Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

wes

NKante wrote: »

You can't seem to make up your mind. Trump expelled too many Russians, now you're saying it was meaningless. You're all over the shop here mate.

Did you read what I said? I didn't say what you claim I said.

NKante wrote: »

State of you.

This kind of low quality nonsense really is telling. You failed to address anything I said, and instead came out with a straw man rant. Honestly, you may as well not bother replying in future, as you failed to read my post.

Leroy42

NKante wrote: »

Obama was terribly naive about foreign policy in general. Remember he fell out with a few allies too. The UK (Churchill bust, "back of the queue" threat) had a run in with India over him snubbing them in favour of Pakistan.

You can't possibly claim that Obama was naive on foreign policy whilst claiming anything good about Trump. He clearly has no idea about policy.

Obama left the US in much better shape than he found it. Under almost any measure. Economic, diplomatic, the standing of Americans in the world.

The Churchill bust. Can you point me to the evidence that the UK was upset about this and the impact it had. In terms of 'back of the queue', the UK has shown itself to have been completely naive and unprepared for Brexit, and Trump, whilst claiming that a trade deal would be easy, has done little since to back that up. With his tariffs on Bombardier and threaten steel tariffs, if anything Trump is showing that the UK will certainly struggle to get any deal with the US.

There is no doubt that Obama made mistakes, and he did, as all POTUS do, rub other countries up the wrong way due to the favour of their way rather than cooperation, but again Trump has done nothing to signify he will make this better

NKante wrote: »

But he just didn't understand the region and the Iranians easily fooled him into seeing them as the solution to the M.E instead of being one of the main problems.

You think Iran would be involved in any ME solution? One of the largest nations in the region? Obama managed to stop them from continuing their drive to get a nuke, something that would have totally changed the balance of power in the region - a tip to how important it was is simply to look at how serious Trump sees NK trying to achieve the same.

Again, you can't possibly bring any argument about lack of knowledge into a debate about Trump when he has shown himself to be completely lacking in any understanding of many areas.

NKante wrote: »

I mean you'd have to be really stupid to believe the Muslim Brotherhood were good news for Egypt. Yet in he went full steam ahead to help usher them in. Thank goodness the Egyptian people took it upon themselves to undo that damage and get rid of Obama's MB mates.

So its Egypt that he failed on? And what has Trump done to solve that? I asked you previously, what change in policy has Trump instigated that has lead to all these ME countries suddenly loving the US again?

NKante wrote: »

He portrayed weakness which the Arabs generally hate.

That is an odd statement. How do you know that?

NKante wrote: »

Trump comes in. Totally unpredictable which makes him seemingly dangerous. Immediately that puts everyone on notice. He actually gave a great speech in Saudi after he became president. It was straight from the hip but actually had substance, not that empty grovelling tripe Obama came out with in his Cairo speech.

What did he say? I mean, specifically to deal with the ME and change the dynamics away from the US being hated? When you say totally unpredictable, you mean that they and you, have simply no idea what he is going to do. Sort of like an out of control toddler. Some things might turn out to be good, some bad but it is chance and there is no plan behind it. Do you think that is the way to run the most powerful country on Earth?

NKante wrote: »

Trump is a loose cannon. He could still kill us all, or he could end up stumbling his way into negotiating a Korean peace and other possible achievements. I think the latter will happen and maybe in the ME too. He's working on some Israel/Pal peace which apparently is different to other proposals.

So you are willing to bet your life, and everyone else and the chance that an out of control man, with little attention span, will hit the right button at the right time? Would you get on a plane with a blind folded pilot that had never flown before? Yes, there is a chance they might get luckily, but its pretty slim.

Mr.Micro

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And the Saudis, the people responsible for the most deadly terrorist attack on the US. Trump is desperate to get a weapons deal with them. Likely he hopes they will do some of the dirty work in Iran.

Possibly so, but at the risk of destabilising their own regime? Not sure the Saudis would be prepared to risk it.

