President Trump & the USA

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Trade deals can be mutually beneficial, people seem to forget that these days.

 

4 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Youre probably right ...         But with an fookin eeejit like that who knows ...    he might see May as some sort of mother figure and want to please her ...      (straws ..   clutching) ....     

 

I don't think it fits Trump's psychological profile that there should be two winners in a deal, it would be anathema to him, imo.

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

 

it would be anathema to him, imo.

 I bet the dumb sh1t can’t even spell anthea ! ....    

[Buce]

Just now, Countryfox said:

 I bet the dumb sh1t can’t even spell anthea ! ....    

 

He sure as hell wouldn't know what it means.

[Detroit Blues]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

You said he didn't have a chance of being elected in the first place, amazing you haven't learnt your lesson as you are a smart guy.

 

Approval ratings mean nothing now, the next election isn't until 2020. Check out how bad Dubya's ratings were in 2003.

Let's be honest, Trump barely scraped by in the last election against a terrible democratic candidate. He won key Midwestern states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by the slimmest of margins at the height of his popularity. He lost the overall popular vote by like 3M votes, and the US had a pretty low turnout. Turnout to vote Trump out of office will be very, very high. 

 

Moderate voters that voted for him in the last elections  will be turned off by quite a few things even beyond his scandals and persona:

Pulling out of the Paris accord and denying climate change (71% of Americans believe in Climate Change).

Ending Net Neutrality (80% of Americans support Net Neutrality).

Making no changes as promised to replace Obamacare with a better healthcare plan. 

Reducing the size of federal parks and protected lands

Doing nothing to fix illegal immigration. Everything he's drawn up (building a wall and mexico paying for it, Muslim travel bans, etc) has failed.

 

This all assumes he even makes it through his first term.

 

 

[bovril]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'm not sure you're right, lads.

I don't disagree that he appeals to a lot of people and part of the appeal is because of his brashness. I still don't think, however, this is as much by design as you suggest. I really believe that anybody who publicly comes out with some of the cringe-worthy, completely-lacking-in-self-awareness stuff that he does, in his position, has to be be borderline. Of course I'll qualify that by admitting I am far from being an expert in the area.

 

For what it's worth, however, I wouldn't be that surprised if he's elected him again.

Edited 12 January 2018 by bovril

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Trade deals can be mutually beneficial, people seem to forget that these days.

 

True, but who's likely to glean most benefit?

1) The world's most powerful nation and largest economy, led by an aggressive "America First" President with a gift for scenting weakness

2) A medium-sized economy that may have just downgraded its trade and relations with its closest trading partners and that is visibly absolutely desperate for new trade deals to compensate

 

I hope that the UK can do a mutually beneficial trade deal with the US on decent terms, but any deal will surely be on terms that overwhelmingly favour the US - and Trump & co, in particular (always assuming that a deal is possible and doesn't take a decade). 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

Trade deals can be mutually beneficial, people seem to forget that these days.

The 'no dealers' certainly have

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

I don't think it fits Trump's psychological profile that there should be two winners in a deal, it would be anathema to him, imo.

Yeah, this.

 

Trump has enemies that need to be confronted and neutralised, and subordinates that he gives orders to. He doesn't have friends through which a mutually beneficial deal can be reached - it would be anathema to his whole personal ethos and that of those who follow him.

 

11 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

Let's be honest, Trump barely scraped by in the last election against a terrible democratic candidate. He won key Midwestern states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by the slimmest of margins at the height of his popularity. He lost the overall popular vote by like 3M votes, and the US had a pretty low turnout. Turnout to vote Trump out of office will be very, very high. 

 

Moderate voters that voted for him in the last elections  will be turned off by quite a few things even beyond his scandals and persona:

Pulling out of the Paris accord and denying climate change (71% of Americans believe in Climate Change).

Ending Net Neutrality (80% of Americans support Net Neutrality).

Making no changes as promised to replace Obamacare with a better healthcare plan. 

Reducing the size of federal parks and protected lands

Doing nothing to fix illegal immigration. Everything he's drawn up (building a wall and mexico paying for it, Muslim travel bans, etc) has failed.

 

This all assumes he even makes it through his first term.

 

 

I was going to mention this as a reply to Alf's post. As was discussed on here the other day, Trump winning was a perfect storm of circumstances - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could happen again, but it is less likely IMO.

 

Put simply, if the black turnout, in particular, is just a little higher than last time then he loses - and can anyone think of a terribly compelling reason why it shouldn't be?

