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

Billy86

Ben Carson: Education and Housing Expert

(who doesn't think he's expert enough for the job)

recedite

Considering Hillary accused The Donald of being a racist because of his supposedly racist housing policies, I think Ben Carson is a really good choice.

InTheTrees

recedite wrote: »

Considering Hillary accused The Donald of being a racist because of his supposedly racist housing policies, I think Ben Carson is a really good choice.

You think Ben Carson is a "really good choice" purely because he's black?

InTheTrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that (or something like it) is probably what will be lined up to replace PPACA.

I'm sure all the people who are about to lose their insurance coverage will be delighted that it was an "expert" who came up with the plan.

Hysterical. The trump voters who are expecting their healthcare to be replaced by "something amazing" are going to be in for a shock.

El_Duderino 09

I see Ends Kenny is meeting today with Tim Cook, head of Apple. It's happening. The corporations are being called home and we're in the position of begging them not to go.

Trump's going to be remembered as a genius

Earthhorse

That makes zero sense. Apple need a base of operations in Europe. Particularly inside the EU. The Irish Apple operation doesn't take jobs from the US.

recedite

InTheTrees wrote: »

You think Ben Carson is a "really good choice" purely because he's black?

That is the realpolitik of the situation that Hillary and the democrats have engineered.
The same as its nowadays a good decision to send a black police officer in to deal with an armed black man waving a gun about. That is the situation that the Black Lives Matter movement has created.

El_Duderino 09

Earthhorse wrote:

That makes zero sense. Apple need a base of operations in Europe. Particularly inside the EU. The Irish Apple operation doesn't take jobs from the US.

There are jobs of different value in apple. They keep most R&D in America but some of the research is done in Europe to avail if tax breaks and, split the intellectual property to justify other tax arrangements. If trump gives those companies similar advantage, then why would get bother staying?

BoatMad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There are jobs of different value in apple. They keep most R&D in America but some of the research is done in Europe to avail if tax breaks and, split the intellectual property to justify other tax arrangements. If trump gives those companies similar advantage, then why would get bother staying?

because it would expose Apple to significant tax , if it repatriated all its intellectual property , It has just moved it into Ireland , precisely to offset tax charges

Most US companies are in Ireland, because they need to be inside the EU zone, that the reason, what Trump might do has little effect on Ireland, but will have major effects where there are low cost US manufacturing setups, that have no direct large market attached. ( i.e. Mexico)

I suspect the billion lying in the Caymans, will be brought back to the US, but that was on the cards anyway and those billions where never coming to Ireland anyway

BoatMad

First off 'The Donald' has inherited the same problems Obama had to deal with. It seems he is the 5th president in a row who has to deal with a major war and like many of his predecessors, this war will be fought in the same place: Iraq. Unlike earlier presidents but like Obama, Trump does not have a choice here: ISIS clearly need to be defeated and fast. Unlike Milosevic, Saddam or even the Taliban, they pose a clear and present danger to the entire world.

So, like Obama, Trump has to defeat ISIS. But unlike Obama, Trump wants close relations with Russia (which I agree with). Back in 2011 when the revival of ISIS (previously al Qaeda in Iraq) came about due to the Arab Spring, Obama backed up democracy in the Middle East. The Arab Spring became a nightmare and Libya and Syria have joined the ever growing list of world failed states. Obama and Russia both opposed ISIS but one chose other rebels and the other chose Assad. Now Trump has shown he wants partnership with Russia and has hinted he will work with Assad.

While I think America and Russia should improve relations, possibly not all of this will be good. America and Russia making friends also means of course that Iran becomes America's new friend. Trump may tear up Obama's deal to make a new deal and restore diplomatic relations. Again, this is a good thing in theory as long as America and Russia persuade Iran's government to abandon fascist laws on women and alcohol (laws that are contrary to Russian, American and Iranian business interests) and insist on the military and clergy to stay out of politics. A new federal republic of Iran with Hassan Rouhani and his elected successors as the true leaders would be good. Let Khamenei then stay on until his death but have him wind up that position akin to Franco's Spain. The other possibility though is America and Russia could tolerate a Revolutionary Guards client state where they become stronger and form business relations with Trump: that would make Iran (or a part of it) a second Saudi Arabia and we don't need that.

Also, there is the massive possibility that a Christian/Shia pact could form between Trump, Putin, Iran, Iraq and Syria along with support of Saudi Arabia as the main Sunni power and Israel as the main Jewish power. In the middle, other Sunnis could be persecuted or marginalised, leading to a new version of ISIS. And even if Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan normalise, chances are the next extremists could come from Sub Saharan Africa or from Siberian separatists. The current threat from the Middle East and militant 'Islam' will not always be the main threat and the world community will need to look out for other flashpoints where wars, famines, discrimination, etc. occur.