NKante

Leroy42 wrote: »

You can't possibly claim that Obama was naive on foreign policy whilst claiming anything good about Trump. He clearly has no idea about policy.

He was naive. Doesn't mean Trump isn't. Trump couldn't name the capital city of a country, but he does have decent intuition and a nose for a deal. Obama was basically still a student with the outlook of an idealist.

Obama left the US in much better shape than he found it. Under almost any measure. Economic, diplomatic, the standing of America in the world.

His foreign policy is generally considered to be a failure. The standing of America suffered under Obama in many quarters like the M.E (that's not to say in some quarters it isn't under Trump too)

The Churchill bust. Can you point me to the evidence that the UK was upset about this and the impact it had. In terms of 'back of the queue', the UK has shown itself to have been completely naive and unprepared for Brexit, and Trump, whilst claiming that a trade deal would be easy, has done little since to back that up. With his tariffs on Bombardier and threaten steel tariffs, if anything Trump is showing that the UK will certainly struggle to get any deal with the US.

You're excusing the inexcusable. Obama threatening the UK ahead of the Brexit vote was disgusting. As was his funding of the Israeli opposition political party to try and sway the Israeli election.

You think Iran would be involved in any ME solution? One of the largest nations in the region? Obama managed to stop them from continuing their drive to get a nuke, something that would have totally changed the balance of power in the region - a tip to how important it was is simply to look at how serious Trump sees NK trying to achieve the same.

Obama turned Iran from a country about to collapse economically, to a regional power starting wars all over the shop. He was warned by everyone in the region that his policy was disastrous and we're seeing it being played out now.

What did he say? I mean, specifically to deal with the ME and change the dynamics away from the US being hated? When you say totally unpredictable, you mean that they and you, have simply no idea what he is going to do. Sort of like an out of control toddler. Some things might turn out to be good, some bad but it is chance and there is no plan behind it. Do you think that is the way to run the most powerful country on Earth?

He was just much more direct about terrorism. Much more direct that it's Islamic. That Muslims suffer the most from it. That it's time to end it. Time to end to toleration of radical preachers etc. It was an excellent speech actually.

So you are willing to bet your life, and everyone else and the chance that an out of control man, with little attention span, will hit the right button at the right time? Would you get on a plane with a blind folded pilot that had never flown before? Yes, there is a chance they might get luckily, but its pretty slim.

Obama was more dangerous and he actually meant his policies. I think Trump has a real instinct for some things. Like a gut feeling. He's street smart rather than book smart. It's what we need because I think he'll approach M.E peace like a business deal and that may just be the way to go.

Captain Obvious

I see we're all about Obama now. Standard play from the book. Just out of curiosity, what great deals has Trump made so far?

Christy42

Talking about Trump's nose for a deal? Such as his deal with? I am struggling here the man barely managed a tax deal with his own party and failed on numerous others including health. That is long way off actually making a deal with a foreign power. The closest is when he backed off his threatened trade war with China.

Or is solution for Isreal/Palestine when he has already given away a large chunk of what Israel want for absolutely nothing?

Iran was already a major power in the region and were stopped from developing more dangerous weapons by Obama. Obviously now there is a serious risk that will develop a far more powerful military threat due to Trump but hopefully the EU can limit Trump's damage. All signals seem to be that Iran held to the deal.

Leroy42

NKante wrote: »

He was naive. Doesn't mean Trump isn't. Trump couldn't name the capital city of a country, but he does have decent intuition and a nose for a deal. Obama was basically still a student with the outlook of an idealist.

So he knows nothing but somehow you think he just smells how to do the right thing? Really?

NKante wrote: »

His foreign policy is generally considered to be a failure. The standing of America suffered under Obama in many quarters like the M.E (that's not to say in some quarters it isn't under Trump too)

Thats a subjective point, and no point having an argument about it. Obama is not there anymore. So apart from knowing nothing about foreign policy, continually changing his mind, what exactly has Trump done that give you this belief in his ability?

