Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
24567332

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    alastair wrote:
    I think the media failing to hold Trump accountable for his moveable feast of a platform isn't going to be any indicator as to the reaction of those who sincerely believe that rustbelt jobs will now return, or that muslims/Mexicans will actually be stopped from entering the country. I'd take them at their word that this is what they actually expect. If Trump doesn't produce the goods, no amount of spin is going to help him with those people. The determined GOP voters will probably claim to be happy with whatever he does, but it's not them who got him elected in the first place.

    The media never stopped talking about his moving positions. IT. DIDN'T. WORK.

    Nor will it work when he changed his positions that in the future.

    Anyone who thinks a trump will be a 1 term President is deluding themselves. Take an objective look at the last 18 months. The normal expectation that a politician will explain their work and show the outcomes, went out the window. He's not going to start explaining himself now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Trump didn't produce any goods in the primaries or the election. He still won.

    I think you'll be shocked by how popular he will be as president.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    The media never stopped talking about his moving positions. IT. DIDN'T. WORK.
    Sure. But that's in a context of pure rhetoric, not judging outcomes.
    Nor will it work when he changed his positions that in the future.
    Again - he's not being judged on outcomes.
    Anyone who thinks a trump will be a 1 term President is deluding themselves. Take an objective look at the last 18 months. The normal expectation that a politician will explain their work and show the outcomes, went out the window. He's not going to start explaining himself now.
    No, it didn't. The people who voted for specific policies, will expect those policies to be enacted. If they're not, then they're not going to be interested in excuses or evasions. Governance hasn't been changed just because a candidate changed the style of campaigning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Trump didn't produce any goods in the primaries or the election. He still won.
    No candidate ever does. There's always a winner.
    I think you'll be shocked by how popular he will be as president.
    I doubt it. He's not popular now, and he's only going to fare badly against the promises he made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    alastair wrote:
    Sure. But that's in a context of pure rhetoric, not judging outcomes.
    alastair wrote:
    Again - he's not being judged on outcomes.
    alastair wrote:
    No, it didn't. The people who voted for specific policies, will expect those policies to be enacted. If they're not, then they're not going to be interested in excuses or evasions. Governance hasn't been changed just because a candidate changed the style of campaigning.

    People voted for the personality. Lots of people were willing to wright off the Muslim ban as rhetoric. His medium is rhetoric and emotion. Heart trumps head, pun intended.
    alastair wrote:
    No candidate ever does. There's always a winner.

    Never like this. He made so few actual promises during the election campaign. Are you expecting him to build a brick and mortar wall a mile high? That's what he said. Obviously that was rhetoric. He'll boost funding and it will be a metaphorical wall.
    alastair wrote:
    I doubt it. He's not popular now, and he's only going to fare badly against the promises he made.

    He didn't make one promise that I expect him to keep. The wall was rhetoric. The illegal immigration deportation squads were rhetoric.

    We need to stop expecting him to conform to normal rules because he didn't play by the rules and he won


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    People voted for the personality. Lots of people were willing to wright off the Muslim ban as rhetoric. His medium is rhetoric and emotion. Heart trumps head, pun intended.
    The electorate expect policy from a president, not personality.
    Never like this. He made so few actual promises during the election campaign. Are you expecting him to build a brick and mortar wall a mile high? That's what he said. Obviously that was rhetoric. He'll boost funding and it will be a metaphorical wall.
    35-45 feet high was what he claimed. And yes - people took the promise at face value. 'Metaphorical' walls aren't going to cut it - there's already one of those in place.
    He didn't make one promise that I expect him to keep. The wall was rhetoric. The illegal immigration deportation squads were rhetoric.
    What you believe isn't really the point. He convinced many that these were serious positions.
    We need to stop expecting him to conform to normal rules because he didn't play by the rules and he won
    Whether he conforms to rules or not, he'll still be judged on the outcomes. If the outcomes don't match the commitments, then there will be a backlash.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    The illegal immigration deportation squads were rhetoric.

    In his first 100 days he says he'll deport 3 million illegals.

    They dont just pack up and leave on their own.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    alastair wrote:
    35-45 feet high was what he claimed. And yes - people took the promise at face value. 'Metaphorical' walls aren't going to cut it - there's already one of those in place.


