Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache · 23-08-2019 7:46pm

greenfield21 wrote: »

Yeah terrible putting US interests first. trade deficits increasing year after year. I think everyone knew eventually they had to face up to likes of Germany and china.

You have a trade deficit with pretty much every shop you visit.

If you knew anything about trade deficits, you wouldn't post such nonsense.

TomOnBoard · 23-08-2019 7:49pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He has no power to order companies to leave China.

Of course he doesn't, and rational thinkers know that. However, in the rice pudding that is his brain these days, he sees himself as King Donald, and everyone else as his subjects. At this stage, really he's more to be pitied than laughed at!

Dog Man Star · 23-08-2019 7:53pm

Manic Moran is the most racist, anti-semitic poster here. He never gets reprimanded, he never gets any objections to his nazi extreme views.

mcmoustache · 23-08-2019 7:55pm

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

He is quickly cracking up... I don’t he will be allowed run in 2020.... he seems noticeably more unstable.... as opposed to a stable genius...

He's definitely dialed it up to 11 in the past week.

I wonder if staffers have given up the ghost of trying to handle him better. Imagine spending 4 years giving advice to someone too stupid to listen to it. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was being given stupid advice deliberately.

Something like:

"Sir, look at this printout of a tweet by MAGAQAnonPatriotPepeJew487326487326. He has thousands of followers and he thinks you're the chosen one. All his followers are saying the exact same thing, like word for word. And you know he's serious because he's totally a Jew."

Professor Moriarty · 23-08-2019 7:55pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Of course he doesn't, and rational thinkers know that. However, in the rice pudding that is his brain these days, he sees himself as King Donald, and everyone else as his subjects. At this stage, really he's more to be pitied than laughed at!

I actually think he's jumped the shark.

marno21 · 23-08-2019 7:59pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He has no power to order companies to leave China.

Such a power sounds like the Government trying to control the means of production - is there a word to describe that kind of economic system?

This past week has been another level of nuts from the White House. The US is going to require some clean up by January 2021 if this continues, and we all know it's only getting worse.

Professor Moriarty · 23-08-2019 8:01pm

marno21 wrote: »

Such a power sounds like the Government trying to control the means of production - is there a word to describe that kind of economic system?

This past week has been another level of nuts from the White House. The US is going to require some clean up by January 2021 if this continues, and we all know it's only getting worse.

Don't mention the 'S' word. There'll be a clean up in 2021...assuming he doesn't get reelected...

Kermit.de.frog · 23-08-2019 9:00pm

BluePlanet wrote: »

When China retaliates with tariffs it seems to take Trump by surprise.
In this tweet he 'orders' american companies to look for alternatives to China.

Can you imagine this, a dictator that issues his dictates via Twitter?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164914960046133249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164914960046133249&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Fbusiness%2Flive-news%2Feconomy-china-jerome-powell%2Findex.html

Christ, I can't wait until this lunatic is out of the WH.

The question is will he be out in time before something catastrophic happens.

Quin_Dub · 23-08-2019 9:07pm

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Manic Moran is the most racist, anti-semitic poster here. He never gets reprimanded, he never gets any objections to his nazi extreme views.

##Mod Note##

User banned

duploelabs · 23-08-2019 9:17pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Strategically, Greenland forms part of what the US views as a key corridor for naval operations between the Arctic and the North Atlantic. It is also part of the broader Arctic region, considered strategically important because of its proximity to the US and economically vital for its natural resources.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1735503/climate-change-turns-greenland-into-strategic-economic-hotspot#targetText=Strategically%2C%20Greenland%20forms%20part%20of,vital%20for%20its%20natural%20resources.

Build a US naval base? Could be a strategic plan brought to him by the Pentagon?

They already have an air base there, that not enough?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Air_Base?wprov=sfla1

Itssoeasy · 23-08-2019 9:17pm

So trump attacks his own fed chairman and the Dow jones falls more than 620 points ? I'm sure at times it seems like it's a bit of banter in here at times, but he's actually not well and any Americans that frequent the this thread for the sake of your own country and the world even an old establishment republican looks better now.

Igotadose · 23-08-2019 10:56pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The senate doesn't enact the 25th amendment, it's the cabinet that starts it.

Too many acting secretaries for the 25th

StringerBell · 23-08-2019 11:07pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

StringerBell wrote: »

Not really, better off letting him have to pull back again on his big talk and use it against him come election time. He literally writes the campaign ads against him all by himself.

The 25th is a pipe dream

The senate doesn't enact the 25th amendment, it's the cabinet that starts it.

That's my point, it's a pipe dream.

kowloon · 24-08-2019 12:15am

Someone mentioned earlier that Fox news was starting to distance itself from him, any examples other than the approval rating?

