Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 313292 times)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1737
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1900 on: June 13, 2018, 10:09:33 AM »
the South Korean leader laid the groundwork for Kim Jung Un's willingness to meet with Trump in the first place.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1901 on: June 13, 2018, 10:10:43 AM »
So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

You'll forgive me for not leaping to conclude that, if Scott Adams wrote it, it must be worth something.  Here's some other stuff that Scott Adams has written:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams

"The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. Itís just easier this way for everyone.Ē

The dude doesn't believe in fossils:

"Why does a well-established scientific fact set off my usually-excellent bullshit filter like a five-alarm fire? Itís the fossil record that has been bugging me the most. It looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Why isnít it bullshit? All those scientists canít be wrong."

Sure-he said Trump would win, and he did.  Because a bunch of mouthbreathers like Scott Adams who aren't sexist but.... and aren't racist but...and love science but... voted for him. I know, I know-when I call them mouthbreathers it makes them really, really angry at SJWs and then they vote for Trump extra hard. 

I am rooting for Trump's effort with North Korea. Because I'm an American, and I don't root for my country to fail or look stupid (these are trying times for us).  I would also have been OK with Obama engaging NK in talks, and I didn't dissolve into spittle-flecked rages when contemplating it only to turn around demand Trump be carved into Mt. Rushmore for doing what I said would have been unacceptable for Obama.  See how that works?  Maybe Republicans can try it sometime.


Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1902 on: June 13, 2018, 10:20:32 AM »
So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

No. If that's your conclusion from the responses to your question I suspect while you may have read all of them, you only absorbed the ones that you want to refute. I thought Poundwise gave some pretty good reasoning and additional reading links on the topic. Not to mention the many tactical mistakes cited prior to your question.

Oh yeah, and Scott Adams' opinion isn't going to convince me of anything. I love his comics and I've even read one of his books and I think he paints a funny and sometimes painfully accurate picture of the corporate world, but that's where his expertise ends. He's kind of an ass.

toganet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1903 on: June 13, 2018, 10:28:17 AM »
It is hard to believe that Trump is intelligent, because of the way he talks, acts, tweets, and the history of his business ventures.  Maybe he'll stumble into a solution for NK (and getting investment into the country is probably part of the solution) but it doesn't "trump" the other evidence.

The worst part of this deal with NK is that we've legitimized the process that got Kim what he wanted:  Obtain nukes, threaten to use them, then promise to disarm in exchange for concessions.  What message does this send to other countries?  Deal's off with Iran, so they might as well pursue the proven method of getting what they want.

I'm almost cynical enough to believe this is part of the plan -- we want to go to war with Iran, but they're not dumb enough to want that.  So we have to bait them into it.  Bolton is probably giddy right now at the thought of getting to start another war.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9029
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1904 on: June 13, 2018, 10:38:18 AM »
And in the meantime he is alienating his allies.  Nice going at the G7.   

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1905 on: June 13, 2018, 11:17:31 AM »
Hmm. Blog posts from political and foreign policy expert Scott Adams.

Iím convinced.

If you've got something to add to the conversation, let's hear it.  Your comment leads me to believe you don't.

I think other people on this thread are giving salient, cogent responses.

My contribution is that Scott Adams thinking they are wrong is not much of a counter-argument. See above comments by Wexler as to why his opinion is not worthy of consideration.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 11:19:20 AM by Kris »

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1906 on: June 13, 2018, 11:35:08 AM »
So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

Yes.  I also want to point out that as well as suspending the war games, Trump basically  knuckled under to hobble sanctions on Chinese banks that were laundering North Korean money. What a great dealmaker!
https://freekorea.us/2018/04/25/steve-mnuchin-is-defying-congress-undermining-the-presidents-north-korea-policy/
https://freekorea.us/2018/02/28/you-want-maximum-pressure-oh-ill-show-you-maximum-pressure/

While looking for the links I posted for you, I also came across the following post about Moon's Chief of Staff, which I found very disturbing. I had no idea that this was the history of the people working for him.  I'd been hoping that Moon was a good guy, but...
https://freekorea.us/2018/06/11/blue-house-chief-of-staff-im-jong-seok-vs-dr-ji-man-won-im-sues-ji-for-defamation-ji-sues-im-for-national-security-law-violations/

I mean, these people are so far left that they are circling around into authoritarianism again. Complete the circle, and you get the "commies" who are the true enemy of US conservatives, not the Democratic Socialists.

