Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

Shur they have another woman to call out. First was Clinton, then Pelosi now Cortez. Anyone spot the pattern?

They all shill marxist concepts that have no place in america and advocate for increased immigration , increased minimum wage and tax increases ?

Water John

And they have....vaginas.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They all shill marxist concepts that have no place in america and advocate for increased immigration , increased minimum wage and tax increases ?

Marxist!


Ah great.


Three for three shall we call bingo.

Eric Cartman

Water John wrote: »

And they have....vaginas.

it has nothing to do with my dislike of them , but ofcourse just as theres those group of democrats that hate white men , theres a goup of republicans that hate women so sure here we are.

Leroy42

Which dems hate white men?

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which dems hate white men?

as in the voters, which prompts me to ask, which republican elected reps do you think hate women ? (note i will not accept being against abortion as 'hating women')

Leroy42

Trump for a start. Pence seems to have serious issues with them as well.

So dem voters hate white men. Really? Any evidence to back up that claim? Cause, and I may be wrong here, but wasn't Bill Clinton a man? And come to think of it white?

aloyisious

Would I be right in thinking Don's Nat Security Advisor Mr Bolton ran his plan to call on Turkey not to turn on the US's ally, the Kurds, in the fight against ISIS when the US pulls out of Syria before he left for region? Is Mr Bolton's action a sign that he is taking seriously the disquiet being expressed by the professionals in the US National Defence services and will Don follow his advice or fire-resign him as well?

I'm looking at Don's expression about declaring a national emergency if he doesn't get his way on the funding of the wall and keep the Govt services in lockdown. Bearing in mind that he told Chuck and Nancy live on national TV that he would take the blame for shutting down the Govt, that he would not blame them, if he does declare an emergency because of the situation he initiated, should both parts of the US Parliament demand that he appear before them to explain why he was [in effect] trying to overthrow the legal legitimate system of US National Govt and replace it by rule by fiat by himself from within the White House?

eire4

Midlife wrote: »

Top first world countries by tax rates (as a % of GDP)

Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden (all 50%+) Failed ideas you say?


On to your proposal...

List of countries with less than 20% tax

Russia, Senegal, Mauritius, Gambia, Kenya, Cameroon



In fairness, Eric, you're talking out your hoop.

Even within the US they used to have much much higher tax rates on the wealthy and the result was that income inequality was vastly lower then it is today. in 1980 Regan come in and cut the top rate to 50% and then 38% in 1986. Before that it was 70% and even 91% under Eisenhower. This lead to deficits and the US debt starting to jump dramatically and income inequality growing till we are where we are today with massive income inequality in the US. The inspiration for this laughable kind of thinking was of course was Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago school of econimics who introduced the euphemistically called trickle down economics to the world. Probably more accurately described as disaster or vulture capitalism. The US has also a very nasty history of exporting this vulture capitalism. Various CIA lead or backed coup's in South America for instance being followed by the institution of Friedmanite polices economically with dreadful consequences for anyone other then the wealthy.

Wildlife Actor

Just so we're all clear, AOC's "socialism" is pretty much centrism from the European perspective. "Socialism" in European discourse is something different and extends at one extreme to planned economies, the "failures" of which Eric refers to. Those failures are nothing to do with the policies of AOC and shouldn't be associated with those policies or her.

qwerty ui op

Honestly, am I missing something here.

You say this about lobbying

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The solution is to restrict lobbying,

and this about Hillary Clinton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As corrupt as people want to level trump as, she is much more connected with corporate donors, a paid shill for some of the biggest banks '

Yet, you think this about AOC, someone who rejected corporate donations.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Whatever people want to think of trump, she's the biggest idiot to enter the US political sphere this decade.

Maybe her popularity is because she's not beholden to special interests and is free to vote in the interest of those who elected her.

Eric Cartman

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Honestly, am I missing something here.

You say this about lobbying



and this about Hillary Clinton


Yet, you think this about AOC, someone who rejected corporate donations.


Maybe her popularity is because she's not beholden to special interests and is free to vote in the interest of those who elected her.

You can be not beholden to banks and corporate lobbyists without also being a believer in the worst economic system the world has ever known.

Those who elected her are in to punishing the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You can be not beholden to banks and corporate lobbyists without also being a believer in the worst economic system the world has ever known.

Those who elected her are in to punishing the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

I bow to someone else who can put it more eloquently than I ever could....

https://twitter.com/Randazzoj/status/1082006370751152128?s=19

Christy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Honestly, am I missing something here.

