nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

While I have only read about that nomination the issue with Bork seems entirely separate. Democrats thought he was too extreme in his views and attacked his constitutional stance. The Republicans just refused to consider anyone.
Reagan still got his pick but he just had to pick one that was more acceptable to both sides.

Well, yes and no. Surely any objection to a judge by a party as opposed to by senators is based on the likely views and rulings. Bork was an originalist with a definitely conservative mindset. It's not as if we don't have any of those on the courts. Republicans object to those who take the living document form of interpreting the constitution, and it's not as if we don't have those either.

A flat refusal to even consider Garland was without doubt very bad form and a terrible precedent. The end result, though, if they heard him and then Borked him vs refusing to hear him, would be the same: He wouldn't be appointed: In effect a procedural filibuster. The difference was in perception.

Granted I don't get how they are members of parties and how they obviously disagree so heavily with what the constitution says. How can anyone put much merit in their judgements if, given any particular issue they have heard, just under half of supreme court judges disagree with the call.

I don't know if they are members of parties per se, or are just known to have leanings. However, there is a theory that split decisions should not be unexpected in the Supreme Court: If the case were so unambiguous that a unanimous or near-unanimous outcome would be normal, the cases shouldn't be getting to the Supreme Court in the first place.

That said, the 2017 and 2014 terms were particularly unusual in the percentage of cases which were unanimous. Only 14% of cases last year were decided with 5-4 or 5-3 votes. Over half were 9-0, which is somewhat astonishing.
NY Times if you can get past the paywall. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-term-consensus.html?mcubz=1
National Review if you can't. https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/unanimous-supreme-court-decisions-are-more-common-you-think/

My personal opinion is that since SCOTUS only rules on some 150 a year out of 7,000 applications, the cases taken up come under three categories: Significant social impact which result in the 5-4s, obviously egregious mistakes below which must be corrected (resulting in the 9-0s) and matters of important law which haven't yet been addressed (Resulting in the rest).

But is that really what the US majority wants? To go backwards?

Maybe. If you consider it going backwards. I happen to like the idea of SCOTUS ruling in favour of firearms owners and certainly don't think it a step backwards, but you and I presumably both consider a reversal of gay marriage to be going backwards. However, obviously a lot of voters in the US don't. Hooray for representative republics, where we get a vote. We don't -always- get it right, but more often than not it works out.

Ps - i haven't had one reply by any trump supporter or defender in here (there must be some surely) challenging me on my assessment of the man. I can only conclude, as Leroy said in a different way, that they approve of a racist in order to own the libs.

I still think he's a nationalist, not a racist, though the difference seems lost on many. However, who says anyone here approves of him? The goal can be not to 'own the libs', but to advance a policy. I would think he is considered by many conservatives and independents more as a 'useful idiot'. After all, he can only sign legislation sent to him by Congress, and whatever about the Presidency, the votes for the 2017/18 Congress were pretty weighted.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

I still think he's a nationalist, not a racist, though the difference seems lost on many. However, who says anyone here approves of him? The goal can be not to 'own the libs', but to advance a policy. I would think he is considered by many conservatives and independents more as a 'useful idiot'. After all, he can only sign legislation sent to him by Congress, and whatever about the Presidency, the votes for the 2017/18 Congress were pretty weighted.

Before I crack my knuckles and start listing out examples of why he is, do you really believe that?

Christy42

Ideological differences I can understand though. If that was why Republicans opposed Garland and they were OK with a more moderate pick or some such I would be fine with them rejecting an Obama candidate. That is why it was different. Reagan still had his pick, he just had to compromise on ideology.

Yeah many don't see stuff like removing gay marriage or other things as going backwards. Doesn't mean it isn't. While you want gun rights conservative it also means you have to live other rulings as part and parcel of your vote. You can't morally state you only voted for gun control and say you are not to blame (well collectively, I doubt you had a casting vote) for other consequences from the vote.

While I can see how people might have been fooled 2 years ago at this point a vote for Trump like candidates is at least displaying a willingness to turn a blind eye to kids being thrown in over crowded cages. People may be voting for less gun control or fiscal policy but that sort of treatment of people is a consequence of those votes (an issue with democracy is that nuance is difficult, best of a bad lot for governing people really).

