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

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

Oh expect overall bad things to happen, with Goldman Sachs shares up 33%, somethings brewing!

I probably agree but we have to ask 'bad things for whom?

Europe is weak and Britain is isolated. Ireland has the benefit of a lot of American corporate jobs. So bad things for us.

Good things for Americans if he bullies everyone else. The American poor will all get jobs, middle class could do well while the American wealthy class does really well.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I probably agree but we have to ask 'bad things for whom?

Europe is weak and Britain is isolated. Ireland has the benefit of a lot of American corporate jobs. So bad things for us.

Good things for Americans if he bullies everyone else. The American poor will all get jobs, middle class could do well while the American wealthy class does really well.

i think we re all gonna end up losers here, the republican party is filled with extremists, his administration has ex bankers, ex fossil fuel ceo's, climate change deniers etc etc. this really doesnt look good for all of us in the long run

Lt Dan

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I see Trump tweeted

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798519600413601792

Jesus, this guy has some ego, even when he wins he still has something to prove, what the hell will happen when he gets frustrated in office ?

What? Every person who looks and succeeds to become the President of The United States of America has an ego. It is not the job for wimps or modest people. You are the master of the world.

He is responding to people who are still waffling about Hillary winning the popular vote. Since responding back does no harm to him and just angers the snowflakes more, why not? He is not President yet . Might as well put the boot in a few more times

Lt Dan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think we re all gonna end up losers here, the republican party is filled with extremists, his administration has ex bankers, ex fossil fuel ceo's, climate change deniers etc etc. this really doesnt look good for all of us in the long run

Ah sure, it will only be for 4 years.

El_Duderino 09

Lt Dan wrote:

What? Every person who looks and succeeds to become the President of The United States of America has an ego. It is not the job for wimps or modest people. You are the master of the world.

I agree in general but Obama didn't have a lot of ego in the way he went about his work. He took a lot of flack and almost never responded in the way trump does with personal attacks on journalists for example.

Lt Dan wrote:

Ah sure, it will only be for 4 years.

I think it will almost certainly be 8 years. He'll be a rip roaring success with Americans. Economic prosperity covers a multitude of sins and I think he's going to borrow a metric sh1t-ton of money to stimulate the economy. Job done to win a second term.

FionnK86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it will almost certainly be 8 years. He'll be a rip roaring success with Americans. Economic prosperity covers a multitude of sins and I think he's going to borrow a metric sh1t-ton of money to stimulate the economy. Job done to win a second term.

I'd say 4.

Democrats will put in someone more likeable than Hilary and all the disillusioned ex-democrat voters will come back to the party.

El_Duderino 09

FionnK86 wrote:

Democrats will put in someone more likeable than Hilary and all the disillusioned ex-democrat voters will come back to the party.

Assuming the economy isn't doing well - which it looks to have been in theory for the last few years. If that translates into more money in people's pockets then it's 8 years without a contest no matter what democrat runs.

FreudianSlippers

osmiumartist wrote: »

Oh look. You're pretending he was complaining about "education" when he said "elites" and nothing more.
But who'd notice you added in an extra word or two there, huh?
So you're against Trump and orphanages yourself?

Elitism, in this case, is being used to describe the more highly educated and intellectual groupings in the US. There is a vast amount of people, including on here, who believe that their unsupported opinion counts as much as that of a specialist in an area, supported by facts.

Hank Scorpio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Elitism, in this case, is being used to describe the more highly educated and intellectual groupings in the US. There is a vast amount of people, including on here, who believe that their unsupported opinion counts as much as that of a specialist in an area, supported by facts.

It was said in the context of media. You know, referring to people like Glenn Thrush who was Politico's chief political correspondent who's just been hired by the NYT.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681

Why should Trump continue to put up with the garbage and bias he's experienced for the past year and a half.

Most of the MSM in the US are nothing more than snakes and I'm glad Wikileaks exposed it, but keep spouting the higher intellect line. Reasoning like that and believing people are better than others is why Trump ended up being elected.

FreudianSlippers

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Reasoning like that and believing people are better than others is why Trump ended up being elected.

This idea that people are not better than other people is ridiculous; it is what leads to insane "debates" on TV between medical doctors and faith healers...

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is worth less than the opinion of someone with experience and education in a specific area.

Hank Scorpio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This idea that people are not better than other people is ridiculous; it is what leads to insane "debates" on TV between medical doctors and faith healers...

