Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

kilns

spacecoyote wrote: »

The fed does not cut rates with a red hot economy, they do the exact opposite. They increase rates to control inflation & stop the economy overheating.

They cut rates when they're concerned about growth & want to stimulate the economy.

So, if Powell is lining up rate cuts you might get an artificial spike from the market but its usually a sign of not so great times on the horizon

It is why Americans should be very worried that Trump is even trying politicise the Fed. The should always been impartial and look at the bigger picture and not just the next election cycle. I fear Powell will be fired and Trump will put a guy in who will do his bidding and it will be America who ultimately suffer. Rates go down - borrowing increases - the already huge personal debt gets bigger which is a ticking timebomb in the US. He has the potential (if he wins a 2nd term) to actually destroy the US

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Crenshaw seems about as intelligent as Trump. Once I read that they're climate change deniers, I dismiss them as populist Trump wannabes.

You have a strange definition of denier.
"It's clear climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that," Crenshaw said in a statement when reached by INSIDER for comment. "What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."
https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-and-republicans-congress-global-warming-2019-2#texas-32

Regardless, the point is that well-spoken up-and-coming youngsters who are better able to relate to newer voters and who come across positively are to be found on both sides. You don't have to entirely agree with them to recognize that fact.

It was equally good when he came out condemning the presidents comments on telling american citizens to go home.

It would be like lets say for example an american president telling an Irishman not born in America to go home despite him having citizenship.

Dans the Man alright, I see why you like the cut of his jib

I'm unsure if you are being satirical or not, but for others who haven't looked into it, he is one of the unfortunate minority of Texas Republican congressmen to have called the Trump tweets "unacceptable" and "out of control rhetoric." Most of the others have remained silent.

The problem with this line of thinking is that following it through to its conclusion means everyone just shuts up and says nothing.

If AOC speaking up is going to turn off Midwest voters, 5hen she should be quiet. But McGrath speaking up would alienate coastal voters, so she should keep quiet. Biden speaking up might out off poorer voters, so he should be quiet. And sanders or warren speaking up might scare off wealthier voters and donors, so they should be quiet. And so on.

There is in my opinion nothing wrong with disagreement within parties - the opposite actually. It shows that sides are being represented by their representatives, and leads to working toward resolution and something both sides can be happy with (ideally). I would take that every day of the week over what has happened to the republican party in the last 2-3 years, which has turned into an echo chamber where any even marginally dissenting voice is ocstracised and ousted, and must be destroyed by their supposed peers. Justin amash is a very recent example of this, only a week or two back.

Your point is well made and valid, but falls afoul of one political reality. What McGrath says is unlikely to negatively influence a Democrat in AOC's constituency to a sufficient extent that the Democrat will lose. McGrath, or others like her in more moderate areas, have an actual fight on her hands, and those videos of "This is what the Democrats of today represent" (Even though not actually representative) can have a tangible effect. See the Axios article linked just above. I submit that the Democrats need to prioritize winning first, and then they can lounge in the luxury of internal debate.

Peddleslies, Manic, as two posters who, and I think I'm being fair here, are slow to criticise trump or at least try to put some balance into the debate here, what are your views on his tweets and subsequent doubling down?

Idiotic. Both the original tweets and the doubling down. What other position might you expect? I'm in general agreement with the sentiments of the thread on this.

Luxxis

jochenstacker wrote: »

Your mistake is assuming that the American dream and working your way up applies to everyone equally.
It only applies to white, English speaking, Christian Americans from wealthy conservative households.
Everyone else doesn't count, just got lucky and if they're thinking of criticising the master race they should "go back to where they come from".
So, Trump counts as having achieved the American Dream and AOC doesn't, because she's the wrong colour and used to be poor.

If you look at America through the prism of racism and don't assume that the rules apply equally, everything makes sense all of a sudden.

Asians are the wealthiest folk in the USA.

Asian median household income: $78,000

White median household income: $62,000

https://www.financialsamurai.com/income-by-race-why-is-asian-income-so-high/

https://prosperitynow.org/blog/racial-wealth-snapshot-asian-americans


This has been well know for year now,

Midlife

The economy doesn't matter.

The perception of the economy amoung white middle classs voters in 4 specific states matters hugely.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Idiotic. Both the original tweets and the doubling down.

Racist?

Manic Moran wrote: »

What other position might you expect?

