45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 3

[Gameface]

fatbutt said:

Byker28i said:

Worth a read about how a president should behave
https://twitter.com/whoisgarylee/status/9521806301...

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 15th January 12:39

Can't help but feel that Obama will go down as the last great US president. He had his flaws and made mistakes but in the overall scheme of things he did a fantastic job in unbelievable circumstances. Whoever comes after Trump, republican or democrat, will be playing by the same playbook Trump exploited so expect to see more celebrities, more blow hards and less career politicians.

With this administration US politics has changed; almost certainly for the worst.

No.4 is such a small but thoughtful gesture, that absolutely typifies the chasm in class between Obama and Trump.

[Robertj21a]

Byker28i said:

fatbutt said:

Byker28i said:

Worth a read about how a president should behave
https://twitter.com/whoisgarylee/status/9521806301...

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 15th January 12:39

Can't help but feel that Obama will go down as the last great US president. He had his flaws and made mistakes but in the overall scheme of things he did a fantastic job in unbelievable circumstances. Whoever comes after Trump, republican or democrat, will be playing by the same playbook Trump exploited so expect to see more celebrities, more blow hards and less career politicians.

With this administration US politics has changed; almost certainly for the worst.

Michelle Obama could be a great candidate? Even Melania would do a better job

I reckon either of Wallace or Gromit could do a better job.

[Byker28i]

Back to Russia, somehow it's always back to russia or the money, no matter how much the donald tries to distract

CNN have reported that the FBI had a wiretap on Mannafort both before and after the election
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-ma...

Is this why the donald went loopy, claiming Obama had wire tapped Trump Tower? The wire was actually on Mannafort?

[Tartan Pixie]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Tartan Pixie said:

Go on then FCR - I'm a lefty liberal globalist and have just posted a rant saying that Trump supporters are following a retrograde philosophy no better than islam. If you want an argument then fill your boots

I sort of got where you was coming from at first even though I don't agree I could understand some of your points of views.

It all went wrong with this I'm a lefty but then go on to talk about something as though you are a literally as far right as you can possibly be. With your concept of genetic and evolutionary divergence in to sub human and superior human. No doubt you believe you will be part of the superior group.

Thanks for the response.

Probably best to ignore the last two paragraphs if you're thinking about it in terms of nazi eugenics. I was talking about where technology is likely taking us, ie stuff that's going to happen regardless of politics. Futurology is a subject I find interesting but not really related to the topic at hand, so chalk that one up to me playing around with new ideas to see how they look once written down (which for me is part of the fun of posting on a forum).

The point I was trying to make is that with brexit there is sound economic thinking behind it, though we will have to take a hit in the short term. By contrast trumpism seems closer to islamism, in that it is a fact free ideology designed to protect the status of a specific racial or cultural group of conservatives. Trumpism, like islamism, will also lead to the opposite of its intended goal and will impoverish its adherents.

A good example is the Iran deal, as I explained at the top of p417

AreOut said:

Trump fans may not be economic experts but they can read a simple graph...

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/unite...

when things are going wrong people want change, that's why they voted Obama and that's why they voted Trump, even if many of them despised his personality.

Agreed, people are voting for change and Clinton was the opposite of change. As much as I dislike Trump I can see why many ordinary non racist people would want to vote for him, the system's FUBAR and if I lived in America I'd be tempted to throw a wrecking ball at the whitehouse too. The problem is that to build something better we're going to need more than 'freedom facts'.

We're gong to need a better information system that allows people to put information in to context, for example you say that you can read that simple graph, and I've no doubt you can, but can you put it in to context? I know I can't gain any meaningful information from the graph other than it being a big scary number used to dupe people in to believing dubious political promises.

History would suggest that high government debt tends to be paid for via inflation rather than taxation, that is to say next time we hit a period of high inflation the value of that debt will drop as a percentage of income. The idea that American workers are going to pay for it out of their paycheck is false. Government debt taken out of context has to be one of the most meaningless and commonly abused statistics out there, so what is the context of that graph?



