Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Ultros

kilns wrote: »

More good news for the US Ecomony just released. If Trump is to win in 2020 the economy is going to be his main playbook. So expect between now and then for him to do everything in his power to keep it trucking along.

Jobs report today was terrible, only 20k jobs which is insanely low compared with previous months.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47499326

"The US economy created the lowest number of jobs for a year-and-a-half in February, coming in well below forecasts.

Just 20,000 new jobs were created last month against expectations of a 180,000 increase, official figures show."

Been a rough few weeks for the Donald...

Ultros

On Manafort's sentencing, lenient? Perhaps.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/07/paul-manafort-prison-sentence-2017-federal-data/3099176002/

"...data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission for 2017 shows that Manafort is not alone in receiving a lesser sentence.

In the Eastern District of Virginia, where Manafort was sentenced, about a quarter of defendants were sentenced below federal guidelines. The data for the 2017 fiscal year shows that about two-thirds of defendants received sentences that fit within the guidelines.

For fraud cases, in particular, the Eastern District was harsher on defendants than the national average. Defendants were given 36 months in prison on average, compared to the national average of 24 months.

Data shows the Eastern District took up 126 frud cases in 2017."

....

"Judge Ellis also noted during the hearing that Manafort “is not before the court for any allegations that he, or anyone at his direction, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election”.

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Interesting timing, with Isis using human shields in their last enclave. You just know that T wants to drop some shock and awe on them and obliterate everyone.

I thought 'fire and fury', not 'shock and awe', was the war catchphrase for this republican president

Manic Moran

Ultros wrote: »

Jobs report today was terrible, only 20k jobs which is insanely low compared with previous months.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47499326

"The US economy created the lowest number of jobs for a year-and-a-half in February, coming in well below forecasts.

Just 20,000 new jobs were created last month against expectations of a 180,000 increase, official figures show."

Been a rough few weeks for the Donald...

In fairness, the headline on CNN front page right now says
"This may be a sign that after 101 consecutive months of growth, the economy is running out of available workers"

When you click on the article, it points out that there have been fewer unemployed workers than available jobs since June 2018. Wage growth is the highest since 2009. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html

That's not exactly bad news.

Ultros

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not exactly bad news.

Fair point, there is a correlation with job creation and unemployment.

pixelburp

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-08/trump-said-to-seek-huge-premium-from-allies-hosting-u-s-troops

Under White House direction, the administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other country hosting U.S. troops pay the full price of American soldiers deployed on their soil -- plus 50 percent or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to a dozen administration officials and people briefed on the matter.

In some cases, nations hosting American forces could be asked to pay five to six times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula.

[...]

Officials caution that the idea is one of many under consideration as the U.S. presses allies to pay more, and it may be toned down. Yet even at this early stage, it has sent shock waves through the departments of Defense and State, where officials fear it will be an especially large affront to stalwart U.S. allies in Asia and Europe already questioning the depth of Trump’s commitment to them.

Continuation of the whole "NATO allies don't pay enough" obsession. Now, I wouldn't presume the presence of troops in (say) Germany should be there for free, but this increasingly feels like the geopolitical equivalent of extortion. I don't pretend to 'get' the point of troops in these countries in a postColdWar world, but it's part of NATO agreements and feels like an intentionally destabilising move.

Manic Moran

I wonder if it can be linked to the 2% thing? The closer they get to meeting the 2% goal, the less they'll pay... It's not as if the US gets no benefit at all from the troops stationed abroad.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

I wonder if it can be linked to the 2% thing? The closer they get to meeting the 2% goal, the less they'll pay... It's not as if the US gets no benefit at all from the troops stationed abroad.

The 2% thing doesn't make sense in this case as it isn't giving the US more money, it is spending on their own equipment etc, unless they are buying from an American company of course. So the European/Asian countries would just be paying the US for the privilege of them sitting on their hands. If this report is true it can only be to weaken the alliance at the behest of Putin. How many things does he have to do that benefit only Russia (and maybe China) before the penny drops.

Manic Moran

The 2% thing doesn't make sense in this case as it isn't giving the US more money, it is spending on their own equipment etc, unless they are buying from an American company of course

It's not a matter of the 2% paying for the stationing of foreign troops, it's a matter of the perception of the countries receiving the benefits of a military force without paying for much. If they're throwing in the supposedly mandatory 2%, then fantastic, they are paying the floor and need not be penalised for not doing it.

Ultros

Mini presser thing before departing for Alabama.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not a matter of the 2% paying for the stationing of foreign troops, it's a matter of the perception of the countries receiving the benefits of a military force without paying for much. If they're throwing in the supposedly mandatory 2%, then fantastic, they are paying the floor and need not be penalised for not doing it.

Yeah but it is only a perception. The whole of the Pentagon and all the past presidents since WW2 knows why they are there, and that it benefits America greatly to have them there. Why can't he listen to anybody, why can't he read a history book ( I guess if his school grades get released we will find that out). Can he not for once do some critical thinking and not have a child's view of the World?

Midlife

Ultros wrote: »

Jobs report today was terrible, only 20k jobs which is insanely low compared with previous months.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47499326

"The US economy created the lowest number of jobs for a year-and-a-half in February, coming in well below forecasts.