    There is already a wall. Pre-Trump

    I love how everyone ignores that


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    This idea what Trump is stupid, has to go away. Look up some of the strokes he pulled throughout his career. His career has always been about politics, it just hasn't been in public service

    Clinton wasn't stupid. Nixon wasn't stupid. Trump is inexperienced in Washington and likes to sail close to the wind. And his career, particularly the latter half, has mostly been about salesmanship.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Mr.H wrote: »
    There is already a wall. Pre-Trump

    I love how everyone ignores that

    Correct, and it works. And there is legislation already on the books to build the wall. Secure Fence Act of 2006. How ‘bout that... Trump merely wants to follow the law. Shock, Horror!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

    Methinks the reports of Trump’s demise are greatly exaggerated.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Amerika wrote: »
    Correct, and it works. And there is legislation already on the books to build the wall. Secure Fence Act of 2006. How ‘bout that... Trump merely wants to follow the law. Shock, Horror!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

    Methinks the reports of Trump’s demise are greatly exaggerated.

    The Secure Fence Act of 2006 is nothing to do with Trump's wall. Firstly the clue is in the name - it's a fence. And the extent of this fence?:
    (A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out
    subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
    provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the
    installation of additional physical barriers, roads,
    lighting, cameras, and sensors--
    ``(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;
    ``(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;
    ``(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;
    ``(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and
    ``(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

    So - 350 miles of fence, which is afaik, already in place. Compared to Trump's 1000 mile long wall. So, no. It's nothing to do with following the existing law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭TepinTheGreat


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    This idea what Trump is stupid, has to go away. Look up some of the strokes he pulled throughout his career. His career has always been about politics, it just hasn't been in public service

    Clinton wasn't stupid. Nixon wasn't stupid. Trump is inexperienced in Washington and likes to sail close to the wind. And his career, particularly the latter half, has mostly been about salesmanship.
    All presidents need to be good at salesmanship. It is the nature of US politics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    alastair wrote:
    The electorate expect policy from a president, not personality.

    They just did that exact thing.
    alastair wrote:
    35-45 feet high was what he claimed. And yes - people took the promise at face value. 'Metaphorical' walls aren't going to cut it - there's already one of those in place.

    And he said it would be 1,000feet tall. And he said it would cover the whole border. Neither if those things are realistic. You have an idea of what he meant but you don't have a chance if holding him to your idea. He makes so many pronouncements, sobe if which are contradictory. That's the perfect ground to do whatever he wants and declare victory.
    alastair wrote:
    What you believe isn't really the point. He convinced many that these were serious positions.

    He won't do any of those things abf hus supporters won't hold him to anything.
    alastair wrote:
    Whether he conforms to rules or not, he'll still be judged on the outcomes. If the outcomes don't match the commitments, then there will be a backlash.
    He didn't make any commitments. Ge doesn't hace a manifesto that you can hold him to. Only hours of talking off the top of his head in campaign speeches.
    InTheTrees wrote:
    In his first 100 days he says he'll deport 3 million illegals. They dont just pack up and leave on their own.

    Campaign talk. They already deport people every day. He only needs to deport a few extra people and report the progress. Simple as that.

    The spin will take care of the rest

    The thing you're forgetting is that he controlled that narrative for the entire primary and election. Even when his numbers went down it was his own narrative (gold star family). He'll conrtol the narrative for his entire presidency and he won't spend much time hand wringing and comparing his election rhetoric with the outcomes.

    He'll drop a dead cat on the table and we'll all that about how the cat died, not his election rhetoric.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Earthhorse wrote:
    Clinton wasn't stupid. Nixon wasn't stupid. Trump is inexperienced in Washington and likes to sail close to the wind. And his career, particularly the latter half, has mostly been about salesmanship.

    His career has always been about making other people to what he wants, to acheive the goal he wants. What better training could he possibly have for politics?

    He's the biggest bully in the room. I think you'll be very disappointed when he gets things done and the people love him for it


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    They just did that exact thing.



    And he said it would be 1,000feet tall. And he said it would cover the whole border. Neither if those things are realistic. You have an idea of what he meant but you don't have a chance if holding him to your idea. He makes so many pronouncements, sobe if which are contradictory. That's the perfect ground to do whatever he wants and declare victory.



    He won't do any of those things abf hus supporters won't hold him to anything.


    He didn't make any commitments. Ge doesn't hace a manifesto that you can hold him to. Only hours of talking off the top of his head in campaign speeches.


    Campaign talk. They already deport people every day. He only needs to deport a few extra people and report the progress. Simple as that.

    The spin will take care of the rest

    The thing you're forgetting is that he controlled that narrative for the entire primary and election. Even when his numbers went down it was his own narrative (gold star family). He'll conrtol the narrative for his entire presidency and he won't spend much time hand wringing and comparing his election rhetoric with the outcomes.