Investor confidence - The metric commonly used to judge debt worthiness is the yield on ten year debt, which for America is about 2.5%. This would indicate that most financial experts do not believe America has a debt problem, which is a very different message to the one politicians are selling us.

The money cycle. - Another lie we are sold is that high government debt is a problem, which is false as the quantity of debt is irrelevant. What is relevant is who the interest on that debt is being paid to, which in America's case is primarily Americans. Debt which you pay to yourself is not problematic, in fact if you live in America then there's a good chance it will be paying for your pension and keeping taxes down via interest payments to state owned investment funds and American financial institutions.
Debt interest which gets paid in to the American economy also gets taxed in the American economy so if it changes hands enough times the interest payments on the debt pay for themselves. EG, if a dollar of debt interest payment goes to an American pension fund, then to an American pensioner who spends it in an American shop that stocks American products then that dollar will have produced multiple dollars of work done that can be taxed at each stage, meaning the interest payments pay for themselves.
This is called velocity of money and is the basis of neoliberal economic theory introduced by Reagan and Thatcher and followed by almost all European and American economies ever since.

Where are we in the long term debt cycle? - This Ray Dalio video explains things far better than I can because it shows the link between the long term debt cycle and political unrest. The long term debt cycle lasts 50+ years and happens regardless of government policy, however because a large portion of voters and policy makers do not understand it people retreat in to ideological policies that make the problem worse not better. I know the video's half an hour long but it is well worth your time.

How does the deficit fit in the sectoral balances? - For every dollar of debt created by the economy there must be a corresponding credit, of which the government deficit is just one component, put these components together and we have the sectoral balances. These are probably the single most important charts to look at when talking about government debt because not only does it show the rate at which the government is accumulating debt (the deficit) but it also shows where the corresponding credits are going, which in this case is the corporate sector and the foreign sector (trade deficit).
Most crucially it shows household debt which is the one which defines whether people are going to spend money and is the weather bell that rings before an economic crisis. Unlike government debt which can pay for itself personal debt must be paid for out of your paycheck, so when it gets too high people stop spending.
Given that sectoral balances must sum to zero (ie the credit and debit being created by the economy must be equal to each other) this means that if you want to reduce the government deficit (make the government take on less debt) then another sector of the economy must start taking on debt instead. In a situation like America and Britain where corporates and 1%ers are hoarding cash and we're running a trade deficit then the only place that deficit can be moved to is the household sector. That would be the same household sector that causes a recession if you load it with too much debt.
This is why the UK's right leaning austerity policies have hurt our economic performance while Obama's more left leaning stimulus plan resulted in a much quicker recovery for America after the 2008 crash.



Adding the above context to your graph changes the picture considerably because it shows that the government debt is not only sustainable but preferable to the alternatives of tax cuts and austerity offered by the right wing. We need more welfare payments and government infrastructure projects, not less. Provided the debt interest is paid to the government or the national economy this does not in any way burden the economy, see Japan for details.

If you think I'm wrong then please say as I'd rather be proved an idiot than continue with false assumptions, however at the moment I see no reason to think that tax cuts and America first will lead to anything other than the impoverishment of Trump's core constituency.

[Byker28i]

Washington posts Post's Josh Dawsey, who broke the original story, has tweeted this: "White House official told me tonight there is debate internally on whether Trump said 'sthole' or 'sthouse.' Perdue and Cotton seem to have heard latter, this person said, and are using to deny."

He has consistently been racist, NY times has a list
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opi...

Republican Jerry Nadler says Congress should vote to censure him over these remarks. They should do this just to prove to all the the US does not promote the intolerance being constantly flouted by potty mouth donald, which goes directly against the ideals of the US.

[Countdown]

Byker28i said:

He has consistently been racist, NY times has a list
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opi...

