U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Congratulations President Trump.

 

Your first drone strike in Yemen.

 

Carrying on the legacy of bush and obama.

 

I hope you weren't expecting anything different?

 

Besides if he's true to his word and intends to 'bomb the hell out of IS' then American armaments companies will be on overtime just to try and keep up with the number of bombs he'll drop.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

He is a self-absorbed, vindictive, man-child. HTF his "fellow" Republicans have allowed what they must plainly see, is a potential disaster in waiting, shows how devoid of principle they all are.

Desperate times call for even greater desperate measures, I suppose.

 

Personality Cult of 'The Donald'

[Francis Albert]

The sorest winner of all time can't stop whining.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/01/24/daily-202-the-sorest-winner-of-all-time-cannot-stop-whining/5886adb5e9b69b432bc7e07f/?utm_term=.2614e60833bd&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

 

 

What a wimp. 

I suppose there is at least a balance - the sorest winner of all time vs the sorest losers of all time.

[tian447]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38740717

 

 

Donald Trump: 'We will build Mexico border wall'

 

Idiot.

[The Real Maroonblood]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38740717

 

 

 

Idiot.

Estimated about $12 billion at least.

[Francis Albert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38740717

 

 

 

Idiot.

An elected politician seemingly fulfilling his campaign pledges? Whatever next.

 

I have never really understood the moral outrage over the wall. How is it different from the already extensive stretches of high barbed wire topped fences along long stretches of the border. Or the US border patrols in 4X4s  tracking down, chasing and arresting illegal immigrants who get across the border? In other words how in principle does it differ from the border controls of the Obama and preceding regimes. What am I missing?

Edited January 25, 2017 by Francis Albert

[Ibrahim Tall]

Tbh, despite my feelings on Trump I don't see the 'wall' as a massive issue. For the vast majority if not all of the border a fence already exists, and if any spaces to exist they're in the middle of the desert away from populated areas. Its not like there's freedom of movement between the two.

 

Given the large amount of smuggling be that either in terms of people, drugs, or guns in both directions something does need to be done. Don't get me wrong I seriously doubt a wall will make any real difference in the long run as the money involved in drug smuggling will always lead to someone finding a way but i don't understand the over-reaction to what is basically an extension of a 2006 GWB policy. His comments on deportations for example.

[Pans Jambo]

I don't disagree the government needs to do more to create jobs and support manufacturing in this country but the situation isn't the same as in the US and the timeframe goes a lot further back than the 25 years you mentioned.

The Mitsubishis, NEC's Levis, Motorolas etc which set up here in the 80's of course aren't British companies and in effect all we did in the country is the same thing we're now blaming Eastern Europe and South Asia(Or Mexico in Trumps case) for doing now ie take jobs from their home country.

 

Actual 'British' manafacturing virtually died decades ago and would be very hard to revive as barely even the produce raw materials(Coal/Metals etc) any more let alone refine them.

Eg. Without Coal etc British Steel is effectively dead, with British Steel the shipbuilding sector is effectively dead as we're reliant on abroad and so on.

Yes thats true but there's still no real effort to attract any real employment opportunities. Just a crap state of affairs TBH.

[AlimOzturk]

A politition following through on campaign promises that got him elected.

 

Well I never.

[Peebo]

Tbh, despite my feelings on Trump I don't see the 'wall' as a massive issue. For the vast majority if not all of the border a fence already exists, and if any spaces to exist they're in the middle of the desert away from populated areas. Its not like there's freedom of movement between the two.

 

Given the large amount of smuggling be that either in terms of people, drugs, or guns in both directions something does need to be done. Don't get me wrong I seriously doubt a wall will make any real difference in the long run as the money involved in drug smuggling will always lead to someone finding a way but i don't understand the over-reaction to what is basically an extension of a 2006 GWB policy. His comments on deportations for example.

You're right. The wall is, in many ways, symbolic. It's what it symbolises is what is the big deal for many, I think.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

5 days in and here's what we have.

 

Executive Orders on the following:

 

* Repealing the ACA (with no plan to replace it with anything)

* Banning funding to international agencies that counsel women on abortion (something that Obama repealed after Bush banned it after Clinton repealed it so standard)

* Allowing the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines to go ahead, despite the impact on the environment and potential danger to water sources for 18 million people

* Refusing to ratify TPP (good thing, bad thing - don't know)

 

There are probably more.  In addition to these we've also had:

 

* An inauguration speech which paints a very bleak picture of the US - which isn't actually the case but 'facts'..