NKante wrote: »

You're excusing the inexcusable. Obama threatening the UK ahead of the Brexit vote was disgusting. As was his funding of the Israeli opposition political party to try and sway the Israeli election.

Wait, so let me understand the point you are trying to make. Obama was seen as weak against other countries and Trump is great because he tells it like it is. Except for when Obama told the UK the truth, then he is threatening and his actions are disgusting?

NKante wrote: »

Obama turned Iran from a country about to collapse economically, to a regional power starting wars all over the shop. He was warned by everyone in the region that his policy was disastrous and we're seeing it being played out now.

Iran has always been a regional power. It was about to become a regional power with a nuclear weapon. Total game changer. Much like the way Trump sees NK. Now Trump is willing to make a deal with NK yet when Obama does the same with Iran it is weak? If you cannot understand the difference that Iran having a nuclear weapon would have on not only the ME but the world as a whole then there really is nothing to debate about. Israel seemingly feel threaten by unarmed protesters approaching a militarised border. What effect do you think a nuclear armed Iran would have? Obama solved that.

NKante wrote: »

He was just much more direct about terrorism. Much more direct that it's Islamic. That Muslims suffer the most from it. That it's time to end it. Time to end to toleration of radical preachers etc. It was an excellent speech actually.

Obama was careful not to blame an entire religion for the actions of a minority of it. Just like you don't call all white male christians as mass gun murderers, yet that is the cohort most likely to carry it out. Trump simply bigging up hatred, without any plan of how to actually deal with it is not helping. Stirring up the tensions in the ME but siding so completely with Israel is only going to increase the hatred that certain sections will have.

NKante wrote: »

Obama was more dangerous and he actually meant his policies. I think Trump has a real instinct for some things. Like a gut feeling. He's street smart rather than book smart. It's what we need because I think he'll approach M.E peace like a business deal and that may just be the way to go.

Is this like a business deal for Trump University? Or maybe his other bankruptcies. Or maybe how well he dealt with Stormy Daniels? First off, they are not a business deal, they are diplomatic and political. Totally different.

He might, it may. There really is an awful lot of unknowns there. Basically, it seems that your whole basis for liking Trump is that he is not Obama as you cannot point to anything that Trump brings to the table. But lets run with the business deal angle. A business deal requires that both sides get something out of it. So NK will want something in return for the demand they give up the nukes. Iran had got out of sanctions in return for dropping their pursuit of the nuke. What will Trump offer them now. What if they ask for Israel to be disbanded? Will that be ok? Or what if they demand that US starts giving them the same sort of economic support they currently provide to Israel? What about Syria? What if Iran demand that Palestine gets fair treatment and Israel must give back all illegal settlements, back to the original borders?

What form of business deal? Should you agree to take in a load of refugees, maybe even operate free movement?

So what has his gut achieved so far? What has he done that is measurably better than before he took over because of the gut action he took? I have asked you this a number of times and so far all you have been able to provide is how terrible Obama was. Thats your opinion, but he is gone now. Trump is in since November 16. What has he achieved?

robinph

NKante wrote: »

It's what we need because I think he'll approach M.E peace like a business deal and that may just be the way to go.

That might be a good way to approach things, or different at least. But there is nothing to show that Trump is any good at business deals. He's a bad and untrustworthy used car salesman, and that is an unfortunate slur towards used car salesmen.

everlast75

Cohen's lawyers and Avenatti are going at it in court at the moment- they're trying to oppose his application for locus standi. Pleadings filled within minutes of each other

oscarBravo

robinph wrote: »

That might be a good way to approach things, or different at least. But there is nothing to show that Trump is any good at business deals. He's a bad and untrustworthy used car salesman, and that is an unfortunate slur towards used car salesmen.

It's an interesting point. I've concluded many business deals in my day, and I can state categorically that the most successful have been those where both parties entered negotiations in the spirit of achieving an outcome which was mutually beneficial - which any business deal can be, if approached correctly.