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is worth less than the opinion of someone with experience and education in a specific area.

The point was about "media elites" and Trump using twitter to communicate. Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out why given all the collusion against him?

The term elite in media refers to how untouchable certain networks are including their political agendas, not about intelligence.

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The point was about "media elites" and Trump using twitter to communicate. Does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out why given all the collusion against him?

Back in the Bush days, Karl Rove said: ""We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."

But with Twitter, Trump has it even easier - he doesn't have to act to create a new reality, he can just invent stuff, lie his head off - his followers will lap it up, and never even read the elite fact-checkers who will point out that Trump is spoofing.

Hank Scorpio

Who constitutes the fact checkers? Some things are black and white but many things are not. It's all in the eye of creator. Hillary had a fact checking system about Trump on her website during the election, should that be believed? Or a site like Politifact, which is known to have liberal bias.

Trump has done a long interview lately with Fox, which given it's support for him, was pretty tough and hard hitting. I don't think he needs to make an effort with most of the other networks and newspapers as he owes them nothing.

Unrelated really, when you mentioned fact checking the clip below came into my mind.

Overheal

Dancing with the Stars contestant, former Presidential Candidate and man who couldn't remember the name of the Department of Energy that he pledged to abolish during his 2012 campaign, will now head said Department of Energy.

http://gizmodo.com/report-rick-perry-to-head-energy-agency-he-couldnt-rem-1790030114

..one of the agency’s primary responsibilities is handling radioactive materials. Maintaining America’s nuclear arsenal, disposing of radioactive waste, and producing nuclear reactors would all fall under Perry. The man currently holding the position is a former nuclear physicist. The man next in line for the job was last seen Dancing With the Stars.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Dancing with the Stars contestant, former Presidential Candidate and man who couldn't remember the name of the Department of Energy that he pledged to abolish during his 2012 campaign, will now head said Department of Energy.

http://gizmodo.com/report-rick-perry-to-head-energy-agency-he-couldnt-rem-1790030114

Question... Do you think it is a bad idea to have a civilian in charge of the Defense Department, and it should only be headed by military persons?

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

Dancing with the Stars contestant, former Presidential Candidate and man who couldn't remember the name of the Department of Energy that he pledged to abolish during his 2012 campaign, will now head said Department of Energy.

http://gizmodo.com/report-rick-perry-to-head-energy-agency-he-couldnt-rem-1790030114

And the cherry on top, he's a Young Earth Creationist. Nothing short of a hallucination of Jesus Christ telling him humans have a significant role in climate change will change his mind on the matter.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Question... Do you think it is a bad idea to have a civilian in charge of the Defense Department, and it should only be headed by military persons?

Nice try, but the military is a different kettle of fish. SecDef is required to be a civilian for the specific purpose of ensuring that the military has civilian oversight. The reasons for this are, hopefully, self-evident.

The same reasoning doesn't apply to other government departments, for the simple reason that other government departments aren't armies.

What do you think? Is it better that the Energy Department be overseen by a nuclear physicist, or by someone who wants to abolish it (when he can remember its name)?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nice try, but the military is a different kettle of fish. SecDef is required to be a civilian for the specific purpose of ensuring that the military has civilian oversight. The reasons for this are, hopefully, self-evident.

The same reasoning doesn't apply to other government departments, for the simple reason that other government departments aren't armies.

What do you think? Is it better that the Energy Department be overseen by a nuclear physicist, or by someone who wants to abolish it (when he can remember its name)?

It's always different when it doesn't suit your agenda, eh?

The academics Obama has put in top positions haven't done us many favors and part of the reason people want change.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

It's always different when it doesn't suit your agenda, eh?

I explained why it's different. If you disagree, please explain why.

The academics Obama has put in top positions haven't done us many favors and part of the reason people want change.

So you think that the person who wants to abolish the department (when he can remember its name) will do a better job than the expert who has run it to date?

Do you have any reasoning behind that view, or will I get another mindless GOP talking point?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The academics Obama has put in top positions haven't done us many favors and part of the reason people want change.