* Complained in a speech in front of a wall memorial for fallen CIA officers about reports that the crowds at his inauguration were small.

* Had his press secretary lie, blatantly about said inauguration before telling the press what they should be writing about.

* Threatened to send in the Feds to Chicago to stop the carnage (horrific murder rate but threatening to send in the feds is slightly dictatorish imo)

* Asserted that the election which he won was full of voter fraud and he has evidence despite independent bodies saying they can't find any evidence.  

* Announcing a major inquiry into said voting fraud for no other reason that he can't deal with the fact that less people voted for him than his opponent

* Banned the EPA from talking about climate change.

* Told companies that they will pay a huge border tax if they import goods that they could have made in the US.

* Announced plans to build his wall but taxpayers paying for it instead of the mexicans...

* Banned federal agencies from communicating via social media until digital advisors are brought in. 

 

 

Sure been a great 5 days for the clown. Today is apparently about lots of exec orders about immigrants and refugees.  From the son of an immigrant...

[tian447]

* Banned federal agencies from communicating via social media until digital advisors are brought in. 

 

Surely he should ban himself from Twitter as well then

[AlphonseCapone]

An elected politician seemingly fulfilling his campaign pledges? Whatever next.

 

I have never really understood the moral outrage over the wall. How is it different from the already extensive stretches of high barbed wire topped fences along long stretches of the border. Or the US border patrols in 4X4s tracking down, chasing and arresting illegal immigrants who get across the border? In other words how in principle does it differ from the border controls of the Obama and preceding regimes. What am I missing?

He hasn't actually fulfilled anything though as he. He has only signed an executive order, meaningless until it passes through the House and Senate.

 

Otherwise, you can argue Obama fulfilled every single pledge be made as I'm sure he signed the executive order on many that never made it through the house.

 

Donald is about to find out you can promise anything you want, delivering it is a different story. And he doesn't have the political savvy or diplomacy to pull off anything your run of a mill Republican president couldn't.

[Francis Albert]

5 days in and here's what we have.

 

Executive Orders on the following:

 

* Repealing the ACA (with no plan to replace it with anything)

* Banning funding to international agencies that counsel women on abortion (something that Obama repealed after Bush banned it after Clinton repealed it so standard)

* Allowing the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines to go ahead, despite the impact on the environment and potential danger to water sources for 18 million people

* Refusing to ratify TPP (good thing, bad thing - don't know)

 

There are probably more.  In addition to these we've also had:

 

* An inauguration speech which paints a very bleak picture of the US - which isn't actually the case but 'facts'..

* Complained in a speech in front of a wall memorial for fallen CIA officers about reports that the crowds at his inauguration were small.

* Had his press secretary lie, blatantly about said inauguration before telling the press what they should be writing about.

* Threatened to send in the Feds to Chicago to stop the carnage (horrific murder rate but threatening to send in the feds is slightly dictatorish imo)

* Asserted that the election which he won was full of voter fraud and he has evidence despite independent bodies saying they can't find any evidence.  

* Announcing a major inquiry into said voting fraud for no other reason that he can't deal with the fact that less people voted for him than his opponent

* Banned the EPA from talking about climate change.

* Told companies that they will pay a huge border tax if they import goods that they could have made in the US.

* Announced plans to build his wall but taxpayers paying for it instead of the mexicans...

* Banned federal agencies from communicating via social media until digital advisors are brought in. 

 

 

Sure been a great 5 days for the clown. Today is apparently about lots of exec orders about immigrants and refugees.  From the son of an immigrant...

Obviously lying about the crowds at your inauguration is reprehensible.  How it weighs on the scale with the lies that Bush and Blair told before the Iraq invasion is another matter.

[Francis Albert]

He hasn't actually fulfilled anything though as he. He has only signed an executive order, meaningless until it passes through the House and Senate.

 

Otherwise, you can argue Obama fulfilled every single pledge be made as I'm sure he signed the executive order on many that never made it through the house.

 

Donald is about to find out you can promise anything you want, delivering it is a different story. And he doesn't have the political savvy or diplomacy to pull off anything your run of a mill Republican president couldn't.