I'm looking through your Scott Adams links right now. I didn't know he was a North Korea hobbyist.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1907 on: June 13, 2018, 12:10:24 PM »
I just skimmed http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/09/05/why-north-korea-and-the-united-states-are-near-war/

I'm not going through it point by point, but I just want to address his following statement:
Quote
One of the biggest sticking points is that the United States has massive military assets in South Korea. North Korea doesn’t like that. Contrast that opinion to the normal citizen in the United States who doesn’t understand why-the-hell we have even one soldier in South Korea. What is the point of it? Are we preparing for the big push to conquer China? (Probably not.) Is South Korea unable to deter an attack from the North? (Not as long as they can afford American weapons systems, and the U.S. still has a navy.) So I guess Kim Jong Un and American voters are mostly on the same side about our presence in South Korea. We all understand that American military presence in South Korea once had a purpose, but not so much in 2017.

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.

P.S. I'm not going to laugh off Scott Adams automatically. It's possible that Trump's unpredictability and aggressive posturing could be effective, and maybe only a Republican president could have gotten away with talking with Kim (because he'll get the GOP faithful behind him, and the left will be split).  However, unfortunately right now it looks like Trump is giving the farm away and getting little in return. Time will tell.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 12:20:00 PM by Poundwise »

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1908 on: June 13, 2018, 12:21:11 PM »
I don't consider President Trump unintelligent, but he's clearly uninterested in homework and incapable of sustained discipline. His brashness, over-reliance on instinct, and unpredictability may have played a role in getting us to the table but those same traits are now serious liabilities as actual detailed negotiations begin. The professional negotiators who work out the substantive details are severely undercut when NK knows they can play on President Trump's vanity and impetuousness. We're positioned to have NK eat our lunch in these talks.



 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8289
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1909 on: June 13, 2018, 12:25:34 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1910 on: June 13, 2018, 12:29:51 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1911 on: June 13, 2018, 12:48:58 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

The main two Navy bases in the region are in Japan (Yokosuka and Okinawa). 

The base in South Korea is much smaller and incidental. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8289
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1912 on: June 13, 2018, 01:06:48 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

The main two Navy bases in the region are in Japan (Yokosuka and Okinawa). 

The base in South Korea is much smaller and incidental.
like many things, it isn't about the size, it's about your access.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1913 on: June 13, 2018, 01:55:44 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

The main two Navy bases in the region are in Japan (Yokosuka and Okinawa). 

The base in South Korea is much smaller and incidental.

I ought to have separated my latest post into two paragraphs. The point about the naval presence is not related to my next sentence "With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia." They were two different points I wanted to make.

The advantage of having a naval presence in the area is actually more about North Korea than China. Sea piracy aside, it gives us the power to blockade North Korean sales of chemical weapons, counterfeit money, illegal drugs, conventional and nuclear arms, etc. if we so chose to do so. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3131
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1914 on: June 13, 2018, 02:08:41 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

The main two Navy bases in the region are in Japan (Yokosuka and Okinawa). 

The base in South Korea is much smaller and incidental.

I ought to have separated my latest post into two paragraphs. The point about the naval presence is not related to my next sentence "With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia." They were two different points I wanted to make.

The advantage of having a naval presence in the area is actually more about North Korea than China. Sea piracy aside, it gives us the power to blockade North Korean sales of chemical weapons, counterfeit money, illegal drugs, conventional and nuclear arms, etc. if we so chose to do so.

Yup.  And we do all that with ships homeported out of Japan. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8289
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1915 on: June 13, 2018, 02:56:33 PM »

US military presence in South Korea still serves a lot of US interests. To summarize:
1. Chinese containment
2. Japanese demilitarization and money
3. South Korean money (they are important trading partners)
4. It's cheaper to keep our troops and a base in a host country that pays over 50% of costs, and also pays most of the costs of building bases. This enables the US to have a larger standing army.
adding...
5. Naval bases and the right to patrol in one of the busiest shipping regions on the planet, close to Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Ultimately during peacetime the US Navy's main function is to ensure commerce goes unmolested.

Thanks, good point. With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia.

The main two Navy bases in the region are in Japan (Yokosuka and Okinawa). 

The base in South Korea is much smaller and incidental.

I ought to have separated my latest post into two paragraphs. The point about the naval presence is not related to my next sentence "With North Korea, it's easy to forget that US policy in the Koreas isn't really about Korea. It's about China. And Russia." They were two different points I wanted to make.

