45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)

[Byker28i]

This was jobs week - about as successful as his infrastructure weeks

Still with it all going wrong, he'll work through.... nope.
Trump has arrived at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, NJ, according to the pool report. This is Trump's 172nd day at a Trump property as president and his 129th day at a Trump golf club as president.

Manafort trial starts next week

[Byker28i]

Avenatti has met with Cohen and offered to represent him
https://hillreporter.com/michael-avenatti-met-with...

[Byker28i]

Gameface said:

Where is the line in the sand?

The man is unfit for his office. He belongs in a prison cell, frankly IMO.

When is enough, enough?

Incredible isn't it. When people are being sacked for old tweets, yet nothing sticks to trump in the eyes of his base.

[Byker28i]

Incredible that after all his claims over Obama taping him, it was the lawyer after all...

[PWeston]

Byker28i said:

Gameface said:

Where is the line in the sand?

The man is unfit for his office. He belongs in a prison cell, frankly IMO.

When is enough, enough?

Incredible isn't it. When people are being sacked for old tweets, yet nothing sticks to trump in the eyes of his base.

Are you referring to James Gunn being sacked by Disney? I think advocating paedophilia in the manner he repeatedly did (if you read the tweets) should be taken seriously. I’ve not seen Trump advocate raping kids (but I could be wrong).

[Bill]

F1GTRUeno said:

If Putin is holding Trump to ransom and getting him to leave NATO then it absolutely isn't in the interest of western nations is it? Neither is it that he's having a trade war with the EU.

That's the end game. Divide US and Europe, split NATO up, have the west quarrelling whilst he swallows up the old soviet territories and gains more control over the world.

Oh and if he gets Trump to give him Bill Browder then the Magnitsky act is toast, Browder is dead and Putin gets an awful lot of money back which means any potential mistrust by the oligarchs he controls goes away and cements his power further.

This. Trump is pissing off his allies (the ones with decent economies who want to work with the US) and competitors with growing economies (China) to side with a dictator who presides over a tiddly (relatively) barely functional state.

Why would he do that? And how does that benefit the US?

[JuniorD]

Some wild, unsubstantiated claims flying about this thread that Trump suppporters aren’t thick

[Gameface]

Bill said:

Why would he do that? And how does that benefit the US?

Because they have bank rolled him for years and have dirt on him. If they spill the beans and call in the loans, he pretty much loses everything and goes to prison.

It doesn't benefit the USA, it benefits him.

[Countdown]

PWeston said:

What the left can’t grasp is that Trump’s supporters don’t care if he is some paragon of morality. They just want a president on their side and on the side of America rather than one working towards globalist ideals.

2/3rds of people who support Trump think Obama is a Muslim, In my book that makes them a bunch of ignorant racists. To be fair to Trump he’s realised that there is a significant constituency of ignorant racists in the US and he’s marketed himself towards them really well. He’s an excellent seller of bullst and some people continue to swallow it by the bucketload.

“On the side of America” is meaningless tripe. Trade tariffs are hurting US businesses and consumers as are sanctions on Iran are hurting. Cosying up to Putin does the opposite of putting America first. He’s weakened NATO and had arguments with pretty much all of his allies. The man’s an incompetent cretin at everything apart rom being a bullst salesman and his four bankruptcies suggest that at some point people stop buying his bullst.

[Bill]

Gameface said:

Because they have bank rolled him for years and have dirt on him. If they spill the beans and call in the loans, he pretty much loses everything and goes to prison.

It doesn't benefit the USA, it benefits him.

Seems like the obvious answer, but there are posters here who seem to think it's a good thing.

I get the jaw jaw Vs war sentiment but this looks like appeasement at best.

Oilbethere, PWeston please explain how it isn't.

[Eric Mc]

Bill said:

Seems like the obvious answer, but there are posters here who seem to think it's a good thing.

I get the jaw jaw Vs war sentiment but this looks like appeasement at best.

Oilbethere, PWeston please explain how it isn't.

The people who espouse "jaw jaw" rather than "war war" in the context of Trump's relationship with Putin don't seem to have much knowledge of the context of the original statement - which has always been attributed to Winston Churchill - but which more accurately was said by Harold Macmillan. Churchill's original version was "it is better to meet jaw to jaw rather than to war" and was made to American law makers in the context of dealing with the aftermath of the Korean War.

Churchill, as most of us well know, twenty years earlier, took a very different approach in dealing with the European dictators - and perhaps those who want to equate Trump's attempts to bend to Putin's desires might be better to compare his behaviour with that of Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Deladier at Munich in 1938.

[Gameface]

What war have we been on the brink of, that Trump diplomacy has saved us all from.

It's just bks.

[Eric Mc]

Gameface said:

What war have we been on the brink of, that Trump diplomacy has saved us all from.

It's just bks.

The "war" he has invented in his own head.

At least Chamberlain and Deladier were working to prevent what looked like (and proved to be) an imminent and very real war so history can judge them with some sympathy. Not so Trump.

Indeed, Trump's actions might very well lead to wars in places like Ukraine or Montonegro.

[Gameface]

Didn't he turn round and say to some journalist, that the only reason her kids are still alive is because of him, and the fact he'd averted nuclear war with North Korea?

Or words to that effect.