Nobutyeahbut where’s the EVIDENCE?

[Halmyre]

Byker28i said:

Washington posts Post's Josh Dawsey, who broke the original story, has tweeted this: "White House official told me tonight there is debate internally on whether Trump said 'sthole' or 'sthouse.' Perdue and Cotton seem to have heard latter, this person said, and are using to deny."

I don't move in sophisticated political circles, so maybe there's a fine distinction between 'sthole' and 'sthouse', that I'm missing, that makes one term more acceptable than the other?

[smn159]

Halmyre said:

I don't move in sophisticated political circles, so maybe there's a fine distinction between 'sthole' and 'sthouse', that I'm missing, that makes one term more acceptable than the other?

There isn't a difference, but isn't the point that they're using it to deny what he said?

"No, I don't believe that the President did use the word sthole..."

[Byker28i]

Halmyre said:

Byker28i said:

Washington posts Post's Josh Dawsey, who broke the original story, has tweeted this: "White House official told me tonight there is debate internally on whether Trump said 'sthole' or 'sthouse.' Perdue and Cotton seem to have heard latter, this person said, and are using to deny."

I don't move in sophisticated political circles, so maybe there's a fine distinction between 'sthole' and 'sthouse', that I'm missing, that makes one term more acceptable than the other?

"The President didn't say sthole" is truthful if you think he said sthouse, or you want to back him and have thought of a clever way.
Notice they are denying the president said the word, not the whole comment or tone.

[mikal83]

del mar said:

fatbutt said:

Can't help but feel that Obama will go down as the last great US president. He had his flaws and made mistakes but in the overall scheme of things he did a fantastic job in unbelievable circumstances. Whoever comes after Trump, republican or democrat, will be playing by the same playbook Trump exploited so expect to see more celebrities, more blow hards and less career politicians.

With this administration US politics has changed; almost certainly for the worst.

What exactly did Obama achieve that makes him "great" ?


Surely if Trump nukes somebody he will be seen as great by many !

Has yippy got a new id

[DeejRC]

Well del mar has more than a point. Obama wasnt a great President. He wasnt even a good President. He was mediocre at best, no worse than most of the rest and gains his brownie points entirely and utterly from being the first black President. And for acting Presidential.

A previous poster mentioned Clinton as the last "great" one and Im inclined to agree with him.

I will happily accept that Obama was a necessary President though and that his tenure be seen as a successful also extremely necessary. Given the next chap in the office though I dont think he has any need to worry about comparisons!

The US is in sore need of a genuinely v good President soon!

[rscott]

DeejRC said:

Well del mar has more than a point. Obama wasnt a great President. He wasnt even a good President. He was mediocre at best, no worse than most of the rest and gains his brownie points entirely and utterly from being the first black President. And for acting Presidential.

A previous poster mentioned Clinton as the last "great" one and Im inclined to agree with him.

I will happily accept that Obama was a necessary President though and that his tenure be seen as a successful also extremely necessary. Given the next chap in the office though I dont think he has any need to worry about comparisons!

The US is in sore need of a genuinely v good President soon!

Obama was severely hobbled though because he didn't have the support of Congress & the Senate. We'll never really know what he could have achieved (both for good or bad).

He certainly gave hope to a large segment of the US population though. Perhaps his inability to deliver and lack of decent candidates meant that segment didn't vote in as large numbers this time and so eased Trump's path to victory.

[jjlynn27]

DeejRC said:

Well del mar has more than a point. Obama wasnt a great President. He wasnt even a good President. He was mediocre at best, no worse than most of the rest and gains his brownie points entirely and utterly from being the first black President. And for acting Presidential.

A previous poster mentioned Clinton as the last "great" one and Im inclined to agree with him.

I will happily accept that Obama was a necessary President though and that his tenure be seen as a successful also extremely necessary. Given the next chap in the office though I dont think he has any need to worry about comparisons!

