Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Water John

That would be the curtain falling on the future for politicians in most democracies, quite sad.

Timberrrrrrrr

Trump claiming US has shot down an Iranian drone.



https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/ZEjFz

Donald Trump says US has shot down Iranian drone in the Strait of Hormuz

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Cody montana wrote: »

Why didn’t you say what it was in 2016?

18259 when trump was elected president
within 3 years trump has overseen a near 150% growth.

i have attached a link that should finish debate
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/us-markets.html

DreamsBurnDown

Danzy wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/trump-2020.amp.html

A good read on what the Dems need to consider by Thomas Friedman.

He might as well be howling at the moon.

He pretty much nails it from a moderate Democratic viewpoint.

The hope is that as the process continues the leading candidates flesh out a sensible achievable agenda, one that appeals to moderates and progressive, Democrats and Independents, and can articulate it confidently.

I believe both Harris and Warren can do that, and can battle for the nomination without too much rancor.

The two most important policy messages that Americans need to hear are:

1. We want to improve capitalism and fix where it is broken, not destroy it.

2. We want to make sure everyone has access to affordable heath care, the easiest way is expand Medicaid to include a higher income threshold.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And you tell me why that is the only metric that seems to prove that "TRump is winning the economy"?

Stock markets rise over time. Always. This is why pensions are in them.

Trump supporters going on about the stock market and their record highs are as bad as brexiters going on about trade deals and trade policy. And with as much coherence

you are confusing 2 completely different issues.

1. trump has improved the US and the world economy. FACT. this is backed up by every metric available including stock markets rises.
2. there is no co relation with the above and brexiters and brexit.
The EU will not let the UK have good trade deals, if it does the EU experiment is dead.

Danzy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

He pretty much nails it from a moderate Democratic viewpoint.

The hope is that as the process continues the leading candidates flesh out a sensible achievable agenda, one that appeals to moderates and progressive, Democrats and Independents, and can articulate it confidently.

I believe both Harris and Warren can do that, and can battle for the nomination without too much rancor.

The two most important policy messages that Americans need to hear are:

1. We want to improve capitalism and fix where it is broken, not destroy it.

2. We want to make sure everyone has access to affordable heath care, the easiest way is expand Medicaid to include a higher income threshold.

They can, 1 and 2 are the bedrock of a win for them.

I can't see the progressive wing going along with that though.

Their position on migration works only by having a more aggressively free capitalism and giving healthcare to illegals is only going to kill it, that is just for starters.

For the Justice Democrats and others there is a safety and a purpose, a cause in always striving from the opposition bench.

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

So court docs released today show that Trump, Cohen and Hicks among others discussed the hush payments to Daniel's on the weeks leading to the election.

So how many outright lies about the affair did Trump actually make? He then let Cohen take the fall.

Doesn't matter at this point, EVERYBODY knows what he is at this stage, those who don't care will never care, doesn't matter to them. Those who do care have been against the man for a very long time and his latest faux pas will have turned the Independents, the group he actually needs even more against him, beating him at the ballot box is all that really matters at this stage.

Midlife

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

18259 when trump was elected president
within 3 years trump has overseen a near 150% growth.

i have attached a link that should finish debate
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/us-markets.html

That's 50% though. Trump has grown the Dow by 50%. Who taught you maths?

Also, 50% growth in three years. Good and everything, I'm not knocking Trump on that but the previous president grew it by 100% in 8 so not that much of a difference.

Then you have to consider, is the Dow the economy or is it just a bunch of corporations Trump gave a tax break to?

How will this impact the struggling people in middle america who voted for Trump? Are they seeing this growth materialise in some meaningful way because the 100% growth in the Dow under Obama clearly didn't do much for him in their eyes.

Water John

Looks like Cohen as he finalised the payment to Stormy Daniels, couldn't get hold of Trump and ended up speaking to KAC for 6 minutes. She must have known the deal. No wonder she was ratty, if she knew this was coming out.
It seems there is a, slam dunk prosecution facing Trump once he steps out of office.

rossie1977

Dow was 19,827 the day Obama left office. Giving Trump credit for the economy months before he became president is really a stretch.