The advantage of having a naval presence in the area is actually more about North Korea than China. Sea piracy aside, it gives us the power to blockade North Korean sales of chemical weapons, counterfeit money, illegal drugs, conventional and nuclear arms, etc. if we so chose to do so.

Yup.  And we do all that with ships homeported out of Japan.
except we can't do that without unfettered access to the sovereign waters of S. Korea.  Having bases there gives the US exactly that.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1916 on: June 13, 2018, 03:40:55 PM »
Manafort is likely going to prison this Friday until his July 25th trial (provided he doesn't flip) and Cohen should be arrested before the week is over.  What a day!

OtherJen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1917 on: June 13, 2018, 03:51:58 PM »
So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

I've been hearing about and following Trump's career for the last 30 years (I'm 40, and I remember hearing about his shady business deals and scandalous divorce proceedings when I was a child). Although he has some clout because he was a wealthy, mediocre business man when his prime, he has no experience with international relations or domestic policy and seems to have no interest in correcting his ignorance regarding history or international politics. Additionally, look up some interviews with Trump from back in the 1980s and 1990s. He is clearly not the same man and appears to have undergone a significant cognitive decline.

I'm also not sure why I'm supposed to care what a cartoonist thinks about my political opinions.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8461
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1918 on: June 13, 2018, 05:36:50 PM »
I'm also not sure why I'm supposed to care what a cartoonist thinks about my political opinions.
Good point.

Same probably applies to actors and actresses who play make believe for a living.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1159
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1919 on: June 13, 2018, 06:16:34 PM »
I'm also not sure why I'm supposed to care what a cartoonist thinks about my political opinions.
Good point.

Same probably applies to actors and actresses who play make believe for a living.

The Scott Adams book is an interesting read.    I think he's suffering from confirmation bias.   He's decided that Trump is this fantastic 'persuader' so everything Trump does reinforces Scott's view that Trump is indeed a fantastic manipulator.    There's even some truth to that - after all he convinced people to elect him.

A fellow I work with had similar views.   Trump is this businessman who owns hotels and casinos and investments and things, so he's obviously going to be a better president than a career politician who has never had to make payroll.   The lawsuits and bad faith negotiations?    Well every business man is going to have some jobs that go sideways.   The obnoxious behaviour in public?    That was just publicity for his TV show.   I wonder what he thinks of Trump's attempts at a trade war...

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1920 on: June 13, 2018, 07:35:17 PM »
So basically the view is that Trump is an idiot, and no idea, and is just fumbling around.  Okay, got it.

I read Scott Adams' blog fairly frequently.  He thinks you guys are 100% wrong.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/05/04/why-president-trump-deserves-credit-for-progress-in-north-korea/

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/04/29/my-north-korea-blog-posts-indexed-for-historians/

I know it's fashionable to think Trump is a complete moron and couldn't possibly ever do anything right ever.  But after reading the above blog posts...

How is this different than the Six-Party Talks or the Agreed Framework?

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1922 on: June 14, 2018, 09:11:49 AM »
Maybe the Stormy Daniels money ($130,000) came out of this 'charitable organization'.
HAHA!

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1923 on: June 14, 2018, 09:47:35 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1924 on: June 14, 2018, 09:50:23 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Neither do the GOP in Congress who seem to have lost their spines.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11601
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1925 on: June 14, 2018, 10:00:34 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Neither do the GOP in Congress who seem to have lost their spines.

No loss of spines.  This president is the embodiment of Republican ideals, and thus enjoys the full support of the Republican party for every action he takes.

OtherJen

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1926 on: June 14, 2018, 10:12:33 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Neither do the GOP in Congress who seem to have lost their spines.

No loss of spines.  This president is the embodiment of Republican ideals, and thus enjoys the full support of the Republican party for every action he takes.

Again, this.^^^ He's doing exactly what the GOP/Religious Right has been working toward for most of my life. I don't understand how so many people missed this.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1927 on: June 14, 2018, 10:42:21 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Neither do the GOP in Congress who seem to have lost their spines.

No loss of spines.  This president is the embodiment of Republican ideals, and thus enjoys the full support of the Republican party for every action he takes.

Again, this.^^^ He's doing exactly what the GOP/Religious Right has been working toward for most of my life. I don't understand how so many people missed this.

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1005614491768360960

https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/1005886122440970242

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1005938885728395264

Plenty of Republicans offer public rebukes/tweets of Trump, but fail to do anything with the office they hold.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11601
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1928 on: June 14, 2018, 10:48:35 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Neither do the GOP in Congress who seem to have lost their spines.