Nah he is an out and out racist. A nationalist would be worried about a more aggressive Russia instead of blindly taking their word. Plus the entire birther thing, he had to know he had nothing to show Obama was foreign. Maybe this definition of nationalism just overlaps with racism which is also possible. ("My country is the best" taken to it's logical conclusion will get you to a similar place).

spacecoyote

Some not so hot news for the benefits of the tax plan.

The finalised Q1 2018 GDP has been revised down to 2%. Part of the justification for the bill was that the tax cuts would spur growth by as much as 1% a year, bringing it to around 3% on average. Even with the 3% estimate they were going to be looking at increasing the deficit, but if the levels stay at closer to 2% there will be an even bigger hole to dig out of.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-28/u-s-first-quarter-gdp-growth-revised-down-to-2-on-services

The forecasts are much better for Q2, but with the dollar strengthening significantly & the potential impact of the trade tariffs, these could also be impacted

[Deleted User]

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's not true whatsoever.

He had majorities in both houses but was short of a supermajority, so you're correct. But to say it's not true whatsoever is a bit much.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

For his whole admin?

Never said whole as 8 years is a long time but when he was elected in 2008 he did.

So the majority of the US clearly agrees with this agenda.

There are 326 million Americans, they are not one homogenous group. Even the main parties have different viewpoints and agendas.

controlling those that don't agree with you?

Like the EU, which has the UK leaving and Merkel under pressure to find an agreement on immigrants this week? Stones in glass houses and all that.

Voters need to take responsibility, it is too easy to simply be lazy and blame someone else.

Pot Kettle

This is their country,

Yes it is, so I am curious as to why it vexes you so much since you dont live there.

failing to connect with the voters, maybe thats because the voters don't like the message.

You could be onto something there.

Land of the brave and home of the free?

It is actually land of the free, home of the brave. Like most of your posts, you have it arseways.

WinnyThePoo

Deleted User wrote: »

He had majorities in both houses but was short of a supermajority, so you're correct. But to say it's not true whatsoever is a bit much.

Nice article here...

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

Seems he had total control for about 4 months. Not going to allow someone make out he had control of the senate throughout his presidency . Which is a lie.

markodaly

Manic Moran wrote: »

you and I presumably both consider a reversal of gay marriage to be going backwards. However, obviously a lot of voters in the US don't. Hooray for representative republics, where we get a vote. We don't -always- get it right, but more often than not it works out.

The Gay marriage stuff is done and dusted. Trump even said so himself and the GOP, by and large, have accepted it. The evangelical wing of the GOP is not as big or powerful as some think, if it were, Ted Cruz would be president, not Trump.

I still think he's a nationalist, not a racist, though the difference seems lost on many. .

100%. People who throw out the ism's or the ist's usually the ones who don't really know what those words mean and are just trying to poison the well. Trump was a democrat until 2009 and lived on the upper east side. I doubt there are many democratic klansmen in New York. Or was he just a racist when he joined the GOP?

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

The Gay marriage stuff is done and dusted. Trump even said so himself and the GOP, by and large, have accepted it. The evangelical wing of the GOP is not as big or powerful as some think, if it were, Ted Cruz would be president, not Trump.

100%. People who throw out the ism's or the ist's usually the ones who don't really know what those words mean and are just trying to poison the well. Trump was a democrat until 2009 and lived on the upper east side. I doubt there are many democratic klansmen in New York. Or was he just a racist when he joined the GOP?

He was always racist , party never mattered.

In fact hes not even nationalist either. At the best hes Trumpist and Racist. Number 1 is him and bottom of the rack is anyone who doesnt match his skin type.

If you cant see the form for this in his history then you are not bothered looking.

You nor anyone else gets to change the past and the facts.

Nody

markodaly wrote: »

100%. People who throw out the ism's or the ist's usually the ones who don't really know what those words mean and are just trying to poison the well. Trump was a democrat until 2009 and lived on the upper east side. I doubt there are many democratic klansmen in New York. Or was he just a racist when he joined the GOP?

Nope; he's been racist pretty much his whole life; being a democrat does not make him less racist somehow.

70s

In 1973, Richard Nixon’s Department of Justice sued the Trump family business for refusing to rent or negotiate rentals “because of race and color”.

It also charged that the company had required prohibitively stringent rental terms and conditions to black applicants and had lied about unit availability to keep black residents out. A then 26-year-old Donald Trump was the president of the company at the time.