Midlife

Just to add.

Trump campaigned against Wall Street.

He said he'd break up the banks and force the finance people to pay higher taxes.

Here's his final campaign ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8

Put an end to the business elites that have bled our country dry???

Skip 3 years.....

Rollback on business regulations
Tax cut for wall street
Cabinet stacked with finance business types
And a surging Dow is a sign of success.

Danzy

Jake Tapper of CNN, by no means an admirer of Donald, saying how several prominent house Democrats are saying that Trump "won this one" abour the week's political drama. Fruatrated that he played them, yet condemning him.

TomOnBoard

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

18259 when trump was elected president
within 3 years trump has overseen a near 150% growth.

i have attached a link that should finish debate
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/us-markets.html

That'll be a near-50%, not 150% growth...

aloyisious

Danzy wrote: »

Jake Tapper of CNN, by no means an admirer of Donald, saying how several prominent house Democrats are saying that Trump "won this one" abour the week's political drama. Fruatrated that he played them, yet condemning him.

I gather that Jake was referring to the way Don played AOC off against Pelosi in the internal politics of the Dem party from two + days ago. I looked at the latest piece of Don's political drama, that from last night, and thought "business as usual". I don't see his trying to lie his way out of his inaction against the chanting with his "I started my speech again" statement succeeding when the visual and audio evidence of his inaction is there for all to see. Not even a verbal attempt at the time to control his fans, just a deafening silence. The week has several days to go yet for more actual political drama from Don yet, give him time and space.

InTheShadows

Danzy wrote: »

Hiring is rebounding at the moment, consumer confidence, strong wage and job growth, especially for African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Longest period of growth on record.

Trump will be re-elected at a canter. People don't care if he's racist, sexist, or intolerant including people of colour. All they care about is if they have money in their pocket to pay the mortgage, or car payment etc...

hill16bhoy

There are a couple of big problems with the "moderate Democrat" theory.

i) In 2016, "economic anxiety" was said by many commentators to be the reason that people voted for Trump in the mid-west. That after eight years of Obama, the working class in these states felt let down because nothing had really changed, that Clinton was going to be more of the same, and so they voted for Trump.

If Biden is the candidate, why, under the "economic anxiety" thesis, would people want to go back to the very same thing they rejected in 2016, except with less charisma?

If the economic anxiety thesis is in any way true, why would those people now desert Trump?

ii) Another other big reason, and in my view a much more accurate one, was race as an issue. If that is true, why would those who voted according to this issue now desert Trump, given that he has played the race card in such a massive way? Are Democrats expecting Trump voters who voted based on race to have qualms of conscience now? If so, I think that's an incredibly misguided belief.

iii) But the real reason in bare electoral terms that Trump won Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin was that turnout was down - Pennsylvania was slightly up on 2012.

Barack Obama was seen in 2008 as a radical, and he was certainly painted as one by the right-wing media in a pejorative sense.

Conventional wisdom said he couldn't win, yet he won in what by modern standards was a landslide, pulling in over 69 and a half million votes, in a smaller electorate than now. Why, because, like in the 2018 mid terms, the Democratic base was highly energised.

That declined to just shy of 66 million in 2012, and Hillary Clinton was another 60k short of that again in 2016.

Republican totals in recent elections were 59.9 million for McCain, 60.9 million for Romney, and 62.9 million for Trump.

Now, Biden could probably get in or around the same total as Hillary Clinton in 2016 - just shy of 66 million, or maybe even a little bit more, maybe 67 million.

But that likely won't be enough, because Trump will probably push up towards the 64 or 65 million total himself and win the electoral college.

So Democrats need a candidate who can expand turnout again and get up to at least the 69 million Obama got in 2008, and preferably to break the 70 million barrier. Even with the electoral college the way it is, breaking 70 million votes would be pretty much certain to be enough, whatever the distribution between states.