Agreed he has only signed executive orders. But that is all he can do at this stage to try to fulfil many of his promises. As with Obama, the extent he can deliver them does depend to a large extent on the House and Senate. He has the advantage over Obama that they are both majority Republican, but of course there is not a pro-Trump majority among Republican senators and representatives. So checks and balances and all that. But the OTT outrage about him signing Executive orders reflecting his campaign promises seems a bit odd, If he just reneged on all his promises there would be at least as much outrage.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Francis Albert

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

Looking at America from this side of the Atlantic is like watching an elephant walk across a glass roof.

You know that inevitably the roof will give way. The question is, how many innocent bystanders will get squashed when the elephant hits the floor?

[Francis Albert]

You're right. The wall is, in many ways, symbolic. It's what it symbolises is what is the big deal for many, I think.

Again, what does it symbolise that existing fences and border guards do not "symbolise",

 

Or naval ships in the Med intercepting immigrant ships from North Africa?

[AlphonseCapone]

Agreed he has only signed executive orders. But that is all he can do at this stage to try to fulfil many of his promises. As with Obama, the extent he can deliver them does depend to a large extent on the House and Senate. He has the advantage over Obama that they are both majority Reublican, but of course there is not a pro-Trump majority among Republican senators and representatives. So checks and balances and all that. But the OTT outrage about him signing Executive orders reflecting his campaign promises seems a bit odd, If he just reneged on all his promises there would be at least as much outrage.

Agreed, despite the fact I really dislike a lot of his policies, he should be trying to enact them. He'd be chastised for not as you say.

 

The smart thing, and I don't know if this was intentional on his part and if it was he maybe has more political savvy than I think, is that if any these get thrown out in the house, he has already positioned himself as fighting the establishment, and he'll paint it as the establishment fighting back.

 

Essentially win win for him with his core vote, they go through, he has fulfilled a pledge, they don't then it's the big bad establishment trying to keep the people down.

[aussieh]

Obviously lying about the crowds at your inauguration is reprehensible. How it weighs on the scale with the lies that Bush and Blair told before the Iraq invasion is another matter.

It's a bit strange to focus on his own popularity and adulation, by crying fake news about crowds and fraud votes. A narcissistic bully. Oh, and his war record is in the post.

[Peebo]

Again, what does it symbolise that existing fences and border guards do not "symbolise",

 

Or naval ships in the Med intercepting immigrant ships from North Africa?

It's symbolic because it is a solid barrier between the two countries which will tangibly represent, and reinforce, the "them and us" agenda re immigration upon which Trump's support is thriving. I doubt the cost of the wall will be worth the additional border security it will actually provide. But then who cares, the Mexicans are paying...

 

I'm unclear what the second part of your post is asking.

[aussieh]

Agreed, despite the fact I really dislike a lot of his policies, he should be trying to enact them. He'd be chastised for not as you say.

 

The smart thing, and I don't know if this was intentional on his part and if it was he maybe has more political savvy than I think, is that if any these get thrown out in the house, he has already positioned himself as fighting the establishment, and he'll paint it as the establishment fighting back.

 

Essentially win win for him with his core vote, they go through, he has fulfilled a pledge, they don't then it's the big bad establishment trying to keep the people down.

They should let him do as he pleases.As soon as the country crashes and burns with debt and deficits, he'll be hanged from the nearest tree.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

Obviously lying about the crowds at your inauguration is reprehensible.  How it weighs on the scale with the lies that Bush and Blair told before the Iraq invasion is another matter.

 

I don't think it's reprehensible, i think it's the way that it's been done that is the more worrying factor - knowing that claims could be easily disproved but not caring anyway.  Also - it's not that important in the grand scheme of things but apparently he thinks it is massively important to keep talking about it.

 

As to weighing it with the lies that the Bush and Blair governments told - it's miniscule in comparison.  The 'issue' at hand is also miniscule.  Nobody died as a result of his lies here.  The precedent that's set lines up with the ability and desire to tell bigger whoppers and then call anyone disputing them liars

[Francis Albert]

It's symbolic because it is a solid barrier between the two countries which will tangibly represent, and reinforce, the "them and us" agenda re immigration upon which Trump's support is thriving. I doubt the cost of the wall will be worth the additional border security it will actually provide. But then who cares, the Mexicans are paying...

 

I'm unclear what the second part of your post is asking.

The second part was simply asking why an attempted naval blockade of immigrants from North Africa is not also "symbolic" of a  barrier between people? Maybe not "solid" but in principle the same thing and certainly representing a "them and us" agenda re immigration. As of course din the Bush/Obama border fences and guards.

