Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Igotadose

More bleak outlook for the US Economy due to the trade war: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/morgan-stanley-sees-recession-within-a-year-if-trade-war-builds

Hint to Trump supporters: Keep it up, collapse the economy and next GOP majority in Congress or President will be in 2100

Igotadose

LedByDonkeys messing with Trump in the UK. Hilarious


Projecting "USS John McCain" hats on the Tower, and Obama (71%) UK approval rating vs Trump (21%) on Madame Tussaud's.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-faces-giant-uss-john-150400714.html

spacecoyote

Igotadose wrote: »

More bleak outlook for the US Economy due to the trade war: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/morgan-stanley-sees-recession-within-a-year-if-trade-war-builds

Hint to Trump supporters: Keep it up, collapse the economy and next GOP majority in Congress or President will be in 2100

Is he playing it this way on purpose...keep up the crap, economy drops off a bit, FED cut rates (which he seems desperate to happen). Let that run till a bit late in the year.

Then resolve all of the fake trade war rubbish likely end of year, early this year. See a sudden big bump in the economy/financial indices & campaign on the bounce.

It doesn't matter if is the one that creates the mess, American voters seem to have very short memories, so if they see rates lower & the economy on the up, there's every chance he bluffs his way back in.

TomOnBoard

Igotadose wrote: »

More bleak outlook for the US Economy due to the trade war: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/morgan-stanley-sees-recession-within-a-year-if-trade-war-builds

Hint to Trump supporters: Keep it up, collapse the economy and next GOP majority in Congress or President will be in 2100

And, don't forget the whoops and hollers in January 2018 when the Dow broke 25,000, resulting entirely from Trump-onomics... and when it broke 25,000 the second time in the autumn 2018.... and when it broke 25,000 the third time on November 2018... each time a huge success for Trump''s handling of the economy.... However, when it fell to less that 22,000 at the end of December... Crickets!!!

And then has had another attempt at 25,000 by April and up past 26,000 in May, but shattered again by Trump-onomics with suicidal tariffs and trade wars back down below the 25,000 now...

"You're gonna get so tired of winning!!!" Yeah, riiiight!!

kilns

The only problem now is he is not playing the big developer who can shaft workers and not pay them, he is negotiating a trade deal with China who are much more skilled than him. He has done alot of damage and wont be easily fixed, I think he will eventually cave to Chinese demands but he will declare it a victory when China start buying Soybeans again

is_that_so

spacecoyote wrote: »

Is he playing it this way on purpose...keep up the crap, economy drops off a bit, FED cut rates (which he seems desperate to happen). Let that run till a bit late in the year.

Then resolve all of the fake trade war rubbish likely end of year, early this year. See a sudden big bump in the economy/financial indices & campaign on the bounce.

It doesn't matter if is the one that creates the mess, American voters seem to have very short memories, so if they see rates lower & the economy on the up, there's every chance he bluffs his way back in.

He just wants to win and to have people convinced it was all down to him. He has no great interest in what he's leaving behind him on that score. There is a core of voters who will stick with him regardless and the Dems need to both select a suitable candidate and the right strategy to beat him. Despite all the chaos that surrounds him he's still at least evens to be re-elected. Part of that strategy includes judicious use of their power in Congress and staying away from the impeachment route some are demanding.

ECO_Mental

Igotadose wrote: »

More bleak outlook for the US Economy due to the trade war: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-02/morgan-stanley-sees-recession-within-a-year-if-trade-war-builds

Hint to Trump supporters: Keep it up, collapse the economy and next GOP majority in Congress or President will be in 2100

You are forgetting about the old GOP Two Step....;)

Step 1: Run the economy into the ground with Tax breaks for their rich buddies etc get voted out.

Step Two: Consonantly attack the next administration (Dems) for raising taxes to bail out the economy. Get voted back in again because they say they will reduce taxes.


Simples:cool:

B0jangles

ECO_Mental wrote: »

You are forgetting about the old GOP Two Step....;)

Step 1: Run the economy into the ground with Tax breaks for their rich buddies etc get voted out.

Step Two: Consonantly attack the next administration (Dems) for raising taxes to bail out the economy. Get voted back in again because they say they will reduce taxes.


Simples:cool:

Corollary to step 1: ruthlessly cut education budgets and standards, plus attack higher education as 'elitist' and 'ivory tower' to ensure the electorate lack the tools to understand what you are doing, no matter how many times you pull the same damn trick.

jochenstacker

peddlelies wrote: »

I wrote a reply but I deleted it. She's brought up because many on the right side of US politics feel there's a double standard/large media bias when it comes to Repub vs Dem and all those investigations along with the dossier are intertwined together.