Edited 12 January 2018 by leicsmac

[Bobby Hundreds]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

Put simply, if the black turnout in particular is just a little higher than last time then he loses - and can anyone think of a terribly compelling reason why it shouldn't be?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/05/black-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-level-on-record/?utm_term=.ed0e7465bc47 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/05/black-unemployment-falls-to-lowest-level-on-record/?utm_term=.ed0e7465bc47 

The 8% approval rating for Trump amongst black folks seems to imply they don't think he's responsible for that, or if he is they don't care.

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

Youre probably right ...         But with an fookin eeejit like that who knows ...    he might see May as some sort of mother figure and want to please her ...      (straws ..   clutching) ....     

 

He didn't seem to be bothered about pleasing May when she gently chided him for re-posting misrepresented videos uploaded by Britain First in order to promote Islamophobia in the UK:

His response: "Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

 

Sorry, but I think you are clutching at straws there. The clue is in his slogan - "America First" (even if he also promotes Britain First hate videos)

[The Doctor]

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

You said he didn't have a chance of being elected in the first place, amazing you haven't learnt your lesson as you are a smart guy.

 

Approval ratings mean nothing now, the next election isn't until 2020. Check out how bad Dubya's ratings were in 2003.

Tbf, there was no way he should have won - reality TV host who's political experience amounted to rabble rousing on social media? It'd be like us electing a party led by Russell Brand to government. 

 

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

Trade deals can be mutually beneficial, people seem to forget that these days.

Trump has talked about it as a business deal to be won and lost though, so don't expect a mutually beneficial deal under him

[Nick]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Trump is great for Khan, he can grandstand over him whilst stabbings, acid attacks etc rise in the city and deflect the attention off him. 

Not sure that acid attacks and stabbing are Khans fault or why he’d need to deflect the issues - as Mayor his job is to keep the big issues front and centre and values such as tolerance and diversity are the very things that are going to play a part in combatting such violence and in promoting them he’s surely doing his job?

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

I was going to mention this as a reply to Alf's post. As was discussed on here the other day, Trump winning was a perfect storm of circumstances - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it could happen again, but it is less likely IMO.

 

Put simply, if the black turnout, in particular, is just a little higher than last time then he loses - and can anyone think of a terribly compelling reason why it shouldn't be?

 

I take your point - and I'm certainly not saying that I'm expecting Trump to get a second term (I don't understand the USA well enough to judge). I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that Trump won't win a second term.

 

Your points about black turnout and a "perfect storm of circumstances" not being repeated are good ones. So, let's hope the Democrats have a better candidate next time (no guarantee of that, I presume).

Furthermore, the state of the US economy will surely play a big role. It is surely quite likely that the US economy will be booming with very low unemployment by the time of the next presidential election, due to tax cuts, higher infrastructure spending and a crackdown on immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants? Some factors might work against Trump next time, as you say, but others might work in his favour....

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I take your point - and I'm certainly not saying that I'm expecting Trump to get a second term (I don't understand the USA well enough to judge). I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that Trump won't win a second term.

 

Your points about black turnout and a "perfect storm of circumstances" not being repeated are good ones. So, let's hope the Democrats have a better candidate next time (no guarantee of that, I presume).

Furthermore, the state of the US economy will surely play a big role. It is surely quite likely that the US economy will be booming with very low unemployment by the time of the next presidential election, due to tax cuts, higher infrastructure spending and a crackdown on immigration and the employment of illegal immigrants? Some factors might work against Trump next time, as you say, but others might work in his favour....

Fair points too.

 

My argument is that Trump is simply tapped out - he's not going to get any more votes in terms of numbers than he did last time - the Rust Belt voted for him on account of him bringing jobs and improving the economy, and if he does they'll vote for him again. That doesn't change the overall picture IMO - all of those who voted for him on account of economic issues did so last time too. It's the one thing that he has in his favour but it's not going to win him many (if any) more voters come 2020.

 

The key element will be the turnout of people who oppose him - in particular, as said above, most of the black population. And that does depend on the quality of the Dem candidate, as well as some other factors.

 

Edited 12 January 2018 by leicsmac

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

True, but who's likely to glean most benefit?

1) The world's most powerful nation and largest economy, led by an aggressive "America First" President with a gift for scenting weakness

2) A medium-sized economy that may have just downgraded its trade and relations with its closest trading partners and that is visibly absolutely desperate for new trade deals to compensate

 

I hope that the UK can do a mutually beneficial trade deal with the US on decent terms, but any deal will surely be on terms that overwhelmingly favour the US - and Trump & co, in particular (always assuming that a deal is possible and doesn't take a decade). 

It doesn’t matter who benifits most out of it, as long as their benifit isn’t a detriment to us. Which there is no reason why it should be.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

It doesn’t matter who benifits most out of it, as long as their benifit isn’t a detriment to us. Which there is no reason why it should be.

