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

KingBrian2 · 13-01-2017 12:18AM

Bozacke wrote: »

You obviously were following the wrong election, as the Trump machine was feeding the uneducated Christians and Rust Belt people to buy in to all of Trump's lies. Plus, it was the Trump machine that was feeding the crazy lies about Hillary, calling her a criminal, chanting lock her up, burning her in effigy and producing crazy propaganda lies like Pizzagate!!

Incase you have not noticed Hillary did run a dirty campaign against Trump. She was advocating yet more policies that would benefit the rich. The results show that the richer states overwhelmingly voted Hillary to ensure they kept their profits going well. Trump enjoyed widespread support among the impoverished states. States let down by successive Democrat & Republican administrations.

PopePalpatine · 13-01-2017 12:23AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Incase you have not noticed Hillary did run a dirty campaign against Trump. She was advocating yet more policies that would benefit the rich. The results show that the richer states overwhelmingly voted Hillary to ensure they kept their profits going well. Trump enjoyed widespread support among the impoverished states. States let down by successive Democrat & Republican administrations.

Go on then, list these policies of Hillary's that would benefit the rich.

Also, I see a lot of chicken-and-egg thinking in your post. Do the richer states vote Democrat because they're rich or vice-versa? Do the poorer states vote Republican because they're poor or vice-versa?

Manic Moran · 13-01-2017 01:51AM

Kitsunegari wrote: »

One of Obama's greatest successes may have been to speak to Trump about keeping some of the Obamacare benefits such as insurance for pre existing conditions and allowing kids to stay on parents policy's until their 26.

In fairness to Trump, not that you can really consider anything he says as iron-clad, he stated a position in favour of keeping the pre-existing conditions regulation back during the primary debates in Feb 2016.

In all the angst over the press conference, such as it was, I noticed that people seem to have missed out on some of the rather important comments he made, such as that the pharmaceutical companies are getting away with murder, a new bidding system is required, and that their lobbyists are too strong, a position which Bernie Sanders stated agreement with after the conference. His comments about the F-35 were also appropriate, and his choice to run the VA is an apparently fairly well regarded chap who was appointed by Obama.

But I guess arguing over Russian espionage and empty folders is more important.

If anyone has been keeping track of the confirmation hearings, his candidates for the various positions who have been interviewed thus far seem to have their heads screwed on the right way, and their answers have not always been in lockstep with Trump's stated positions.

MightyMandarin · 13-01-2017 09:50AM

Manic Moran wrote:

If anyone has been keeping track of the confirmation hearings, his candidates for the various positions who have been interviewed thus far seem to have their heads screwed on the right way, and their answers have not always been in lockstep with Trump's stated positions.

His candidates stink, not just because of their positions, but because of their qualifications. Rex Tillerson when asked if he believed in climate change, refused to answer based on it being a 'little bit of both' refusing to answer and lacking the knowledge to answer. This man worked in Exxon for 42 years, and yet he couldn't even say whether he thought climate change existed or not.

Another of Trumps stinking picks is Monica Crowley, who's been found to have plagiarised numerous sections of her book and also her PhD. Does that sound like the mark of a person who should be trusted?

Manic Moran wrote:

But I guess arguing over Russian espionage and empty folders is more important.

Hmm I guess having a president who could be blackmailed and is taking bribes from Russia, isn't all that bad....

I also guess having the head of the FBI use his power to decide the result of the election in favour of one candidate isn't all that bad aswell.

But hey, don't listen to me or anyone who's a Democrat, we're just sore losers remember.

Count Dooku · 13-01-2017 11:31AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Go on then, list these policies of Hillary's that would benefit the rich.

Her policies were to continue policies of Clinton The First , which massively benefited the top 0.1% over last 3 decades

Billy86 · 13-01-2017 11:48AM

Dooku, you haven't pointed to a single one of her policies? Also those policies you do mention are more commonly called 'Raegenomics' (note how it begins during his presidency) - yet so many Trump fans seem eager to label him 'the next Raegan' which really is peculiar. Makes sense though, because there's not a hope that Trump will be looking to increase tax on himself and reduce is on the average American - as long as he can squeeze out of this presidency is going to be all about lining his own pockets.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-01-2017 12:14PM

Ok so now trump and his CIA director know it was Russia behind the hacks. What should be done about it?

Why is it so important to be on good terms with Russia and having a go at China is an almost daily occurrence?

Why is would trump supporters be in favour of improving relations with Russia but not with China?

demfad · 13-01-2017 01:47PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Her policies were to continue policies of Clinton The First , which massively benefited the top 0.1% over last 3 decades

Nice graph. Go again how you can attribute the rise in wealth of the top .1% since '77 to Hilary Clinton?

demfad · 13-01-2017 01:51PM

Corroborating evidence of Kompromat from Moscow and St Petersburg as well as an audio about Russia collaboration with trump campaign.
This is from Paul Wood a respected BBC correspondent on Russia over many decades.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.

Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

MightyMandarin · 13-01-2017 01:58PM

demfad wrote: »

Corroborating evidence of Kompromat from Moscow and St Petersburg as well as an audio about Russia collaboration with trump campaign.
This is from Paul Wood a respected BBC correspondent on Russia over many decades.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

No, no guys this guy on 4chan did it all...

https://twitter.com/trsprudence/status/819552991753732096

See he mentioned 'lawyer' so he's 100% legit. All you 'lib-cucks' have been fooled by the superior intellectuals of /pol/. #MAGA

CMOTDibbler · 13-01-2017 02:03PM

demfad wrote: »

Corroborating evidence of Kompromat from Moscow and St Petersburg as well as an audio about Russia collaboration with trump campaign.
This is from Paul Wood a respected BBC correspondent on Russia over many decades.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

Amerika · 13-01-2017 02:41PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yep you're right, trying to hold politicians accountable is being a sore loser. What was that about draining the swamp? Seems the only ones against the draining are Trump and his team.

I love how you went through all the possible rebuttals in your head, concluded none of them were good enough and then just played the 'sore loser' card.

Oh bother!

So only career politicians should become president? I believe that’s people here are saying. Applying stifling conflict of interest restrictions to elected officials who have diverse business dealings (before taking office) would interfere with their ability to carry out their diverse responsibilities. Because every issues that crossed the desk of the president or elected official would come under scrutiny.

Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy (and his brothers Robert and Teddy), George HW Bush, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and others, have all held large fortunes in stocks, trusts, mutual funds, real estate and businesses. But it’s not until Trump was elected that we suddenly need some legislation that would prevent him from doing his job effectively.

Amerika · 13-01-2017 02:44PM

L wrote: »

Anyone in particular?

Me and a lot of other people who put Trump into office. Hillary Clinton would have essentially been a third Obama term. Bad decisions made by Obama regarding renewable energy at taxpayers expense would have been carried on by Clinton. And this is in part what the American people rejected. End of story.

Billy86 · 13-01-2017 02:49PM

It's funny when people try to pretend Hillary Clinton lost the election "because it would have been like more of Obama" when Obama has the third highest approval rating of the last 9 presidents at their time of leaving office (behind only Reagan & Clinton) at well over 50%.

13-01-2017 03:08PM

Amerika wrote: »

Me and a lot of other people who put Trump into office.

Let me be clearer in what I'm asking so: do you know of any experts in energy policy who regard these subsidies as a waste?

Amerika · 13-01-2017 03:19PM

L wrote: »

Let me be clearer in what I'm asking so: do you know of any experts in energy policy who regard these subsidies as a waste?

Amount of taxpayer funds provided to soon-to-be bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
SpectraWatt ($500,000)
Solyndra ($535 million)
Beacon Power ($43 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)
A123 Systems ($279 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
Range Fuels ($80 million)
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

Do you know of any experts in energy policy who regard these subsidies as a money well spent?

13-01-2017 03:49PM

Amerika wrote: »

Do you know of any experts in energy policy who regard these subsidies as a money well spent?

Actually, yes. As it happens, quite a lot of them. Off the top of my head, depending on the flavour you want, everyone from legal policy experts like Elliott, to former Secretaries of Energy (and Nobel prize winners/top energy lab directors) like Chu and Moniz, to Republican governors like Schwarzenegger, to just about anyone who has an understanding of how grow and build strategies for thermal generators shaped how we use electricity or what a capacity payment is.

Still though, you didn't answer my question.

Zubeneschamali · 13-01-2017 03:54PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Obama has the third highest approval rating of the last 9 presidents at their time of leaving office (behind only Reagan & Clinton) at well over 50%.

While Trump has the lowest recorded approval rating heading into his inauguration.

demfad · 13-01-2017 04:00PM

Federal Election Committee going after the money now.
A letter to the Trump campaign with attached 246 pages of illegal/irregular donations that they have demanded explanataion for. There is also a gap in the total amount of monies received and accounted for. Following the money will get him.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/964/201701100300074964/201701100300074964.pdf

Amerika · 13-01-2017 06:41PM

L wrote: »

Actually, yes. As it happens, quite a lot of them. Off the top of my head, depending on the flavour you want, everyone from legal policy experts like Elliott, to former Secretaries of Energy (and Nobel prize winners/top energy lab directors) like Chu and Moniz, to Republican governors like Schwarzenegger, to just about anyone who has an understanding of how grow and build strategies for thermal generators shaped how we use electricity or what a capacity payment is.

Still though, you didn't answer my question.

These people you noted were all people either spending the taxpayer's money or reaping the benefits off it, correct? I wonder if they would have considered it money well spent if it was their OWN money put into these failed company's capital investments?