Just 20,000 new jobs were created last month against expectations of a 180,000 increase, official figures show."

Been a rough few weeks for the Donald...

Warning signs for Don. The only thing he has in his corner is the injection he gave the economy through the tax cut. Sure you can argue that it's Obama era, that it's basically mortgaging the future and his trade imbalance has gotten way bigger.

But he and his followers get to keep citing 'record growth figures' etc and have a hope of drowning out the debate regarding financial prudence.

If the economy slows, there's officially nothing he can claim to have done well.

Actually nothing.

Ultros

I agree, if the economy turned sour it would be close to impossible for him to get reelected. I will make the point that it's slightly unfair to hammer him on trade already, the Canada Mexico thing hasn't been brought in yet and they're still in negotiations with powerhouses like China. Wait for tariffs etc to clear, a couple years down the line should paint a much clearer picture if he improved the trade imbalance or worsened it.

Midlife

Ultros wrote: »

I agree, if the economy turned sour it would be close to impossible for him to get reelected. I will make the point that it's slightly unfair to hammer him on trade already, the Canada Mexico thing hasn't been brought in yet and they're still in negotiations with powerhouses like China. Wait for tariffs etc to clear, a couple years down the line should paint a much clearer picture if he improved the trade imbalance or worsened it.

I'm don't mean to hammering him. I'm actually unsure how the trade thing would work out. For example, both he and Bernie were all for tearing up NAFTA. I'll admitt that i know **** all about NAFTA but we'd probably listen more if Bernie were president. It could work but he's only really got a year.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not a matter of the 2% paying for the stationing of foreign troops, it's a matter of the perception of the countries receiving the benefits of a military force without paying for much. If they're throwing in the supposedly mandatory 2%, then fantastic, they are paying the floor and need not be penalised for not doing it.

Your acting like America is doing these countries a favour.

When in reality as you know fully its about aping an imperial global strength and power wherever it feels it needs to. It's a trait the English left behind and the Americans never forgot.

I'm frankly surprised an Irishman can't see that.


Edit..




Retracting the above comment as I see that you recognised US benefits.

Gbear

In the one millionth special edition of Right Wingers, Theocrats and Fascists Project Their Crimes onto Normal People, we're now seeing that a slew of Republicans, as well as Trump, were pictured being chummy with the indicted boss of the sex trafficking massage parlour that Robert Kraft has been caught using.

If there is a serious effort to re-examine the Epstein case, that could make for fascinating reading as well.

If you want to look for a crime, see what wild conspiracy theories are spewed out about normal people and then go see if the Republicans are actually doing it.

They're a party of walking Onion headlines.

PVNevin

mcmoustache wrote: »

From the man himself...



There's also his preference for Trump which was exposed when wikileaks got wikileaked.





Are you sure about that. He wasn't very pleased about the leak of the Panama Papers.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

I see nothing significant in this, with regard to Assange.

Assange appears to take a very, very common misguided position that the extreme right is exposed by its own actions - better for it to be given a chance to reveal its true colours. And the Democrats are the lesser of two evils

This approach is extremely dangerous; and was adopted by the Stalinists in Germany with regard to Hitler's being given power by the German state.

Of much more importance with regard to Assange is his history of exposing the war crimes of imperialism.

Saying his political weaknesses are the issue is turning the truth on its head.


Assange is relentlessly hounded, vilified and tortured by the state because he has courageously exposed imperialist crimes. Just as now Chelsea Manning is jailed for refusing to help the Grand Jury stitch-up.

Chelsea Manning jailed for refusal to testify against WikiLeaks
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/09/mann-m09.html


To return to the issue of Trump and the Democrats: which imperialist party would you prefer murdered your family, destroyed your country, jailed you?

Christy42

PVNevin wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

From the man himself...



There's also his preference for Trump which was exposed when wikileaks got wikileaked.





Are you sure about that. He wasn't very pleased about the leak of the Panama Papers.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352

I see nothing significant in this, with regard to Assange.

Assange appears to take a very, very common misguided position that the extreme right is exposed by its own actions - better for it to be given a chance to reveal its true colours. And the Democrats are the lesser of two evils

This approach is extremely dangerous; and was adopted by the Stalinists in Germany with regard to Hitler's being given power by the German state.

Of much more importance with regard to Assange is his history of exposing the war crimes of imperialism.

Saying his political weaknesses are the issue is turning the truth on its head.


Assange is relentlessly hounded, vilified and tortured by the state because he has courageously exposed imperialist crimes. Just as now Chelsea Manning is jailed for refusing to help the Grand Jury stitch-up.

Chelsea Manning jailed for refusal to testify against WikiLeaks
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/09/mann-m09.html


To return to the issue of Trump and the Democrats: which imperialist party would you prefer murdered your family, destroyed your country, jailed you?

Assange is just far right. He didn't think it would expose itself and he was not going to help expose it either. He argues he wants the GOP to win here even.

He didn't just release information he had a specific timing to the releases to cause political damage. If he just wanted the truth he would have simply launched it up there. Instead we had the big build ups (generally to diddly squat) which were simply a political tool instead of getting the unbiased truth out there.