The least successful have been those where one party treated it as a zero-sum game: if one party gains, then the other party is missing an opportunity to gain more. That's the Trump approach. It can't possibly be win-win, because if the other side isn't losing, then I didn't win enough. It's basically asshole capitalism, the only kind Trump seems to understand, and the kind which is ultimately bad for everyone involved.

Panrich

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting point. I've concluded many business deals in my day, and I can state categorically that the most successful have been those where both parties entered negotiations in the spirit of achieving an outcome which was mutually beneficial - which any business deal can be, if approached correctly.

The least successful have been those where one party treated it as a zero-sum game: if one party gains, then the other party is missing an opportunity to gain more. That's the Trump approach. It can't possibly be win-win, because if the other side isn't losing, then I didn't win enough. It's basically asshole capitalism, the only kind Trump seems to understand, and the kind which is ultimately bad for everyone involved.

If I could give this insightful post more than one like I would. Trump is a binary character who reduces all manner of complex issues into simple up/down and win/loss outcomes.

That is not a currency that works well in global politics but it plays well with the simpletons who support him.

26000 Elephants

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting point. I've concluded many business deals in my day, and I can state categorically that the most successful have been those where both parties entered negotiations in the spirit of achieving an outcome which was mutually beneficial - which any business deal can be, if approached correctly.

The least successful have been those where one party treated it as a zero-sum game: if one party gains, then the other party is missing an opportunity to gain more. That's the Trump approach. It can't possibly be win-win, because if the other side isn't losing, then I didn't win enough. It's basically asshole capitalism, the only kind Trump seems to understand, and the kind which is ultimately bad for everyone involved.

Ah come on now, if your logic was in any way accurate, then Trump would in reality be a terrible business man, carrying massive unsustainable debts having gone bankrupt multiple times and depending on his auld fella for a dig out before reducing his former property empire to a couple of frachised naming agreements.

That, sir, is preposterous!

frag420

NKante wrote: »

Give over pal. If a hostile entity is rushing a border in a war zone, they get taken down. Not asked for ID like they're trying to enter a nightclub.

State of youPalestine.

If I am not mistaken, there was something like a km wide buffer zone between the actual border crossing and where the protestors were protesting. Sort of a no mans land.

They had rocks and sling shots! The IDF were so far away they had to use rocket propelled teargas canisters to reach the protestors and used snipers to take out protestors.

One a guy who was in a wheelchair and was not even moving when he was murdered by an IDF sniper because he had a sling shot, such sniping skill eh, killing an unmoving man from a distance!

As for rushing a border in a war zone, do you ever ask yourself why is that border always shrinking for one side and getting bigger for another. What would you do if your land was taken and given to rich strangers?

Look at this way perhaps, if something is shrinking around you its not you rushing the border, more the border rushing and suffocating you!!

Oh and I fixed the last part of your post!

Clariss

From the sublime to the ridiculous....Dastardly Don recently quizzed Bill Gates on the difference between HIV and HIV.

Bill's response will possibly be as interesting and revealing as Donald's question methinks.

C

Christy42

Clariss wrote: »

From the sublime to the ridiculous....Dastardly Don recently quizzed Bill Gates on the difference between HIV and HIV.

Bill's response will possibly be as interesting and revealing as Donald's question methinks.

C

Bill said he and his wife were creeper out about how well Donald knew how Bill's daughter looked. He does not disclose exactly what Trump said that sparked this feeling.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/18/bill-gates-donald-trump-difference-hiv-hpv

Clariss

Perhaps Donald has personal motivations for asking such a question. The mind boggles really but from the picture displayed, Bill certainly looked bemused.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

Giuliani has stated on CNN this morning that they don't actually know if there was an FBI informant placed within the Trump campaign. This despite the POTUS officially announcing it yesterday on Twitter.

Turns out it was nothing more than a rumour from an unidentified source (unidentified to us). This is the very type of fake news that Trump and the WH rails against and yet here they are spreading rumours and gossip as fact. And not simply discussing it between themselves, but using an official communication from POTUS to spread it out.

