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

BuilderPlumber · 16-11-2016 12:38am #1

What will the Trump presidency be like? How different to Obama or how similar? And will he be able to reset America's relations?

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.

Mod note 07/Feb/2017: Any more name calling (including "Trumpist" and the like), link dumping and/or below standard posting will elicit mod action. Please read the charter before posting in this thread regarding the standard of posting required.

KingBrian2 · 16-11-2016 12:41am

Syria is not a failed state. It is at present at war against a bloodthirsty ruthless enemy and only a total war not seen since WW2 can truly eradicate ISIS which requires many International powers.

BuilderPlumber · 16-11-2016 1:04am

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria is not a failed state. It is at present at war against a bloodthirsty ruthless enemy and only a total war not seen since WW2 can truly eradicate ISIS which requires many International powers.

True. ISIS need to be eradicated and all world powers should cooperate fully to destroy them. Syria was one of the better states in the region up until 2011.

Jan_de_Bakker · 16-11-2016 9:56am

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 ?

FrancieBrady · 16-11-2016 10:03am

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 ?

I am no fan of Trump by a long shot but isn't whinging about winning the popular vote, when you KNOW that is NOT how the election is decided not a display of ego too. A disappointed ego that was way too overly expectant all too recently.

16-11-2016 10:05am

The truth of the matter is that we know terribly little about what a Trump presidency really brings.

His conflicting policies, constantly changing positions and ultimately his ignorance of detail mean that there are a world of possibilities.

I'm hopeful that the political pressure that will be heaped upon the President during his tenure will force him to temper and adjust some of his more bananas ideas. There are some elements of the Trump campaign that are certainly welcome, both from an economic and geo political perspective.

Infrastructure plans, efforts to 'tempt' offshored capital back to the US (though hopefully not at a stupid discount), improved relations with other nations are all worthwhile endevours.

If we get to see these only, and far less of the protectionist, isolationist, nationalist stuff, then we might not be too worse off in 4 years.

Time will tell, and it is important that any and all legally prudent means are used to attempt to keep that second list's impacts curtailed.

johnp001 · 16-11-2016 12:58pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria is not a failed state. It is at present at war against a bloodthirsty ruthless enemy and only a total war not seen since WW2 can truly eradicate ISIS which requires many International powers.

Or for a start just stop selling arms to their backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (as Senators Paul and Murphy proposed)

InTheTrees · 16-11-2016 6:48pm

Netanyahu and the Israeli government are celebrating, they're saying trump's win means the end of the two state solution for the Palestinians.

StewartGriffin · 16-11-2016 7:46pm

Aside from day to day politics it is most likely he will preside over at least one major terrorist incident and his reaction to this will probably define his presidency.
It will give him the excuse to react with a show of violence and aggression or else to show compassion and restraint.

My money is on violent and aggressive.

Rightwing · 17-11-2016 2:49pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

What will the Trump presidency be like? How different to Obama or how similar? And will he be able to reset America's relations?

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.

ISIS are all but gone, Putin saw to that. We needed a strong leader, since Obama wasn't up to it, so Putin demolished them.

Economically, he will be restricted, US debt is very high, inflation/stagflation can be a problem, interest rates have to go up, and the yields on bonds could cause problems. America won't be great again anytime soon.

He'll curb migration and rightly so. But this only prevents future problems. It's immediate problems he will struggle with. Similar to Obama, he'll be a big failure.

alastair · 17-11-2016 2:59pm

Rightwing wrote: »

ISIS are all but gone, Putin saw to that. We needed a strong leader, since Obama wasn't up to it, so Putin demolished them.

A notion at odds with the facts:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-strikes-idUSKCN0SF24L20151021

http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-in-syria-even-isis-says-russia-is-not-bombing-isis/

Bob24 · 17-11-2016 3:11pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am no fan of Trump by a long shot but isn't whinging about winning the popular vote, when you KNOW that is NOT how the election is decided not a display of ego too. A disappointed ego that was way too overly expectant all too recently.