No loss of spines.  This president is the embodiment of Republican ideals, and thus enjoys the full support of the Republican party for every action he takes.

Again, this.^^^ He's doing exactly what the GOP/Religious Right has been working toward for most of my life. I don't understand how so many people missed this.

https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/1005614491768360960

https://twitter.com/JeffFlake/status/1005886122440970242

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1005938885728395264

Plenty of Republicans offer public rebukes/tweets of Trump, but fail to do anything with the office they hold.

Yep.  It's a good political CYA move.  'Protest' how things aren't going the way that you want but don't actually bother to try to change it . . . because attempting to change things would mean fundamentally changing the political party that you belong to.  The party that loves everything that Donald Trump does.

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1929 on: June 14, 2018, 10:56:20 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

It is a shame he was not able to operate his charity with the ethics, professionalism and grace of the Clinton Foundation. Her voters were much more caring and astute.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11601
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1930 on: June 14, 2018, 11:00:50 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

It is a shame he was not able to operate his charity with the ethics, professionalism and grace of the Clinton Foundation. Her voters were much more caring and astute.

The whataboutism is strong in this one.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1931 on: June 14, 2018, 11:07:41 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

It is a shame he was not able to operate his charity with the ethics, professionalism and grace of the Clinton Foundation. Her voters were much more caring and astute.

What law did the Clinton Foundation violate?  Go.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 11:14:13 AM by DarkandStormy »

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1932 on: June 14, 2018, 11:09:14 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Beyond the fines I think the thing that hurts is the request that none of them be involved in non-profits for 10 years. I suspect they were all looking forward to the sweet post-presidential period where they could pull in all those donations.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1933 on: June 14, 2018, 11:30:14 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

Beyond the fines I think the thing that hurts is the request that none of them be involved in non-profits for 10 years. I suspect they were all looking forward to the sweet post-presidential period where they could pull in all those donations.

I believe it would be a one year probation for the children. They'll find a way.

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1934 on: June 14, 2018, 11:37:51 AM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

It is a shame he was not able to operate his charity with the ethics, professionalism and grace of the Clinton Foundation. Her voters were much more caring and astute.

What law did the Clinton Foundation violate?  Go.


I am not a lawyer. I am unaware of charges on either side of the house. I just know from the IRS balance sheets @ http://seriousgivers.org/trump-and-clinton-foundation-tax-returns-are-easy-to-find/
Both Foundations in 2014 did not pay out very much. Personally I think they are both pretty crooked and as an independent, neither are Foundations to be proud of.
Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously.
Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million. Considering these funds came from donations, it doesn't seem like the right people are seeing the money. Especially seeing that most of the remaining rolled over.

I get that many of you are Never-Trumpers. And I am ok with that. But to grab a pitch fork and think that the Trump Foundation is the smoking gun that you all have been waiting for, might just be a weak argument in the large scale of government ethics breaches.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1935 on: June 14, 2018, 11:49:22 AM »
Personally I think they are both pretty crooked

One is being sued by the government.  One is not.  One allegedly engaged in illegal conduct.  One is not facing those charges.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2959
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1936 on: June 14, 2018, 12:04:09 PM »
Personally I think they are both pretty crooked

One is being sued by the government.  One is not.  One allegedly engaged in illegal conduct.  One is not facing those charges.

Benghazi! Fusion! Obama! E-mail servers!


StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1937 on: June 14, 2018, 12:07:54 PM »
Paying 2.8 million plus penalties isn't going to be a problem for Trump et al.

It's a nothing burger CNN headline - and I mean nothing for *this* President. Of course it would have sunk anyone else, but his voters don't care that he's operated an illegal charity.

It is a shame he was not able to operate his charity with the ethics, professionalism and grace of the Clinton Foundation. Her voters were much more caring and astute.

What law did the Clinton Foundation violate?  Go.


I am not a lawyer. I am unaware of charges on either side of the house. I just know from the IRS balance sheets @ http://seriousgivers.org/trump-and-clinton-foundation-tax-returns-are-easy-to-find/
Both Foundations in 2014 did not pay out very much. Personally I think they are both pretty crooked and as an independent, neither are Foundations to be proud of.
Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously.
Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million. Considering these funds came from donations, it doesn't seem like the right people are seeing the money. Especially seeing that most of the remaining rolled over.

I get that many of you are Never-Trumpers. And I am ok with that. But to grab a pitch fork and think that the Trump Foundation is the smoking gun that you all have been waiting for, might just be a weak argument in the large scale of government ethics breaches.

@ematicic , FWIW I looked into this last year and most of the Clinton foundations charity work is not through grants but done directly in house so it is covered as program expenses and salaries (ie. they pay the people on the ground) and not grants. hope this helps.

Here is a good explanation of it:
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1938 on: June 14, 2018, 12:24:35 PM »
according to charity navigator, the Clinton Foundation gets pretty good marks for accountability and transparency.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

The claims against the CF amount to the Clintons diverting their speaking fees into the charity, which also pays salaries to people they know. This has spawned claims of laundering money through the foundation, etc. I think is a bit ludicrous since they could have also just kept the speaking fees.

The use of the Trump Foundation to pay trump's personal legal fees and other issues (or not making good on charity pledges, as was often shown during the campaign) is a whole different ball of wax. Literally, Trump is in trouble for self dealing. The Clintons were in trouble for having income sent to charity instead of to themselves.

But, the Trump supporters will predictably view this as a witch hunt, and say, "but what about Hillary and her foundation?" Lather, rinse, repeat.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1939 on: June 14, 2018, 12:31:14 PM »

I am not a lawyer. I am unaware of charges on either side of the house. I just know from the IRS balance sheets @ http://seriousgivers.org/trump-and-clinton-foundation-tax-returns-are-easy-to-find/
Both Foundations in 2014 did not pay out very much. Personally I think they are both pretty crooked and as an independent, neither are Foundations to be proud of.
Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously.
Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million. Considering these funds came from donations, it doesn't seem like the right people are seeing the money. Especially seeing that most of the remaining rolled over.

I get that many of you are Never-Trumpers. And I am ok with that. But to grab a pitch fork and think that the Trump Foundation is the smoking gun that you all have been waiting for, might just be a weak argument in the large scale of government ethics breaches.

Oh boy.  Let's just break this down.

1. "I am unaware of charges on either side of the house."
Um-you could read the link that was posted about the charges against the Trump Foundation?  You are welcome to go find some charges against the Clinton Foundation. I think you'll find that there aren't any. Now you are aware, and that's half the battle or something.  Claiming you aren't aware at this point is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalala.

2.  "Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously."

Liberal here.  I'm not "up in arms" over the fact that his foundation is small.  That seems more like something he'd be mad about? I also don't care that he did not allocate "generously".  Instead, I think it's kind of gross that he allocated illegally to himself. But, on a scale of gross things he's done, it's definitely not something I'm assembling an army over. I'm much more likely to care about the erosion of protections for pre-existing conditions in the ACA. Hell, I'm more made about him walking in on teen girls in their dressing room to ogle them. Oh, and I'm definitely mad that he's just not enforcing Russia sanctions signed into law.  How does that even work?

3. "Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million"
That doesn't seem to be a correct reading of the data
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
"The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity," Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. "They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100."

You look at all of that and conclude they "they are both pretty crooked".  Even when one is facing charges for running a fraudulent charity and the other isn't.  I just don't get it.

But it's weird how many of these rebuttals end in CLINTON IS JUST AS BAD and then the conclusion is SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP.  Like, if you think they are both crooked, why not just balance the equation on both sides?  If you delete crooked from both (btw-Trump is way more crooked than Hillary.  Christ, he just settled a fraud case last year), you are left with "smart and experienced" on one side and "might start a nuclear war/doesn't seem to know important facts about government" on the other.  For some reason, crooked attached to Hillary was a disqualifier for people, but they never applied that same standard to Trump. So, I think your larger point holds. It's not a smoking gun.  Because Trump's base doesn't care that he's crooked.


ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1940 on: June 15, 2018, 04:52:34 AM »

I am not a lawyer. I am unaware of charges on either side of the house. I just know from the IRS balance sheets @ http://seriousgivers.org/trump-and-clinton-foundation-tax-returns-are-easy-to-find/
Both Foundations in 2014 did not pay out very much. Personally I think they are both pretty crooked and as an independent, neither are Foundations to be proud of.
Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously.
Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million. Considering these funds came from donations, it doesn't seem like the right people are seeing the money. Especially seeing that most of the remaining rolled over.

I get that many of you are Never-Trumpers. And I am ok with that. But to grab a pitch fork and think that the Trump Foundation is the smoking gun that you all have been waiting for, might just be a weak argument in the large scale of government ethics breaches.

Oh boy.  Let's just break this down.

1. "I am unaware of charges on either side of the house."
Um-you could read the link that was posted about the charges against the Trump Foundation?  You are welcome to go find some charges against the Clinton Foundation. I think you'll find that there aren't any. Now you are aware, and that's half the battle or something.  Claiming you aren't aware at this point is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalala.

