Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Townton wrote: »

He has also cut a massive amount of regulation, which from a business perspective particularly small and medium has been far more effective and helpful then the tax reforms/cuts. Both together are really adding to the economy dispite what some said prior to their implementation. Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy. Food for thought but on the ground thinks certainly seem to be working. Which will be very hard for the Dems to counter unless there is some sort of slow down. As Bill Maher said he is hoping for a recession because without one the Dems could unfortunately be in trouble. But plenty of time to go yet!

Which regulations has he cut?

There is a fascinating tale being told now on the Marian Finucane show of how a Canadian millionaire [of Russian extraction] is funding the Trump Tower in Toronto. It seems he owned, or had interests in a metal plant in the Ukraine, which was sold on via Russia. The funds raised in the sale were dispersed through a Russian Bank before some ending up with the Canadian millionaire. It seems that there are questions as to whether the Trumps ended up with some of the funds. It's a complicated story with mention of Putin being chairman of a Russian bank thrown into the mix and I couldn't possibly explain it here as I'm listening to it while typing - I don't do shorthand. It might be worthwhile getting the RTE link whereby one can open the MF show podcast and listen to the story in detail. Most people know how to google for RTE's podcasts so I'll leave that to the interested.

Christy42 wrote: »

Like sanctuary cities (which Trump opposes)?

Certainly a level of local control for local issues is important. However states have a lot of power as is. At what point does the united states become a loose federation? Right now they are mainly missing immigration, issues with respect to the US constitution and tariffs. I am sure there is more I am missing, Manic might point something out.

Those are tough to change on a state by state basis and still claim to be a country.

Certainly the power of the president should be no where near the current levels. I think if the power was in the house you would have local issues looked after more. Now the President has all the power and little reason to speak for specific areas. If the house had the power each rep would have to answer to their communities more instead of just their viewpoint on the president.

There is legislation at a federal level that deals with areas you mentioned bring them under federal control. E.g immigration and the immigration courts ect are managed by the department of justice not the courts hence you are seeing sessions in the news quite a bit as the AG can actually write and give opinions on cases.

In regards to a "loose federation" that is pretty much what a federation implies. The US is made up of 50 otherwise independent states there are certain areas the federal government is not supposed to and was never intended to have power in.

In regards to presidential power or executive power you are (in my openion) both right and wrong. Compared to other presidents or at least other executive styled presidents the US president is not necessasaely that powerful. He can't write law or decrees which in other countries are one off laws that have legal effect but can't (depending on the country) conflict with legislation or the constitution. He can issue executive orders but these are not laws in the sence of the approve rather directions for federal agencies (when it comes to the power of federal agencies your getting into a who different discussion which might potentially given the make up of the Supreme Court be changing to a more restrictive approach). He has pretty extensive powers in area of forigen affairs but only Congress can declare war.
One thing that you have hit on is that the presidency has become more powerful then had originally been intended. Part of that is the development of ever lager government and administrative state. But also due to the fact that recent president in particular recent ones have been expanding the scope of executive powers. Which is something that both republicans and Democrats had been complaining about over the last number of years.

Townton wrote: »

He has also cut a massive amount of regulation, which from a business perspective particularly small and medium has been far more effective and helpful then the tax reforms/cuts. Both together are really adding to the economy dispite what some said prior to their implementation. Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy. Food for thought but on the ground thinks certainly seem to be working. Which will be very hard for the Dems to counter unless there is some sort of slow down. As Bill Maher said he is hoping for a recession because without one the Dems could unfortunately be in trouble. But plenty of time to go yet!

Which regulations though did he cut that help small business specifically? The tax reforms only left people in certain states with more change in their pocket, taxes have gone up in some states like California for example (depending on personal circumstances) the rest of the cuts went to corporations which gave a one time bonus to employees and the rest went to share buy backs etc. So the gain for the worker is little or none in most cases. Spending has increased, military for example, but revenue has gone down (corporations) so you don't need to be a stable genius to know what is coming down the line. Since around 2010 all the indicators are going in the one direction, this can only last so long, with trade wars coming down the line it just means when it does take a dip, it is not going to be pleasant. Bill was half right, a better solution would be for everyone to come out of the bubble and see reality. Before Trump took over economy was the worst it has ever been, 2 years later not much has changed and it is the best economy ever, according to him. As a compulsive liar and quiet clearly unstable I would not take anything he says as fact.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I’m still surprised that the politics forum allows new members to post. I’d always thought that a couple months wait (along with a post count of 100 in other areas) would cut down on the sock puppets.

If anything, it'd make more sense to have the Politcs Cafe as the casual one that newbies can post to.

That forum's dead now because it was made invite-only, but I think there are enough dedicated posters here who'd keep this one alive if it did something similar.