    He'll drop a dead cat on the table and we'll all that about how the cat died, not his election rhetoric.

    I'm really not forgetting anything. Once again - he'll be held to his platform promises by those who voted on the basis of those promises. No getting past that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    His career has always been about making other people to what he wants, to acheive the goal he wants. What better training could he possibly have for politics?

    He's the biggest bully in the room. I think you'll be very disappointed when he gets things done and the people love him for it

    I'm seeing more disappointment in your future than others, if you think that's how politics works.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,842 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So disenfranchised are some of those who voted for him, if he achieves 30% of what they wanted they will give him a pass.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    His career has always been about making other people to what he wants, to acheive the goal he wants. What better training could he possibly have for politics?

    A track record in politics? Nah, that's crazy talk!
    He's the biggest bully in the room. I think you'll be very disappointed when he gets things done and the people love him for it

    If he achieves some of his stated goals there's no doubt I will. But my expectations aren't too high.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    alastair wrote:
    I'm really not forgetting anything. Once again - he'll be held to his platform promises by those who voted on the basis of those promises. No getting past that.

    What promises? To repeal Obama care? He since said he's going to keep Obama care and fiddle with it a bit.
    alastair wrote:
    I'm seeing more disappointment in your future than others, if you think that's how politics works.
    He doesn't play by the normal rules. His whole career is built on telling people what they want to hear specifically so they don't hold him to his word on anything.

    All he has to do is crate new shiny issues for people to get upset over. Wall, what wall?
    So disenfranchised are some of those who voted for him, if he achieves 30% of what they wanted they will give him a pass.
    They'll never even bother with the things he talked about in the election.
    He'll just invent new issues to focus on and argue about (foreign policy enemies and terrorists are 2 classics and they don't really have metrics to gauge success) and focus on successes in the meantime.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Earthhorse wrote:
    A track record in politics? Nah, that's crazy talk!

    He was up against someone with a track record in politics. The people wanted Trump. He doesn't have public service experience but I'd argue that his entire career has been politics.
    Earthhorse wrote:
    If he achieves some of his stated goals there's no doubt I will. But my expectations aren't too high.

    Are we talking about whether he'll do what he said in the campaign and build a 1,000 foot wall, ban all Muslims until 'we figure it out' or whether he'll be popular and get reelected? He won't bother with the former and he'll smash the latter.

    How higher your expectations in the primaries? How high were your expectations in the general election? And how high are your expectations now?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    You answer your own point. He'll put on a show, deport a few people, build a few miles of wall, pump sone money into border security and declare job done. And his supporters will also declare 'job done'.

    They'll be distracted by whatever crisis and wedge issues of the day.

    The last 18 months of trying to hold him to his statements was a complete joke. He won't be any more accountable to his campaign rhetoric as president.

    The same people who hate Obama care will love 'Trump Care' once he fiddles without a bit.

    I don't think you can just disappear the wall stuff. As long as there are too many immigrants and too much crime, it will always be an issue.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Was Assad attacking yazidis,christians,sunni,sufi,shia and bahi people ?

    Was he not provoked by rebels.

    You're only getting one side Of The story.

    He was an undemocratic dictator who used lethal force against initially peaceful protesters.

    I find it rather disturbing how many people here are willing to defend dictatorships just because the only current alternative is worse. It's ok to regard them both as utter scum. Anybody who clings to power and forcefully suppresses public dissent should be condemned, regardless of the wider circumstances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,236 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    K-9 wrote:
    I don't think you can just disappear the wall stuff. As long as there are too many immigrants and too much crime, it will always be an issue.

    If sexual assault and racism aren't an issue, what on earth makes you think piddling campaign rhetoric will be a problem for him?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Stealthfins


    alastair wrote:
    Assad was oppressing all Syrians. He wasn't 'provoked by rebels' - he was 'provoked' by widespread dissent by Syrians in the face of a tanking society, and a police state that was dissapearing, torturing, and killing entirely legitimate protesters. Just because ISIS are responsible for well known atrocities doesn't make Assad any sort of good option.

    OK how did Assad start oppressing all Syrian's.

    Did he make a public statement,saying you're all going to be opressed ?

    Show me the proof how he opressed Christian's and yazidis,and no spin please.
    If you can prove it I'll change my mind.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    He was up against someone with a track record in politics. The people wanted Trump.

    I'm not disputing that he won the election!
    He doesn't have public service experience but I'd argue that his entire career has been politics.