+1, these popular vote discussions only seem to come up after US elections if the losing side did get the so called "popular vote", but the fact of the matter is that most Americans accept their country's electoral system and unless a good number of them start to consistently oppose the idea of electoral college and ask for a truly national vote, post election complains don't really mean anything except showing that losers are (naturally) frustrated.

Had Trump lost the election and won the "popular vote" we would just see a symmetric situation with Trump and supporters complaining about Clinton winning the election without a national majority, and Clinton and her supporters explaining this is not how the system work and they have to accept it.

Having said that I think Trump is making a political mistake with directly tweeting to answer those concerns in what can be seem as a self-centred way. He should probably ignore people saying that and let someone else handle this - to send the message that he is now the president and doesn't take part in these petty discussions any more (but I understand it isn't exactly his style :-D).

Rightwing · 17-11-2016 3:11pm

alastair wrote: »

A notion at odds with the facts:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-strikes-idUSKCN0SF24L20151021

http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-in-syria-even-isis-says-russia-is-not-bombing-isis/

More facts: The caliphate has crumbled, and it didn't crumble by itself.

4068ac1elhodqr · 17-11-2016 3:33pm

Folks who are now due to voluntary leave the country after Don’s win include:

Actors:
Samuel L. Jackson (S.Africa)
Bryan Cranston (unknown)
Neve Campbell (Canada)

Singers:
Cher (to the 5th planetary body from the Sun, Jupiter)
Miley Cyrus (unknown)
Barbara Streisand (Canada)

Comedians:
Amy Schumer (Spain)
Jon Stewart (other planet)
Whoopi Goldberg (unknown)

Politics:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (NZ)

alastair · 17-11-2016 3:42pm

Rightwing wrote: »

More facts: The caliphate has crumbled, and it didn't crumble by itself.

It isn't crumbling on account of any Russian actions though. They're managing to continually avoid attacking ISIS.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/isis-raqqa-syria-1.3838879

El_Duderino 09 · 17-11-2016 3:47pm

We always ask why the enemy of the day like Saddam as in power to begin with. A lot of them were supported by the West at one point. We tried to actually fix the problem in Syria by not backing the dictator and civil war is the result.

Well the first thing Trump did was back the dictator in Syria. That draws the battle lines in Syria so they can actually defeat Isis. Isis will be like the other terrorist groups with carbombs and suicide bombs and the like -which is kicking the problem 20 years down the road and is a massive improvement on the state of Syria today.

He'll take credit for defeating Isis and will become a hugely popular President.

Then he'll call home the US multinationals based in Ireland.

Basically he'll be a hero in 4 years and walk to a second term.

alastair · 17-11-2016 3:53pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We always ask why the enemy of the day like Saddam as in power to begin with. A lot of them were supported by the West at one point. We tried to actually fix the problem in Syria by not backing the dictator and civil war is the result.

Well the first thing Trump did was back the dictator in Syria. That draws the battle lines in Syria so they can actually defeat Isis. Isis will be like the other terrorist groups with carbombs and suicide bombs and the like -which is kicking the problem 20 years down the road and is a massive improvement on the state of Syria today.

He'll take credit for defeating Isis and will become a hugely popular President.

Then he'll call home the US multinationals based in Ireland.

Basically he'll be a hero in 4 years and walk to a second term.

I'm sure he'll try to take credit for anything and everything - why change his modus operandi now?

But he's just setting himself up for massive discontent by offering up what he cannot deliver. That's going to be the measure by which he's judged in 4 years's time. He's also not in any position to 'call the multinationals home'.

BuilderPlumber · 17-11-2016 4:56pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We always ask why the enemy of the day like Saddam as in power to begin with. A lot of them were supported by the West at one point. We tried to actually fix the problem in Syria by not backing the dictator and civil war is the result.

Well the first thing Trump did was back the dictator in Syria. That draws the battle lines in Syria so they can actually defeat Isis. Isis will be like the other terrorist groups with carbombs and suicide bombs and the like -which is kicking the problem 20 years down the road and is a massive improvement on the state of Syria today.

