U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Jambo-Jimbo]

45 minutes ago, Cade said:

Three days ago Trump mentioned a possible tightening of gun laws.

 

Today he had a meeting with the NRA.

Immediately after that meeting, the white house put out "clarifications" on his previous comments, effectively trying to take them back.

 

 

 

Little shock or surprise there then, and Trump isn't the first nor last to back track on promises of gun controls.

 

We have Aussie Flu, Hong Kong Flu, German Measles, West Nile Virus, Lassa Fever, Ebola etc etc, maybe there should be a new one.

 

The American Fever (The love of guns).

[jake]

4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Trump's core support don't believe anything negative about the man, but that's hardly the point. 

 

He claims "Fake news" about everything he doesn't like, so no-one should pay any attention to that.

 

If the USA gets into another war, it's unlikely to be with Russia.  Iran and North Korea are more likely targets for America.

 

I'm attempting to find an explanation for his bizarre approach to Russia.  Russia expected to get Obama's sanctions lifted after the Trump victory.  Why?  Trump won't impose the Russia sanctions approved by Congress for their meddling in the elections.  Why?  US intelligence services state that Russia will meddle again in the 2018 elections, but Trump refuses to take any action against them.  Why?  I'm convinced that the Russian's have something on him, something that could possibly land him in jail.  And yes, that's an allegation without proof.  Yet.

 

We'll see how the Mueller investigation goes.

Your first sentence is the point though.

 

He does claim fake news.

But instead of the media holding him to account for actual policy they continue to peddle unsubstantiated stuff like the Russian angle.

And the cosy relationship with msm and the Clintons only reinforces this perception.

 

I find myself arguing with your good self and UA Uly because it seems to me that the pertinent question is that (for me anyway) there is little difference between policy foreign or domestic .

 

As for wars with Russia.

Come on 

Iran Syria North Korea.

 

Proxy wars.

Russia perhaps expected sanctions lifted as you say .

Much the same as any entity which tries to lobby American politics does.

Is Russia any worse a regime than Saudi whose financial links with Clinton and the democrats any worse.

 

Anyway I'm typing here and probably as usual all over the place.

 

 

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

 

Is Russia any worse a regime than Saudi whose financial links with Clinton and the democrats any worse.

 

 

 

Yes.  Mad as it may seem, yes.

 

Why?

 

Not because they're worse, but because they are definitively the enemies of the United States of America.

 

That's not a problem for you and me, but it is a big problem for the USA. 

 

Why?  Because when your commander-in-chief is in hock to your enemy and your enemy has compromising information on your commander-in-chief, then your enemy has your commander--in-chief by the goolies, and that is not a good position for a country to be in.

 

The USA can afford to have all sorts of loolahs and dangerous people in the White House, but it can't afford to have someone in the White House whose pathetic ass is owned by the Kremlin.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Your first sentence is the point though.

 

He does claim fake news.

But instead of the media holding him to account for actual policy they continue to peddle unsubstantiated stuff like the Russian angle.

And the cosy relationship with msm and the Clintons only reinforces this perception.

 

I find myself arguing with your good self and UA Uly because it seems to me that the pertinent question is that (for me anyway) there is little difference between policy foreign or domestic .

 

As for wars with Russia.

Come on 

Iran Syria North Korea.

 

Proxy wars.

Russia perhaps expected sanctions lifted as you say .

Much the same as any entity which tries to lobby American politics does.

Is Russia any worse a regime than Saudi whose financial links with Clinton and the democrats any worse.

 

Anyway I'm typing here and probably as usual all over the place.

 

 

 

First Bold Part - Exactly, Trump is so short on policy the media should, I would have thought be all over it, he has so little wiggle room on that to cry 'Fake News', however as has been said and despite Trump's protestations the media still give him a relatively easy time of it imo.

 

Second Bold Part (And not exactly for this thread) - Syria is already a proxy war, but instead of being the classic USA vs Russian proxy war, this time the Arabs (Saudis) & Muslims (Iran) are involved and that adds a very dangerous and very unpredictable element to the whole conflict, and that's religion.

A very complex and delicate diplomatic situation at the best of times and it is a very dangerous high stakes game the US & Russia are playing, and one which I feel the Russians are far better equipped to deal with than the American's are at present, especially given Trump's complete lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs, hell the man doesn't know what's happening in his own country far less around the World.  It's not going to end well, I fear.    