    I know you would but his career has been in real estate, reality TV and licensing.
    Are we talking about whether he'll do what he said in the campaign and build a 1,000 foot wall, ban all Muslims until 'we figure it out' or whether he'll be popular and get reelected? He won't bother with the former and he'll smash the latter.

    I'm talking about wherever he'll do anything on climate change, pursue more isolationist policies etc. I wouldn't be so confident that he'll maintain his popularity; there are far too many variables. We'll see.
    How higher your expectations in the primaries? How high were your expectations in the general election? And how high are your expectations now?

    If you're talking about my expectations of Trump's popularity; when he was half way through the primaries I knew he was going to be their nominee and I was never confident of Clinton winning. But governing is different to campaigning and Trump himself is unpredictable. We likely won't see any meaningful change in his poularity for the first two years no matter what he does.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    So disenfranchised are some of those who voted for him, if he achieves 30% of what they wanted they will give him a pass.

    Congress had a very low approval rating before this election. They were getting nothing done. Glenn Beck led a Tea Party march on Washington. This time it could be different I don't see the Democrats winning the mid term elections next time and even if they should today's Republicans might act sooner than the Democrats did when they got into office with President Obama. A lot of those Democrats got in on the coattails of Obama and unlike the Trump Republicans they had nothing in common with him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    He was an undemocratic dictator who used lethal force against initially peaceful protesters.

    I find it rather disturbing how many people here are willing to defend dictatorships just because the only current alternative is worse. It's ok to regard them both as utter scum. Anybody who clings to power and forcefully suppresses public dissent should be condemned, regardless of the wider circumstances.

    But that's not true. You taking the narrative of the spin doctors. President Assad was a secular leader and his actions did not merit an attack on the country. President Obama himself was against attacking Syria despite his red line speech. What Assad did do was perfectly reasonable he defended his country from foreign terrorists most of whom came in through Iraq and Turkey. These are the facts. Their were not peaceful protestors in Syria. Their were Islamists looking for a fight on the street.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,981 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    OK how did Assad start oppressing all Syrian's.

    Fixed/rigged elections only. Extension of emergency powers (since '63). Non-aligned political opposition outlawed and oppressed. Harsh limitations on press freedom, freedom of speech, association, assembly. Severe human rights abuses record, including arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances

    During and after the civil uprising in 2011, anyone protesting the regime, regardless or race/religion was considered an enemy or "terrorist". The subsequent violence is well documented.. in fact everything is well documented


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Fixed/rigged elections only. Extension of emergency powers (since '63). Non-aligned political opposition outlawed and oppressed. Harsh limitations on press freedom, freedom of speech, association, assembly. Severe human rights abuses record, including arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances

    During and after the civil uprising in 2011, anyone protesting the regime, regardless or race/religion was considered an enemy or "terrorist". The subsequent violence is well documented.. in fact everything is well documented

    Your forgetting your applying different standards to Syria that you apply to every other country when they are at war. Syria was being attacked by the US. It is well documented that the US supplied arms to the Free Syrian Army so Syria was in a state of war against US forces. Emergency legislation is the result of being in a war.

    People get arrested during wartimes. Martial law is imposed and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood like it or not was pronouncing a Jihad in Syria. So Assad was fighting a war against Islamic terrorists within the country and the actions of the US gvt. I pose this question to anyone on this topic. Was not the US in a state of war against the Syrian Arab Republic at this time? The US had just invaded Iraq and moves were coming from Israel to attack Syria.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Your forgetting your applying different standards to Syria that you apply to every other country when they are at war. Syria was being attacked by the US. It is well documented that the US supplied arms to the Free Syrian Army so Syria was in a state of war against US forces. Emergency legislation is the result of being in a war.

    People get arrested during wartimes. Martial law is imposed and the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood like it or not was pronouncing a Jihad in Syria. So Assad was fighting a war against Islamic terrorists within the country and the actions of the US gvt. I pose this question to anyone on this topic. Was not the US in a state of war against the Syrian Arab Republic at this time? The US had just invaded Iraq and moves were coming from Israel to attack Syria.

    There was a civil war in Syria before anyone else got involved. Assad lost any legitimacy to govern once he started murdering people on the street. The FSA are at war with the dictatorship of Assad. That doesn't mean Syria (which had no agreed governance at present) is at war with anyone. There's an ongoing civil war, with different supporters behind different group. And the U.S. had not just invaded Iraq. They had been there for years beforehand, and were winding down their presence.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement