45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

Ah. So you agree that Donny has to ask Democrats to help him because he can’t get all of the Republicans to vote on his side.

Now, let’s see. Who does that mean is doing the obstruction: Republicans or Democrats?

Mostly democrats but assisted by a few Republicans. Majority democrats hate trump and would vote against him regardless. I am at a point where if Trump drafted a law to get rid of ICE and border controls Democrats would vote against that too simply because it was Trump doing it.

More non-sensical babbling.

Trump can't even get his own party behind him.

That's the reason he can't get things done. Just that. No glosses, no nuances, no bullst excuses.

It's not the job of the opposition to help a Govt - the clue's in the name. Y'know - "opposition"?

As is so often the case, Trump is failing and when he fails he looks for someone - anyone - to offload blame onto.

[frankenstein12]

NRS said:

Generally before now I thought you were someone trying to argue the other side. Now it's clear you're a bit of a blind sicko.

Why not just kill them all, as that will get things moving more quickly. If the end justifies the mean then surely we can just step things up a level again to get it sorted out? Or this should be applied to all kids? Some parents are abusers, so maybe we can help all kids and remove them from their parents, to avoid putting the kids at risk of unnecessary harm?

I also hope you end up in a similar situation one day so you can see what it's like from the other side.

Nope as I wont take my kids into another country "illegally". Even if there was some bizzaro universe reason I had no choice I would not be surprised to have it happen and I would prepare my kids for it as best I could.

Its funny how you think i had some form of dream upbringing where i didn't have to suffer from issues at home.

[turbobloke]

p1stonhead said:

turbobloke said:

captain_cynic said:

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

Just out of interest, was Trump a total unknown first time around to these educated white middle class but apparently naive voters... your post begs the question as to why Billary isn't in the White House right now.

Two words why. Electoral College.

3m more votes than Trump remember.

As pointed out, people campaigned where it mattered and voted where it mattered, given that the popular vote didn't matter...whatever it was (we don't know as people who supported both were more likely not to vote where their cause was hopeless).

The obvious point is that painting white middle class Americans as naive is convenient but almost certainly wrong.

[frankenstein12]

NRS said:

Sweden is brought up as an example of doing that. Yet for example they made their laws a lot stricter on what was called rape, so the rape stats jumped as a result. Which version are we supposed to believe?

Neither. You can only take both into consideration. The reality is we have all read the reports where the UK government has been caught out doctoring the figures to make reports look better.

So if muggings are going up year on year they change the way its reported so that if the person mugged is not hurt its recorded as theft rather than mugging and hey presto the mugging numbers go down as they get filtered into another category where they can be lost or where people aren't going to be as upset or concerned.

Obviously in Sweden they have some insane laws which mean that for example rapes will go up as of course they change the category to include for silly example having sex with someone without them signing a legal document of consent outlining exactly what words, positions etc will be used as well as how long etc.

It does not mean however that Sweden wont massage figures to bring them down elsewhere if they are making the government look bad or they don't fit the governments narrative.

[frankenstein12]

NRS said:

What happens when the Mexicans slap the exact same tariff value back on the US. You know, like China, Canada etc are doing?

Well one assumes the US will retaliate and in the end will win... The US is the largest economy in the world 20x bigger than Mexico.

They can afford to get involved in a Tariff war if it means in the end other countries back down and start doing what they want. Short term it may cause them economic pain but long term it could benefit them way over the short term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

[_dobbo_]

frankenstein12 said:

Its funny how you think i had some form of dream upbringing where i didn't have to suffer from issues at home.

I can't imagine anyone here thinks you had a good upbringing.

[p1stonhead]

frankenstein12 said:

NRS said:

What happens when the Mexicans slap the exact same tariff value back on the US. You know, like China, Canada etc are doing?

Well one assumes the US will retaliate and in the end will win... The US is the largest economy in the world 20x bigger than Mexico.

