Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

Not to mention that "liberalism" emerged first during the Enlightenment as an economic philosophy advocating most decisions in a market economy be made by individuals, with minimal government intervention -- precisely what economic "conservatives" advocate today.

 

Almost every mainstream convention started out as a fringe idea. And many "conservative" principles boil down to, "the way it's been as far back as I can remember."

[Pariah]

So the President said we're going to slap a 5% tariff on Mexican goods until the flow of immigrants stops. Meanwhile, the Chinese State newspaper issued a warning that China would cut off our supply of rare earth minerals in retaliation for the tariffs we slapped on them.

 

Does this mean that we are winning the trade war(s)? I'm not sure I understand.

[csyphrett]

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

So the President said we're going to slap a 5% tariff on Mexican goods until the flow of immigrants stops. Meanwhile, the Chinese State newspaper issued a warning that China would cut off our supply of rare earth minerals in retaliation for the tariffs we slapped on them.

 

Does this mean that we are winning the trade war(s)? I'm not sure I understand.

I thought it was 25%

CES

[Sociotard]

You're both right. It starts at 5% and rises steadily to 25%

[Toxxus]

5 hours ago, Pariah said:

So the President said we're going to slap a 5% tariff on Mexican goods until the flow of immigrants stops. Meanwhile, the Chinese State newspaper issued a warning that China would cut off our supply of rare earth minerals in retaliation for the tariffs we slapped on them.

 

Does this mean that we are winning the trade war(s)? I'm not sure I understand.

 

Not sure if we're "winning", but taking actual actions instead of saber-rattling in an attempt to get a fair trade deal going isn't the worst thing I've ever seen.

I'm a big fan of reciprocity.

 

Additionally, there's a very real limit to how hard the USA and China can push each other.  We're financially married at this point.  A major disruption either way would be bad for both of us.

 

I would expect a lot of unreasonable demands to save face (in both directions) before we settle on something that leaves both parties in a good place.

[Ternaugh]

31 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

Not sure if we're "winning", but taking actual actions instead of saber-rattling in an attempt to get a fair trade deal going isn't the worst thing I've ever seen.

I'm a big fan of reciprocity.

 

Additionally, there's a very real limit to how hard the USA and China can push each other.  We're financially married at this point.  A major disruption either way would be bad for both of us.

 

I would expect a lot of unreasonable demands to save face (in both directions) before we settle on something that leaves both parties in a good place.

 

Sadly, I'm expecting the financial genius who managed to bankrupt his casino operations three times will go too far and lead us into the next recession.

[Toxxus]

12 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Sadly, I'm expecting the financial genius who managed to bankrupt his casino operations three times will go too far and lead us into the next recession.

 

That's possible, but we're 3.5 years into his Presidency and enjoying the strongest economy we've seen in quite awhile.

 

I know many will say that it was due to the work of the previous office holder, but would they also credit the previous guy if things we're terrible?

 

The guy has a net worth of 2.5 to 3 billion dollars depending on the source.  That's not exactly a strong indicator of financial incompetence.

 

The president gets too much blame/credit generally for economic success.  The budget and laws that impact regulatory burden and finances are done by Congress which currently has an approval rating slightly lower than malaria.

 

 

[Ternaugh]

4 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

That's possible, but we're 3.5 years into his Presidency and enjoying the strongest economy we've seen in quite awhile.

 

I know many will say that it was due to the work of the previous office holder, but would they also credit the previous guy if things we're terrible?

 

The guy has a net worth of 2.5 to 3 billion dollars depending on the source.  That's not exactly a strong indicator of financial incompetence.

 

The president gets too much blame/credit generally for economic success.  The budget and laws that impact regulatory burden and finances are done by Congress which currently has an approval rating slightly lower than malaria.

 

 

 

2.5 years. It just seems longer.

[Toxxus]

7 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

2.5 years. It just seems longer.

 

Ha!  You're right.  It does seem longer.

 

It's funny because I'm pretty happy with how things are going.  Economy is good, the obnoxious intrusive government isn't any worse than it was and for the most part - things are working.

 

But I can't watch the president talk - especially off the cuff - or he drives me insane.  Like - finish a f'ing sentence!  He speaks like an old dot matrix printer.