Such as whom? Names; examples.

recedite

Secretary of defense Ashton Carter, a physicist specialising in soviet nuclear weapons.
During his tenure he rekindled the 1980's cold war while ignoring the real issue of the day; the export of Islamic terrorism to the USA and EU as he watched large parts of Syria and the ME go up in flames. But at least he annoyed Putin by arming and siding with the jihadi rebels in Syria, so I suppose he thinks he has done a good job.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Secretary of defense Ashton Carter, a physicist specialising in soviet nuclear weapons.
During his tenure he rekindled the 1980's cold war while ignoring the real issue of the day; the export of Islamic terrorism to the USA and EU as he watched large parts of Syria and the ME go up in flames. But at least he annoyed Putin by arming and siding with the jihadi rebels in Syria, so I suppose he thinks he has done a good job.

And how has he done all that, and been responsible for that, in 22 months? Russia has been active in the Middle East for quite some time, the Syrian Civil War has gone on for almost 6 years. In fact since he took the role and before it, the US was intervening in Syria. So I don't follow your logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria#February_2015

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I explained why it's different. If you disagree, please explain why.

Isn't a retired general, in fact, a civilian... technically after seven years relief from active duty, unless there is Congressional approval? Who better understands Defense?

So you think that the person who wants to abolish the department (when he can remember its name) will do a better job than the expert who has run it to date?

Do you have any reasoning behind that view, or will I get another mindless GOP talking point?

The Department of Energy should fall under Defense. The biggest thing that the DOE does is nuclear defense, which makes up nearly two thirds of its total budget, and much of the rest of the budget is related to other matters that have a correlation with defense.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Such as whom? Names; examples.

First person that comes to mind is Jonathan Gruber, the architect of that boondoggle Obamacare.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

First person that comes to mind is Jonathan Gruber, the architect of that boondoggle Obamacare.

You're suggesting a former military appointee would have made a better pick?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The Department of Energy should fall under Defense. The biggest thing that the DOE does is nuclear defense, which makes up nearly two thirds of its total budget, and much of the rest of the budget is related to other matters that have a correlation with defense.

That's in fact why it should be separated. There are tacit and obvious reasons why the military does not produce its own weaponry or is otherwise self-sufficient/autonomous.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You're suggesting a former military appointee would have made a better pick?

For Obamacare?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

That's in fact why it should be separated. There are tacit and obvious reasons why the military does not produce its own weaponry or is otherwise self-sufficient/autonomous.

Why? They would still have oversight from Congress?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

For Obamacare?

Well Gruber wasn't really in a position of any sort, so you're mucking up your own argument,

"The academics Obama has put in top positions haven't done us many favors and part of the reason people want change."

"First person that comes to mind is Jonathan Gruber, the architect of that boondoggle Obamacare." /never in any top position.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well Gruber wasn't really in a position of any sort, so you're mucking up your own argument,

"The academics Obama has put in top positions haven't done us many favors and part of the reason people want change."

"First person that comes to mind is Jonathan Gruber, the architect of that boondoggle Obamacare."

The architect of Obamacare wasn't in a position of any sort? Who's mucking stuff now?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The architect of Obamacare wasn't in a position of any sort? Who's mucking stuff now?

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Splitting hairs much? The person in charge was Kathleen Sebelius, a politician, with no background for the job. She turned the responsibility over for the development of Obamacare to a academic. She doesn’t get away with your Pontius Pilate defense, and neither does he.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Splitting hairs much? The person in charge was Kathleen Sebelius, a politician, with no background for the job. She turned the responsibility over for the development of Obamacare to a academic. She doesn’t get away with your Pontius Pilate defense, and neither does he.

OK, so same question, based on the discussion we've had here and your response to OB, your suggestion is that a military appointment to the Secretary of Health would have been a better choice? why?

Why? They would still have oversight from Congress?
Today 15:17

Because the military would have the ability to arm itself and congress doesn't mean much when you can just carry out a coup d'etait; after all you own all the means of production to carry out operations. Again, I thought this point was patently obvious, that the military has obvious gaps in its organization as a check and balance. That, and the government isn't in the business of being a weapons manufacturer, with the one exception which is again, for very obvious reasons.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

A top position, aka in this discussion a Cabinet level position? Nope. If you want to intentionally fcuk up semantics go right ahead though. Anyone else you'd like to name, you seemed to suggest you had a problem with multiple academic picks.

Remember all those “Czar” positions? Many coming from academia with leftist agendas which were far from the mainstream? You want names... Cass Sunstein, Todd Stern, John Holdren, and then there’s the worst pick of his presidency... Elena Kagan.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

OK, so same question, based on the discussion we've had here and your response to OB, your suggestion is that a military appointment to the Secretary of Health would have been a better choice? why?