Rjd2 · 24-08-2019 1:06am

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cancer-supreme-court/index.html

Madness,,86 and her fourth encounter with cancer.

She should not be on the supreme court but obviously republican president its understandable why she wants to continue,,,however the decision should not be hers.

Could also repeat this disaster with Clarence Thomas who has no interest in stepping down ,,,assuming Trump loses in 2020,,,then is he going to hang on until a Republican regains the white house.;)

aloyisious · 24-08-2019 2:07am

CNN news mentioned that Don had threatened to put tariffs on French imports so I waited for a repeat of that from CNN, and it was NOT repeated so it may have been an error. I checked on the net for a confirmation without success. The nearest thing I found related to Don and tariffs on France is in the following Para.

It seems the UK Daily Express ran a story [by Laura Mowat - 0954 Thursday 22 Aug] that Don has threatened to impose multibillion dollar tariffs on the EU but the papers headlines are confusing. The main one has it warning JC Juncker of Don's plan and a lower case line over the report has JC Juncker as the source of the warning in the report. The DE has a paywall blocking access to the actual report, only showing the headline & lower case report line.

I find it a strange trade talks tactic that Don would make such a threat a day or so before he meets the French President at the G7 meeting but..... I can see how it might delight his new friend in No 10 Downing St.

TomOnBoard · 24-08-2019 2:24am

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cancer-supreme-court/index.html

Madness,,86 and her fourth encounter with cancer.

She should not be on the supreme court but obviously republican president its understandable why she wants to continue,,,however the decision should not be hers.

Could also repeat this disaster with Clarence Thomas who has no interest in stepping down ,,,assuming Trump loses in 2020,,,then is he going to hang on until a Republican regains the white house.;)

Well, she has no intention of stepping down, although this latest brush with pancreatic cancer must have shaken her. She's still big into her daily exercises and training and doesn't seem to have reduced her workload or have had her mental acuity suffer.

That said, I see her as hanging in there physically, and I think it going to be a stretch for her to survive until a Democratic Senate in 2021, if that's even in the cards. When it is time for her replacement to be nominated, if Trump is still in place, I can see her being replaced by a woman to maintain that gender balance on the Court. That would place Amy Conan Barrett as the most likely candidate, which would create a huge shift of the overall Court towards Conservatism.

Carry · 24-08-2019 2:25am

I actually decided since my last post here not to post anymore in the Trump presidency thread, because I despair of all that idiocy that man is spouting. However I do skim this thread.

I know, we shouldn't post links to videos, but I found light relief with Trevor Noah's compilation of "Donsplaining" (it's about 20 minutes long). Alone the term Donsplaining made me laugh. And I can only recommend it to all those who still think that Trump is the bigliest president the whole cofveve has ever seen (if that doesn't show how demented he is, I don't know...), and to those who need a laugh in all this worldwide damage this man is doing.

I really, really hope that all the rumours and signs about his imminent (2020) demise are true. I'm fed up with seeing that stupid face and reading about his incoherent tantrums. You can't avoid it when reading the news.
Actually I truly wish he would drop dead right now.

Sorry about this emotional outpour. But "I just say it as it is" dear Trump supporters, don't I?

:D

And I gladly accept any ban or whatever. At least it keeps me away from all this depressing stuff.

Rjd2 · 24-08-2019 4:07am

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Well, she has no intention of stepping down, although this latest brush with pancreatic cancer must have shaken her. She's still big into her daily exercises and training and doesn't seem to have reduced her workload or have had her mental acuity suffer.

That said, I see her as hanging in there physically, and I think it going to be a stretch for her to survive until a Democratic Senate in 2021, if that's even in the cards. When it is time for her replacement to be nominated, if Trump is still in place, I can see her being replaced by a woman to maintain that gender balance on the Court. That would place Amy Conan Barrett as the most likely candidate, which would create a huge shift of the overall Court towards Conservatism.

It should not be her choice to hang on until the Dems regain the senate.

It will be the same issue with Thomas who from all accounts has zero intention of resigning and will probably end up on the bench when the Dems retake the senate which they should in the next few years and hold for a bit.

Its a depressing thought,, but possible both will pass away on the job.

Whether left or right people running for president should be suggesting 18 year term limits.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/440690-justice-breyer-has-it-right-on-term-limits-for-the-supreme-court

decent article on it.

Manic Moran · 24-08-2019 5:00am

Rjd2 wrote: »

It should not be her choice to hang on until the Dems regain the senate.

It will be the same issue with Thomas who from all accounts has zero intention of resigning and will probably end up on the bench when the Dems retake the senate which they should in the next few years and hold for a bit.

Its a depressing thought,, but possible both will pass away on the job.

Whether left or right people running for president should be suggesting 18 year term limits.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/440690-justice-breyer-has-it-right-on-term-limits-for-the-supreme-court

decent article on it.