Back to Donald in the UK then... good night

Oh, double standards? Really?
First you drag up "But! But! Hillary!!!", the oldest, most hackneyed and worn out non-argument of a die hard Trumper and then you complain about double standards?
Listen here, the Trump camp ran a hyper aggressive campaign of nothing but lies and propaganda along the lines of crooked Hillary, Killary, lying Hillary, sick Hillary, etc...
When Trump now finds himself under attack every hour of every day and people throw absolutely anything at him they can find, he has absolutely no one to blame but himself.
He fostered this climate of hyper partisanship and non cooperation at any cost. And now he whinges that everyone is nasty to him? Gimme a break.
Ever heard of live by the sword, die by the sword?

Quin_Dub

jochenstacker wrote: »

Oh, double standards? Really?
First you drag up "But! But! Hillary!!!", the oldest, most hackneyed and worn out non-argument of a die hard Trumper and then you complain about double standards?
Listen here, the Trump camp ran a hyper aggressive campaign of nothing but lies and propaganda along the lines of crooked Hillary, Killary, lying Hillary, sick Hillary, etc...
When Trump now finds himself under attack every hour of every day and people throw absolutely anything at him they can find, he has absolutely no one to blame but himself.
He fostered this climate of hyper partisanship and non cooperation at any cost. And now he whinges that everyone is nasty to him? Gimme a break.
Ever heard of live by the sword, die by the sword?

Whilst I don't particularly disagree on this point I'd be more inclined to say that he amplified/accelerated this behaviour rather than started it.

The birth of this activity can be linked back to the Tea-party and Mitch McConnell drove the "non cooperation" mindset right from the beginning of the Obama administration. After all his publicly stated objective even before Obama took office was the ensure that Obama was a one term President and also to ensure that he passed no legislation..

marno21

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whilst I don't particularly disagree on this point I'd be more inclined to say that he amplified/accelerated this behaviour rather than started it.

The birth of this activity can be linked back to the Tea-party and Mitch McConnell drove the "non cooperation" mindset right from the beginning of the Obama administration. After all his publicly stated objective even before Obama took office was the ensure that Obama was a one term President and also to ensure that he passed no legislation..

And Newt Gingrich before that too.

McConnell and his predecessors don't get enough blame for the antics in Congress, too much of the downright evil carry on by him and others gets lost in the Trump twitter whitewash

pixelburp

It's only tangentially related to Trump, but I was reading an interesting article from 538 that was postulating on the growing "National Popular Vote" compact between states.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-is-picking-up-steam/

Basically an agreement that states change the rules of allocating their electoral votes to whoever won the National popular vote. The compact wouldn't come into effect until enough states came onboard that totalled 270 electoral votes. The sticking point seems to be that those signed up so far have been mostly Blue states, but as the article speculates, Purple and Red states are beginning to make noises towards joining the Compact.

As of writing the agreement has "collected" 206 worth of votes, but you can bet your bottom dollar if this number keeps ticking up, McConnell and co. will erect the barricades...

everlast75

WH have told Hicks and another not to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Have we reached the top of Obstruction Mountain yet?

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

It's only tangentially related to Trump, but I was reading an interesting article from 538 that was postulating on the growing "National Popular Vote" compact between states.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-is-picking-up-steam/

Basically an agreement that states change the rules of allocating their electoral votes to whoever won the National popular vote. The compact wouldn't come into effect until enough states came onboard that totalled 270 electoral votes. The sticking point seems to be that those signed up so far have been mostly Blue states, but as the article speculates, Purple and Red states are beginning to make noises towards joining the Compact.

As of writing the agreement has "collected" 206 worth of votes, but you can bet your bottom dollar if this number keeps ticking up, McConnell and co. will erect the barricades...

This has been going for quite a few years, but there are two problems as it gets closer to the 'magic number'.

The first is that, as observed, generally only solidly blue states are signing on. They have apparently nothing to lose. On recent trends, the popular vote tends to go Blue. Red states have absolutely no reason whatsoever to sign on to it, as they tend to be smaller, and swing states have two reasons not to. The first is that as long as they are swing states, people will pay attention to them. Nevada is 6 EC votes. Enough to be worth spending some effort and attention over, politicians on the election campaign are likely to try to earn Nevada's votes. The difference between winning and losing Nevada in 2016 was less than 20,000 people voting blue instead of red. The difference in California was over 2 million. What is in it for Nevada to join the compact? How much attention will a politician spend there? The other, as the Governor observed when he vetoed it (and mirroring some other governors which have vetoed such legislation), is that Nevada is a sovereign state. If the people of Nevada vote for something, then Nevada should follow the will of its people, not the will of Californians, Floridians, Texans, or New Yorkers. Imagine if Ireland were required to vote in the EU for whatever the people in France and Germany agreed to. It would not go over well.