 

As to the cost, the quoted cost (even if understated, which I suspect)  represents a tiny fraction of total Government spend and of defence spend. Even if it just makes a small  temporary dent in the import of drugs it will do more than much of US "defence" spending in protecting the US population. A lot of that spending in the last few decades has actually been counter-productive as far as the security of the US is concerned.

[Peebo]

The second part was simply asking why an attempted naval blockade of immigrants from North Africa is not also "symbolic" of a barrier between people? Maybe not "solid" but in principle the same thing and certainly representing a "them and us" agenda re immigration. As of course din the Bush/Obama border fences and guards.

 

 

No idea. I haven't said it isn't.

 

As to the cost, the quoted cost (even if understated, which I suspect) represents a tiny fraction of total Government spend and of defence spend. Even if it just makes a small temporary dent in the import of drugs it will do more than much of US "defence" spending in protecting the US population. A lot of that spending in the last few decades has actually been counter-productive as far as the security of the US is concerned.

Mexico is paying for it, so hee haw to do with US defence spending.

[Frank]

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Fairly sure Congress will have something to say about it.

 

I don't think it's a particulaly popular pledge, within the Republican system.

 

Where will they get their maids & gardeners from?

[Unknown user]

Fairly sure Congress will have something to say about it.

 

I don't think it's a particulaly popular pledge, within the Republican system.

You reckon? Congress has a republican majority and there's no way they're going to throw their new president under the bus, not without much better reason.

And anyway, even if Congress did amend it, Trump has the right to veto the change.

 

Not going to happen imo

[niblick1874]

He is not going to drain the swamp, he is adding to it. Or, he has not taken a red cent from any of them as apposed to everyone else and he is not about to take a knife to a gun fight.

 

We don't know. Stop with the I know.

[JamboX2]

He is not going to drain the swamp, he is adding to it. Or, he has not taken a red cent from any of them as apposed to everyone else and he is not about to take a knife to a gun fight.

 

We don't know. Stop with the I know.

He won't drain the swamp. He's appointed the swamp.

 

I am sure in Tillerson's nomination hearing a congressman asked "have you ever lobbied for oil?" He answered no. The congressman then produced evidence showing Tillerson had lobbied him.

Edited January 26, 2017 by JamboX2

[Francis Albert]

You reckon? Congress has a republican majority and there's no way they're going to throw their new president under the bus, not without much better reason.

And anyway, even if Congress did amend it, Trump has the right to veto the change.

 

Not going to happen imo

Sorry but where does this idea that the President can just veto Congress/Senate decisions come from? And why on earth didn't anyone tell Obama? 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

No idea. I haven't said it isn't.

 

 

Mexico is paying for it, so hee haw to do with US defence spending.

I didn't say you said it isn't. Just a question you clearly can't or won't answer.

 

If Mexico is paying for it, it makes your argument that the cost to the US isn't justified a bit silly. My point was that even  if the US was paying for it, it didn't seem an unreasonable cost compared to other US expenditure.

[niblick1874]

He won't drain the swamp. He's appointed the swamp.

 

I am sure in Tillerson's nomination hearing a congressman asked "have you ever lobbied for oil?" He answered no. The congressman then produced evidence showing Tillerson had lobbied him.

Why are you giving your opinion and stating it as fact?

Edited January 26, 2017 by niblick1874

[Unknown user]

Sorry but where does this idea that the President can just veto Congress/Senate decisions come from? And why on earth didn't anyone tell Obama?

No need to apologise for your ignorance, not everyone can be bothered doing their own homework.

 

This should help;

http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

 

If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

[Bridge of Djoum]

An elected politician seemingly fulfilling his campaign pledges? Whatever next.

 

I have never really understood the moral outrage over the wall. How is it different from the already extensive stretches of high barbed wire topped fences along long stretches of the border. Or the US border patrols in 4X4s  tracking down, chasing and arresting illegal immigrants who get across the border? In other words how in principle does it differ from the border controls of the Obama and preceding regimes. What am I missing?

http://www.businessinsider.com/can-donald-trumps-build-wall-mexico-2016-3

 

Also, could you provide evidence of ''moral outrage''. I've genuinely not read about the wall in this context.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Fidel Cathro

[AlphonseCapone]

He is not going to drain the swamp, he is adding to it. Or, he has not taken a red cent from any of them as apposed to everyone else and he is not about to take a knife to a gun fight.

 

We don't know. Stop with the I know.

But you know everything nibs?

 

A world where you don't know things is too scary for me.

[Peebo]

I didn't say you said it isn't. Just a question you clearly can't or won't answer.