It is being suggested, but it is not as if there are not also arguments against.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/academic-highlight-the-risks-of-supreme-court-term-limits/
In the end, then, term limits are likely to have a substantial detrimental effect on doctrinal stability. A case could go from being a sure winner to a sure loser over the course of a single election. And that doctrinal instability would likely alter the nature of jurisprudential evolution and change the focus of litigants, policy makers and lower-court judges from doctrine to the court’s composition, further politicizing the court. Although there may be good arguments for term limits, we should think long and hard about these dangers before considering such a major change to our judicial system.

Another mathematical example of the problem:
https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-supreme-court-has-a-longevity-problem-but-term-limits-on-justices-wont-solve-it
But it also increased the chances that a president could appoint a majority of justices. In fact, instituting an 18-year term limit creates a 43% chance that a president serving two terms could appoint the majority of justices. In the history of the republic, only five presidents — aside from George Washington, who assembled the court from scratch — have been able to appoint five or more justices*. The last president to do that was Eisenhower.

Given this, then the following article makes a valid point.

https://reason.com/2018/10/03/term-limits-supreme-court-kavanaugh/
Knowing that the winner of a presidential election will get two Supreme Court nominees could change the behavior of voters and candidates, possibly making presidential contests even higher-stakes affairs than they are now, when winning carries only the possibility of influencing the makeup of the court.

In effect Presidential elections are going to become Supreme Court elections. If the current trend of appointing younger justices continues without term limits, we can expect, in a few years, a series of elections where the important factor is not the Supreme Court, as it is unlikely that any seats will become available. It provides the opportunity to run elections on general policy, not on Roe v Wade.

Honestly, I would like to see term limits for Congress long before I see term limits for judges.

*The article actually says 'more than five' but it seems to be a typo, given context and fact: Eisenhower appointed five.

Christy42 · 24-08-2019 10:23am

duploelabs wrote: »

They already have an air base there, that not enough?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Air_Base?wprov=sfla1

I mean even if not then surely they can go through diplomatic channels to ask for permission for the naval base. If Denmark was ok with the airbase then there are good odds of them allowing a naval base.

This just guarantees it can't happen for years.

I don't know if it is the pressure getting to him or he is simply deteriating for other reasons but he definitely seems more unhinged recently. Greenland, attempting to command all US businesses via Twitter...

duploelabs · 24-08-2019 10:38am

Christy42 wrote: »

I mean even if not then surely they can go through diplomatic channels to ask for permission for the naval base. If Denmark was ok with the airbase then there are good odds of them allowing a naval base.

This just guarantees it can't happen for years.

I don't know if it is the pressure getting to him or he is simply deteriating for other reasons but he definitely seems more unhinged recently. Greenland, attempting to command all US businesses via Twitter...

Mine was an answer to a Pro-Trumpers point. The whole Greenland issue is a distractionary tactic from the universal background check fudge

pixelburp · 24-08-2019 10:39am

Fado fado, I remember a line of debate taken by a Pro Trump supporter, who argued that Trump wasn't homophobic, the argument encompassing a photo of Trump holding a "LGBTQ+ for Trump" rainbow flag as a silver bullet. It was the usual circle about Trumps bona fides when it came to accusations of racism, sexism or homophobia.

Well...

About that.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-scotus-gay-workers

The Trump administration took its hardest line yet to legalize anti-gay discrimination on Friday when it asked the Supreme Court to declare that federal law allows private companies to fire workers based only on their sexual orientation.

[...]

The administration argued courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.
[...]
The Justice Department added that Congress only intended to ban discrimination because someone is male or female — saying the sexes cannot be treated differently — and that other laws recognizing LGBTQ people show Congress could have amended Title VII to include LGBTQ rights, but chose not to. The administration said interpreting the term “sex” more broadly effectively rewrites the law, and only Congress, not courts, has that license.

Now, Title VII dates back to 1964 and it's totally fair to suggest that in its original form, sexual orientation wasn't as public & prominent in the social consciousness as it is now, that the reading of it to include orientation is stretching things ... but even so. Maybe, maybe the Trump Admin intends on replacing it with something more explicit, but there's no indications this is the case. This 100% reads like an attempt to erode gay rights by virtue of legal pedantry. The argument will be doubtless made that they're just going by the letter of the law, but to interpret this as anything less than a tangential attack on gay rights would be disingenuous IMO.

I wonder how the Quislings who gave Trump that flag feel now, assuming they even know this may happen? I'm not sure on whose shoulders this act can be placed: Miller? Pence? Trump himself?

Brian? · 24-08-2019 10:58am

Rjd2 wrote: »

It should not be her choice to hang on until the Dems regain the senate.

It will be the same issue with Thomas who from all accounts has zero intention of resigning and will probably end up on the bench when the Dems retake the senate which they should in the next few years and hold for a bit.