I don't know where you are getting this from. I don't want a military person in charge of every cabinet position... just some.

And what do you think the mainstream media would do if Trump started naming 'Czars' for key functions, bypassing Congressional approval? They would be storming the presses with pitchforks and torches, as we all know they believe history starts today.

Because the military would have the ability to arm itself and congress doesn't mean much when you can just carry out a coup d'etait; after all you own all the means of production to carry out operations. Again, I thought this point was patently obvious, that the military has obvious gaps in its organization as a check and balance. That, and the government isn't in the business of being a weapons manufacturer, with the one exception which is again, for very obvious reasons.

Military coup d'etait? That's what you're now afraid of? Hey, you're in luck though... that's what the second amendment is for. :)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Military coup d'etait? That's what you're now afraid of? Hey, you're in luck though... that's what the second amendment is for. :)

In the immediate future no, but that's no reason to make it simpler to achieve.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I don't want a military person in charge of every cabinet position...

Why not? Follow the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, and imagine the entire executive - President, VP, all cabinet positions - staffed by serving generals. Would you have a problem with that?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not? Follow the thought experiment to its logical conclusion, and imagine the entire executive - President, VP, all cabinet positions - staffed by serving generals. Would you have a problem with that?

Would have to review their qualifications. Might be okay with it. Might be okay with all women or all gays or all native Americans etc being in the entire executive positions, also. Would depend on their qualifications. Leftist academics... not so much.

Anyway Obama won in the general category. He appointed 3 four star generals, where Trump might appoint 2 four star and 1 three star. That's 12 stars to 11... Obama wins.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Might be okay with it.

You might be OK with the entire executive branch of a republic being serving generals.

Wow.

K-9

As long as they are Republicans!

Overheal

I guess history really does start today so

Atlantic Dawn

So far he is doing great with his cabinet picks, wish he was running Ireland.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

You might be OK with the entire executive branch of a republic being serving generals.

Wow.

So long as it was republican, "certain posters" here absolutely would jump in behind it even if they knew it would lead to the end or sheer detriment of their country. Just so long as there was an (R) there, which is what matters to them and not their actual country.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

As long as they are Republicans!

You make that sound like it’s a bad thing.

Seriously though, doesn’t any president when coming into office staff his cabinet, advisors, and appointment picks primarily from his own political party?

K-9

Ach yes, I'm sure if it was Obama doing it you'd be fully behind it.

Works the other way too of course. Others on here would be rationalising it if he was doing it.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Ach yes, I'm sure if it was Obama doing it you'd be fully behind it.

Works the other way too of course. Others on here would be rationalising it if he was doing it.

That's politics!

I wasn't behind many of Obama's picks as I considered many of them too far left for America... But I expected it knowing his background.

K-9

My fear is some of these picks are very right wing and elitist, globalist types when it comes to the economy.

We'll see, but just as you saw too much Governmental over reach, I can see a big swing to corporate culture. Those "little guys" who voted Trump are going to feel very let down, would be my bet anyway.

El_Duderino 09

K-9 wrote:

My fear is some of these picks are very right wing and elitist, globalist types when it comes to the economy.

I think the types of people he picked is relevant but not as relevant as trump's own agenda.

As with everything else he does, he won't delegate much of the decision Making. He didn't put experts in charge because they might have strong opinions on how departments should work.

How long before he starts throwing these cabinet picks under the bus? He did it to Chris Christy and general Flynn's son (for tweeting about Hillary's paedophile ring in a chip shop basement). The first picks aren't that important but it distracts the media while Trump gets the job done.

He picked his children to run his businesses - does anyone actually believe he won't be running the country as part of his business empire?

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How long before he starts throwing these cabinet picks under the bus? He did it to Chris Christy and general Flynn's son (for tweeting about Hillary's paedophile ring in a chip shop basement).

Well to be fair the fake story about the pizza shop resulted in some right wing wacko storming the place with a rifle and handgun, shooting the place up and then an armed siege by police before he gave up.

InTheTrees

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He picked his children to run his businesses - does anyone actually believe he won't be running the country as part of his business empire?

It comes down to the senate really. And how much they're willing to put up with from him. I expect they'll use their influence to try to make him tow the line. Whether that'll work or not who knows. It probably will. McConnell looks like he's already caved in.