They can afford to get involved in a Tariff war if it means in the end other countries back down and start doing what they want. Short term it may cause them economic pain but long term it could benefit them way over the short term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

[frankenstein12]

NRS said:

Like the Republicans did to Obama sometimes? Or Trump trying to remove all the stuff Obama did because it was him that did it? Like the Iran deal, when he presumably is trying to get exactly the same deal in North Korea.

No because Trump is not giving NK billions of dollars in exchange for the sum total of nothing.
Getting rid of a lot of what Obama did is no bad thing either.

Yes the Republicans spent a lot of time frustrating Obama but they did at least occasionally work with him. The democrats seem determined not to work with Trump.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/iran-u...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09...

[frankenstein12]

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

Maybe not. Remains to be seen.

[NRS]

coyft said:

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

China is where the real battleground lies. Canada, India and Mexico will roll over fairly quickly as they'll be more concerned about the short term political fallout.

Even if the rest of the world decides to take on Trump? They can increase trade with each other and leave the US more isolated. If you're going to have to pay more whatever happens you might as well do it with people who don't insult you. There is no way for them to avoid paying more (they have to redo the deals/ pay the tariffs/ import from elsewhere), so they can't do too much to avoid the political fallout. And I suspect it looks better politically to stand up to Trump if you have to pay more.

frankenstein12 said:

NRS said:

Generally before now I thought you were someone trying to argue the other side. Now it's clear you're a bit of a blind sicko.

Why not just kill them all, as that will get things moving more quickly. If the end justifies the mean then surely we can just step things up a level again to get it sorted out? Or this should be applied to all kids? Some parents are abusers, so maybe we can help all kids and remove them from their parents, to avoid putting the kids at risk of unnecessary harm?

I also hope you end up in a similar situation one day so you can see what it's like from the other side.

Nope as I wont take my kids into another country "illegally". Even if there was some bizzaro universe reason I had no choice I would not be surprised to have it happen and I would prepare my kids for it as best I could.

Its funny how you think i had some form of dream upbringing where i didn't have to suffer from issues at home.

Probably because you're lucky enough like me that you won't have to. However what happens if someone accuses you of abuse to your (imaginary?) kids. You'll be happy to immediately have them taken away just in case? Or say you get accused of hitting your wife by someone. Should you automatically be put in prison because some men do hit their wife, and so you might be a danger to people?

frankenstein12 said:

It does not mean however that Sweden wont massage figures to bring them down elsewhere if they are making the government look bad or they don't fit the governments narrative.

Why would they change some figures to make themselves look bad, yet change others to make themselves look better?

frankenstein12 said:

No because Trump is not giving NK billions of dollars in exchange for the sum total of nothing.
Getting rid of a lot of what Obama did is no bad thing either.

Yes the Republicans spent a lot of time frustrating Obama but they did at least occasionally work with him. The democrats seem determined not to work with Trump.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/iran-u...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09...

Why has Trump not tweeted about this cash, as he clearly tweets about every other bad deal and the details. If Trump makes up facts for fake news and has not said this, I doubt it is the case. What policies did the Republicans work with Obama on?

[_dobbo_]

frankenstein12 said:

The democrats seem determined not to work with Trump.

How many times do you have to be told the same thing? He doesn't need the democrats, he controls the house, and senate.

He can't even get his own party in line, but sure, that's the democrats fault too I bet.

[NRS]

coyft said:

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

China is where the real battleground lies. Canada, India and Mexico will roll over fairly quickly as they'll be more concerned about the short term political fallout.

You've mentioned he's someone that gets stuff done quite a few times in the past. Given China is such a big part of the US trade don't you think it would have been a more effective strategy to have united the US allies in Canada, Europe etc and done a united front against China and their stealing designs etc? Rather than first pissing off all your allies, and then taking on China at the same time as you take on your allies? Hate to throw out a Nazi link, but it's a bit like Hitler taking on the world all at once, rather than knowing when to stop. I can see it ending up a stalemate in the end, which much higher tariffs for both sides.