Of course, a lot of Trump's responsibilities will be healing his own divided country. Make America Great Again was his slogan. Everyone from moderate Republicans to Clinton haters to racist types voted for him and now Trump has to reign in the latter and represent ALL America and maintain good relations with his neighbours. Hostility with Mexico and Mexicans could stir up more trouble and drug cartels could justify support by waging war on America and a new wave of Narco-terrorism could explode onto the scene, this time from strictly non-Islamic sources. Trump has to think long and hard about what has to be done and should form a government of moderate competent people who can get what needs to be done properly.

This of course is a nice piece of " opinion " , very little of which actually stands to proper inquiry

It should be pointed out that again Hillary won the popular vote, so comments like " it what the people want" dont really stand up to inspection , correctly " its what the electoral system decided "

BoatMad

lets break down these claims and opinions

t seems he is the 5th president in a row who has to deal with a major war and like many of his predecessors, this war will be fought in the same place: Iraq. Unlike earlier presidents but like Obama, Trump does not have a choice here: ISIS clearly need to be defeated and fast. Unlike Milosevic, Saddam or even the Taliban, they pose a clear and present danger to the entire world.

ISIS is clearly defeated , its on its last gasp, no organisation can hold terrority today , without airpower dominance, the " Caliphate" was always doomed. ( and any reading of learned texts would show you that ) . The delay is that the Iraqi army and the Kurds were not really to take on a big ISIS battle and time was needed to sort all that out.

However of course IRAQ, a mess that the US largely created, will throw up ISIS mark 2,3,4,5,6,...etc

So, like Obama, Trump has to defeat ISIS. But unlike Obama, Trump wants close relations with Russia (which I agree with). Back in 2011 when the revival of ISIS (previously al Qaeda in Iraq) came about due to the Arab Spring, Obama backed up democracy in the Middle East. The Arab Spring became a nightmare and Libya and Syria have joined the ever growing list of world failed states. Obama and Russia both opposed ISIS but one chose other rebels and the other chose Assad. Now Trump has shown he wants partnership with Russia and has hinted he will work with Assad.

The US under GWB, ( and followed on by Clinton , who is much closer to the republicans on this issue ) largely supported and encouraged the " Arab Spring" because they saw ( or rather they taught they saw ) , in an era of weak Russia influence, that previous Soviet client states like Libya, Syria, etc , could be destabilised and Russia would not intervene, The resulting mess that was then caused and the rise of " democratic " muslim parties which was not foreseen by the US, then caused a reappraisal of the policy. The resurgence of Russia, then caused the plan to backfire in Syria as Russian Aid, was instrumental, in keeping Assad in the game, despite massive US support to the opposing rebels

They are " failed states " because of US interference , thats why

I predict Trump and Putins relationship will be the shortest lived honeymoon in history , Putins has stated he wishes to re-asset Russian influence , that directly affects US influence, therefore the traditional animosity will remain and most likely actually get worse

Iran becomes America's new friend

Not in a month of Sundays . they will merely tolerate each other in public as long as Saudi Arabia remains on the right side of US influence

gain, this is a good thing in theory as long as America and Russia persuade Iran's government to abandon fascist laws on women and alcohol (laws that are contrary to Russian, American and Iranian business interests) and insist on the military and clergy to stay out of politics

cloud cuckoo land viewpoint

Also, there is the massive possibility that a Christian/Shia pact could form between Trump, Putin, Iran, Iraq and Syria along with support of Saudi Arabia as the main Sunni power and Israel as the main Jewish power

This displays an incredible lack of understanding, as to what is behind many of the conflicts in the Middle east . ( Iraq for sample is majority Sunni ) You'll see an united Ireland first

Earthhorse

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There are jobs of different value in apple. They keep most R&D in America but some of the research is done in Europe to avail if tax breaks and, split the intellectual property to justify other tax arrangements. If trump gives those companies similar advantage, then why would get bother staying?

A few high value jobs returned stateside won't have anyone, least of all his base, proclaiming him a hero. Also, if Trump's plan is to simply give everyone tax breaks he's going to run into trouble pretty quick smart.

Zubeneschamali

Earthhorse wrote: »

if Trump's plan is to simply give everyone tax breaks he's going to run into trouble pretty quick smart.

Not everyone: big corporations and millionaires/billionaires.

Standard Republican tax policy.