I don't believe Biden can get close to 70 million and I'm not convinced his offering of a return to the very thing people voted against in 2016 can sweep the mid-west.

I think Warren could get to 70 million, I think Sanders could, I think Harris might even have a sniff of doing so, potentially even Pete Buttigieg. I think those candidates could do well in Florida, North Carolina and Arizona too.

But I just don't see Biden energising people at all in the way that's necessary to get that sort of a vote haul.

I don't believe he will be the candidate and nor should he be.

Water John

hill16bhoy, that is an excellent anlysis. The few Democratic supporters/groundworkers I know would not be energised by the two grey haired white men. Sorry, their time is passed.
Even though she is MOD, Klobuchar is still a long shot who might get through.

TomOnBoard

Leroy42 wrote: »

So court docs released today show that Trump, Cohen and Hicks among others discussed the hush payments to Daniel's on the weeks leading to the election.

So how many outright lies about the affair did Trump actually make? He then let Cohen take the fall.

And Hicks told Congress she was never present when Trump and Cohen discussed Daniels payments.

Lying to Congress charges in anyone''s imminent future?

BonnieSituation

Danzy wrote: »

Look by any metric the US economy is doing great.

Is it perfect, no.

How's the society doing?

SeamusFX

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There are a couple of big problems with the "moderate Democrat" theory.

i) In 2016, "economic anxiety" was said by many commentators to be the reason that people voted for Trump in the mid-west. That after eight years of Obama, the working class in these states felt let down because nothing had really changed, that Clinton was going to be more of the same, and so they voted for Trump.

If Biden is the candidate, why, under the "economic anxiety" thesis, would people want to go back to the very same thing they rejected in 2016, except with less charisma?

If the economic anxiety thesis is in any way true, why would those people now desert Trump?

ii) Another other big reason, and in my view a much more accurate one, was race as an issue. If that is true, why would those who voted according to this issue now desert Trump, given that he has played the race card in such a massive way? Are Democrats expecting Trump voters who voted based on race to have qualms of conscience now? If so, I think that's an incredibly misguided belief.

iii) But the real reason in bare electoral terms that Trump won Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin was that turnout was down - Pennsylvania was slightly up on 2012.

Barack Obama was seen in 2008 as a radical, and he was certainly painted as one by the right-wing media in a pejorative sense.

Conventional wisdom said he couldn't win, yet he won in what by modern standards was a landslide, pulling in over 69 and a half million votes, in a smaller electorate than now. Why, because, like in the 2018 mid terms, the Democratic base was highly energised.

That declined to just shy of 66 million in 2012, and Hillary Clinton was another 60k short of that again in 2016.

Republican totals in recent elections were 59.9 million for McCain, 60.9 million for Romney, and 62.9 million for Trump.

Now, Biden could probably get in or around the same total as Hillary Clinton in 2016 - just shy of 66 million, or maybe even a little bit more, maybe 67 million.

But that likely won't be enough, because Trump will probably push up towards the 64 or 65 million total himself and win the electoral college.

So Democrats need a candidate who can expand turnout again and get up to at least the 69 million Obama got in 2008, and preferably to break the 70 million barrier. Even with the electoral college the way it is, breaking 70 million votes would be pretty much certain to be enough, whatever the distribution between states.

I don't believe Biden can get close to 70 million and I'm not convinced his offering of a return to the very thing people voted against in 2016 can sweep the mid-west.

I think Warren could get to 70 million, I think Sanders could, I think Harris might even have a sniff of doing so, potentially even Pete Buttigieg. I think those candidates could do well in Florida, North Carolina and Arizona too.

But I just don't see Biden energising people at all in the way that's necessary to get that sort of a vote haul.

I don't believe he will be the candidate and nor should he be.