The other minor detail, which hasn't yet been tested, but there is a very strong argument over, is that the whole thing will fail under the Constitution anyway. Article 1 section 10 of the US Constitution states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." There are a whole bunch of Senators from smaller red and swing States who are highly unlikely to sign off on it. This is likely to result in something of a constitutional crisis. Even if the Federal constitution bars agreements between states, there is equally nothing in the Constitution granting the Federal government any authority over how a State is to allocate its electoral votes, which means that even though SCOTUS may say it's illegal, as a practical matter, it would be impossible to enforce.

A split EC vote (eg Maine, Nebraska) as opposed to a national popular vote compact is to me a more acceptable solution. But, just as the smaller states have less incentive to join the popular vote compact, the big states have no incentive to go with the split EC vote option. Can you see California voluntarily giving up 20 of its blue EC votes? It would take a Federal constitutional amendment to enforce.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

It's only tangentially related to Trump, but I was reading an interesting article from 538 that was postulating on the growing "National Popular Vote" compact between states.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-is-picking-up-steam/

Basically an agreement that states change the rules of allocating their electoral votes to whoever won the National popular vote. The compact wouldn't come into effect until enough states came onboard that totalled 270 electoral votes. The sticking point seems to be that those signed up so far have been mostly Blue states, but as the article speculates, Purple and Red states are beginning to make noises towards joining the Compact.

As of writing the agreement has "collected" 206 worth of votes, but you can bet your bottom dollar if this number keeps ticking up, McConnell and co. will erect the barricades...

But it won't because the states bringing it in are solid Democrat states.

Quin_Dub

Potentially worthy of it's own thread tbh but surely the way to address the concerns about the EC and popular vote whilst still giving each state their "sovereignty" would be to split the votes based on % of vote received rather than winner takes all?

Then there is an incentive for candidates to put effort in in every state rather than just the Swing states.

A GOP candidate could pick up quite a few EC votes in California or NY , likewise a Dem candidate in Texas or whatever?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

This has been going for quite a few years, but there are two problems as it gets closer to the 'magic number'.

The first is that, as observed, generally only solidly blue states are signing on. They have apparently nothing to lose. On recent trends, the popular vote tends to go Blue. Red states have absolutely no reason whatsoever to sign on to it, as they tend to be smaller, and swing states have two reasons not to. The first is that as long as they are swing states, people will pay attention to them. Nevada is 6 EC votes. Enough to be worth spending some effort and attention over, politicians on the election campaign are likely to try to earn Nevada's votes. The difference between winning and losing Nevada in 2016 was less than 20,000 people voting blue instead of red. The difference in California was over 2 million. What is in it for Nevada to join the compact? How much attention will a politician spend there? The other, as the Governor observed when he vetoed it (and mirroring some other governors which have vetoed such legislation), is that Nevada is a sovereign state. If the people of Nevada vote for something, then Nevada should follow the will of its people, not the will of Californians, Floridians, Texans, or New Yorkers. Imagine if Ireland were required to vote in the EU for whatever the people in France and Germany agreed to. It would not go over well.

The other minor detail, which hasn't yet been tested, but there is a very strong argument over, is that the whole thing will fail under the Constitution anyway. Article 1 section 10 of the US Constitution states "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." There are a whole bunch of Senators from smaller red and swing States who are highly unlikely to sign off on it. This is likely to result in something of a constitutional crisis. Even if the Federal constitution bars agreements between states, there is equally nothing in the Constitution granting the Federal government any authority over how a State is to allocate its electoral votes, which means that even though SCOTUS may say it's illegal, as a practical matter, it would be impossible to enforce.

A split EC vote (eg Maine, Nebraska) as opposed to a national popular vote compact is to me a more acceptable solution. But, just as the smaller states have less incentive to join the popular vote compact, the big states have no incentive to go with the split EC vote option. Can you see California voluntarily giving up 20 of its blue EC votes? It would take a Federal constitutional amendment to enforce.

No state has a reason to split it's vote. It makes it harder to get a significant amount of extra ec votes by campaigning there on pandering to the state. It is however the best route to go down if all states did this. However it really needs all or at least all the swing States (i.e. the important ones, however they have the most to lose here).

You are right in swing States it will never catch on as they have power (and realistically the vast majority of power in the election).

Could be interesting to see if big red States ever look at it. Probably not to avoid the smaller red States going into it even if it means states like Texas are not important in the presidential vote.

Overall it does little. It switches active campaigning from Ohio to California. Might be more democratic overall but both just make a few states important. The splitting is best overall but requires complete agreement to be viable.