You say this about lobbying



and this about Hillary Clinton


Yet, you think this about AOC, someone who rejected corporate donations.


Maybe her popularity is because she's not beholden to special interests and is free to vote in the interest of those who elected her.

You can be not beholden to banks and corporate lobbyists without also being a believer in the worst economic system the world has ever known.

Those who elected her are in to punishing the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

Honestly the current system just punishes those born poor. I mean Trump was bankrupt 6? Times. The people laid off because of his failures wouldn't have had such soft landings hey he was born rich.

He is an idiot and yet got to go to top schools and receive a great (albeit wasted) education.

He knew every time he took a risk that there were safety nets ready to catch if/when he failed. A lot easier to make business ventures when you are not betting your entire future on it.

He didn't earn that head start in life. Welfare helps others who didn't have that start.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You can be not beholden to banks and corporate lobbyists without also being a believer in the worst economic system the world has ever known.

Those who elected her are in to punishing the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

“Worst economic system the world has ever known”? Then why is north Western Europe so pleasant to live in?

Everything AOC is advocating is mainstream here. So it can work very well.

You may say it won’t suit the US system, you’re 100% it won’t, but that’s the point. The system needs to change to benefit more people. Right now it’s funneling all the resources to the people who already have the most.

spacecoyote

Eric Cartman wrote:

You can be not beholden to banks and corporate lobbyists without also being a believer in the worst economic system the world has ever known.

In relation to your assertion that somehow Trump is doing something to get rid of lobbying, to quote the FT this morning:

Mr Trump’s friends, meanwhile, are doing very nicely. His cabinet could hardly be more obliging. A former coal lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, now runs the Environmental Protection Agency. The department of the interior will be run by a former oil-industry lobbyist, David Bernhardt. And the department of health and human services is run by a former pharmaceutical lobbyist, Alex Azar. Meanwhile, Linda McMahon, the former head of the family-founded WWE wrestling company, heads the Small Business Administration. And Betsy DeVos, wife of the former chief executive of Amway, one of America’s largest private companies, heads the department of education

So, I guess, he is getting rid of lobbying, by just giving the lobbyists jobs in government instead, where they don't need to lobby any more, they control the departments themselves & can set the agenda.

Eric Cartman wrote:

Those who elected her are in to punishing the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

And, as per usual, you revert to type. You did well this time around, it took you a few pages of debate before you came back to your favourite topic...poor people are a drain on society, who just need to try harder & sort themselves out, because look at those rich guys...they made their fortunes by hard work alone

BabyCheeses

I do love it when people support a man who was given free handouts complain about people getting free handouts. It really highlights the lack of thinking about the topic for 5 minutes first.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

blaming the wealthy for their own failings, free handouts and european left style policies in a country that isnt structured to fund those and for some is better off without.

So what you're saying is, its the poor's fault for not being born into a wealthy family?

Gotcha

jooksavage

Brian? wrote: »

Everything AOC is advocating is mainstream here.

That's the thing that makes me wonder when I hear Irish folks attacking the so-called Democratic Socialists. Their proposals are quite modest by European standards. Even in the UK, most Tories roundly endorse the NHS. Stateside, you get branded a "marxist" for that kind of thinking.


When I see Irish people lobbing about the marxist label at politicians that would be considered positively centrist over here, I have to wonder what kind of Ireland they'd prefer to live in. Presumably one where Charles Koch would allow you to sell yourself into slavery.

jochenstacker

everlast75 wrote: »

So what you're saying is, its the poor's fault for not being born into a wealthy family?

Gotcha

Poor people living in deplorable conditions are the very bedroock of American culture.
It's not about the one guy at the top, it is about the millions of others and to tell them they're useless, worthless, any misfortune is their fault and not only not to help them, but to actively punish them for being poor.
It is a culture of looking down on people, sneering at them and trampling them into the dirt.
And to keep it that way, access to education and healthcare has to be restricted to wealthy people.
All the while people who have done absolutely nothing of use other than to hoard money get revered as Gods.
It is a culture of contempt, loathing and hostility towards the weakest in society, it's sh*tting on people whilst exploiting them.
It is the reason why large swathes of America are in practical terms a third world country and to people like Eric Cartman this is quite welcome.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/poverty-in-america-third-world-country-malaria-world-news-23993/

I hope the vast masses of suppressed people in America realize that, in a democracy, they hold the power and they decide to dig up the rat's nest one day.

prawnsambo

jooksavage wrote: »

That's the thing that makes me wonder when I hear Irish folks attacking the so-called Democratic Socialists. Their proposals are quite modest by European standards. Even in the UK, most Tories roundly endorse the NHS. Stateside, you get branded a "marxist" for that kind of thinking.