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not everyone: big corporations and millionaires/billionaires.

Standard Republican tax policy.

followed by a massive increase in the deficit

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

followed by a massive increase in the deficit

Caused by some circumstance no-one could have predicted, like the new patriotic war, so shut up anti-American hippies!

Classic Onion article as Bush took over:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Caused by some circumstance no-one could have predicted, like the new patriotic war, so shut up anti-American hippies!

Classic Onion article as Bush took over:

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'

the Onion peace is hilarious and very pointed,

I fail to see amongst by definition how the US can be involved in a "patriotic" war, this side of an attack on Pearl Harbour

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

I fail to see amongst by definition how the US can be involved in a "patriotic" war, this side of an attack on Pearl Harbour

Shut up, you flag-burning hippy! Support the troops!

[see, this stuff is easy!]

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Shut up, you flag-burning hippy! Support the troops!

[see, this stuff is easy!]

keep the recovery going, yes we can , make america great again

See, I can do post fact, twitter politics

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Shut up, you flag-burning hippy! Support the troops!

[see, this stuff is easy!]

BoatMad wrote: »

keep the recovery going, yes we can , make america great again

See, I can do post fact, twitter politics

Less of this please.

K-9

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I see Ends Kenny is meeting today with Tim Cook, head of Apple. It's happening. The corporations are being called home and we're in the position of begging them not to go.

Trump's going to be remembered as a genius

I think you are forgetting one very big reason that Enda would be meeting the head of Apple and it has nothing to do with Trump.

El_Duderino 09

Earthhorse wrote:

A few high value jobs returned stateside won't have anyone, least of all his base, proclaiming him a hero. Also, if Trump's plan is to simply give everyone tax breaks he's going to run into trouble pretty quick smart.

It's not just the tech jobs, it's everything else they goes with it too. From cleaners, caterers and repair crews, to building the the factory and the accommodation for workers and providing services to the people employed which is everything from pizzas to plumbers.

It's a victory with small substance but he ran an entire campaign with absolutely no substance so this would be easier than getting elected in the first place. Thiugh expectations would be greater for a returning President.

Look at the affect Dell had in Limerick. You could easily revitalise a small city with a big factory with all kinds of jobs.

El_Duderino 09

BoatMad wrote:

followed by a massive increase in the deficit

So what? Who will turn around and say 'no thanks' to money for infrastructure in their state? Nobody, that's who. Not now that it's not Obama's plan. Is plan was tempted with tax at least attempting to pay for it. Trump plans go burn the fiscal candle at both ends by borrowing and cutting tax. Imagine he feel good factor from that...

It will run into trouble eventually but he'll deal with that another day. His typical approach us to tell people they can have half the money he owes them. Do he might be borrowing and potentially intends to pay back the capitol at 50% let alone paying interest. What a popular move that would be.

Earthhorse

A minute ago it was the R & D facilities and now it's the whole factory. The majority of people employed by Apple in Ireland are sales and support I believe. Even if all those jobs returned stateside they would likely be heading to Cupertino and not to some small town in the rust belt. Sorry, but no matter what way you spin it your analysis just doesn't hold up.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

he might be borrowing and potentially intends to pay back the capitol at 50% let alone paying interest. What a popular move that would be.

Yes, he made some noises during the campaign about defaulting on the national debt - it's how he has run his businesses with several bankruptcies.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Yes, he made some noises during the campaign about defaulting on the national debt - it's how he has run his businesses with several bankruptcies.

Running the country is hard. One if the hardest things is balancing the budget. Imagine how popular you could he if you didn't have to even consider balancing the budget. It would be giveaway budgets every year. Massive prosperity. Who would bite against that?

We all talk about boom-bust cycles but that's only recession talk. It would be a big party in the short/medium term

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Running the country is hard. One if the hardest things is balancing the budget. Imagine how popular you could he if you didn't have to even consider balancing the budget. It would be giveaway budgets every year. Massive prosperity. Who would bite against that?

Listening to them talk during Obama's terms, no-one except every Republican ever.

But now there's a republican taking over - it's run up the deficit time!

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Listening to them talk during Obama's terms, no-one except every Republican ever.
But now there's a republican taking over - it's run up the deficit time!

This is what I think too. Austerity vs borrow and spend have all kinds of arguments for and against. The point that can't be argued is that austerity is boring and people don't like it. Borrow and spend is hugely popular and makes people happy and makes it appear that the government is doing things.
Obama's problem was that the stimulus package was too small by the time it was passed.