Three Trump doormen also told the DoJ they had been instructed to deflect African Americans who came to Trump buildings to apply for apartments. The suit was later settled “without an admission of guilt”, as Trump is keen on reminding.

80s

Employees revealed a pattern of racism. In a tell-all book, former president of the Trump Plaza Casino John O’Donnell said Trump once told him: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

There are 326 million Americans, they are not one homogenous group. Even the main parties have different viewpoints and agendas.

You understand the whole concept of democracy and majority don't you? You were the one that pointed out

but when the Republicans control both houses of Congress, the White House, and 33 out of 50 governorships,

so clearly the point you were making was that the majority of Americans want this.

markodaly wrote: »

Like the EU, which has the UK leaving and Merkel under pressure to find an agreement on immigrants this week? Stones in glass houses and all that.

Whataboutery. This is the thread. And you don't really believe that do you. In Ireland we have just voted in Equality marriage legislation and abortion rights. Workers have been given better protections, as have consumers.

This was my quote;

Voters need to take responsibility, it is too easy to simply be lazy and blame someone else.

to which you replied:

markodaly wrote: »

Pot Kettle

Not sure what I am supposed to do with that. I are trying to suggest that I don't take responsibility for my vote? How would you have come to the that conclusion?

markodaly wrote: »

Yes it is, so I am curious as to why it vexes you so much since you dont live there.

It doesn't vex me, although I do take any pleasure in the US that I knew of (or at least thought I did) turn like this. But this is a discussion forum, hence a discussion.

markodaly wrote: »

It is actually land of the free, home of the brave. Like most of your posts, you have it arseways.

Fair enough I take it back. No need to gets personal. Its a made up phrase anyway so is there a major difference. Do you think the US is not a land of the brave and home of the free?

markodaly

listermint wrote: »

He was always racist , party never mattered.

Was he racist when he was a year old?

Those type of hysterical posts is the reason why Trump is now president. The internet is just not a good platform for debate or nuance regarding any controversial topic.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

100%. People who throw out the ism's or the ist's usually the ones who don't really know what those words mean and are just trying to poison the well. Trump was a democrat until 2009 and lived on the upper east side. I doubt there are many democratic klansmen in New York. Or was he just a racist when he joined the GOP?

Are you trying to say that only GOP people are racist, that there are no racist in the DNC? If that is true, and I am sure you have got your facts rights,. then surely everyone knows that the GOP is the home for racists?

Makes it even more a reason to think that Trump moved across to them since he would have felt out of place in a non racist DNC

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

Was he racist when he was a year old?

Those type of hysterical posts is the reason why Trump is now president. The internet is just not a good platform for debate or nuance regarding any controversial topic.

Superb retort i must say.

Very original must have taken what 10 minutes to come up with that gold.

to answer your question, no one is born racist. he got it from his environment. his racist father.

next..

markodaly

Nody wrote: »

Nope; he's been racist pretty much his whole life; being a democrat does not make him less racist somehow.

70s

80s

So, anecdotal evidence so.

What next, the nonsense story about his dad being at some clan rally 80 years ago?

Meanwhile, polls are showing that Trump is attracting a record number of black males

markodaly

listermint wrote: »

he got it from his environment. his racist father.

So, he is a victim so? It gets even better.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you trying to say that only GOP people are racist, that there are no racist in the DNC? If that is true, and I am sure you have got your facts rights,. then surely everyone knows that the GOP is the home for racists?

Makes it even more a reason to think that Trump moved across to them since he would have felt out of place in a non racist DNC

You used the word racist 4 times in 3 sentences. Must be a record.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

Meanwhile, polls are showing that Trump is attracting a record number of black males

And the link to back up that bizarre claim? Unless you mean he got more black votes than Romney, which can clearly be explained by who he ran against.

[Deleted User]

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nice article here...

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress

Seems he had total control for about 4 months. Not going to allow someone make out he had control of the senate throughout his presidency . Which is a lie.

Everyone knows Obama didn't have it through his presidency, but not everyone knows he had it at some point. You say four months for total control but it was two years I think of majorities. Half a term is hardly insignificant.

It really highlights the failings of the Democrats during Obama's term.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/10/14211994/obama-democrats-downballot

Over the past eight years, the Democratic Party has lost a mind-bogglingly large number of races across the country. Their share of seats in the United States Senate has fallen from 59 to 48. They’ve lost 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and 958 seats in state legislatures.