2.  "Trump's Foundation is small with total assets of under 2 million on the 2014 statements. This is what the Liberal army is up in arms over and the fact that he did not allocate his foundation's assets generously."

Liberal here.  I'm not "up in arms" over the fact that his foundation is small.  That seems more like something he'd be mad about? I also don't care that he did not allocate "generously".  Instead, I think it's kind of gross that he allocated illegally to himself. But, on a scale of gross things he's done, it's definitely not something I'm assembling an army over. I'm much more likely to care about the erosion of protections for pre-existing conditions in the ACA. Hell, I'm more made about him walking in on teen girls in their dressing room to ogle them. Oh, and I'm definitely mad that he's just not enforcing Russia sanctions signed into law.  How does that even work?

3. "Clinton's Foundation is 332 Million for the same time period and the grants paid are 5.2 million. Now the salaries, benefits and expenses are almost 100 million"
That doesn't seem to be a correct reading of the data
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/25/reince-priebus/reince-priebus-false-claim-80-clinton-foundation-c/
"The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity," Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. "They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100."

You look at all of that and conclude they "they are both pretty crooked".  Even when one is facing charges for running a fraudulent charity and the other isn't.  I just don't get it.

But it's weird how many of these rebuttals end in CLINTON IS JUST AS BAD and then the conclusion is SO I VOTED FOR TRUMP.  Like, if you think they are both crooked, why not just balance the equation on both sides?  If you delete crooked from both (btw-Trump is way more crooked than Hillary.  Christ, he just settled a fraud case last year), you are left with "smart and experienced" on one side and "might start a nuclear war/doesn't seem to know important facts about government" on the other.  For some reason, crooked attached to Hillary was a disqualifier for people, but they never applied that same standard to Trump. So, I think your larger point holds. It's not a smoking gun.  Because Trump's base doesn't care that he's crooked.


Same applies. Never Trumpers will always look for reasons to bash him. Sure, Clinton does RAISE money efficiently. The allocations, not so much.
- I am still unaware of the charges. I have no idea what the disposition is of the current charges against the President, and no idea how many will ultimately be filed on Clinton now that the DoJ is less biased.
- You are mad at the President for his handling of Russia but you were so proud of the Liberal President for the Uranium sell off and the subsequent "Blind Eye" as we watched them invade the Ukraine. Oh, but President Trump somehow paid Russia to interfere with the election even though it was proved that the Clinton Foundation was the purchaser of the Dossier from a British / Russian diplomat.
- Liberals cry about nuclear war as a way to undermine his efforts with North Korea but were absolutely proud of Obama gifting Iran with undisclosed Billions of dollars to act as if they were in compliance. You cheered every drone strike even when civilians were involved and cheered ACA even though it was never affordable with our current tax rates and yielded health care monopolies in just a few years.

I have the advantage of neutrality. I look at both sides. I know that both sides have strengths and weaknesses and I do not have to look for every leverage point to try and justify how I feel. I think he is doing positive diplomacy in NK. The fact that Qatar has joined in against Hamas is an amazing sign that his diplomacy is working. I love General Mattis and all that he brings to a highly professional Military. I try and look at quantitative measures and reach decisions that way and it works for me. I wish the Democrats did something more with immigration but DACA was an ugly band aid. It was not enduring and needs fixed.

Clinton was pay to play and her entire political platform was hollow. She promised everything to everyone with no real stance or substance. I am aware that she never broke the law with her server under the Lynch DoJ, therefore she has nothing to take accountability for in her eyes but I do feel that for the good of the Country, President Trump is making better progress that Clinton would have.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1941 on: June 15, 2018, 06:41:05 AM »
I have the advantage of neutrality. I look at both sides

...

I do feel that for the good of the Country, President Trump is making better progress that Clinton would have.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1942 on: June 15, 2018, 06:55:16 AM »
I have the advantage of neutrality. I look at both sides

...

I do feel that for the good of the Country, President Trump is making better progress that Clinton would have.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I voted for Obama the first time. Not the second, I did not like his priorities. I disagreed with things that he did, and some that he didn't do. Some things I liked. The Liberals today have lost that concept and look for things to claim as victories for them and failures for the President. By all means, support Clinton. I just did not see any substance in her campaign and did not appreciate her using the Secretary of State position to line the monetary coffers of her "Foundation". I am interested in what you think she would have done better for America.



DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1943 on: June 15, 2018, 07:18:42 AM »
I voted for Obama the first time. Not the second, I did not like his priorities. I disagreed with things that he did, and some that he didn't do. Some things I liked. The Liberals today have lost that concept and look for things to claim as victories for them and failures for the President. By all means, support Clinton. I just did not see any substance in her campaign and did not appreciate her using the Secretary of State position to line the monetary coffers of her "Foundation". I am interested in what you think she would have done better for America.

Her Foundation has never faced a lawsuit or criminal charges.  Trump's "Foundation", whose Board has not met since 1999, is currently in that predicament.  So don't bullshit "both sides" this.  One Foundation is corrupt.  One is not.

Well for starters, I don't believe Clinton would have engaged the U.S. in a trade war with multiple nations.  The effects remain to be seen, but rising prices are almost certainly on the way.

She would not have embarrassed the U.S. on a global stage.  She almost certainly would not be engaging juvenile twitter battles with ALLIES.  She would not have brought us to the brink of a nuclear war via twitter.

We would have stayed in the Paris Climate Accord, which is necessary for the survival of the planet.  Instead of gutting public parks and public land for oil production.  The EPA would not be a hotbed for corruption but instead actually working to protect the environment and working to reduce carbon emissions in the future.

We wouldn't have borrowed $1.5 trillion from the future to save the top 1% a bunch in taxes.

Charlottesville likely wouldn't have happened and even if it did, "both sides" would not have been blamed.

Merrick Garland (or someone of his ilk) would have been rightly confirmed to the SCOTUS.

The country's national security adviser would not have been a compromised foreign agent of Russia.

DACA would not have been rescinded.

The Iran deal would still be in place.

Ultimately though, you're asking me an impossible "What if?" question.  I can't possibly know how the first 500 days of a Clinton Administration would have played out.  But almost certainly we would be more respected on a global stage (most importantly, with our allies), we would not see the undermining of the rule of law and attempts to discredit the DOJ, we likely would have seen attempts made to keep Russia from meddling in future elections (spoiler - Trump has done nothing for this), and the free press would not be under fire daily for publishing stories the administration doesn't like.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1944 on: June 15, 2018, 07:37:02 AM »
Sure, Clinton does RAISE money efficiently. The allocations, not so much.
- I am still unaware of the charges. I have no idea what the disposition is of the current charges against the President, and no idea how many will ultimately be filed on Clinton now that the DoJ is less biased.

Clinton was pay to play and her entire political platform was hollow. She promised everything to everyone with no real stance or substance. I am aware that she never broke the law with her server under the Lynch DoJ, therefore she has nothing to take accountability for in her eyes but I do feel that for the good of the Country, President Trump is making better progress that Clinton would have.

This is why people are internet-shaking their heads in disbelief.  We've pointed out multiple times that Trump's foundation has been charged with illegal activity, with no corresponding charges against the Clinton Foundation.  We've rebutted your assertion that Clinton's foundation didn't allocate its money to charitable programs with ratings from independent charity watchers.  And your response is basically to compare actual charges in the state of New York to "no idea how many will ultimately be filed on Clinton". I mean, in this world where we compare real things to fantasy things that might happen, who knows how many world cups the US team might win? I think they are just as good as Germany.  This is because I am unbiased and see both sides.

If pay to play is an important concern to you, if you think that a SoS should not have a charitable organization because it encourages state actors to curry favor with donations (btw-this is a legitimate concern!), then Trump is the WORST candidate for you to support.  Your support for him undercuts all of the stuff you said about how important this issue is to you.  Because he doesn't just have a (shady! under investigation!) foundation to curry favor with, but actual businesses.  And the money from people currying favor with him doesn't go to malaria nets, but just straight into his pocket.   And Jared's pocket.  And Ivanka's pocket.  So, I get it-it's OK to worry about pay to play.  But when you vote for Trump, you've all but admitted that you actually don't care about this issue.



DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1945 on: June 15, 2018, 07:42:01 AM »
Quote
During the resulting chat with host Steve Doocy, the president repeatedly and lavishly praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, with whom he met earlier this week, remarking: ďHeís the head of a countryóand I mean heís the strong head. He speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same.Ē

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-wanders-onto-fox-and-friends-praises-kim-jong-un/?via=twitter_page

Trump wants to be a dictator.  Full stop.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9029
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1946 on: June 15, 2018, 08:28:35 AM »
Disclaimer: these are my own private opinions and not the general opinions of Canadians.