He'll take credit for defeating Isis and will become a hugely popular President.

Then he'll call home the US multinationals based in Ireland.

Basically he'll be a hero in 4 years and walk to a second term.

When one looks at it, the world is full of dictators. They exist in many African and Middle Eastern states, as well as some in the Far East, Pacific and former USSR. The vast majority of them most people will never even have heard of. Of course, some of these are much worse than others and some pose a threat outside their borders. America's opinions of them vary wildly.

For those in poor countries sub-Saharan Africa, they can do as they please. Some are US allies, some ain't but no one in the US admin cares about what they do. Those with oil like Equatorial Guinea are cosied up to of course.

No one in America cares much about North Korea either. As long as there is an army to deter them from launching attacks on US allies Japan and South Korea, they are unlikely to do anything and the US is not going to waste resources to change the regime there unless that regime was foolish enough to turn rhetoric into action (which is unlikely). Other Far East and Pacific dictators are less hostile and even less known so no one will care.

The Middle East is a different story. We need do introduction to these countries and we constantly hear about all of them. Each country has complex relations with America and what you see is not always what really happens:

Israel: US's biggest ally in the region. Policeman to do the dirty work America may not always want to do.
Iraq: Saddam and his predecessor Ba'athists were at first enemies of America, then friends and then enemies again. Even after they became enemies, America for years contained rather than removed Saddam for fear of exactly what has happened in recent times after Saddam was removed. Valuable lesson learned! Or maybe not!
Saudi Arabia: America continues to unconditionally support the most repressive, negative and fanatic state on earth that is also the number one sponsor of terrorism. Why? Oil and the opposition to its rulers are even worse!
Syria: For years, Assad and his father (also Assad) were largely ignored. As long as they feared Israel, all was okay. Then, the Arab spring came about and the West saw their opportunity to replace Assad with rebels. They probably saw Syria as a largely moderate and secular country that could not let in ISIS and al Qaeda. How wrong was this.
Jordan: US ally.
Lebanon: A place where proxy wars get fought.
Turkey: One of the comparatively more decent and democratic states in the region. The Erdogan situation may undermine this though now and in the future. Still and all, it is not a perfect state: ask a lot of Kurds.
Azerbaijan: Secular dictator, corruption, oil. Yes, the envy of most countries to the South of it.
Afghanistan: The US helped rebels against its communist USSR backed government and then ignored it and let it fall into civil war. The communists were overthrown by the Mujaheddin who were overthrown by the Taliban. The US did not care until 9/11 and then toppled the Taliban and replaced them with ex-Mujaheddin people and to this day, the country is still unstable.
Iran: America backed its monarchy but allowed it to be toppled. It was replaced by an officially anti-US regime though the US (and Israel) gave it backing in the Iran-Iraq war (America also gave Iraq backing) to stem the tide of Arab nationalism. The regime has been allowed in power by the US and the US has poor relations with the Iranian Mujaheddin, the main opposition and a Saddam ally. America under Obama improved official relations. The government is split between moderate democratic forces and unelected clerical and military dictators.
The so-called 'Gulf States': Collectively, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait. These are on paper the pinup boys for Arab moderation for the US but some of these have given ISIS money and have recognised the Taliban regime in the past. None of them are democratic by any means. The US tends to turn a blind eye.
Middle Eastern Russia, Georgia, Armenia: Instability and rivalry along with racial tensions within and with neighbours has created some dictatorial traits in these areas. Chechnya in particular has seen excess violence erupt. A blind eye for the most part is turned to all this area, even when the US and Russia are in poor relations.
Yemen: the poor relation of the Arab world. The US delegates responsibility of it to Saudi Arabia.
Libya: 30 years ago, Qaddafi/Gaddafi was the main 'villain' for the US. He was the very face of terrorism for many, despite most of it being propaganda. Yet for years, he was left in power by the US. The US once bombed him to get him to tone down whatever it was they accused him of. But it was decided he was the best on offer from 1969 to 2011. By the 2000s, he even did a deal with the West and became an ally. The West turned on him in 2011 because they endorsed the Arab spring and we know it was a poor decision now.
Egypt: Nasser was the original Arab nationalist, the original Qaddafi or Saddam. Poor relations existed between him and the West but his 2 successors improved relations drastically. Mubarak was a US ally up until 2011 when again the Arab Spring was backed by the West. A seemingly moderate Islamic regime (we will never know what their intentions were longterm) took over then but the military retook control.

Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama wanted to change regimes. Trump seems to want to revert to the old practice of supporting dictators as the lesser of 2 evils. With chaos everywhere in the Arab spring countries, there is a case more than ever for this. These people one does not have to like but the sad fact is there is no real alternative in many of these countries. In some of them like Iran, the existing system could change for the better (and is changing for the better) if encouraged to.

The greater Middle East region (Central Asia, India, Pakistan, Northeast Africa, other parts of North Africa) is looking on and hoping the chaos does not spread further. Many failed or fascist states exist in these areas too like Somalia, South Sudan, Mali and Eritrea. Regions in India and Pakistan too have shown worrying signs of trouble.

El_Duderino 09 · 17-11-2016 4:57pm

alastair wrote:

But he's just setting himself up for massive discontent by offering up what he cannot deliver. That's going to be the measure by which he's judged in 4 years's time. He's also not in any position to 'call the multinationals home'.

If he does that he will be in a legitimate position to claim credit for Syria.

Don't mind what he promised. Nobody will hold him to account for that. He will own the narrative just as he did for the last 18 months.

All he has to do is offer outrageous tax break to bring the MNCs home. Then claim credit for the jobs crested.

alastair · 17-11-2016 5:05pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If he does that he will be in a legitimate position to claim credit for Syria.

Much of the heavy lifting has already been done. But sure - he'll take the credit.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Don't mind what he promised. Nobody will hold him to account for that.

The suckers who bought into his promises certainly will.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He will own the narrative just as he did for the last 18 months.

All he has to do is offer outrageous tax break to bring the MNCs home. Then claim credit for the jobs crested.

It would take rather more than a tax break to bring most of the FDI multinationals home - given that they're effectively avoiding any taxation. A 20% cut on tax is still a lot more tax than nought.

Earthhorse · 17-11-2016 5:41pm

It's impossible to tell how Trump will govern as he has no track record in public office and he seemingly changes his mind and major policy at the drop of a hat. He also now has to work with the Republican party who he doesn't really represent and it will be interesting to see how they negotiate things.

One thing to consider is the possibility of Trump being impeached. He was successful at enriching himself by pushing bankruptcy laws, tenancy laws etc. to their absolute limit. He takes risks but doesn't understand politics as well as he does business and he may end up stepping on a landmine.

Amerika · 17-11-2016 11:16pm

Secretary of State Mitt Romney? Shocked at the possible selection, but I like the idea.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/romney-and-trump-to-discuss-secretary-of-state-position-nbc-source-says.html

Amerika · 17-11-2016 11:25pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's impossible to tell how Trump will govern as he has no track record in public office and he seemingly changes his mind and major policy at the drop of a hat. He also now has to work with the Republican party who he doesn't really represent and it will be interesting to see how they negotiate things.

One thing to consider is the possibility of Trump being impeached. He was successful at enriching himself by pushing bankruptcy laws, tenancy laws etc. to their absolute limit. He takes risks but doesn't understand politics as well as he does business and he may end up stepping on a landmine.

What would be the basis of said impeachment?

Earthhorse · 17-11-2016 11:58pm

Could be anything. Trump isn't exactly predictable.

hatrickpatrick · 18-11-2016 12:25am

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria is not a failed state. It is at present at war against a bloodthirsty ruthless enemy and only a total war not seen since WW2 can truly eradicate ISIS which requires many International powers.

This is only half true. The Syrian civil war would have happened with or without Isis and it had the same roots as all of the other 2011 Arab uprisings - a brutal dictator who people finally got tired of.