[jake]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Yes.  Mad as it may seem, yes.

 

Why?

 

Not because they're worse, but because they are definitively the enemies of the United States of America.

 

That's not a problem for you and me, but it is a big problem for the USA. 

 

Why?  Because when your commander-in-chief is in hock to your enemy and your enemy has compromising information on your commander-in-chief, then your enemy has your commander--in-chief by the goolies, and that is not a good position for a country to be in.

 

The USA can afford to have all sorts of loolahs and dangerous people in the White House, but it can't afford to have someone in the White House whose pathetic ass is owned by the Kremlin.

Granted .

 

But are you honestly thinking the future safety of the US is in Trumps hands Uly?

 

And in terms of aggressive military action you have to concede the US has been the proactive one before trump.

 

Are we really believing that the US is under threat from Russian trolls.

And is it really come to this that those that are at least left of centre been shuffled along so far to the right that they now go along with the foreign bogey man?

 

 

[jake]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

First Bold Part - Exactly, Trump is so short on policy the media should, I would have thought be all over it, he has so little wiggle room on that to cry 'Fake News', however as has been said and despite Trump's protestations the media still give him a relatively easy time of it imo.

 

Second Bold Part (And not exactly for this thread) - Syria is already a proxy war, but instead of being the classic USA vs Russian proxy war, this time the Arabs (Saudis) & Muslims (Iran) are involved and that adds a very dangerous and very unpredictable element to the whole conflict, and that's religion.

A very complex and delicate diplomatic situation at the best of times and it is a very dangerous high stakes game the US & Russia are playing, and one which I feel the Russians are far better equipped to deal with than the American's are at present, especially given Trump's complete lack of knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs, hell the man doesn't know what's happening in his own country far less around the World.  It's not going to end well, I fear.    

The media give Trump an easy ride?

 

Yes in a way they do.

Because they can't admit they have missed the point.

They have ran with the wrong story imo.

[Ulysses]

44 minutes ago, jake said:

Granted .

 

But are you honestly thinking the future safety of the US is in Trumps hands Uly?

 

And in terms of aggressive military action you have to concede the US has been the proactive one before trump.

 

Are we really believing that the US is under threat from Russian trolls.

And is it really come to this that those that are at least left of centre been shuffled along so far to the right that they now go along with the foreign bogey man?

 

 

 

I hope the future safety of the United States is not in Trump's hands.  I'm reasonably confident that it isn't, but you can never really be sure.

 

It's not about aggressive military action or foreign policy.  We're foreigners, so whether we like the military behaviour or foreign policy of the USA is hardly relevant.

 

What matters is that you expect the President of the United States to act in that country's best interests, and not to behave like a hostile agent.  You expect that regardless of whether you agree with the USA's actions or not.  Trump is hostile to certain key interests of the USA.  That's unpalatable, but it's true.

 

The United States and Europe are both at risk from the Russians.  We have been since the end of the Second World War, and that has never changed.  Russia went off its game after 1991, but Vladimir Putin has got the country back on form.  The methods of propaganda and cold war change, but the principles are constant.  The only real difference is that Russia has moved from being a communist dictatorship to being a right--wing nationalist dictatorship.  And these days the Kremlin has neutralised the White House even if they haven't captured it, because frankly the Russians own Trump's sorry ass.  That's bad news for the USA, and bad news for Europe, especially for those countries that are closer to the Russian border.

[jake]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I hope the future safety of the United States is not in Trump's hands.  I'm reasonably confident that it isn't, but you can never really be sure.

 

It's not about aggressive military action or foreign policy.  We're foreigners, so whether we like the military behaviour or foreign policy of the USA is hardly relevant.

 

What matters is that you expect the President of the United States to act in that country's best interests, and not to behave like a hostile agent.  You expect that regardless of whether you agree with the USA's actions or not.  Trump is hostile to certain key interests of the USA.  That's unpalatable, but it's true.

 

The United States and Europe are both at risk from the Russians.  We have been since the end of the Second World War, and that has never changed.  Russia went off its game after 1991, but Vladimir Putin has got the country back on form.  The methods of propaganda and cold war change, but the principles are constant.  The only real difference is that Russia has moved from being a communist dictatorship to being a right--wing nationalist dictatorship.  And these days the Kremlin has neutralised the White House even if they haven't captured it, because frankly the Russians own Trump's sorry ass.  That's bad news for the USA, and bad news for Europe, especially for those countries that are closer to the Russian border.