Its a depressing thought,, but possible both will pass away on the job.

Whether left or right people running for president should be suggesting 18 year term limits.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/440690-justice-breyer-has-it-right-on-term-limits-for-the-supreme-court

decent article on it.

Who’s choice should it be in your opinion?

The Supreme Court being a lifetime appointment is one of he few things in the US government I don’t have a problem with.

amandstu · 24-08-2019 11:36am

Is Trump going to (use) war?I was listening to CNN last night and the point was made that the USA is in a cold war with China.

So is Trump going to use all economic means to get a "victory" over China and use this "little spat" to try and enhance his election reelection prospects?

Is he going to (has he already) claim that he is a lesser evil than China and that the Dems will let China off the hook?

Reality says that USA cannot win this war (there was never any talk of unfair trade with the Soviet block in the past -it was a given)

Das Reich · 24-08-2019 1:11pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The homicide rate did drop significantly in 2018 vs 2017 - Before Bolsonaro

I can't find any data about the homicide rate for 2019 since Bolsonaro took over.

Here is the link:

[URL] https://g1.globo.com/monitor-da-violencia/noticia/2019/07/13/em-cinco-meses-brasil-registra-179-mil-mortes-violentas-queda-e-de-22percent-em-relacao-ao-ano-passado.ghtml[/URL]

Reduction of 22% on the first 5 months of 2019 compared with the first 5 months of 2018. In 2018 it also had a bit of reduction if compared to 2017 but it was towards the end of the year, when Bolsonaro already won the election.

aloyisious · 24-08-2019 1:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Fado fado, I remember a line of debate taken by a Pro Trump supporter, who argued that Trump wasn't homophobic, the argument encompassing a photo of Trump holding a "LGBTQ+ for Trump" rainbow flag as a silver bullet. It was the usual circle about Trumps bona fides when it came to accusations of racism, sexism or homophobia.

Well...

About that.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-scotus-gay-workers

Now, Title VII dates back to 1964 and it's totally fair to suggest that in its original form, sexual orientation wasn't as public & prominent in the social consciousness as it is now, that the reading of it to include orientation is stretching things ... but even so. Maybe, maybe the Trump Admin intends on replacing it with something more explicit, but there's no indications this is the case. This 100% reads like an attempt to erode gay rights by virtue of legal pedantry. The argument will be doubtless made that they're just going by the letter of the law, but to interpret this as anything less than a tangential attack on gay rights would be disingenuous IMO.

I wonder how the Quislings who gave Trump that flag feel now, assuming they even know this may happen? I'm not sure on whose shoulders this act can be placed: Miller? Pence? Trump himself?

Possibly MP but definitely some-one at departmental level. I reckon its a strike back against the act itself, to ensure the return of the "right" to discriminate freely taken away by the act which obviously stuck in the discriminators craw since '64. The fact that the grounds under which the "right" to discriminate has been eroded even further by the courts and legislation has really got to them. Bayard Rustin's presence on the Civil Rights hierarchy in the early 60's must have really freaked them out.

Re the quisling, it's notable that a board member and other members of the Republican Party Log Cabin group have resigned from office around the 20th of this month in protest over the boards decision to endorse Don Trumps 2020 nomination. It seems the resignations were also caused by an opinion-piece in the WaPo. Log Cabin chairman Robert Kabel and vice chairwoman Jill Homan wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post last week saying that Trump had taken “bold actions that benefit the LGBTQ community.”.

On a side issue to the Trump Admin team-work on civil rights, Amnesty International is trying to arrange the holding of a protest Disco outside the Dail on the 06th Sept to honour Mike Pence's visit here in recognition of his and Dons work against LGBTQ peoples rights. If the Mods reckon its correct to delete this particular para from my post, work away, I won't complain about it as I know the job and decisions you have to make to make things work here.

Itssoeasy · 24-08-2019 2:19pm

Trump is now claiming his "I'm the chosen one" line was sarcasm which it probably was but the problem with it is he's not just anybody he's the president of the United States and his words matter and presidents in the past from what I've read about were very careful in what they said in public.

He's not some local character down the pub talking ****e after a lash of pints(although it would explain a lot if he was) and it's passed off as banter.

Kermit.de.frog · 24-08-2019 3:09pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhQIJ18BgTw

@ 4:00 "Trust fund baby, casino-bankrupting, reality TV rodeo clown"

Brilliant, i'm stealing it :pac:

everlast75 · 24-08-2019 3:22pm

Trump brining his chaos to the G7.

Having suggested that it was Obama's fault that Russia invaded Crimea, Trump has said that Russia should be allowed rejoin.

A firm rebuttal, with an extra of side sauce from the fellow members...

https://twitter.com/WordswithSteph/status/1165246051437240321?s=19

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Comments