and not about climate change at all, because from what I can see it is an ambitious plan to provide social and environmental reform for future generations.

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

Well go with 49% tax on any income over, say 2-3M/yr. That should stay on the right side of your arbitrary 'moral line'. Lots of funds to make US a more caring country for me, or build a wall for you, Eric.

At no point have i ever indicated a desire for a wall, this is the problem with this thread, call out anything the dems do and you are automatically a trump supporter

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case,

But back to the point, do you agree that the twitter poster that everlast posted blew what donald said out of proportion and he made an accurate reference to the 70% tax rate and late term abortion bill as has actually been proposed,

And i dont want any ‘do you agree to this other thing’ whataboutery

Hold on, you said that the Green deal should be done way with before it has even been discussed, but now you are saying I am whataboutery?

Have you read through the Green deal proposals? Do you disagree with it entirely? Do you accept that the climate is changing and that money will be required to fund the changing infrastructure etc that will be required to cope with it?

Where is the money for this gong to come from? Should the richest in society, those best able to deal with it, be asked to contribute or should it simply be evenly spread so that those already struggling will be squeezed more?

And on the twitter stuff, you think that claiming that abortion is akin to an execution is not hyperbole and does nothing to help the debate? Did he nuance this to show that it was a tiny amount of cases and that only in certain circumstances, or did he imply it was simply a decision made before the parents left the hospital?

Water John

So, no problem with my tax proposal, but you won't use it to build a wall. I'm delighted as the wall is a waste of funds that could be put to good use elsewhere, like Medicare.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case,

I didn’t really taxation could be immoral. The only way you can justify this stance is if you believe money is sacred somehow.

The discussion shouldn’t be about morals, it should be about effectiveness. Would a 70% tax rate above $10m be an effective way to manage an economy? I don’t think it would. But I’d like to see a proper analysis done on it, as I’m not an economist.

But back to the point, do you agree that the twitter poster that everlast posted blew what donald said out of proportion and he made an accurate reference to the 70% tax rate and late term abortion bill as has actually been proposed,

And i dont want any ‘do you agree to this other thing’ whataboutery

Trump was wrong to say “70,80,90.....” because he was exaggerating as usual. He was also wrong to equate late term abortion with executing children, but then he may not really understand why he was wrong.

How can you say he was even partially right, he made a 70% tax into 90% and late term abortion into murderint children. Seriously man, that’s simply lying to try and whip up your base.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

At no point have i ever indicated a desire for a wall, this is the problem with this thread, call out anything the dems do and you are automatically a trump supporter

Absolutely not, personally my issue with your posts is they pure ideology, opinions, and rehashed catchphrases with no elaboration or citation on your claims. Irregardless of your political stance

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Has AOC proposed a 70% tax rate - yes,

And what figures was Trump touting at his Rally ?

seamus

The top rate of tax was 70%+ in the US for about 50 years. Virtually the entire period from the end of the depression to the end of the cold war - a period of massive growth in the US economy.

It's pretty irrelevant what it's called. A 70% marginal tax rate is not exceptional, not even in the US, and doesn't harm the economy one iota. The reduced tax rate has come about due to persistent corruption and lobbying by marginal rate payers to have the rate reduced. 99% of Americans see no benefit from the reduction in this rate, and will not be affected by an increase in this rate.

Screwing over high earners? Boo-hoo. One less ivory backscratcher.