I don't disagree with that.

But I don't see much difference in who is running the show so to speak.

Yes once upon a time the Soviet rule was akin to Nazi rule.

 

But criminal activity of both the Kremlin and the Whitehouse and their allies is slight.

There used to be an idealism in the US and especially the 4th estate that is missing.

And that's not the fault of Trump.

He is the result of that.

 

And I worry that there is no voice to highlight this that isn't discredited.

It's reduced to fake news or racist in swapping insults.

 

I'm not even sure what I believe in to be honest.

I just find the whole thing has been moved to the right and no real alternative is offered.

Hence the rise of brexit and trump .

And even our own Indy referendum.

And even worse imo religious politic.

 

 

Sorry I've went off on one.

 

Again

[Ulysses]

Just now, jake said:

Sorry I've went off on one.

 

Again

 

Nope, I wouldn't argue with what you're saying.  It's just that if you're going to be head of government in a country, the absolute minimum standard is that you actually believe in and want to serve and run the place.  Say what you like about Nixon, Obama, Reagan, Clinton, either of the Bush clan, they at least were pro-American. 

 

Trump isn't, and that's the unpalatable truth.  He is at least indifferent to whether the USA succeeds or fails, and in some respects he might actually be hostile - or at least so ****witted that he behaves in a hostile way.  That's not what any country wants in its head of government.

 

Maybe Trump (and a Trump v. Clinton election) is simply a sign of decadence, of a society that has finally disappeared up its own arse. 

[jake]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Nope, I wouldn't argue with what you're saying.  It's just that if you're going to be head of government in a country, the absolute minimum standard is that you actually believe in and want to serve and run the place.  Say what you like about Nixon, Obama, Reagan, Clinton, either of the Bush clan, they at least were pro-American. 

 

Trump isn't, and that's the unpalatable truth.  He is at least indifferent to whether the USA succeeds or fails, and in some respects he might actually be hostile - or at least so ****witted that he behaves in a hostile way.  That's not what any country wants in its head of government.

 

Maybe Trump (and a Trump v. Clinton election) is simply a sign of decadence, of a society that has finally disappeared up its own arse. 

Trump is an embarrassment.

No doubt.

But he is the result of those previous regimes and the disconnect from politics.

 

He resonates that .

I was astonished to find out that 20% of black voters gave him the vote.

There is I think in that a tell tale sign but I don't know how to articulate it.

 

But yes I'm always in mind of the Roman empire regarding your last paragraph.

 

 

 

[jake]

I'd also just say that the control of media outlets make it impossible for any politician with high principle to succeed.

Both right and left.

Especially those who wish to reign in US foreign policy and it's expression through the military.

 

Which leads me to the conclusion that the real power lies with those we don't elect.

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

That new nuclear missile system must give some Trump supporters the heebeegeebees. I mean what did they think surrounding the country with troops and weapon systems then saying it's not fair now ?

[Ulysses]

16 hours ago, jake said:

Which leads me to the conclusion that the real power lies with those we don't elect.

 

 

Fair comment, though in fairness it's probably always been true.

 

It's all about knowing which things you need to have power over and which things you can let others exercise power over.  The elite - the real elite, none of this 1% horseshite - are smart enough not to get bogged down in stuff that doesn't matter to them.

[Sharpie]

The way the White House is being reported at this particular time, where Trump is divesting himself of staff, and making decisions without getting advice or consultation as in the new tariffs, his failure to live by established ethics, security clearances etc., his making statements then contradicting them, his attack by way of Twitter on Baldwin were not Presidential, nor were they the way a man acts who has ben elected the leader of a democratic Country.  He infact is descending into the role of a Dictator as opposed to his real position, and like  Dictators who have gone before him is conducting his business in a chaotic, unthought out manner, with only one conclusion rebellion or worse. I am a conservative at heart, and have voted thus numerous times, but if I was a Republican I would feel very let down by my partys leaders not taking some firm action to control this world endangering sick man

[Ibrahim Tall]

1 hour ago, Barack said:

Man shoots himself outside the White House.

 

Trump’s probably not amused. As he’s been disturbed on the 4th hole of the course in Florida.

 

Bloody mentally ill people.