Obama at least eventually at least released her. Trump argued for the death penalty.

I think my choice is clear.

FrostyJack

PVNevin wrote: »

I see nothing significant in this, with regard to Assange.

Both sets of servers were hacked, Dems and GOP, only one got released. If "truth" and revealing of corruption were the goals that doesn't hold water. If that doesn't show you clear bias, you need to open your eyes. Imagine what was in the GOP emails? The leaks were strategically released in the press to maximise damage to Clinton and to keep the narrative "Hillary's emails" in the news. Any negative Trump story occurs, magically an bunch of emails are released. The day of the Democratic Nation Convention, where Bernie was to consolidate his support for Clinton and bring his supporters on board another leak was released to drive a wedge between them. Totally weaponised.

aloyisious

FrostyJack wrote: »

Both sets of servers were hacked, Dems and GOP, only one got released. If "truth" and revealing of corruption were the goals that doesn't hold water. If that doesn't show you clear bias, you need to open your eyes. Imagine what was in the GOP emails? The leaks were strategically released in the press to maximise damage to Clinton and to keep the narrative "Hillary's emails" in the news. Any negative Trump story occurs, magically an bunch of emails are released. The day of the Democratic Nation Convention, where Bernie was to consolidate his support for Clinton and bring his supporters on board another leak was released to drive a wedge between them. Totally weaponised.

I had wondered about the hacking, whether the GOP was also hacked, as it would seem sensible to get the dirt on both if one was neutral and solely interested in getting the truth out there. Holding onto one set and releasing the other shows choice and intent. If one is to follow the theory that the above was due to bias, one has to ask who it benefitted and if it was for the benefit of more than one party.

FrostyJack

aloyisious wrote: »

I had wondered about the hacking, whether the GOP was also hacked, as it would seem sensible to get the dirt on both if one was neutral and solely interested in getting the truth out there. Holding onto one set and releasing the other shows choice and intent. If one is to follow the theory that the above was due to bias, one has to ask who it benefitted and if it was for the benefit of more than one party.

We don't know whether the GOP is being blackmailed with the release of the hack from their side, everything they do could be looked on as being part of this, like when they side with Trump on things that make no sense. It could be the fear of being primaried by a Pro Trump candidate in their district or a special interest they are on the take from, the problem is we don't know. As stated by others here, Wikileaks has history releasing leaks from "imperial powers" as in some kind of check on their power but nothing from Russia, when we know what they have been up to, which should be setting off red flags as to their motives or at least backers.

eagle eye

The interviews beside helicopters and planes are a very smart move by Trump. What's coming across there is that he is too busy to just have a normal presser, that he is working hard for the American people.
The American public lap this stuff up.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

The interviews beside helicopters and planes are a very smart move by Trump. What's coming across there is that he is too busy to just have a normal presser, that he is working hard for the American people.
The American public lap this stuff up.

Dangerous with his hair I would have thought....

Ursus Horribilis

I'm sure he has it well glued down with epoxy resin

aloyisious

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I'm sure he has it well glued down with epoxy resin

Too true. The image of F.O.D. to the aircraft in front of the press :pac:

hotmail.com

eagle eye wrote:

The interviews beside helicopters and planes are a very smart move by Trump. What's coming across there is that he is too busy to just have a normal presser, that he is working hard for the American people. The American public lap this stuff up.

It's going to be a long 8 years for you.

biko

Interesting twist - big bizniz needs cheap labour and have managed to swing Trump's mind a bit.

“I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally,” Trump said last month during his State of the Union address.

“We’re going to have a lot of people coming into the country. We want a lot of people coming in. And we need it,” Mr. Trump said as he sat next to Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple, and other executives.

Corporations and influential corporate conservatives such as Charles G. Koch and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have long urged the president to help them recruit the talent they need by expanding the number of workers who can enter the United States from other countries.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/trump-anti-immigration-groups-betrayal.html

aloyisious

Don addressing the union on immigration he uses the "I" and with the executives he uses the "we". If the NYT is saying Koch is turning the wheel steering Don on a new course, I can see Don saying "fake news from the failing NYT". As for the legal immigrants, I've a feeling in my waters they'd be English-speaking from the east.

On the issue of getting the word out on his wins, is Don using the TV more now (over tweeting) for that, seeing as it get's also get's his active image out there with the approaching election?

Stallingrad

I see #fakemelania has resurfaced. I have no idea where the truth lies but it sure doesn't look like her.

If true, where does this leave T with his 'fake news' mantra?

[URL=https:///][/URL] upload

aloyisious

Stallingrad wrote: »

I see #fakemelania has resurfaced. I have no idea where the truth lies but it sure doesn't look like her.

If true, where does this leave T with his 'fake news' mantra?

[URL=https:///][/URL] upload

Listening to RTE's Drive-time on it, it seems there's a Secret Service woman looks like Melania sometimes on duty near Don. Doesn't really explain why he reportedly sometimes refers to Melania's presence in the 1st person when she is not present and other times points at her and say's "this is my wife Melania".