You contribute to the thread. I thought the comments were so egregious you, like many others would have felt the need to say so. But I had to ask..

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have a strange definition of denier.
"It's clear climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that," Crenshaw said in a statement when reached by INSIDER for comment. "What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."
https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-and-republicans-congress-global-warming-2019-2#texas-32

Regardless, the point is that well-spoken up-and-coming youngsters who are better able to relate to newer voters and who come across positively are to be found on both sides. You don't have to entirely agree with them to recognize that fact.

Why has he said that he is against the Paris Agreement on climate change? Why has he said that he is against federal regulation of greenhouse gases? Why has he he said that regulating climate change is not government responsibility?

Midlife

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why has he said that he is against the Paris Agreement on climate change? Why has he said that he is against federal regulation of greenhouse gases? Why has he he said that regulating climate change is not government responsibility?

They used to be deniers but now that's been equated to being stupid.

so now they say 'well you don't know how bad it can be' or 'the jury's out on what we can do about it'. This is the new form of climate denial. not the denail of a problem but the denial of a solution.

So Dan now advocates on his website a upsurge in natural gas drilling and doesn't really mention climate at all.

I just have a huge problem with this given you can clearly research that about 10% of his finances come from the oil and gas industries.

I'm not directly acccusing Crenshaw of anything, he's transparent but that's such a broken system. How can people take hundred of thousands of dollars from an industry they'll have to regulate?

marno21

peddlelies wrote: »

I might be totally wrong here but the little I looked at it from the time I got this impression. The US emits very little co2 in comparison to countries like China and under the terms of the agreement it left China off the hook pollution wise until at least 2030, while the US would have been hamstrung.

This is taken from forbes



https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#459e1a9a628c

"China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined"

This is the wrong argument. Per capita emissions is important here.

In 2014 US emissions per capita were double that of China and EU emissions per capita. I'd imagine China has grown since then, but net emissions per country is not the way to look at it.

s7ryf3925pivug

If he has plans to force China to lower emissions then that would only be a good thing.

Pro rata, they each produce several times as much as the earth can actually tolerate. That's the only thing that is a meaningful comparison.

That said, China produces substantially less CO2 per capita than the USA. Meaningless when both produce far too much, as do all industrialized nations afaik.

peddlelies

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why has he said that he is against the Paris Agreement on climate change? Why has he said that he is against federal regulation of greenhouse gases? Why has he he said that regulating climate change is not government responsibility?

I might be totally wrong here but the little I looked at it from the time I got this impression. The US emits very little co2 in comparison to countries like China and under the terms of the agreement it left China off the hook pollution wise until at least 2030, while the US would have been hamstrung. Also worth noting is that the US have been gradually decreasing their emissions substantially over the last decade.

This is taken from forbes



https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#459e1a9a628c

"China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined"

peddlelies

marno21 wrote: »

This is the wrong argument. Per capita emissions is important here.

In 2014 US emissions per capita were double that of China and EU emissions per capita. I'd imagine China has grown since then, but net emissions per country is not the way to look at it.

Fair point. I didn't look at the deal in any sort of detail, I do know that China weren't obliged to do anything until 2030 whereas there would have been immediate restrictions on the US, at least that was the talking point at the time.

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

Fair point. I didn't look at the deal in any sort of detail, I do know that China weren't obliged to do anything until 2030 whereas there would have been immediate restrictions on the US, at least that was the talking point at the time.

something of the free something?

or do you only lead in directions that are most beneficial to you?

Stop moaning ffs

Orwell for dummies
‘I didn’t say what you saw me say in those tweets I wrote and then you heard me say on the roselawn broadcast on tv. Look over there at them awful Dems!’

How anyone with half a brain is fallin for this will never cease to amaze me.


https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1151129281134768128?s=21

everlast75

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Orwell for dummies
‘I didn’t say what you saw me say in those tweets I wrote and then you heard me say on the roselawn broadcast on tv. Look over there at them awful Dems!’

How anyone with half a brain is fallin for this will never cease to amaze me.


https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1151129281134768128?s=21

I don't know how those tweets will play out with his base.

I mean, they voted for him because he was racist..

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

I don't know how those tweets will play out with his base.

I mean, they voted for him because he was racist..

They won't care. They know he is.

This is just "hiding his power level from the normies".

They really talk like that on Neo-nazi chatrooms.