 

 

If everyone had a gun someone could have er.. stopped him from doing that.

[peter_hmfc]

Genuine question: If "mental health" is the main problem and not guns, shouldn't pro-gun people be advocating for Nikolas Cruz to be acquitted under reasons of insanity?

[Sharpie]

3 hours ago, peter_hmfc said:

Genuine question: If "mental health" is the main problem and not guns, shouldn't pro-gun people be advocating for Nikolas Cruz to be acquitted under reasons of insanity?

 

It will be an interesting situation.  He will at present be going through all the phsychiatric examinations, in addition so many of the things he has been reputed to have done including many with police complaints give a good defence lawyer reasonable grounds for argument towards insanity.

If he is found mentally competent to stand trial, it has to be a certainty he pleads insanity,  and as you suggest in your question there is no doubt that the gun lobby will show that their argument it is not guns that kill but the people behind them.  The fact that he has been reported to already have admitted the crime, strong possibility that a Plea deal would include incarceration in a facility for mentally disturbed as opposed to a correctional facility. I would suggest that there is no way in which an acquittal is a possibility in this case, he would either be adjudged guilty without trial and incarcerated in a mental institution, or go to trial and either be sentenced to death or life imprisonment or make a deal as already suggested.

[Maple Leaf]

Remember all Trump's criticisms of Obama playing golf?  Remember his promises that he would be too busy to play golf?

 

In his first 400 days of office, he's spent 100 days playing golf.    What a guy!  And, as usual, the media let him off lightly.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/03/politics/trump-golf-100-days/index.html

 

[John Gentleman]

On 04/03/2018 at 05:50, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

 

If everyone had a gun someone could have er.. stopped him from doing that.

I thought nearly everyone in US had a gun anyways?

 

If gun control in the States is as unpopular as reported, just (heavily) regulate the supply of ammunition. Let them fill their boots with rubber or wooden bullets instead. I mean, if John Citizen pulls a gun on a house thief, can the thief be 100% sure it isn't loaded with real bullets?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

28 minutes ago, John Gentleman said:

I thought nearly everyone in US had a gun anyways?

 

If gun control in the States is as unpopular as reported, just (heavily) regulate the supply of ammunition. Let them fill their boots with rubber or wooden bullets instead. I mean, if John Citizen pulls a gun on a house thief, can the thief be 100% sure it isn't loaded with real bullets?

 

With more guns owned in America than there are people you'd have thought so, and I seen an interview (can't remember who it was) but this guy was on about the myth that the NRA put forward in saying that guns are so popular and more and more individuals own them etc etc, well he said that the statistics seem to suggest the opposite, inasmuch as there might be lots of guns but very often one person or household owns 8,12. 17 or 26 or more guns. 

So it was giving a distorted figure of gun ownership as one person/household could own 12 guns rather than 12 people/households owning a gun each, and thus distorted the popularity of guns in America.

 

There will probably be stats out there, probably backing and refuting each other, either way, the simple truth is there are just way too many guns in America.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

With more guns owned in America than there are people you'd have thought so, and I seen an interview (can't remember who it was) but this guy was on about the myth that the NRA put forward in saying that guns are so popular and more and more individuals own them etc etc, well he said that the statistics seem to suggest the opposite, inasmuch as there might be lots of guns but very often one person or household owns 8,12. 17 or 26 or more guns. 

So it was giving a distorted figure of gun ownership as one person/household could own 12 guns rather than 12 people/households owning a gun each, and thus distorted the popularity of guns in America.

 

There will probably be stats out there, probably backing and refuting each other, either way, the simple truth is there are just way too many guns in America.

 

 

Exactly -- in 2016 this Washington Post article had it at 36% of households in the US owning guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

 

Someone would have to do a deeper breakdown on it but my strong hunch is that both trends are driven by urbanization in the US and fewer people living in rural areas where hunting is a common pastime, and gun sales increasingly going to suburban men with survivalist fetishes.  The average gun owner now owns 6.6 guns, whereas I'm guessing it used to be probably around 1.5 (as many hunters might have had two guns at home -- a shotgun and a deer rifle).

[Jambo-Jimbo]

29 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Exactly -- in 2016 this Washington Post article had it at 36% of households in the US owning guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

 

Someone would have to do a deeper breakdown on it but my strong hunch is that both trends are driven by urbanization in the US and fewer people living in rural areas where hunting is a common pastime, and gun sales increasingly going to suburban men with survivalist fetishes.  The average gun owner now owns 6.6 guns, whereas I'm guessing it used to be probably around 1.5 (as many hunters might have had two guns at home -- a shotgun and a deer rifle).