The US is in sore need of a genuinely v good President soon!

Del mar, doesn't have a point and neither do you. Clinton? As in the president responsible for rewriting Community Reinvestment Act? That Clinton?

[JagLover]

rscott said:

Obama was severely hobbled though because he didn't have the support of Congress & the Senate. We'll never really know what he could have achieved (both for good or bad).

Clinton had a Republican congress most of his time in office.

Obama was a very divisive figure, who regarded much of middle America with barely concealed contempt. He is hailed as the second coming purely because of his race.

[jjlynn27]

JagLover said:

He is hailed as the second coming purely because of his race.

No, he's not. Only people obsessed with race, like del mar, dj and yourself, think that.

[Yipper]

DeejRC said:

Well del mar has more than a point. Obama wasnt a great President. He wasnt even a good President. He was mediocre at best, no worse than most of the rest and gains his brownie points entirely and utterly from being the first black President. And for acting Presidential.

A previous poster mentioned Clinton as the last "great" one and Im inclined to agree with him.

I will happily accept that Obama was a necessary President though and that his tenure be seen as a successful also extremely necessary. Given the next chap in the office though I dont think he has any need to worry about comparisons!

The US is in sore need of a genuinely v good President soon!

It is absolutely vital to distinguish between what presidents *say* and what they actually *do*.

Obama and Clinton spoke well, and the virtue-signaling crowd love them. But their records were bad.

For example, Clinton cheated on his wife and sexed a young intern in public office and set in place the subprime mortgage rules that caused global depression a few years later and oversaw the biggest stock bubble of the 20th century and ignored the growth of Al Qaeda that allowed Bin Laden to knock down the Twin Towers which history will show marks the start of the end of the American century.

Morally, economically, politically and militarily, Clinton was an utter disaster.

[anonymous-user]

Yipper said:

Clinton sexed a young intern

Something tells me you don't know what the verb "to sex" means.

[AreOut]

Yipper said:

Morally, economically, politically and militarily, Clinton was an utter disaster.

Absolutely agree.

[Not-The-Messiah]

fatbutt said:

Can't help but feel that Obama will go down as the last great US president. He had his flaws and made mistakes but in the overall scheme of things he did a fantastic job in unbelievable circumstances. Whoever comes after Trump, republican or democrat, will be playing by the same playbook Trump exploited so expect to see more celebrities, more blow hards and less career politicians.

With this administration US politics has changed; almost certainly for the worst.

He left america more divided and so desperate that they would rather vote for someone like Trump the same old that he represented.

He added more debt to US than any other president.

He achieved very little in terms of policy mainly because he was unable to get things through congress. What he did achieve and implement was hated by so many Trump campaigned on repealing them and won partly because of it.

He was in power when vast areas of the middle east was taken over by ISIS and was as useful as a wet fart in tackling them.

He was in power as north Korea continued to develop Nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles totally failing to prevent them doing so.

should I go on?

He came across as a confident effective states man but that's all he did, just come across as one but he wasn't one in my opinion. People call Trump a populist president but hes hated throughout the media and popular culture and its seen as uncool to be a Trump fan. Obama was the true populist president, saying anything and everything he needed to to get the media wet between their legs and thus had all the brain dead lambs who blindly go with whatever the magic box in the corner of the room tells them.

[frisbee]

Yipper said:

It is absolutely vital to distinguish between what presidents *say* and what they actually *do*.

Obama and Clinton spoke well, and the virtue-signaling crowd love them. But their records were bad.

For example, Clinton cheated on his wife and sexed a young intern in public office and set in place the subprime mortgage rules that caused global depression a few years later and oversaw the biggest stock bubble of the 20th century and ignored the growth of Al Qaeda that allowed Bin Laden to knock down the Twin Towers which history will show marks the start of the end of the American century.

Morally, economically, politically and militarily, Clinton was an utter disaster.

Yes, running a surplus is terrible.