[Halb]

Tallow said:

Yes, but as Davos123 says above, Trump campaigned on the strategy of aiming to win the election. There was nothing stopping Clinton doing the same. The popular vote argument sometimes seems to me to be used by Democrats as a "consolation prize" of sorts. I don't recall this being brought up in previous elections when the Democrats won.

I recall the popular vote thing cropping up, it normally does since the current system is archaic.

[Davos123]

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

They aren't combined though - the EU is the only combined market. Canada is free to act differently to China, India or Mexico - when Trump's tariffs start to hurt Poland or whatever, the EU isn't beholden to Poland's wishes. When Canada start to hurt, China can't stop them from changing policy. They may present a united front at the moment but the US is in individual battles with each of the places you mention. Trying individual trade wars with so many markets doesn't sound like a great idea to me and doing them at the same time must put extreme pressure on the USA's economy but they are still individual trade wars.

I don't know or care if this will work out in America's favour, I hate the idea of tariffs and whilst others laughed at Trump's "let's just get rid of them all as a starting point" line is exactly what I think countries should do. He will, however, win a trade war with Canada. Trudeau is posturing but the reality is that the Canadian economy is reliant on the US market and it can't afford a trade war. People here hate Trump but they are also very proud of their economy's resilience and won't want it jeopardised. If a trade war starts to hurt Canada, Trudeau will be under immense pressure.

[Countdown]

frankenstein12 said:

Tony427 said:

So how will Trump get Mexicans to pay taxes for a wall they dont want and refuse to pay for?

Poor choice of words. He isn't going to tax them directly he will most likely try to use tariffs etc to get the money back.
As to the shock over 22bn well given how much money the US spends on other pointless crap 22bn seems almost reasonable.

You know that it’s the buyers that pay the tariff don’t you?

[Halb]

frankenstein12 said:

No because Trump is not giving NK billions of dollars in exchange for the sum total of nothing.
Getting rid of a lot of what Obama did is no bad thing either.

Yes the Republicans spent a lot of time frustrating Obama but they did at least occasionally work with him. The democrats seem determined not to work with Trump.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/iran-u...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09...

quite a few republicans don't wish to work with trump either.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/10/politics/house-...

[Davos123]

Countdown said:

frankenstein12 said:

Tony427 said:

So how will Trump get Mexicans to pay taxes for a wall they dont want and refuse to pay for?

Poor choice of words. He isn't going to tax them directly he will most likely try to use tariffs etc to get the money back.
As to the shock over 22bn well given how much money the US spends on other pointless crap 22bn seems almost reasonable.

You know that it’s the buyers that pay the tariff don’t you?

It's not nearly as simple as that. They may physically pay the tariff but the cost the supplier can charge is also affected by the tariff. The cost is shared, the degree to which it is shared depends on 100s of factors.

[NRS]

coyft said:

People generally vote in their self interest. Paying more because it gives Trump a poke in the eye is way down the list of most voters priorities.

I'm sorry but you're dreaming if you think countries are going to join together to fight the US. They'll all end up negotiating and giving a bit, it's in their interests.

I think it's harder to predict with China, even though they have more to lose. Their approach of long term planning of their economy gives them an edge that Trump doesn't have.

Of course, but they have 3 choices, all of which they need to pay more:

a) Do deals with the US where the US benefits more.
b) Pay higher costs in tariff in a trade war
c) Pay higher costs to get imports from more expensive places

It may well be a lot of people choose b) or c) instead of a).

The other issue is Trump's deals cannot be trusted if you look at his personal history. He has agreed to many things, only to forget about them in the future. So to do a) is to potentially get taken on again by Trump in the future, as he feels you are weak.

coyft said:

NRS said:

coyft said:

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

China is where the real battleground lies. Canada, India and Mexico will roll over fairly quickly as they'll be more concerned about the short term political fallout.