 

There is also an increasing number who are arming themselves to the teeth for a variety of other reasons, as they see them, including, the upcoming race war, to prevent the Government taking over the country and of course being able to stop the government from taking their guns off them. 

 

I've seen one or two documentaries where various groups are stockpiling weapons and not just handguns either but some really serious kit and in some cases enough to equip their own private army.

Some pretty sick puppies out there.

 

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

There is also an increasing number who are arming themselves to the teeth for a variety of other reasons, as they see them, including, the upcoming race war, to prevent the Government taking over the country and of course being able to stop the government from taking their guns off them. 

 

I've seen one or two documentaries where various groups are stockpiling weapons and not just handguns either but some really serious kit and in some cases enough to equip their own private army.

Some pretty sick puppies out there.

 

 

I believe that there are people in the USA who think that the Second Amendment just give them the right to bear arms, but also the right to form militias.

 

These militias are, indeed, private armies, and they are well-armed.  And they hate the government, regardless of which political party is in power.

[Sharpie]

3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I believe that there are people in the USA who think that the Second Amendment just give them the right to bear arms, but also the right to form militias.

 

These militias are, indeed, private armies, and they are well-armed.  And they hate the government, regardless of which political party is in power.

 

Isn't it sort of strange that the Second Amendment was created to give Americans the right to protect against armed attacks. This of course in the late 1700's when properties were isolated, and communication was basically face to face.  Now it seems that armed militias in todays age are using the Second Amendment to secure arms possibly to attack other Americans who do not share their views and opinions, and who  are also in possession of arms under the Second Amendment to protect themselves from attack by people just like the first group mentioned.

 

I hope I have explained it the way I meant to, but the whole concept is so convoluted I am having a problem putting it in words.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

For your late Monday/early Tuesday viewing pleasure.

 

Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg has very publicly said he's been subpoenaed before a grand jury by Mueller, and that he's not going to comply (this is illegal by the way, although he'd hardly be the first to refuse in protest). That's big enough news.

 

He then followed it up by appearing on what seemed like a half-dozen cable and radio news programs, seemingly progressively more drunk.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/it-would-be-funny-if-they-arrested-me-former-trump-aide-says-he-wont-speak-to-grand-jury/2018/03/05/3702cd76-20b9-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_video.html

 

One of the hosts who interviewed him said on air that she smelled alcohol on his breath.

 

He also apparently called WH spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders a "fat slob" and said she should "shut up."

 

I can sit here all day and guess what it means but it's at least entertaining if somewhat disturbing  viewing.

[SpruceBringsteen]

Watched him live on Ari Melber's show, then switched over to CNN to keep up with him. Probably the best tv I've seen this millennia.

 

[Sharpie]

Saw him on the earlier interview with Katie CNN, he was rambling, it was later I heard he was suspected of having been drinking, he said nobody would have told Trump anything about Russia even if there had been, because he Trump has a big mouth. Again my poor old mind just cannot figure how this whole thing is going to end, it is a modern tragedy.

[John Gentleman]

In America, there is hope. A shining beacon of hope!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/06/jay-inslee-washington-governor-off-message-217233

[Francis Albert]

42 minutes ago, John Gentleman said:

In America, there is hope. A shining beacon of hope!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/06/jay-inslee-washington-governor-off-message-217233

If the Democrat strategy were to be to run a climate change single issue candidate against Trump in  2020 then Trump would be guaranteed a second term.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I hadn't realized how close Nunberg was to Roger Stone and how similarly bizarre Stone can be in his antics. Some apparently think this was an explanation.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/06/what-on-earth-was-sam-nunberg-doing-a-few-theories/

 

At any rate that's a fun follow-up on that incredibly bizarre set of interviews.

 

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

If the Democrat strategy were to be to run a climate change single issue candidate against Trump in  2020 then Trump would be guaranteed a second term.

 

 

If the entire campaign is, "climate change is bad, m'kay?" yes it would lose. If it focuses on a big green energy infrastructure push that included prosperity for rural areas, well, that might have more legs.