The question is, has Trump made things better for the Rustbelt voters? Have good paying jobs returned, have the coal jobs returned? Absolutely not, Trump has screwed the working class and gave even more to the rich and corporations, who haven’t reinvested the money. The people who voted for Trump and were struggling before the election are still struggling and some are struggling a lot more. Sadly many of these people are so glued to Trump and Conservative News, they can’t see reality. Fortunately Trump won the EC by such a small margin, it won’t take many of his 2016 base to switch teams or just not vote to swing the balance. Plus the many non-Conservatives that sat out 2016, but will vote ABT in 2029. That being said, it’s sad and mind boggling how many people that have been hurt by Trump, sadly still believe his lies.

BonnieSituation

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

you are confusing 2 completely different issues.

1. trump has improved the US and the world economy. FACT. this is backed up by every metric available including stock markets rises.
2. there is no co relation with the above and brexiters and brexit.
The EU will not let the UK have good trade deals, if it does the EU experiment is dead.

I didn't confuse any issues. That much would be obvious to anyone really except those who figured would be the focus of my criticism. Essentially Trump Supporters (and Brexiters I guess!).

I was comparing two similar groups of blind loyalists, who know little of what they spout but spout it nonetheless. Essentially Trump Supporters and Brexiters.

SeamusFX

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

you are confusing 2 completely different issues.

1. trump has improved the US and the world economy. FACT. this is backed up by every metric available including stock markets rises.
2. there is no co relation with the above and brexiters and brexit.
The EU will not let the UK have good trade deals, if it does the EU experiment is dead.

1. Trump has done nothing to improve the economy, all you need is 5th grade Maths and the ability to read a graph. The current economy is just a continuation of the growth started under Obama after the other idiot Republican Dubya crashed it. Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton and it took Bush 7-1/2 years to crash it, how long will it take Trump? Trump has done a lot to hurt the economy, but crashing a robust economy doesn’t happen over night.
2. It’s funny that most Trump supporters are also pro-Brexit. Why would the EU give the UK good trade deals if there’s nothing in it for the EU? These are the same people who cheer Trump, when he says he’s going to negotiate the best trade deals for the US. Meanwhile, most of Trump’s trade deals have screwed many Americans and have hurt the economy.

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

Midlife wrote: »

That's 50% though. Trump has grown the Dow by 50%. Who taught you maths?

Also, 50% growth in three years. Good and everything, I'm not knocking Trump on that but the previous president grew it by 100% in 8 so not that much of a difference.

Then you have to consider, is the Dow the economy or is it just a bunch of corporations Trump gave a tax break to?

How will this impact the struggling people in middle america who voted for Trump? Are they seeing this growth materialise in some meaningful way because the 100% growth in the Dow under Obama clearly didn't do much for him in their eyes.

150% of 20 is 30
It is obviously what I meant.
Trump grew the Dow 11000 in 3 years
Obama 10000 in 8
Trump is a Clear winner

If you are interested I can explain to you why the Dow of 27000 is truly an amazing success
For example Many corporations have increased their earnings by billions and this can be seen by the value of the Dow.
Many will assume this will be paid in dividends and some will but most will be reInvested and that means jobs which means wage growth which means trump wins.

The only chance the dems have in 2020 is a large recession.

rossie1977

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

150% of 20 is 30
It is obviously what I meant.
Trump grew the Dow 11000 in 3 years
Obama 10000 in 8
Trump is a Clear winner

Dow has grown by 7,000 under Trump not 11,000 this a lower % overall. If Dow was to grow at same level it did under Obama it would have to reach 50,000.

If you are interested I can explain to you why the Dow of 27000 is truly an amazing success
For example Many corporations have increased their earnings by billions and this can be seen by the value of the Dow.
Many will assume this will be paid in dividends and some will but most will be reInvested and that means jobs which means wage growth which means trump wins.

Most here know how Dow works. Dow went from 14,000 to 6,000 range from 2008-09. Then rose to almost 20,000 by January 17.

Corporations aren't spending profits on wages. They are spending it on things like share buybacks.

The only chance the dems have in 2020 is a large recession.