You've mentioned he's someone that gets stuff done quite a few times in the past. Given China is such a big part of the US trade don't you think it would have been a more effective strategy to have united the US allies in Canada, Europe etc and done a united front against China and their stealing designs etc? Rather than first pissing off all your allies, and then taking on China at the same time as you take on your allies? Hate to throw out a Nazi link, but it's a bit like Hitler taking on the world all at once, rather than knowing when to stop. I can see it ending up a stalemate in the end, which much higher tariffs for both sides.

He doesn't see Canada and Europe as allies, he sees them as competition.

Clearly. However, in the same way Hitler considered everyone else enemies, then it doesn't mean you take on all your competition at the same time. However, I was interested in your opinion, rather than what Trump might think.

[frankenstein12]

NRS said:

coyft said:

p1stonhead said:

The won’t win against China, India, Mexico, Canada and the EU combined.

China is where the real battleground lies. Canada, India and Mexico will roll over fairly quickly as they'll be more concerned about the short term political fallout.

Even if the rest of the world decides to take on Trump? They can increase trade with each other and leave the US more isolated. If you're going to have to pay more whatever happens you might as well do it with people who don't insult you. There is no way for them to avoid paying more (they have to redo the deals/ pay the tariffs/ import from elsewhere), so they can't do too much to avoid the political fallout. And I suspect it looks better politically to stand up to Trump if you have to pay more. They could

frankenstein12 said:

NRS said:

Generally before now I thought you were someone trying to argue the other side. Now it's clear you're a bit of a blind sicko.

Why not just kill them all, as that will get things moving more quickly. If the end justifies the mean then surely we can just step things up a level again to get it sorted out? Or this should be applied to all kids? Some parents are abusers, so maybe we can help all kids and remove them from their parents, to avoid putting the kids at risk of unnecessary harm?

I also hope you end up in a similar situation one day so you can see what it's like from the other side.

Nope as I wont take my kids into another country "illegally". Even if there was some bizzaro universe reason I had no choice I would not be surprised to have it happen and I would prepare my kids for it as best I could.

Its funny how you think i had some form of dream upbringing where i didn't have to suffer from issues at home.

Probably because you're lucky enough like me that you won't have to. However what happens if someone accuses you of abuse to your (imaginary?) kids. You'll be happy to immediately have them taken away just in case? Or say you get accused of hitting your wife by someone. Should you automatically be put in prison because some men do hit their wife, and so you might be a danger to people?

How is that in any way relevant?

frankenstein12 said:

It does not mean however that Sweden wont massage figures to bring them down elsewhere if they are making the government look bad or they don't fit the governments narrative.

Why would they change some figures to make themselves look bad, yet change others to make themselves look better?

Because sometimes making the figures look worse in one area means you can hide other figures elsewhere which would get a much stronger public reaction

frankenstein12 said:

No because Trump is not giving NK billions of dollars in exchange for the sum total of nothing.
Getting rid of a lot of what Obama did is no bad thing either.

Yes the Republicans spent a lot of time frustrating Obama but they did at least occasionally work with him. The democrats seem determined not to work with Trump.


https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/iran-u...
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09...

Why has Trump not tweeted about this cash, as he clearly tweets about every other bad deal and the details. If Trump makes up facts for fake news and has not said this, I doubt it is the case. What policies did the Republicans work with Obama on?

Has but it has received very little press attention for a variety of reasons partly as Trump is always tweeting or doing something worthy of scandal and some have but have been ignored as no one seems to really care about what Obama did or did not do much like HRC.

Edited by frankenstein12 on Tuesday 19th June 19:51

[frankenstein12]

Countdown said:

You know that it’s the buyers that pay the tariff don’t you?

A fair point but the idea would be to impose enough tariffs that Mexico agrees to pay rather than see a drop in its economy from Americans not buying their products because they are too expensive at which point it is not the buyers paying its Mexico.