[Francis Albert]

29 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

 

 

If the entire campaign is, "climate change is bad, m'kay?" yes it would lose. If it focuses on a big green energy infrastructure push that included prosperity for rural areas, well, that might have more legs.

As a single issue campaign it would still lose. Maybe it should be seen as the biggest issue guiding people's voting intentions but it simply isn't. Nowhere near.

 

As part of a coherent Democratic set of policies that Democrats could unite behind in a way that they stood a chance of delivering, quite possibly. Some way off though.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

As a single issue campaign it would still lose. Maybe it should be seen as the biggest issue guiding people's voting intentions but it simply isn't. Nowhere near.

 

As part of a coherent Democratic set of policies that Democrats could unite behind in a way that they stood a chance of delivering, quite possibly. Some way off though.

 

I guess what I'm saying is it could be a centerpiece. We have woefully underinvested in transportation, energy, internet, housing, and science over the past 20 years (yes this goes back well into the Clinton admin, Dems aren't innocent at all here). Actually building a decent American rail system and public transit systems, investment in housing (including home winterization, the cheapest energy savings available to us), green energy, and science to support it would mean we addressed a lot of unmet needs while directly addressing the causes of American carbon emissions, and made a major injection of cash into the economy at a level where people across the country would feel it directly.

 

It would require a major new revenue source, of course, but our top-line tax rates have been too low for years and Trump and the GOP just made them even lower.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Oh, man this is amazing.

 

 

Exactly as it says on the tin.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Oh dear this could get a tad bit embarrassing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-07/stormy-daniels-sues-donald-trump/9524228

 

And another one bites the dust.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/06/gary-cohn-quits-trump-economic-adviser

 

Must be running out of great, fantastic, wonderful, brilliant people to surround himself with now.

 

[Francis Albert]

8 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

I guess what I'm saying is it could be a centerpiece. We have woefully underinvested in transportation, energy, internet, housing, and science over the past 20 years (yes this goes back well into the Clinton admin, Dems aren't innocent at all here). Actually building a decent American rail system and public transit systems, investment in housing (including home winterization, the cheapest energy savings available to us), green energy, and science to support it would mean we addressed a lot of unmet needs while directly addressing the causes of American carbon emissions, and made a major injection of cash into the economy at a level where people across the country would feel it directly.

 

It would require a major new revenue source, of course, but our top-line tax rates have been too low for years and Trump and the GOP just made them even lower.

I agree with pretty much all of that and much applies to the UK too - our rail system for example is woefully under-invested compared to most western European nations.

But selling higher taxes and increased public spending in the US will not be easy.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I agree with pretty much all of that and much applies to the UK too - our rail system for example is woefully under-invested compared to most western European nations.

But selling higher taxes and increased public spending in the US will not be easy.

 

No, but Trump's tax bill is deeply unpopular, and the "tax and spend" attack against Democrats is old and worn out -- the largest generation in American history is now voting age and has little to no personal memory of Reagan and his version of Thatcherism. "Stuff is broken and taxes are how we pay to fix it" isn't the worst rebuttal.

[Donald J Trump]

So much hatred 

[The Real Maroonblood]

The two finest leaders the world has known will meet each other.

I await the embracing and the adulation for each other.

[Justin Z]

It's difficult to believe that anyone in Trump's position could possibly be this stupid. But it would seem that he is.

 

 

[Don Dan]

Maverick Trump has possibly tamed Kim Jon Un. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

48 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

It's difficult to believe that anyone in Trump's position could possibly be this stupid. But it would seem that he is.

 

 

 

I can just see the Chinese & others queuing up to build new steel foundries all over America now, yeh right.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Dannie Boy said:

Maverick Trump has possibly tamed Kim Jon Un. 

 

Trump could be made to look a complete fool here.

 

If he pulls it off and gets North Korea to denuclearize then great fantastic and he'll deserve all the plaudits that come his way, including from me, however the North Koreans have wanted for a long time now to sit around the table and be seen as an equal and if Trump has agreed to meet Kim Jong Un in person, then Trump has just handed the North Koreans exactly what they've been wanting for years now, even worse is if a deal is done between Trump & Kim and the North Koreans then don't carry it out, Trump and America will have been made to look fools for allowing Trump to meet with Kim.

 

Besides the North Koreans have agreed to do many things over the years, very few have ever been adhered to or carried out. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Trump could be made to look a complete fool here.