 

I actually liked, mostly, the state of the union addresses where he stopped the twitter diarrhea and took on a presidential demeanor, but I can't watch his interviews.

 

All that being said - if the economy doesn't crash before 2020 I suspect he wins a re-election pretty easily.

[Ternaugh]

6 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

Ha!  You're right.  It does seem longer.

 

It's funny because I'm pretty happy with how things are going.  Economy is good, the obnoxious intrusive government isn't any worse than it was and for the most part - things are working.

 

But I can't watch the president talk - especially off the cuff - or he drives me insane.  Like - finish a f'ing sentence!  He speaks like an old dot matrix printer.

 

I actually liked, mostly, the state of the union addresses where he stopped the twitter diarrhea and took on a presidential demeanor, but I can't watch his interviews.

 

All that being said - if the economy doesn't crash before 2020 I suspect he wins a re-election pretty easily.

 

This is what many political analysts are saying. Of course, many of them also thought that Hillary was going to win in 2016.

[Lord Liaden]

I agree that the American President can have only limited effect on the global economy, which is why he should receive neither the lion's share of the blame when it's bad, nor the credit when it's good. But even if you give Donald Trump credit for positive economic management, that's only one metric by which one can and should measure leadership. The man is more divisive to society in America and around the world than any POTUS I can clearly remember in my lifetime -- and for me that includes Nixon. He's willfully ignorant of important issues in many areas, arrogantly assuming his instincts are of more use than sound research. He acts on impulse and emotion, incredibly dangerous with the power he wields. He treats every diplomatic interaction as a venue to establish his status as an alpha male, which either causes unnecessary conflict or leaves him open to manipulation through flattery. All his actions are motivated to please his base of political support rather than a commitment to sound policy.

 

As to his reputed "deal-making" skills, at this point he's shown repeatedly that threats and bullying are the only tool in his negotiating chest. And that when those tactics start to hurt him domestically, he caves. I guarantee that the parties he's negotiating with have noticed that too.

[Toxxus]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

As to his reputed "deal-making" skills, at this point he's shown repeatedly that threats and bullying are the only tool in his negotiating chest. And that when those tactics start to hurt him domestically, he caves.

 

I agree that he has caved in ways that make him look beatable in future standoffs.

 

I can't rationally accept that he's a complete incompetent in the deal making department with a net worth north of 2.5 billion among other things.  He beat a huge field of Republican contenders to win a presidency that I honestly believe he didn't expect to win.

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

 

I agree that he has caved in ways that make him look beatable in future standoffs.

 

I can't rationally accept that he's a complete incompetent in the deal making department with a net worth north of 2.5 billion among other things.  He beat a huge field of Republican contenders to win a presidency that I honestly believe he didn't expect to win.

 

Saw his tax returns, did you? 

[Old Man]

 

Trump's net worth is hard to pin down because most of his assets are in real estate and his brand name, all of which are worth whatever he wants them to be at the time. Per Fortune:

 

Quote

 

In the documents introduced by Cohen, Trump’s wealth numbers were strikingly elastic. In 2012, Trump had $5 billion of assets, according to that year’s one-page summary. Just nine months later, an updated summary showed his assets had nearly doubled, to $9.17 billion. The difference? Brand value. Trump put his at $4 billion.

The records add further detail to an old story about Trump — that his penchant for bluster often extended to how he described his wealth. Neither he nor his company has ever publicly provided a valuation method for how they assess his brand. When he announced his candidacy for president, a document dated 2014 listed the value of “licensing deals, brand and branded developments” at $3.3 billion, making the value of the Trump brand as ethereal as it is massive.

“It was my experience that Mr. Trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes, such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in Forbes, and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes,” Cohen said in prepared remarks. He added that the financial documents for three years ending in 2013 were given to Deutsche Bank “to inquire about a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills.”
 

 

 

Forbes recently published an appraisal of Trump's net worth, putting the figure at $3.1B, but even this doesn't go into any detail as to how the assets were valued.  It has to be more credible than Trump's bluster, though.  During the campaign, he bragged that he was worth $10B.

 

The bigger issue, of course, is that every single one of these real estate assets constitutes a massive conflict of interest and, in the cases of Mar-A-Lago and the Trump International Hotel, flagrant violations of the Emoluments clause of the Constitution.

[Toxxus]

28 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Saw his tax returns, did you? 