Townton wrote: »

Was in the US couple of months ago and a number of small and medium business owners (most of restaurant owners) have said they have never seen it so busy.

Those restaurant owners and their customers would be well advised to save that money that their government has borrowed to give away. Because they *will" come back looking for it: either as increased taxes to pay the debt, or by inflating it away. Might as well earn some interest on it before its taken back.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a weak response.

It wasn't a response, it was a question.

I'm not sure why people continue to defend him to the hilt when it's becoming more and more obvious that the Russians have significant influence or possibly even control over him.

lol. Do you have any evidence of this? It's borderline gossiping at this stage.

That you have to pretend to be unaware of Helsinki to try to mount such a defence is quite an impressive set of mental acrobatics.

What? Sure I have discussed his comments in Helsinki at length.

It's preposterous to suggest that anything he said amounts to him having sided with a hostile foreign power over his own government.

You can all repeat it over and over again as much as you like, and back slap one another's posts while you're at it, but it won't make it true.

But it's Trump, one of the most inarticulate politicians in history, and so you're gonna have ample opportunities to make huge leaps from minor misspeaks.

everlast75 wrote: »

"Hilary is a war monger"

"Trump for the Nobel Prize"

Em......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666?s=19

You'd imagine he has his email address

"Stable Genius" indeed.....

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A quick Google tells me Trump's comment at the time was that there was blame on both sides.

Maybe try using Google yourself before making such a snide suggestion.

I was referring to the "on both sides" part. He actually said a few different variations of the phrase. I wasn't making a snide suggestion, I was asking a direct question.

everlast75 wrote: »

"Hilary is a war monger"

"Trump for the Nobel Prize"

Em......

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021234525626609666?s=19

He really needs to push coverage away from his treasonous staffers. Carter Page just admitted to being a Russian advisor on tv.

seamus wrote: »

"I think"

"he probably"

So you freely admit that the intent & context of his remarks is unclear, and at best is imprecise and grammatically flawed.

Can't you see how that presents an issue when someone is supposed to be a leader? How can someone lead with any level of effectiveness when he cannot express himself in a coherent manner?

That doesn't mean they have to be H.G. Wells or anything, but if there's confusion over whether or not you're completely racist, or whether you've just committed treason, then that's a pretty strong indicator that your communication skills are incredibly poor.

Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up.


There's no confusion.
I was "playing the liberal" and reading the post in a mindset where the person wants Trump to be "the bad guy" and with that mindset it's possible to take the meaning you want from it. So perhaps he should have a staff to write his twitter posts for him? No wait that's too much like scripted PC politics and Trump was voted in as a backlash to that.


FWIW I agree with Trump's stance against illegals.

seamus wrote: »

Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest.
And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.

ELM327 wrote: »

In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up.

Love the arrogance. You have a real Stephen Miller quality to you.

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest.
And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.

The statement was not about Trump being anti illegal immigrant, it was about Trump being anti-immigrant. The man has shown himself to be a racist multiple times both before and after he was president.

ELM327 wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

"I think"

"he probably"

So you freely admit that the intent & context of his remarks is unclear, and at best is imprecise and grammatically flawed.

Can't you see how that presents an issue when someone is supposed to be a leader? How can someone lead with any level of effectiveness when he cannot express himself in a coherent manner?

That doesn't mean they have to be H.G. Wells or anything, but if there's confusion over whether or not you're completely racist, or whether you've just committed treason, then that's a pretty strong indicator that your communication skills are incredibly poor.

Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up.


There's no confusion.
I was "playing the liberal" and reading the post in a mindset where the person wants Trump to be "the bad guy" and with that mindset it's possible to take the meaning you want from it. So perhaps he should have a staff to write his twitter posts for him? No wait that's too much like scripted PC politics and Trump was voted in as a backlash to that.


FWIW I agree with Trump's stance against illegals.

seamus wrote: »

Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest.
And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.

Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said?

Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?

As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.

ELM327 wrote: »

In the myriad of posts since I last posted on this thread this one is worthy of reply and I feel I shouldnt pass it up.


There's no confusion.
I was "playing the liberal" and reading the post in a mindset where the person wants Trump to be "the bad guy" and with that mindset it's possible to take the meaning you want from it. So perhaps he should have a staff to write his twitter posts for him? No wait that's too much like scripted PC politics and Trump was voted in as a backlash to that.


FWIW I agree with Trump's stance against illegals.

Yes I think that is irrevocably clear from the tone of the message and his campaign as a whole to be honest.
And I think he was voted to office based on that stance as part of his ticket. If anyone was surprised by Trump being anti illegal immigration then I would question where they have been for the last 4 years.

there is a massive difference between being against illegal immigration, and stating that immigrants from a country are all rapists, which is a bigoted and racist statement.