Right now it seems that Syria has a choice between Isis or Assad's regime, both of which are undemocratic, brutal, and fascist. So as of right now, unfortunately, the failed state label might be fairly apt. Regardless of who wins in Syria, ordinary people will continue to live under an oppressive dictatorship.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 8:57am

alastair wrote:

Much of the heavy lifting has already been done. But sure - he'll take the credit.

Yes and if US and Russia acheive a peace they will have earned credit. The problem will almost certainly reappear in 20 years time but it will be contained for now.

alastair wrote:

The suckers who bought into his promises certainly will.

They certainly will not even try to hold him to any of his election promises. The wall, the deportation squads for 11m illegsls. They'll amount to nothing more than a token effort and a declaration of victory. His voters aren't going to hold him to a forensic investigation of the facts.

Trump's a post facts President. As long as he throws the vase some red meat every now and then and keeps everyone divided with wedge issues ( such as abortion), then everyone will be happy to repeat the talking points

alastair wrote:

It would take rather more than a tax break to bring most of the FDI multinationals home - given that they're effectively avoiding any taxation. A 20% cut on tax is still a lot more tax than nought.

Like an amnesty on bringing money home? Google alone has over $40 billion in Bermuda which get can't bring to the US without paying corporation tax.

He could do a deal like Ireland did to allow them to legitimise their future profits without paying much tax -just like Ireland did except now they could bring the profits home. That's an attractive deal for them and it would be enough to bring them home.

Don't believe a word the IDA or IBEC are saying. Nobody knows what he will actually do.

Earthhorse wrote:

One thing to consider is the possibility of Trump being impeached. He was successful at enriching himself by pushing bankruptcy laws, tenancy laws etc. to their absolute limit. He takes risks but doesn't understand politics as well as he does business and he may end up stepping on a landmine.

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

Stealthfins · 18-11-2016 9:11am

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Right now it seems that Syria has a choice between Isis or Assad's regime, both of which are undemocratic, brutal, and fascist. So as of right now, unfortunately, the failed state label might be fairly apt. Regardless of who wins in Syria, ordinary people will continue to live under an oppressive dictatorship.

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 12:17pm

Stealthfins wrote: »

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.

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 12:22pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They certainly will not even try to hold him to any of his election promises. The wall, the deportation squads for 11m illegsls. They'll amount to nothing more than a token effort and a declaration of victory. His voters aren't going to hold him to a forensic investigation of the facts.

Trump's a post facts President. As long as he throws the vase some red meat every now and then and keeps everyone divided with wedge issues ( such as abortion), then everyone will be happy to repeat the talking points

Those who voted for a wall, the deportation of 11 million immigrants, the ban on muslims entering the U.S. and the re-establishment of heavy manufacturing jobs aren't interested in forensic anything, they'll simply want those commitments met. If they're not, and they clearly won't be, then they're not going to be satisfied.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 12:44pm

alastair wrote:

Those who voted for a wall, the deportation of 11 million immigrants, the ban on muslims entering the U.S. and the re-establishment of heavy manufacturing jobs aren't interested in forensic anything, they'll simply want those commitments met. If they're not, and they clearly won't be, then they're not going to be satisfied.

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 1:00pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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 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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 1:07pm

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 1:09pm

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 1:18pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

Again - he's not being judged on outcomes.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 1:19pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

No candidate ever does. There's always a winner.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 1:31pm

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

alastair · 18-11-2016 1:43pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

InTheTrees · 18-11-2016 1:56pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Mr.H · 18-11-2016 2:08pm

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

Earthhorse · 18-11-2016 2:38pm

El_Duderino 09 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.

Amerika · 18-11-2016 2:54pm

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 3:09pm

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.

TepinTheGreat · 18-11-2016 3:09pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 3:37pm

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 3:40pm

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

alastair · 18-11-2016 3:50pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

alastair · 18-11-2016 3:52pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

FrancieBrady · 18-11-2016 3:57pm

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

Earthhorse · 18-11-2016 3:58pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 4:55pm

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?

FrancieBrady wrote:

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-11-2016 5:01pm

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?

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

Comments