[Byker28i]

PWeston said:

Byker28i said:

Gameface said:

Where is the line in the sand?

The man is unfit for his office. He belongs in a prison cell, frankly IMO.

When is enough, enough?

Incredible isn't it. When people are being sacked for old tweets, yet nothing sticks to trump in the eyes of his base.

Are you referring to James Gunn being sacked by Disney? I think advocating paedophilia in the manner he repeatedly did (if you read the tweets) should be taken seriously. I’ve not seen Trump advocate raping kids (but I could be wrong).

Actually I was thinking more about the behaviour of news anchors, Rosanne Barr, the #metoo fallout with some polititcians etc
All way below the behaviour of the current Potus

[Byker28i]

Gameface said:

Didn't he turn round and say to some journalist, that the only reason her kids are still alive is because of him, and the fact he'd averted nuclear war with North Korea?

Or words to that effect.

Ah that's ok because Kim held a press conference that he meant to say he WOULDN'T denuklearise...

[Byker28i]

But then trumplesimpleskin has taken his eye on North Korea because he's declared that fixed. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence says North Korea is violating a sanctions cap on importing refined petroleum through ship-to-ship transfers. They have photographic evidence and documents tracing the ships to China and Russia.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-warns-against-...

[Byker28i]

Rachel Maddow was showing a close up of Putins notes

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-putin...

Close-up of Putin's notes shows the following list of topics, from what I can decipher:
1. "Interference" (in quotes) - proposal
2. #Ukraine - new ideas, transit of gas
3. Syria - joint humanitarian efforts

[NRS]

Tartan Pixie said:

Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330

The irony is that while the alt-right scream about leftie snowflakes feeling entitled to what they've not worked for it appears the dynamic is in fact the reverse, it is rightie snowflakes who feel entitled to their position as the global economic elite that are doing the kicking and screaming. Classic case of projection.

I remember when right wing meant taking responsibility for your actions, taking pride in your ability to look after yourself and being responsible with money. It is amazing to see how those values have crumbled the moment they face a level playing field with black and Chinese people. Almost like they were virtue signalling and didn't really mean it.

It seems the classic right and left is somewhat muddled, with the middle ground being more about globalisation etc, where as the far right is being protectionist (don't increase competition in our "home" - whatever home is defined as) and the far left (protectionist to protect workers rights through lack of competition etc. It's partly why Brexit is such a weird thing - everyone assumed it was right wing, but a lot of UKIP went back to the left, as it was also the left. Not classic right-left splits on the results, even if the ideologies are very different in theory.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Shouting over in general life. Basically anyone who is a bit right wing gets thrown in with the hard right. So they don't talk about it or admit it, and that's why the polls get it wrong as when the votes actually happen they vote how they feel, not how they should look in public.

If you're doing stuff for the country you should find ways to negotiate. The stalemates everywhere is useless. Yes, the Republicans were complete imbeciles the way they did much of the blocking, hence having to use presidential power to get stuff done.

The fact companies are posting record profits shows the money is not limited, which is what you indicate. If there was the competition for workers the pay would go up. It's as simple as that.

Countdown said:

2/3rds of people who support Trump think Obama is a Muslim, In my book that makes them a bunch of ignorant racists. To be fair to Trump he’s realised that there is a significant constituency of ignorant racists in the US and he’s marketed himself towards them really well. He’s an excellent seller of bullst and some people continue to swallow it by the bucketload.

“On the side of America” is meaningless tripe. Trade tariffs are hurting US businesses and consumers as are sanctions on Iran are hurting. Cosying up to Putin does the opposite of putting America first. He’s weakened NATO and had arguments with pretty much all of his allies. The man’s an incompetent cretin at everything apart rom being a bullst salesman and his four bankruptcies suggest that at some point people stop buying his bullst.

He is hurting some businesses in America. However the tariff money goes back into the US economy as a tax, rather than going to China. And when/if the prices of American versions are similar to Chinese ones they will be more likely to buy American goods instead. One of the big things that REALLY does hurt western economies is the "partnerships" where to sell in China you need a local partner, who has access to you stuff and just rips off all the tech/ ideas etc. That is actually a big positive thing if he can get rid of that IMO.

I'd like to see how Iran sanctions are having much impact on the US? I think it's a stupid childish thing Trump did there, just destroying stuff Obama did because it was Obama, but I don't think there is much impact. A bit on oil prices, but Saudi/Russia are filling the lost production in.

Bill said:

This. Trump is pissing off his allies (the ones with decent economies who want to work with the US) and competitors with growing economies (China) to side with a dictator who presides over a tiddly (relatively) barely functional state.

Why would he do that? And how does that benefit the US?

The thing is his allies rely a lot on the USA due to it's position of power/ huge economy. He can afford to push us a lot without us retaliating in long lasting damage. It's what he does in his business world too - since he has access to a lot of money he uses that over people to control them. Although there he usually just completely rips people off.

[Eric Mc]

Maybe our interpretation of what "right" and "left" actually means is what the problem is. 40 -50 years ago "right thinking" politics in the UK was all in favour of closer ties with Europe, single markets etc etc. It's hard to equate any of that with what we now look on as "right wing" sentiments.

And if you go back to the 1930s, "right wing" was something different again.

"Left wing" is probably a bit more consistent in its core beliefs - but there are may permutations on that too.