What might Hilary have done differently than Donny?  Not made Canadians want to build their own border wall, maybe?  Or think retroactively that when 9/11 happened, we should have declared all your planes "security compromised" and not let them land here?

However I think a lot of Canadians are royally pissed that your President is hiding his trade tariffs behind "Canadian security risks" instead of just doing them - we know he is putting pressure on the NAFTA discussions, he has said so himself, but this security risk crap?  Is crap.  Too bad it wasn't Canadians* who burned the White House way back when, after American soldiers occupied British Canada's territory.**

*There was no Canada back then, we were still colonies.
**He seems to have a weak grasp of American history. 

ematicic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Virginia
  • Money Enthusiast
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1947 on: June 15, 2018, 08:42:42 AM »
And the Thread goes, speculate on the Full Presidency. I get that I am a conservative minority here and I am ok with that. Yes, NYC AG just opened another lawsuit against the President and we will see where that goes. As for the Full Term, and hopefully 4 more after, I like the outlook. As far as Pay to Play, I do not see the President assigning high ranking Government positions for personal financial decisions. Sure, I could be missing it but by all means let me know.

Securing the border is important to me. DACA was punt, admit it. A country is failing immigrants when it says "Come, stay, but the rest is up in the air". Open borderes and homelessness are somewhat related so before you demand that the borders are re-opened, discuss jobs and housing for everyone please. And Santuary Cities should never of happened.

I still stand behind Iran being significantly over priced, it funded Hamas and it seems Iran didn't even honor its side. I believe President Trump's Diplomacy pertaining to the Iran Deal is the right direction.

Moving the embassy, I know this angered many Liberals. Even Obama promised to do this but did not. I feel like it was over due and was happy so see another campaign promise fulfilled.

Tax cuts. I know this is a liberal rub and many liberal cities are looking for ways to absorb the "crumbs" that they feel the Americans never should have received. Conservatives like small government and lower taxes so I see this as a move in a good direction.

General Mattis at the Helm of the DoD! Love it! He is in no way a yes man and Trump knew that bringing him on board. He did so to get the best for a very important job.

He does spend more than the candidate I imagined wanting. The spending is for infrastructure and military and I agree with some but not all. America needs something better than ACA, it is not Affordable at current American Tax rates and its demise is escalated by the open borders policies. We should be able to accept refugees and asylum seekers into our country but only if we can actually provide assistance for them. If we let everyone in, documented or not, it ties our hands to actually help people.


FIRE@50

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Maryland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1948 on: June 15, 2018, 08:49:26 AM »
And the Thread goes, speculate on the Full Presidency. I get that I am a conservative minority here and I am ok with that. Yes, NYC AG just opened another lawsuit against the President and we will see where that goes. As for the Full Term, and hopefully 4 more after, I like the outlook. As far as Pay to Play, I do not see the President assigning high ranking Government positions for personal financial decisions. Sure, I could be missing it but by all means let me know.

Securing the border is important to me. DACA was punt, admit it. A country is failing immigrants when it says "Come, stay, but the rest is up in the air". Open borderes and homelessness are somewhat related so before you demand that the borders are re-opened, discuss jobs and housing for everyone please. And Santuary Cities should never of happened.

I still stand behind Iran being significantly over priced, it funded Hamas and it seems Iran didn't even honor its side. I believe President Trump's Diplomacy pertaining to the Iran Deal is the right direction.

Moving the embassy, I know this angered many Liberals. Even Obama promised to do this but did not. I feel like it was over due and was happy so see another campaign promise fulfilled.

Tax cuts. I know this is a liberal rub and many liberal cities are looking for ways to absorb the "crumbs" that they feel the Americans never should have received. Conservatives like small government and lower taxes so I see this as a move in a good direction.

General Mattis at the Helm of the DoD! Love it! He is in no way a yes man and Trump knew that bringing him on board. He did so to get the best for a very important job.

He does spend more than the candidate I imagined wanting. The spending is for infrastructure and military and I agree with some but not all. America needs something better than ACA, it is not Affordable at current American Tax rates and its demise is escalated by the open borders policies. We should be able to accept refugees and asylum seekers into our country but only if we can actually provide assistance for them. If we let everyone in, documented or not, it ties our hands to actually help people.

This has nothing to do with politics/policy/tax code.

You are supporting a bigoted sexual predator. What the fuck is wrong with you?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2959
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1949 on: June 15, 2018, 08:54:21 AM »
Conservatives like small government and lower taxes so I see this as a move in a good direction.

If this were true, the Republican controlled Senate and House wouldn't have increased the budget in the same session.