It seems that now, in 2018, they're finally attempting to fix that with all this talk of a "blue wave".

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

It really highlights the failings of the Democrats during Obama's term.

What are you talking about? He got Obamacare passed, more than Clinton achieved in 8 years.

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

So, he is a victim so? It gets even better.

Depends on your definition of Victim, I didnt call him one.

Why did you ?

This is an unusual angle you are coming at this from. Im intrigued tell me more

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

So, anecdotal evidence so.

What next, the nonsense story about his dad being at some clan rally 80 years ago?

Meanwhile, polls are showing that Trump is attracting a record number of black males

What are you talking about. He clearly doesn't value the lives of Puerto Ricans are much as those in Texas. Is that down to racism or simply incompetence.

Lets call simply a callous disregard for fellow citizens.

What about labeliing African countries ****holes? Well, he was probably talking about infrastructure (though of course he has argued that American infrastructure is a disaster but somehow stopped short of claiming US a ****hole).

Muslims, technically not a race of course, but it shows a willingness to categorise people based on a single common trait, eerily similar to racism.

Trump companies have a history of trying to keep black people for inhabiting their properties, although there is probably something different in how black people pay rent.

Obama is not a real American based on what? Where do you think he came up with that idea? Was it because he was from Hawaii. Maybe because he had been a Chicago politician. Of course once he got the birth cert then the case was closed. What other POTUS has he challenged about being American.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

You used the word racist 4 times in 3 sentences. Must be a record.

You completely failed to answer the point, nothing new there.

[Deleted User]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What are you talking about? He got Obamacare passed, more than Clinton achieved in 8 years.

"It really highlights the failings of the Democrats during Obama's term."

Slow down when you're reading next time.

Nody

markodaly wrote: »

So, anecdotal evidence so.

What next, the nonsense story about his dad being at some clan rally 80 years ago?

Meanwhile, polls are showing that Trump is attracting a record number of black males

You mean hearsay that Trump himself has confirmed as true? Or did you not know that Trump confirmed it himself in an interview in Playboy in '97.

But since you need it from Trump's mouth would the '93 congress hearing do as evidence where the following statement was made after his comments "In the 19 years I have been on this committee, I have never seen such irresponsible remarks,” shouted by Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.) to Trump? Or how about his TV interview in '89 claiming black educated people get preferential treatment over white (when in reality all studies showed that black educated men was less likely to be successful compared to a white male with same education)?

Or are you claiming that Trump is lying about the facts he actually confirmed himself and is on record to say?

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

You understand the whole concept of democracy and majority don't you?

I do but America is not a Democracy, it is a Federal Republic. Otherwise Clinton would be in the White House.

You were the one that pointed out so clearly the point you were making was that the majority of Americans want this.

They want it more than the Democrats, not that they love the GOP. Better the devil you know. How many Irish people love FF or FG, not many but come the next election, it will be those arses in Cabinet.

Not sure what I am supposed to do with that. I are trying to suggest that I don't take responsibility for my vote? How would you have come to the that conclusion?

That is not my suggestion. The irony in your post was the blame game. You blame the voters for Trumps outcome and not the position the voters were put under by the respective two party system. The two party system treated their voters like mugs and this is the result you get.

It doesn't vex me, although I do take any pleasure in the US that I knew of (or at least thought I did) turn like this. But this is a discussion forum, hence a discussion.

You do take pleasure? That explains your posting record on this topic so.

Its a made up phrase anyway so is there a major difference.

It is a line of their national anthem, so not a made up the phrase at all.

For someone who is so vexed and interested in America, you sure know little about the place. Have you been or worked there?

I spent many years there and the view you get from the media either here or from the US is not an accurate representation of what America or Americans are really like.

This is the same for any country by the way I have been in, be it Colombia, Russia, Zimbabwe or China or many more. The image the media sells bares little representation to the reality.

Leroy42

And there is a key difference between racism and nationalism

Nationalsim is

loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

whilst close to racism, racism involves the feeling of supeority of other races simply on the basis of their race.

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Basically, it is the difference between positive and negative.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Before I crack my knuckles and start listing out examples of why he is, do you really believe that?

Start at "Make America Great Again".

Everything has been couched in terms of US security, US jobs, US economy. He may not have the best ideas on how to achieve these things (Trade war, anyone?), and it may be somewhat in terms of fearmongering (MS-13, Jihadism), but they are all focused on "America and Americans first, foreign considerations second".