 

No, but he's been estimated at that value (and often quite a bit higher) by much more financially sound groups than myself such as Forbes.

 

Are you going to pretend he's poor because he's so unlikable?  I get it.  He's easy to not like.  That doesn't make his accomplishments vanish.

 

 

I hadn't seen that emoluments clause argument against Trump.  That made for some interesting reading.  Thanks.

[Ternaugh]

41 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

 

No, but he's been estimated at that value (and often quite a bit higher) by much more financially sound groups than myself such as Forbes.

 

Are you going to pretend he's poor because he's so unlikable?  I get it.  He's easy to not like.  That doesn't make his accomplishments vanish.

 

 

I hadn't seen that emoluments clause argument against Trump.  That made for some interesting reading.  Thanks.

 

I hadn't realized that I had pretended that he was poor. As Old Man pointed out, it's really hard to judge his wealth for a variety of reasons. He could, of course, clear this up by releasing his taxes, but I don't see that happening.

[csyphrett]

He lost a billion dollars in ten years. That much we do know. The rest is a lie

CES

[Old Man]

Trump's business record is such that no reputable banks will loan him money.  That's why he's been up to his eyeballs in Russians and Deutsche Bank* for at least twenty years.  Which gets back to yet another conflict of interest: Trump may owe money to the Russian mob, and if any of his transactions are not squeaky clean, the Russians and Deutsche Bank have blackmail leverage over him.  (Note that Mueller turned the evidence for these allegations over to the SDNY, preferring to focus on the charges of collusion and obstruction.)

 

 

* Notorious for laundering money for Iranian terrorists and other crime organizations.

[Lord Liaden]

3 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I agree that he has caved in ways that make him look beatable in future standoffs.

 

I can't rationally accept that he's a complete incompetent in the deal making department with a net worth north of 2.5 billion among other things.  He beat a huge field of Republican contenders to win a presidency that I honestly believe he didn't expect to win.

 

Trump's holdings have declared bankruptcy six times between 1990 and 2009. He avoided suffering a lot of personal liability for them, although many of his investors were screwed. You could give him credit for cleverness for that, but in lieu of evidence it's anyone's guess how much credit goes to Trump, and how much to his lawyers and accountants.

 

Much of Donald Trump's operating capital came from loans from his father (no evidence they were ever paid back), as well as liquidating his father's holdings after Fred Trump's death in 1999.

 

IMO Donald Trump won the Republican nomination and the Presidency because (A) his field of opponents was mediocre; (B) the American public was disillusioned with government by political insiders and longed for an "outsider" candidate; (C) Trump has a salesman's instinct for what people want to hear, for where they're vulnerable and exploitable. None of those things qualify someone to hold high political office.

[Old Man]

And (D) he received material assistance from a hostile foreign power that directly affected the election.

[Lord Liaden]

 

[Sociotard]

Quibble: in this one case Trump isn't asking Mexico to stop its own citizens from crossing the border. He wants them to stop Central Americans from crossing. 

[IndianaJoe3]

22 hours ago, Toxxus said:

It's funny because I'm pretty happy with how things are going.  Economy is good, the obnoxious intrusive government isn't any worse than it was and for the most part - things are working.

 

I'm going to speculate that you are white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, nominally Christian, and have a reasonable job. (I apologize if I got any of that wrong.) You don't have to worry about being discriminated against because of your religion, ethnicity, or gender. You are well-fed, clothed, have a roof over your head, and have no more than a theoretical worry about how you're going to pay for these things. Of course things are going pretty well for you.

 

Unfortunately, for people not like you, Trump is making everything worse.

[Lord Liaden]

3 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Quibble: in this one case Trump isn't asking Mexico to stop its own citizens from crossing the border. He wants them to stop Central Americans from crossing. 

 

Do you believe Trump draws a personal distinction in where brown people are coming from? He railed against "drug dealers and rapists" from Mexico long before the Central American influx became the public focus. Remember that he claimed terrorists from the Middle East were coming in hidden among the migrant caravans.

[Pariah]

The President says/writes/tweets whatever he feels will inflame and work up his base. It's what he's always done. He's never paid a great deal of attention to things like details, or factual accuracy.

 

That's the reality of American politics today, sadly. We live in a post-factual world.