Trump will make it a 'huge' stimulus which will be devilish popular

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trump will make it a 'huge' stimulus which will be devilish popular

If he actually borrowed and spent on infrastructure as he proposed, that would be a very good thing.

But I think he's more likely to borrow and cut taxes on rich people, building nothing, and then use the deficit to justify cutting programs for the poor.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

If he actually borrowed and spent on infrastructure as he proposed, that would be a very good thing.

Of course. It would have been good if Obama got it through too, but he didn't and I think Trump will.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

But I think he's more likely to borrow and cut taxes on rich people, building nothing, and then use the deficit to justify cutting programs for the poor.

Why bother cutting programmes? That's not very populist. I'd say he'll keep it simple by borrowing, spending and cutting tax on the rich and business. Deal with the debt when he's in a stronger position

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why bother cutting programmes? That's not very populist.

Ryan and the republicans in Congress are not going to send Trump a huge infrastructure program to sign - Ryan has already said his priority is to kill Obamacare and voucherize Medicare. That's what will be on Trumps desk for signing.

BoatMad

Why bother cutting programmes? That's not very populist. I'd say he'll keep it simple by borrowing, spending and cutting tax on the rich and business. Deal with the debt when he's in a stronger position

watch the value of the dollar plummet and home grown inflation rise then ,

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why bother cutting programmes? That's not very populist.

20 Million people are set to lose their healthcare in the new year.

Not populist? trump doesnt care. The right wingers have been trying to stop the "affordable care act" since obama introduced it.

Expect a return to people dying outside hospital emergency rooms.

El_Duderino 09

InTheTrees wrote:

Not populist? trump doesnt care. The right wingers have been trying to stop the "affordable care act" since obama introduced it.

My understanding is that the 'affordable care act' is much more popular than 'obama care ' when people are surveyed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he kills Obama care and replaces it with Trump Care. Just fiddle with it and create more subsidise, and slap a new name on it. That's Trumps whole business model

looksee

Following media reports pointing out the risks of angering China, Mr Trump tweeted: "Interesting how the US sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call."

A tweet that reflects Trumps attitude - everything is about his need for approbation.

US President-elect Donald Trump has posted a series of tweets criticising China for its monetary policy and its operations in the South China Sea.
"Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency" and "build a massive military complex?" he asked. "I don't think so!"

Am I missing something here? Would a country seriously expect to have to ask permission of the US to do anything with their currency?

BoatMad

looksee wrote: »

A tweet that reflects Trumps attitude - everything is about his need for approbation.



Am I missing something here? Would a country seriously expect to have to ask permission of the US to do anything with their currency?

see bretton woods agreement

looksee

BoatMad wrote: »

see bretton woods agreement

My knowledge of international finance is pretty much zero, but was China involved in the Bretton Woods agreement, and didn't the US pretty much terminate it in the 1970s?

BoatMad

looksee wrote: »

My knowledge of international finance is pretty much zero, but was China involved in the Bretton Woods agreement, and didn't the US pretty much terminate it in the 1970s?

The US insisted that the fixed exchange ratios be based on Gold and the US currency , which was still convertible at that stage

Yes , the US could not in effect devalue , nor other re-value or de-value without in essence US agreement , the uS found the costs of the agreement too great and terminated it arbitrarily

Nody

Does anyone else think Trump's reason to complain about the new Air force 1 is simply an excuse to allow him to charge the state money for him to use his own plane instead (same way he's done through the campaign by quadrupling rent when the donated money started to pay for it and want to continue with secret service to use his hotel)?

recedite

His own plane would not be fitted out with the necessary security and communications equipment for POTUS.

Regarding the possibility that Trump might want to use his own plane instead of Air Force One, Aboulafia was beside himself.
"That's up there with talking-to-aliens-on-the-toaster weird," he said.

source


Is it possible (for you to believe) he just wants to drain the swamp?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Is it possible (for you to believe) he just wants to drain the swamp?

It might be, if his actions consistently pointed that way.

Let's see: Goldman Sachs guy for Treasury; RNC chair for Chief of Staff; billionaires for Commerce and Education (the latter notably having admitted that the whole point of political contributions is to buy influence); a 20-year Senate veteran for AG; four-term congressman for CIA; six-term congressman for HHS; former Labour Secretary for Transportation (who also happens to be married to the Senate Majority Leader)...

I think we need to take our cue from Corey Lewandowski when interpreting Trump's claim to want to drain the swamp: we shouldn't take him literally. In other words, the safe option when parsing anything Trump says is to assume he's lying.

FrancieBrady

Boeing experiencing a few surprising consequences of the Donald.
Somebody needs to prise the tweet machine from his cold spray tanned hands.