See above. Anathema.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Not sure that acid attacks and stabbing are Khans fault or why he’d need to deflect the issues - as Mayor his job is to keep the big issues front and centre and values such as tolerance and diversity are the very things that are going to play a part in combatting such violence and in promoting them he’s surely doing his job?

 

Yes, it's his job to highlight, not deflect such issues. There are also limits to the extent to which a mere mayor could counteract such a massive, multi-faceted social problem, even though he can launch social initiatives and has control of the police.

 

Cuts in police funding are causing problems nationwide, along with the need to shift limited resources to cover potential terrorist attacks - it's just a bigger problem in London as it's a bigger, more complex city.

There are legal, practical and political limits to the extent to which Khan can increase funds for policing or improve policing without extra funds.

 

Press release from Khan's office about a fortnight ago: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-proposes-27p-per-week-council-tax-increase

 

"Government cuts force Mayor to propose 27p a week council tax increase - 21 December 2017

• Mayor left with no choice in order to help keep Londoners safe

• All additional money raised will go to Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade who have been hit with Government funding cuts

• Additional funding for the Met goes above and beyond £12 allowed by Ministers on Tuesday

• Sadiq says ministers should “hang their heads in shame” at failure to protect Londoners adequately

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has today announced proposals to increase his share of council tax from April 2018 by an average of 27p a week – the maximum amount allowed by the Government.
All of the additional money raised will help fund the Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade.

Keeping Londoners safe is the Mayor’s top priority. With the Government refusing to give the Met and Fire Brigade the resources they need to do their jobs, Sadiq’s proposal would see his share of council tax increase overall by 5.1 per cent or £14.20 a year in cash terms. Despite the four terror attacks on London - the country’s capital - and the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower in the last year, the Government confirmed on Tuesday that it is proposing another year of real-term cuts to the funding of the Met. The Met has had to make more than £600 million of savings over recent years, and must find several hundreds of millions more of savings by 2021/22".

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair points too.

 

My argument is that Trump is simply tapped out - he's not going to get any more votes in terms of numbers than he did last time - the Rust Belt voted for him on account of him bringing jobs and improving the economy, and if he does they'll vote for him again. That doesn't change the overall picture IMO - all of those who voted for him on account of economic issues did so last time too. It's the one thing that he has in his favour but it's not going to win him many (if any) more voters come 2020.

 

The key element will be the turnout of people who oppose him - in particular, as said above, most of the black population. And that does depend on the quality of the Dem candidate, as well as some other factors.

 

 

I very much hope you're right - and you should understand US politics better than I do, not least as you're living there.

I do fear that he could harvest some extra votes, though, if employment and the US economy are booming. We'll see - and there's a lot that could happen in the meantime, up to and including impeachment.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It doesn’t matter who benifits most out of it, as long as their benifit isn’t a detriment to us. Which there is no reason why it should be.

 

There is presumably no reason why such a deal should be economically detrimental to us overall or we presumably wouldn't sign it.

But the benefit might be quite small overall, compared to the benefit we would have to allow the Americans in order to get any deal - and compared to the trade lost with the EU (by far our biggest trading partner) if we get a bad deal on Brexit.

 

Also, there could be aspects of it that are detrimental to us: e.g. if they insist on the right for US health corporations to buy a big stake in the NHS or on us applying much looser food safety standards on imports.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

There is presumably no reason why such a deal should be economically detrimental to us overall or we presumably wouldn't sign it.

But the benefit might be quite small overall, compared to the benefit we would have to allow the Americans in order to get any deal - and compared to the trade lost with the EU (by far our biggest trading partner) if we get a bad deal on Brexit.

 

Also, there could be aspects of it that are detrimental to us: e.g. if they insist on the right for US health corporations to buy a big stake in the NHS or on us applying much looser food safety standards on imports.

What's the worse that can happen, we'll get to buy the things we want to buy cheaper than we're buying them now. Even if we don't sell them a single extra thing we'll be better off.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What's the worse that can happen, we'll get to buy the things we want to buy cheaper than we're buying them now. Even if we don't sell them a single extra thing we'll be better off.

Assuming that the US choose to not renegotiate on either price or quality of products that they're selling to us as part of the deal.

 

Of course, we could simply walk away if they try to strongarm us.

[Sharpe's Fox]

I’d have voted for Trump and still would probably I don’t even care if it means creating leftists.

[somebum]

Nice to see we are all such great experts in American politics now.

[somebum]

Listen ive spent a lot of time in Africa and most of it is a sh!thole. Trump is saying it how it is. Seeing the comments here about his intellectual capabilities is cringeable.