And no I don't know any energy experts, but I guess I could find some if I looked. But that isn't the point. The point is it was taxpayer money, not the experts, that was utilized. It is the taxpayer's opinion that matters most.

Amerika · 13-01-2017 06:53PM

demfad wrote: »

Federal Election Committee going after the money now.
A letter to the Trump campaign with attached 246 pages of illegal/irregular donations that they have demanded explanataion for. There is also a gap in the total amount of monies received and accounted for. Following the money will get him.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/964/201701100300074964/201701100300074964.pdf

Damn, I gave over $50 to his campaign and my name's not on the list.

CMOTDibbler · 13-01-2017 07:05PM

Amerika wrote: »

Damn, I gave over $50 to his campaign and my name's not on the list.

They don't seem to be interested unless you did it more than once. They seem to have let the $51.00 donations go anyway.

13-01-2017 07:07PM

Amerika wrote: »

These people you noted were all people either spending the taxpayer's money or reaping the benefits off it, correct?

Not really - one's a tenured professor, the two energy secretaries were in favour of subsidies back when they were merely extremely respected academics, and Arnie is still making noise about it years after stopping being governor.

It's very hard to make a good argument of bias on their positions around subsidies.

Amerika wrote: »

And no I don't know any energy experts, but I guess I could find some if I looked.

So without meaning to be rough about this, if you aren't familiar enough with this to name a single expert, what are you basing your opinion on here?

Gut feeling makes for poor politics and bad outcomes.

Amerika wrote: »

But that isn't the point. The point is it was taxpayer money, not the experts, that was utilized. It is the taxpayer's opinion that matters most.

So, you realize they're all taxpayers as well right? Just ones with more hands on experience and expertise in this field than the average.

Count Dooku · 13-01-2017 07:24PM

demfad wrote: »

Nice graph. Go again how you can attribute the rise in wealth of the top .1% since '77 to Hilary Clinton?

Simple - because she was about to continue failed policies of Obama and her husband under sauce of left wing populism, like "Work to close the pay gap", "Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules", "Put an end to quarterly capitalism", "Restore union collective bargaining rights", "Protect workers from exploitation" etc

Count Dooku · 13-01-2017 07:25PM

Billy86 wrote: »

It's funny when people try to pretend Hillary Clinton lost the election "because it would have been like more of Obama" when Obama has the third highest approval rating of the last 9 presidents at their time of leaving office (behind only Reagan & Clinton) at well over 50%.

He bought his popularity by borrowing one trillion per year and avoiding reforms

Inquitus · 13-01-2017 08:53PM

Probably Trump's worst week since he announced his candidacy, some poor showings by some of his cabinet picks in the hearings, the leaked dossier, his frankly appalling press conference, many big fibs told, and his approval ratings tanking.

I can only look forward to the mayhem that will certainly accompany his inauguration next week, it's like a run-away train haring down the tracks to certain derailment, it's hard to see how he can regain the momentum and add a bit of poise to his presidency at this point, it will certainly be entertaining.......

Mr.Micro · 13-01-2017 09:34PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Probably Trump's worst week since he announced his candidacy, some poor showings by some of his cabinet picks in the hearings, the leaked dossier, his frankly appalling press conference, many big fibs told, and his approval ratings tanking.

I can only look forward to the mayhem that will certainly accompany his inauguration next week, it's like a run-away train haring down the tracks to certain derailment, it's hard to see how he can regain the momentum and add a bit of poise to his presidency at this point, it will certainly be entertaining.......

Yes indeed. I am not sure he has the class to respect the role and honour of being President. I think he may see it as being an Emperor. Interesting times ahead.

KingBrian2 · 13-01-2017 10:02PM

I do expect him to rise to the occasion and treat the position of President with honour. I might dislike American democracy though as President of America he deserves to be listened to. I want to see him working with Congress and reconnecting with other parts of the world.

Inquitus · 13-01-2017 10:06PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I do expect him to rise to the occasion and treat the position of President with honour. I might dislike American democracy though as President of America he deserves to be listened to. I want to see him working with Congress and reconnecting with other parts of the world.

I would have thought the time to start doing this was once he was elected, not once he is inaugurated, but we will see. After all being PEOTUS is really when you should think about being presidential........

PopePalpatine · 13-01-2017 10:07PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

Simple - because she was about to continue failed policies of Obama and her husband under sauce of left wing populism, like "Work to close the pay gap", "Raise the minimum wage and strengthen overtime rules", "Put an end to quarterly capitalism", "Restore union collective bargaining rights", "Protect workers from exploitation" etc

And how would those policies increase the top 0.1%'s share of the wealth?

You even missed an open goal with quantitative easing and the effect that's had on stock indexes. :pac:

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

Comments