It appears there is way more to this than you suggest. This looks like it could a huge deal and is only really beginning IMO.

As the article points out it appears the FBI have been a bit sparce with all the facts on when their investigation in to Tump started.

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

Leroy42

It is the FBIs job to investigate poss9ble criminals, I very much doubt they go around telling those they are monitoring that that is the case.

This is a man that had admitted that he used the services of a 'fixer'. Someone that has been in court a number of times for fraud, whose campaign manager was known to work for foreign governments.

They are trying to paint this as something extraordinary, that the FBI were being used to disrupt democracy.

I am only surprised that the FBI stayed so hands off. Given all we know (Trump Tower Jr meeting being only one example) Trump should never had been allowed to run without explaining his ties to Russia and elsewhere.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is the FBIs job to investigate poss9ble criminals, I very much doubt they go around telling those they are monitoring that that is the case.

This is a man that had admitted that he used the services of a 'fixer'. Someone that has been in court a number of times for fraud, whose campaign manager was known to work for foreign governments.

They are trying to paint this as something extraordinary, that the FBI were being used to disrupt democracy.

I am only surprised that the FBI stayed so hands off. Given all we know (Trump Tower Jr meeting being only one example) Trump should never had been allowed to run without explaining his ties to Russia and elsewhere.

So you are okay with a CIA operative spying on a Presidential candidate when no crime had been established?

Maybe all Presidential candidates should be screened but they are not at present so it's a mute point. Certainly a full check on both Trump and Clinton would have surely disqualified both from running. The problem comes with political interfering by the intelligence agencies like we are seeing now. Who watches the watchmen?

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

So you are okay with a CIA operative spying on a Presidential candidate when no crime had been established?

Maybe all Presidential candidates should be screened but they are not at present so it's a mute point. Certainly a full check on both Trump and Clinton would have surely disqualified both from running. The problem comes with political interfering by the intelligence agencies like we are seeing now. Who watches the watchmen?

BOTH candidates WERE being investigated, and all candidates should be when a crime is suspected. That's how law enforcement works!!?!

Clinton lost out because her investigation was made public for reasons which people (including me) may disagree with.

Trump was in fact treated better. No one was told about his, which allowed him to cheat on the election.

Secondly, the investigation into Trump was warranted. His employees were previously warned by American intelligence and they ignored it. As a result of those warnings back in 2013 certain people became targets of an active investigation. The intelligence community were doing their job.

The idea that firstly the work done in investigating the possible collusion was illegal is ridiculous.

Secondly, if they were not up to nefarious intent, which i think even the most ardent Trump supporter would have difficulty arguing against, then there wouldn't be an issue.

It is clear there were grounds for investigation and guess what, they found stuff.

amandstu

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea that firstly the work done in investigating the possible collusion was illegal is ridiculous.

Secondly, if they were not up to nefarious intent, which i think even the most ardent Trump supporter would have difficulty arguing against, then there wouldn't be an issue.

Just a smear campaign against the justice/intelligence system so as to shore up/feed T's base and clear the ground for open(er) defiance of the law or dismissal of Rosenstein/Mueller??

btw way "up to nefarious intent" is a mangled phrase ,no?:)

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

Just a smear campaign against the justice/intelligence system so as to shore up/feed T's base and clear the ground for open(er) defiance of the law or dismissal of Rosenstein/Mueller??

btw way "up to nefarious intent" is a mangled phrase ,no?:)

Yep, smear campaign is spot on. The narrative changed from "no such thing as collusion", to "no collusion", to "nothing wrong with collusion"

Re phraseology - I'm hungover so it could have been far worse

JRant

everlast75 wrote: »

BOTH candidates WERE being investigated, and all candidates should be when a crime is suspected. That's how law enforcement works!!?!

Clinton lost out because her investigation was made public for reasons which people (including me) may disagree with.

Trump was in fact treated better. No one was told about his, which allowed him to cheat on the election.