 

If he pulls it off and gets North Korea to denuclearize then great fantastic and he'll deserve all the plaudits that come his way, including from me, however the North Koreans have wanted for a long time now to sit around the table and be seen as an equal and if Trump has agreed to meet Kim Jong Un in person, then Trump has just handed the North Koreans exactly what they've been wanting for years now, even worse is if a deal is done between Trump & Kim and the North Koreans then don't carry it out, Trump and America will have been made to look fools for allowing Trump to meet with Kim.

 

Besides the North Koreans have agreed to do many things over the years, very few have ever been adhered to or carried out. 

I agree but the downside is the people that voted for him will forget all the other crap he has said and done.

[Cade]

The North Koreans will be making one offer and one offer only.

 

They have finally achieved their dream of having a fully functional nuclear weapons programme complete with ICBMs.

They'll offer to give those up (or to have it tightly regulated and monitored) for the complete removal of all sanctions.

They'll also be wanting assurances of no regime change.

 

Trump will make an erse of this and lead to the resumption of the Korean civil war.

[Rab87]

31 minutes ago, Cade said:

The North Koreans will be making one offer and one offer only.

 

They have finally achieved their dream of having a fully functional nuclear weapons programme complete with ICBMs.

They'll offer to give those up (or to have it tightly regulated and monitored) for the complete removal of all sanctions.

They'll also be wanting assurances of no regime change.

 

Trump will make an erse of this and lead to the resumption of the Korean civil war.

I reckon he will also be after removal of US Forces from the Korean Peninsula.

 

Not something I can see the US agreeing to. It is an important outpost in Asia.

 

Trump needs to agree to nothing, but also rule nothing out while he is over there. Low level talks usually come before a grandiose meeting of this nature between two leaders. The opposite seems to be happening in this case, and I am not sure anyone can predict how it will play out.

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

26 minutes ago, Rab87 said:

I reckon he will also be after removal of US Forces from the Korean Peninsula.

 

Not something I can see the US agreeing to. It is an important outpost in Asia.

 

Trump needs to agree to nothing, but also rule nothing out while he is over there. Low level talks usually come before a grandiose meeting of this nature between two leaders. The opposite seems to be happening in this case, and I am not sure anyone can predict how it will play out.

 

 

What could possibly go wrong. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

17 minutes ago, Rab87 said:

I reckon he will also be after removal of US Forces from the Korean Peninsula.

 

Not something I can see the US agreeing to. It is an important outpost in Asia.

 

Trump needs to agree to nothing, but also rule nothing out while he is over there. Low level talks usually come before a grandiose meeting of this nature between two leaders. The opposite seems to be happening in this case, and I am not sure anyone can predict how it will play out.

 

 

 

If the meeting does come off, I'd imagine it'll have to take place in China, as there is no way Kim would travel to South Korea and equally Trump wouldn't go to North Korea either.

 

I agree with you in that I think the North will want the removal of all American forces from the Korean peninsula as the main part deal of any deal, something which the US would never agree to.

The removal of sanctions would happen as soon as they began to disarm, so the North Koreans will aim for something bigger.

 

So if that were the case, there would still be no deal, but the North Koreans will still have the satisfaction that they have sat at the table with the USA as an equal, something they have been after for decades.

 

[Bindy Badgy]

On 07/03/2018 at 17:44, Ugly American said:

 

No, but Trump's tax bill is deeply unpopular, and the "tax and spend" attack against Democrats is old and worn out -- the largest generation in American history is now voting age and has little to no personal memory of Reagan and his version of Thatcherism. "Stuff is broken and taxes are how we pay to fix it" isn't the worst rebuttal.

 

How unpopular if the tax bill amongst Republican voters?

 

I get the impression that there is a certain percentage of the population that will support anything they come out with irrespective of how damaging it is for them personally. 

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Stokesy said:

 

How unpopular if the tax bill amongst Republican voters?

 

I get the impression that there is a certain percentage of the population that will support anything they come out with irrespective of how damaging it is for them personally. 

 

Absolutely--Republican voters' willingness to self-immolate has been something the GOP has been able to count on for nigh on 40 years now.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

39 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Absolutely--Republican voters' willingness to self-immolate has been something the GOP has been able to count on for nigh on 40 years now.

 

So it's like Turkey's voting for Christmas as they see that's a better alternative than having a Democrat in the WH.