 

I'm really not that familiar with the ins and outs of naval blockades in the Med. As such, in this thread about Donald Trump, it isn't something I am about to start debating.

 

If Mexico is paying for it, it makes your argument that the cost to the US isn't justified a bit silly. My point was that even if the US was paying for it, it didn't seem an unreasonable cost compared to other US expenditure.

I'm not arguing that the cost to the US isn't justified. Because there will be no cost to the US. Edited January 26, 2017 by Peebo

[The Real Maroonblood]

I'm really not that familiar with the ins and outs of naval blockades in the Med. As such, in this thread about Donald Trump, it isn't something I am about to start debating. I'm not arguing that the cost to the US isn't justified. Because there will be no cost to the US.

Does Trump just send Pena Nieto the invoice for the wall?

[Peebo]

Does Trump just send Pena Nieto the invoice for the wall?

**** knows.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Does Trump just send Pena Nieto the invoice for the wall?

Didn't Trump say that Mexico had trade deficit with the US and this (somehow) would pay for the wall?

 

Or was it tax imports and subsidize exports?

 

More info here.....

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-trump-can-make-mexico-pay-for-the-border-wall-heres-how/2017/01/17/7edf7872-dcbf-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.8bce7f6b11c3

[The Real Maroonblood]

Didn't Trump say that Mexico had trade deficit with the US and this (somehow) would pay for the wall?

 

Or was it tax imports and subsidize exports?

 

More info here.....

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-trump-can-make-mexico-pay-for-the-border-wall-heres-how/2017/01/17/7edf7872-dcbf-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.8bce7f6b11c3

That's probably the way it will happen.

[Peebo]

Didn't Trump say that Mexico had trade deficit with the US and this (somehow) would pay for the wall?

 

Or was it tax imports and subsidize exports?

 

More info here.....

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-trump-can-make-mexico-pay-for-the-border-wall-heres-how/2017/01/17/7edf7872-dcbf-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.8bce7f6b11c3

One thing is for sure - Mexico will not simply hand over a cheque for $8 billion (or whatever). There are, of course, ways that they could, on paper, reimburse the US for the cost.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

After making a song and dance about voter fraud, it turns out Trump's own daughter Tiffany is registered to vote in two states, as is Steve Bannon & Steve Mnuchin.

 

No one is saying they have done anything wrong, but it's a bit of an own goal Trump insinuating that the reason Clinton got more votes than he did was by voter fraud, including voters being registered in two states, when his own daughter and two of his own team are amongst the very voter fraud criteria that's he's making such a fuss about.

[Bridge of Djoum]

One thing is for sure - Mexico will not simply hand over a cheque for $8 billion (or whatever). There are, of course, ways that they could, on paper, reimburse the US for the cost.

Front of the NY Times this morning.

He seems serious about this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited January 26, 2017 by Fidel Cathro

[Peebo]

Front of the NY Times this morning.

He seems serious about this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure anyone is in any doubt as to Trump's intentions regarding this.

[Bridge of Djoum]

I'm not sure anyone is in any doubt as to Trump's intentions regarding this.

I just wonder who is gonna deliver his burrito bowls if there are no Mexicans allowed over the border.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I just wonder who is gonna deliver his burrito bowls if there are no Mexicans allowed over the border.

 

You heard the man, he wants Americans to have the jobs.

Don't know if the Americans will work for slave wages, but hay ho at least they'll have a job.

[Peebo]

I just wonder who is gonna deliver his burrito bowls if there are no Mexicans allowed over the border.

Plenty folks of Mexican descent already on the right side of the wall...

[Bridge of Djoum]

Plenty folks of Mexican descent already on the right side of the wall...

Indeed, both my babysitters in fact.

[Peebo]

Indeed, both my babysitters in fact.

Yup, have used various folks from that particular labour pool...babysitters, cleaners, gardeners and pool guy.

 

Interesting to see who will step in to fill the shoes of those illegal immigrants who were doing those jobs (not that I employed any illegals, of course...).

[Bridge of Djoum]

Yup, have used various folks from that particular labour pool...babysitters, cleaners, gardeners and pool guy.

 

Interesting to see who will step in to fill the shoes of those illegal immigrants who were doing those jobs (not that I employed any illegals, of course...).

Interestingly, my in-laws live on Cape Cod. Most of the South American seasonal/low paid workers there are Brazilian. I always wondered why. The fishing/marine life perhaps.