| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/26/17 10:00 pm ::: Defending the Indefensible |
Reply  |
|
| So our illegitimate nutcase POTUS believes 3-5 million people illegally cast votes and that they were all for his opponent. And oddly enough they were in states like CA, where they were totally unnecessary. Brilliant strategy to win the election - drum up illegal votes in states where you don't need it but not in swing states where you do. But he has to say that or his poor ego can't take it that he lost the popular vote. At what point do even his enablers send some mental health professionals to help this loser and the the country both?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8234
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/26/17 10:18 pm ::: Re: Defending the Indefensible |
Reply |
|
| insidewinder wrote: |
| his poor ego can't take it that he lost the popular vote. |
That's a reasonable conclusion about his ego and thin skin. But it's not a reasonable criticism of the policies he's advocating and beginning to implement. Criticism of those policies must be made on the competing substantive merits -- the benefits vs. harms to the American public -- not by facile insults or name calling. |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9657
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 2:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| So hours after the Mexican President said "screw you, I'm not meeting next week", Trump says they both "agreed" to cancel it. |
Prior to the Mexican president canceling, Trump tweeted that if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall then it would be better fo cancel the upcoming meeting.
|
|
taropatch
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 814
Location: Kau Rubbish Dump
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 5:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| So hours after the Mexican President said "screw you, I'm not meeting next week", Trump says they both "agreed" to cancel it. |
Prior to the Mexican president canceling, Trump tweeted that if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the wall then it would be better fo cancel the upcoming meeting. |
So that's how its done in the "Art of the Deal" -- very nice. I guess the punk's next step is to waterboard El Presidente Nieto.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66980
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21942
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 9:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Yikes. And this is the honeymoon stage.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6368
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 12:40 pm ::: Re: Defending the Indefensible |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| insidewinder wrote: |
| his poor ego can't take it that he lost the popular vote. |
That's a reasonable conclusion about his ego and thin skin. But it's not a reasonable criticism of the policies he's advocating and beginning to implement. Criticism of those policies must be made on the competing substantive merits -- the benefits vs. harms to the American public -- not by facile insults or name calling. |
Well, I for one am horrified anew at the institution of the international gag order on abortion (helps no one; only increases suffering of the vulnerable), the appointment of someone who doesn't believe in environmental regulation to the EPA (seriously, I've worked in HTRW fields my whole career, and this idea of "business-killing" regulations makes me cringe every time with its myopic short-term mindset), who in fact appointed a bunch of billionaires to cabinet positions to which they had no experience (or the wrong kind).
I mean, it's funny in a sad way to watch you double-down on Trump, Glen, and assert that a healthy stock market means people love Trump. Maybe people are just unloading stuff in anticipation of a crash. Maybe it's a sort of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" mindset. Maybe it has nothing to do with anything. I certainly don't take it as a mandate in favor of Trump, no matter how much pro-Trump folks like yourself keep jumping to that conclusion (while urging the rest of us to "wait a couple years" for evidence for or against things that may have historical precedent for harming the least among us).
I feel for the border patrol folks who voted for Trump and are now being forced out in some sort of house-cleaning. I fear for the loss of career diplomats. I'm annoyed that people seem to think career civil servants have nothing to offer, despite the labyrinthine bureaucracy that a modern country of America's stature just has by virtue of the number of things it needs to do to keep the trains running.
It'll be interesting to see if any positive effects come out of these Trump Administration flails, but doing something positive for the wrong reasons still doesn't make me supportive of his policies. And the fact that his very presence in the position of President substantiates and reinforces rape culture in the US frightens me. Why is that reduced to a "women's issue". Why don't men care about rape? (I guess unless they're trying to justify it or get away with it)
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 2:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It should be no surprise that the stock market is going up. Trump is promising things that Wall Street loves: less regulation, lower business taxes, lower taxes on the wealthy, etc.. But all of these things come with costs like environmental issues, less money for government programs that help the poor, no oversight on business excess, and widening the wealth gap. Any one of these things could have serious market consequences in the long run, even if there is short run gain. Remember, the stock market was flying high until the Great Recession when the house of cards came tumbling down.