Secondly, the investigation into Trump was warranted. His employees were previously warned by American intelligence and they ignored it. As a result of those warnings back in 2013 certain people became targets of an active investigation. The intelligence community were doing their job.

The idea that firstly the work done in investigating the possible collusion was illegal is ridiculous.

Secondly, if they were not up to nefarious intent, which i think even the most ardent Trump supporter would have difficulty arguing against, then there wouldn't be an issue.

It is clear there were grounds for investigation and guess what, they found stuff.

They were not both being investigated by the FBI at the time. Clinton was, Trump wasn't, clearly demonstrated by Comey. There were question marks hanging over the Trump campaign but not Trump himself.

I agree that the handling of the Clinton investigation was poor but it far too simplistic to state it cost her the election. It certainly had an effect but was on a long list of questionable actions by herself and campaign.

The investigation is gathering pace into Trump, nowhere did I say it was illegal. The main question, and this counts for any candidate in the furture, is how to ensure that the intelligence agencies are not unduly interfering.

That is a very important point that seems to be washed over because Trump is public enemy No 1 in a lot of people's eyes.

It also needs to be pointed out that the law is very clear in the US. Fishing expeditions are not permitted. There needs to be a clear crime committed for law enforcement to act. It's worrying that so many are willing to ignore basic principles because the person at the centre of it is an idiot of the highest Calibre.

Hande hoche!

JRant wrote: »

It appears there is way more to this than you suggest. This looks like it could a huge deal and is only really beginning IMO.

As the article points out it appears the FBI have been a bit sparce with all the facts on when their investigation in to Tump started.

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/19/the-fbi-informant-who-monitored-the-trump-campaign-stefan-halper-oversaw-a-cia-spying-operation-in-the-1980-presidential-election/

That's a fascinating article. Amazing the way the same characters play similar roles. Imagine we wouldn't have learnt this had the election gone the other way.

26000 Elephants

JRant wrote: »

There were question marks hanging over the Trump campaign but not Trump himself.

So you are suggesting that Trump is just some gormless idiot who has just been carried along -unwittingly- in some comically scripted remake of "King Ralph"?

That doesnt sound like something a "stable genius" would get himself into, does it?

JRant

Hande hoche! wrote: »

That's a fascinating article. Amazing the way the same characters play similar roles. Imagine we wouldn't have learnt this had the election gone the other way.

They also play for whichever side suits their agenda the most.

JRant

26000 Elephants wrote: »

So you are suggesting that Trump is just some gormless idiot who has just been carried along -unwittingly- in some comically scripted remake of "King Ralph"?

That doesnt sound like something a "stable genius" would get himself into, does it?

Just stating what appear to be the facts we know so far.

That's some level of discourse by the way. Here I was thinking this was the Politics forum.

26000 Elephants

JRant wrote: »

Just stating what appear to be the facts we know so far.

That's some level of discourse by the way. Here I was thinking this was the Politics forum.

Your first point further reinforces the point I made.

I accept your second point: But characterizing an investigation into Trumps "campaign" as being so disconnected from Trump as to be of no relevance to the man himself? That is what leaves you wide open to such comedic commentary.

This will be considered a joint enterprise: It would be better if you discussed it as such.

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

Fishing expeditions are not permitted. There needs to be a clear crime committed for law enforcement to act.

So you can't investigate a potential crime!?

Oh, and to your specific point above - how does one find out when a crime is committed?????

I will give you a clue. It rhymes with "pinvestingation".

JRant

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Your first point further reinforces the point I made.

I accept your second point: But characterizing an investigation into Trumps "campaign" as being so disconnected from Trump as to be of no relevance to the man himself? That is what leaves you wide open to such comedic commentary.

This will be considered a joint enterprise: It would be better if you discussed it as such.

It really is not that hard to understand. The Trump campaign was under investigation, not the man himself. Also, please point out where I said it was of no relevance to Trump.

I'll also discuss things as I see fit, thanks anyway.