When I see Irish people lobbing about the marxist label at politicians that would be considered positively centrist over here, I have to wonder what kind of Ireland they'd prefer to live in. Presumably one where Charles Koch would allow you to sell yourself into slavery.

It's soundbite politics. Just regurgitating the epithets that have been thrown around in the US. Without even bothering to think about them.

valoren

I think he will resign and he'll do so soon.

With a narcissist such as Trump there is an answer/excuse for everything. For Trump, he knows he will not get funds for the wall. In an attempt to play the hero he will suddenly resign the presidency. This will be Trump playing the martyr, the manipulative bent being that all he wanted was to protect the border but he couldn’t even do that as POTUS so had no choice but to do the noble thing and resign. Privately, he knows he is in trouble but being a narcissist he believes that he is never wrong and to pretend being the wounded hero who was trying to do the right thing for the good of the country is the perfect front to present to his gullible base.

Pelvis

He won't resign, being POTUS is the only thing stopping him being indicted.

everlast75

Pelvis wrote: »

He won't resign, being POTUS is the only thing stopping him being indicted.

I believe resigning (by way of a deal) will be the only thing that will stop him (and/or his family) being indicted.

Leroy42

valoren wrote: »

I think he will resign and he'll do so soon.

With a narcissist such as Trump there is an answer/excuse for everything. For Trump, he knows he will not get funds for the wall. In an attempt to play the hero he will suddenly resign the presidency. This will be Trump playing the martyr, the manipulative bent being that all he wanted was to protect the border but he couldn’t even do that as POTUS so had no choice but to do the noble thing and resign. Privately, he knows he is in trouble but being a narcissist he believes that he is never wrong and to pretend being the wounded hero who was trying to do the right thing for the good of the country is the perfect front to present to his gullible base.

I don't think so. The pressure to see the workers get paid will sit hard on the shoulders of the Democrats. Trump simply doesn't care. As he said himself, he is prepared to keep the shutdown for as long as it takes, months or years.

And given that he faces a DNC controlled house, the likelihood of him actually achieving anything of note in the next two years is minimal since he couldn't manage it with GOP control, so what better way to avoid having to compromise that to generate a crisis.

He will get some funding, be it partial and only for a fence, but he will sell that as him winning and delivering on his promise. The DNC will have to be content with actually making the right decision for the country.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

I believe resigning (by way of a deal) will be the only thing that will stop him (and/or his family) being indicted.

That kind of deal wouldn't be without precedent.

I was driving all weekend and I listened to Rachel Maddow's podcast series Bag Man, about Nixon VP Spiro Agnew. Whatever people's opinion on Maddow, her series is great.

The thing that Agnew's prosecutors' still hate is the deal that was done with him: he would pay a fine but there would be no larger investigation, he could keep his ill-gotten gains and he would serve no time. This was the price of getting him to resign. As bitterly as they resent it, the prosecutors still concede it was the right thing to do for the country. At this point though, I'm not sure if how the US would react if Trump got similar deal.

One of the most interesting interviewees was Agnew's own defense lawyer from the time. Though he never spoke against his long-deceased former client, he did concede that 45 years ago, Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution was far from clear cut (that's one of the reasons they did the deal) and, in his opinion, the law here is just as shaky today.

EDIT: Turns out, after a quick look about, that Agnew's lawyer has actually already given an opinion on Trump: resign to save your family. He also called Giuliani a "clown". Fair enough.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I fully expect Trump to declare a state of emergency over the coming days. It is the only way I see he'll get funding for his wall. It will be interesting to see if he can legally use his emergency powers to get his wall built.

jooksavage

Bryant Magnificent Housefly wrote: »

I fully expect Trump to declare a state of emergency over the coming days. It is the only way I see he'll get funding for his wall. It will be interesting to see if he can legally use his emergency powers to get his wall built.

As far as I'm aware, I believe the House Democrats can vote to block any such move. This would be then be passed on to the Senate where I'm not so sure the R majority is at Trumps beck and call anymore.

Leroy42

Would it need just a simple majority in the Senate, or can the POTUS not just declare it themselves?

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

Would it need just a simple majority in the Senate, or can the POTUS not just declare it themselves?

Simple majority I think. As a co-equal branch of government, I believe the Senate can block something like this.