"Oh, he's racist against hispanics"? Is he? Why, because Mexico happens to be a country with great influence in the US's criminal violence underworld? Because the Mexican border is the crossing point for about a half million people a year? Is that racist against hispanics, or just focusing on something a lot of Americans are concerned about with a country which happens to be primarily hispanic? "But he called Mexicans rapists and murderers". Even if one discounts the small minority cases where they actually are, which I suspect was what he was (incompetently) going for, was it because they are Hispanic? Does he call Puerto Ricans rapists and murderers? Does he call the Hispanic population in California one of rapists and murderers?

"He's racist against Islam" (Well, religionist, I guess). Notwithstanding that more Catholics are actually affected by the travel ban than muslims (The tally of folks entering from Venezuela is alone was more than the other countries combined), the US has been at war with Islamic forces for the last 15 years. The threat of jihadism, whether justified or not, is a concern in people's minds especially given events in Europe, and it is a religion-based threat. Is it an over-reaction? Maybe. But is it because 'Islam', or is it because most jihadists tend to claim to be islamic, and he's attempting to emphasize the security threat?

"He's racist against blacks". Why, because he called certain countries in Africa "****holes?" He is utterly tone deaf and childish (eg "Pocahontas" insult on Warren when honoring Navajos), but face it, the countries in question are not exactly at the top of the WHO Living Conditions Index, be the population white or black. "OK, he has enabled racism, look at the Charlottesville rally". How? What has he said which has apparently given Neo-Nazi groups their blessing? Is it possible that these groups would have felt emboldened by -any- Republican candidate given that the drive since 2015 against confederate symbols has been well supported by Democrats?

Trump has a hell of a lot of flaws. I remain unconvinced that racism is one of them.

Go ahead, crack your knuckles.

pixelburp

Is Trump a racist?
Is Trump a nationalist?

I think there's more than enough evidence to suggest that he's both to be honest. But then, the man has a critical absence of empathy in any case, so there's probably an element of splitting hairs in this entire avenue of discussion. Trump's behaviour with others, be they friends, colleagues, journalists - whoever - continuously suggests he lacks a vital spark of decency or humanity.

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

I do but America is not a Democracy, it is a Federal Republic. Otherwise Clinton would be in the White House.

Where did I say it wasn't? I asked did you understand democracy, I didn't say that America was a democracy. For a person who likes to nitpick you really should take a bit more time reading.
Do you agree that America runs a democratic voting system?

markodaly wrote: »

They want it more than the Democrats, not that they love the GOP. Better the devil you know. How many Irish people love FF or FG, not many but come the next election, it will be those arses in Cabinet.

I really don't know what you are trying to argue. You made the point that the US voters had made their decisions, I totally agree with you. What their drive to make that decision is not under consideration. The whole point being they need to take responsibility. You seem to want to pardon them or that at every turn.

markodaly wrote: »

That is not my suggestion. The irony in your post was the blame game. You blame the voters for Trumps outcome and not the position the voters were put under by the respective two party system. The two party system treated their voters like mugs and this is the result you get.

So again, its not the fault of the people who voted but the system. That may well have been true for the initial vote for Trump, which I clearly alluded to in my post, but what is the excuse now? They have seen the Children in cages, they have seen his contempt for democratic norms, they have seen him fail to separate himself from his businesses. They have seen him attack the FBI, the CIA, the judicial system, the AG. He has lied about previous POTUS. They have seen him fail to take any action to reduce the influence that Russia tries to have in the US elections, going as far as to take Putin's word over the evidence from his won agencies.

markodaly wrote: »

You do take pleasure? That explains your posting record on this topic so.

I meant to say do not take pleasure! Oops

markodaly wrote: »

It is a line of their national anthem, so not a made up the phrase at all.

Was it handed down by God or something? Maybe it was carved into Mount Rushmore before the country was founded along with the heads of the Presidents. Of course it is made up.

markodaly wrote: »

For someone who is so vexed and interested in America, you sure know little about the place. Have you been or worked there?

I spent many years there and the view you get from the media either here or from the US is not an accurate representation of what America or Americans are really like.

This is the same for any country by the way I have been in, be it Colombia, Russia, Zimbabwe or China or many more. The image the media sells bares little representation to the reality.

My phrase has very little difference in meaning that correct phrase.