Dow isn't going to win election because if it did Hillary would have been elected in 16 and Gore in 2000 as Dow was at record levels then.

rossie1977

InTheShadows wrote: »

Trump will be re-elected at a canter. People don't care if he's racist, sexist, or intolerant including people of colour. All they care about is if they have money in their pocket to pay the mortgage, or car payment etc...

Nobody is being elected at a canter, it will be close race regardless. Trump is massively unpopular in Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin.. states that won him election in 16. Obviously he has failed to deliver promises there. If he doesn't win at least one of those states in 20 its pretty unlikely he wins election.

Re money in pocket https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-emergency-expense-federal/story?id=63253846

Akrasia

rossie1977 wrote: »

Dow has grown by 7,000 under Trump not 11,000 this a lower % overall. If Dow was to grow at same level it did under Obama it would have to reach 50,000.



Most here know how Dow works. Dow went from 14,000 to 6,000 range from 2008-09. Then rose to almost 20,000 by January 17.

Corporations aren't spending profits on wages. They are spending it on things like share buybacks.



Dow isn't going to win election because if it did Hillary would have been elected in 16 and Gore in 2000 as Dow was at record levels then.

It’s incredibly ironic that if someone like Bernie Sanders got elected he would change the rules on Share buybacks to force companies to treat their workers better, and this would inevitably cause share prices to fall which the corporate media would hammer Sanders over even though both the economy and the workers would be much better off under this kind of regime

The republicans have mastered the art of boom bust cyclical economics. They create bubbles with tax cuts and low regulations and then when the democrats try to address the crisis they claim that the democrats always raise tax and that the economy is always better under republicans

People fall for it every time. Not all people but there are enough uninformed voters out there to win them elections (thanks to a propaganda media that deliberately keep them uninformed and misinformed)

StringerBell

Yep, and the cycle will continue. Can't wait to hear about fiscal conservatism and the importance of moral fibre in the near future, be good for a laugh if nothing else I guess.

kilns

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

150% of 20 is 30
It is obviously what I meant.
Trump grew the Dow 11000 in 3 years
Obama 10000 in 8
Trump is a Clear winner

If you are interested I can explain to you why the Dow of 27000 is truly an amazing success
For example Many corporations have increased their earnings by billions and this can be seen by the value of the Dow.
Many will assume this will be paid in dividends and some will but most will be reInvested and that means jobs which means wage growth which means trump wins.

The only chance the dems have in 2020 is a large recession.

Just for your information below is a graph of the Dow and its growth in percentage terms per president. Speaks for its self and debunks your argument only time will tell how the graph will end up

All economies are cyclical and the US will suffer a recession sooner rather than later and my worry for them always is are they prepared and from the evidence i can see from Trumps recklessness is that they are not, especially if used the Fed politically to reduce interest rates, which is one of their major weapons to help an economy and should be indpendent from political interference

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

The following is fact
Trump since elected has grown the Dow by 10000 in 2.5 years
Obama grew it in fairness to him by 11000 in 8 years
The reason trump has the economy humming which is something Obama failed to do is trump has cut regulations especially regards the environment and the mining for resources and trump has gone after nafta and China which he was right to do For an American perspective.
NAFTA is a bad deal and the trade situation with China is ultimately unless re balanced as trump is trying to do with a trade war going to lead to a real war

kilns

Grant Shaggy Self-confidence wrote: »

The following is fact
Trump since elected has grown the Dow by 10000 in 2.5 years
Obama grew it in fairness to him by 11000 in 8 years
The reason trump has the economy humming which is something Obama failed to do is trump has cut regulations especially regards the environment and the mining for resources and trump has gone after nafta and China which he was right to do For an American perspective.
NAFTA is a bad deal and the trade situation with China is ultimately unless re balanced as trump is trying to do with a trade war going to lead to a real war

I dont know how you do your maths but on inauguration day when Trump became President the DOW closed 19,827.25 yesterday it closed 27,222.97 than its a rise of 7,395.72, still a good bit to go to get to 10,000...