The argument about why Nevada should follow Californian vote seems odd given right now it is California being bossed around by Florida and Ohio (in presidential elections).

Manic Moran

The argument about why Nevada should follow Californian vote seems odd given right now it is California being bossed around by Florida and Ohio (in presidential elections).

I'm not sure I understand the argument. California is voting for whoever it wants to vote for. In fact, at 20% of the required vote, California has a huge impact on which way the vote goes, far more than any other State. If California voted red, Florida and Ohio together would be unable to override it and swing it back to blue.

Manic Moran

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Potentially worthy of it's own thread tbh but surely the way to address the concerns about the EC and popular vote whilst still giving each state their "sovereignty" would be to split the votes based on % of vote received rather than winner takes all?

Then there is an incentive for candidates to put effort in in every state rather than just the Swing states.

A GOP candidate could pick up quite a few EC votes in California or NY , likewise a Dem candidate in Texas or whatever?

Very much so, but as Christy observes, it will really only be viable if every single State does it, not just the two smallest ones.

And since the the dominant parties in the big states will lose out by doing it and probably would not do so voluntarily, it would require that the change be mandated from above, i.e. by a Federal constitutional amendment.

James Brown

I saw Trump suggest the NHS and other things are on the table regarding deals with the UK post Brexit, as May grins beside him. I don't live there but you can't help but feel for the people with that hanging over head.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-nhs-brexit-trade-deal-talks-theresa-may-press-conference-uk-a8943656.html

Timberrrrrrrr

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I saw Trump suggest the NHS and other things are on the table regarding deals with the UK post Brexit, as May grins beside him. I don't live there but you can't help but feel for the people with that hanging over head.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-nhs-brexit-trade-deal-talks-theresa-may-press-conference-uk-a8943656.html

Any party that even tried to privatise the NHS would be gone forever in 6 months. No way would the British people let that happen the the NHS

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the argument. California is voting for whoever it wants to vote for. In fact, at 20% of the required vote, California has a huge impact on which way the vote goes, far more than any other State. If California voted red, Florida and Ohio together would be unable to override it and swing it back to blue.

A small swing in California over an issue will not change the result. A small change in Florida could likely change the winner of the presidential election. California is voting for whoever it wants to vote for but it isn't like it is relevant. I can't imagine either campaign cared that much for driving up votes in the state.

It would take a massive event to turn California red and one so big the rest of the country would be red too so it is irrelevant. Voters only matter if they are in a roughly even state.

The above also holds for other states where you could likely call the 2028 election result now (red and blue).

EltonJohn69

NHS on the table, what does that even mean ? Trump wants the NHS privatized ?

everlast75

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

NHS on the table, what does that even mean ? Trump wants the NHS privatized ?

He also suggested that Farage should be sent in to negotiate Brexit.

He's a deep thinker.

Igotadose

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

NHS on the table, what does that even mean ? Trump wants the NHS privatized ?

Well , he *does* have Woody Johnson "and Johnson pharma" as his ambassador. However, up until recently the ambassador to the UK hasn't been all that significant. But one wonders who Woody's talking to behind the scenes there and what ground he's helping lay.

Trump doesn't want anything I don't believe, other than personal wealth increase, and avoiding jail. He needs to be POTUS for the latter at least. He's milking his job as much as he can for more $$$

jobbridge4life

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any party that even tried to privatise the NHS would be gone forever in 6 months. No way would the British people let that happen the the NHS

Any party proposing to engage the United States in trade negotiations is doing precisely that, whats more Farage is on camera encouraging it, the President just confirmed it.

B0jangles

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

NHS on the table, what does that even mean ? Trump wants the NHS privatized ?

Presumably he expects the UK to break up the NHS, privatize healthcare and open the market to US health insurers. If that happens, UK citizens might be looking forward to either paying vast sums for health insurance or facing bankruptcy after what would now be considered fairly minor unexpected health problems.



66% of people who went bankrupt in the US say it was caused by medical debt.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html

batgoat

The Trump baby has been stabbed in London by a Trump supporter... Slightly disappointed that it won't make it to Ireland.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-baby-blimp-stabbed-sharp-153350746.html

Beechwoodspark

batgoat wrote: »

The Trump baby has been stabbed in London by a Trump supporter... Slightly disappointed that it won't make it to Ireland.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-baby-blimp-stabbed-sharp-153350746.html

It says that was a smaller one

The big one is on its way to Dublin according to article.

Igotadose

Pretty disgusting behavior by the anti-trump protesters in the UK. https://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-videos/anti-trump-protest-violence-milkshake-supporter/

Pity the poor bobbys trying to keep the peace. Amazed no one got hurt worse than a dunking with McDonald's milkshake mix.