Billy86

Trump fans are aware that even if they ignore him lying about Boeing's £4bn contract (it's not) and pretend to themselves that it's true... that that would result in a LOT of lost jobs in American manufacturing, right?

Oh, right, yeah, they don't actually care. Sorry rust belters, you got sold a lemon. Or orange. I feel bad for them, but they can't say they weren't warned, repeatedly.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might be, if his actions consistently pointed that way.

Let's see: Goldman Sachs guy for Treasury; RNC chair for Chief of Staff; billionaires for Commerce and Education (the latter notably having admitted that the whole point of political contributions is to buy influence); a 20-year Senate veteran for AG; four-term congressman for CIA; six-term congressman for HHS; former Labour Secretary for Transportation (who also happens to be married to the Senate Majority Leader)...

I think we need to take our cue from Corey Lewandowski when interpreting Trump's claim to want to drain the swamp: we shouldn't take him literally. In other words, the safe option when parsing anything Trump says is to assume he's lying.

You left out two Goldman Sachs guys in charge of his campaign, and key to his transition team by the way.

Oh, and the business people (and politicians) from abroad who have direct influence over US policy illegally now, due to their illegal donations that Trump's campaign went out and sought for months on end.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

lying about Boeing's £4bn contract (it's not) and pretend to themselves that it's true...

I don't think its a fixed contract; these things have a habit of escalating. $4B would probably be a bit conservative. If Boeing were given their way it would be $5B or more by the end.
Anyone remember the eurofighter. A whole new plane is obviously in a different league to a modification, but similar cost principles apply.

In 1988, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces told the UK House of Commons that the European Fighter Aircraft would "be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion". It was soon apparent a more realistic estimate was £13 billion, made up of £3.3 billion development costs plus £30 million per aircraft.[49] By 1997 the estimated cost was £17 billion; by 2003, £20 billion, and the in-service date (2003, defined as the date of delivery of the first aircraft to the RAF) was 54 months late. After 2003, the Ministry of Defence refused to release updated cost-estimates on the grounds of 'commercial sensitivity'. However, in 2011, the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "assessment, development, production and upgrade costs eventually hit £22.9 billion".

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

I don't think its a fixed contract; these things have a habit of escalating. $4B would probably be a bit conservative. If Boeing were given their way it would be $5B or more by the end.
Anyone remember the eurofighter. A whole new plane is obviously in a different league to a modification, but similar cost principles apply.

Trump: "Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4bn (€3.7bn). Cancel order!"

Boeing: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer."

So yeah, a pretty clear cut lie until anything official is announced. Fake news, to be honest, because it doesn't exist.

But if you want to contest that and claim it is true, then surely you agree Trump trying to cancel the order is a bad thing as it will cost a lot of Boeing's blue collar, manufacturing staff in the small city (103,000 population) of Everett, WA right?

ebbsy

Donald tweets. Sets the agenda for the day. Free advertising.

Everyone follows.

Zubeneschamali

ebbsy wrote: »

Donald tweets. Sets the agenda for the day. Free advertising

Knocks a billion dollars off Boeings share price. Ha ha - only messing!

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

So yeah, a pretty clear cut lie until anything official is announced. Fake news, to be honest, because it doesn't exist

Fraid not.

The AF are the ones projecting a cost of $4bn, including a baffling $1.6bn in R&D alone.
This on an already existing & mature air frame (747-8) and with the bulk of mods already designed.

But then, there wasn't really a bidding process on this..... EADS/Airbus pulled out so it was awarded to Boeing without competition.

And of course this is not unique on the part of Trump.
Back in the day St Obama was scathing towards Lockheed on the costs of the Marine-1 replacement programme.......
T'would be hypocritical to attack Trump for echoing his predecessor.

ancapailldorcha

ebbsy wrote: »

Donald tweets. Sets the agenda for the day. Free advertising.

Everyone follows.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Knocks a billion dollars off Boeings share price. Ha ha - only messing!

Post more constructively than this please.

BoJack Horseman

recedite wrote: »

I don't think its a fixed contract; these things have a habit of escalating. $4B would probably be a bit conservative..

Unlikely tbh, this seems a maximum allocation of funds.

It is also probably not in 'current year' dollars, the DOD and the likes often declare estimated costs on long-lead time projects in a 'then year' basis....
So the $4bn allocation might be adjusted for inflation out to when the 2nd one is built (2023-25) and probably include some contingency space.

It is still an eye-watering amount for just 2 aircraft (I don't think this will include the cost of replacing the Boeing E-4s that accompany the President's plane when overseas).