The Nal

Actually we should be doing the complete opposite

https://twitter.com/alfranken/status/1150853071926374400

Stop moaning ffs

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jabinbotsford/status/1150855138086707200?s=19

Some have said on here that he has trouble reading, suggesting that perhaps we should feel some pity for him.

As far as I'm concerned, he can go and ....

"Low I.Q. Maxine Waters"?

The hypocrisy never stops.

Trump or one of his aides, spelled “Al Queda” as “Alcaida’’ just so he wouldn’t get stuck trying to read it.


Stable genius indeed

FartyBlartFast

Regarding approval ratings, I have seen it mentioned that Ocasio Cortez is as low as 22% in some polls. No doubting that that is a low number, but what some might miss is due to the US being so large and especially being so divided, 22% is actually higher than average, who h is a gobsmacking statistic.

Congress overall approval rating is currently on 19% and this is not an outlier. Over the past 8 years, based on monthly polls, it has exceeded 22% on just three out of around 100 occasions (March 2019 at 26%, March 2017 at 24%, Feb 2017 at 28‰ - all of these months were also immediately after elections).

Mitch McConnell for example is polling in the mid 20s - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/mitch_mcconnell_favorableunfavorable-6672.html

Chuck schumer in that same link is polling in mid/high 20s, and Pelosi on the mid 30s, though a year ago she also was in the 20s.

Congress as a whole has not hit 30% approval in a decade.

Just to put some of it in perspective.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

James Brown

He should be impeached on his unapologetic racism alone. He's stirring up hate for political gain.

FatherTed

This will happen during the 2020 campaign. I will remind you of it after it does.

1) Trump will suggest that the country would be better off if his Dem opponent were dead. He won't directly say, "Shoot him/her," but the meaning will be clear.

2) The Dems will be outraged.

3) Republicans will be outraged that the Dems are outraged, and will counterattack

4) The media coverage eventually will be about the Dem vs. Republican arguments, because hey, both sides are doing it.

5) Independents will agree with the media

You read it here first.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

Fair point. I didn't look at the deal in any sort of detail, I do know that China weren't obliged to do anything until 2030 whereas there would have been immediate restrictions on the US, at least that was the talking point at the time.

in 2017, Brown University assessed that the US Military alone has an adverse climate footprint which, if it was a country, would place it ahead of Portugal and Peru in terms of damage being done. That assessment on its own demonstrates that the US withdrawal from the Paris accord, without replacing it with something better, was an act of wilful environmental terrorism by a President whose sole objective was to tear up agreements made by his predecessor.

Stop moaning ffs

The campaign has ramped up.
The child rapists trump is friends with aren’t the dark underbelly. The American born women of colour standing up to his racism are.

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1151140719601639425?s=21

Water John

Will anyone say as was said to Joe McCarthy, 'For God's sake man, have you any shred of decency left?

is_that_so

Water John wrote: »

Will anyone say as was said to Joe McCarthy, 'For God's sake man, have you any shred of decency left?

That was in a world where a lot of people still had a shred of decency. A lot of people seem to agree with him.

is_that_so

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The campaign has ramped up.
The child rapists trump is friends with aren’t the dark underbelly. The American born women of colour standing up to his racism are.

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1151140719601639425?s=21

A perfect example of reusing an effective tactic. Keeps their profile very high, which is bad for all the other Presidential hopefuls.

marno21

It’s about time the Republican Party was officially renamed the Trump Party. The resistance is non existent now and there are far many more defending it

Kellyanne there questioning a reporters ethnicity after he asked about the President’s comments

https://twitter.com/resistbot/status/1151182197958860800

jochenstacker

That's what pure evil looks like. This woman is vermin.

Water John

Don't understand how George lives with that.
The use of race to divide people is indeed evil and very dangerous.
Wonder were KAC's Irish and Italian forebears refused housing by Trump's father?

Timberrrrrrrr

jochenstacker wrote: »

That's what pure evil looks like. This woman is vermin.

Her mask slipped even further there!

alchemist33

marno21 wrote: »

It’s about time the Republican Party was officially renamed the Trump Party. The resistance is non existent now and there are far many more defending it

Kellyanne there questioning a reporters ethnicity after he asked about the President’s comments

https://twitter.com/resistbot/status/1151182197958860800

Ooh, she's "sick and tired of this country." How un-American. That's the kind of thing Trump and his cronies should be all over. That quote should be used over and over again in the next 2 years.