I do think his focus on keeping jobs in the US and reworking our trade agreements is commendable, but those don't offset all of the terrible things he is doing and saying in other areas. For instance, he is talking about adding a 20% import tax to male Mexico pay for his wall. There is a serious risk that this could start a trade war that would be devastating to Agriculture and other businesses that import into Mexico. In Minnesota, that is a $2.4 Billion revenue stream.
And, meanwhile, this happened.
| Quote: |
| "Even though he has just now taken office, the president's intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse," the scientists said. |
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
StevenHW
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10983
Location: Sacramento, California
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/27/17 8:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
There are times when I wonder if Trump's ignorance and bluster is really just a ruse, as if he's toying with the general public and "playing dumb" as if the world was a poker game.
He's done it that way in his businesses, but I don't think it's going to work in the political world stage.
_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15751
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/29/17 10:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
"LOLs" galore.  For simplicity, I shall interject counterpoints in boldfaced.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
The ABC interviewer, having no interest or perhaps ability to discuss policy in depth like most of the MSM
["Discussing policy" with Trump has been a farce for the past year: he consistently has diverted/avoided details, cuz he simply didn't HAVE ANY. His shills do the same] kept trying to focus on a few controversial comments, which Trump always makes but which are completely irrelevant to the avalanche of substantive actions ["substantive"?] he is taking as President, and even as President-Elect, on his key campaign issues of economic recovery, border security, regulation reform, health care reform, sanctuary cities, defunding of abortion, federal hiring freezes, and expanding the military.
[Your 'illusion' that his actions are substantive is absurd. Yes, each matter is of great significance, but his actions aren't OLD ENOUGH to be determined "substantive": more time is needed to see the full consequences of his actions, and I'm not hopeful, starting with how the Mexican tariff wars will most likely fuck each of us over, as WE pay for The Wall.
He is already showing himself to be the hardest working and most hands-on president anyone has ever seen. That's what this country needs in the opinion of those who elected him, and probably lots of people who didn't
["hardest working" is, again, absurd: photo-ops signing crap his shit factory spits out is NOT "hardworking": it's pandering to the stupid masses who sucked down all his showmanship for the past year. It is NOT "hardworking".] |
| StevenHW wrote: |
There are times when I wonder if Trump's ignorance and bluster is really just a ruse, as if he's toying with the general public and "playing dumb" as if the world was a poker game.
He's done it that way in his businesses, but I don't think it's going to work in the political world stage. |
Your word "ruse" is so....*polite*, LOL! I certainly get (and agree with) your point, Steve. But there's really no ignorance involved here. He is a charlatan of epic proportions. He has internalized the nuance of human nature, and instinctively sought out the vulnerabilities of opponents. And when there were none to be found, he FABRICATED them.....or at least, nagged at them so long that one would never think HE had the same flaws. All in the interest of diverting attention. Masterfully. (I dealt with this repeatedly when I spent my years as a teacher of fourth graders, about the time most normal humans learn it's not acceptable)
Remember "Lyin' Ted"? As soon as Ted Cruz was identified as The Liar (and remember, he always implemented the simple strategy of repeating it over and over), then we didn't think DONALD could be the real liar, right? "Crooked Hillary"? Yeah...it's HER, not Donald that's crooked. He followed that old time-proven strategy of say something often enough, and people will believe it....or at least, accuse someone often enough, and YOU won't be accused of the same thing. And the simple-minded--those who would have voted for Charles Manson before they voted for Hillary cuz of their blind hatred--were impressed.
Yeah, folks....it's simple. His red-herring tactics belie his REAL interests in why he wants to be leader of the free world. He really DOES want to "Make America Great Again"....America is a great place to be rich AND GET RICHER STILL.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15751
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/29/17 11:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Let's wait and see what actually happens over the next two years, rather than wallowing around in irrational fears and (often violent) intolerance. |
2 years is certainly a fair grace period. But we don't need as much time to assess some other key points, Glenn. I'd love to hear your perspective on some very important facts that have already revealed themselves. I'd consider you an educated Trump supporter, and I've not met one of those yet who can satisfactorily explain a couple of things:
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
B. "Build that Wall". A mantra for his supporters. Paid for, courtesy of Mexico. By week one, it's obvious to even the most stupid of his voters that IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN THAT WAY. And a trade/tariff war with a hugely significant geographical neighbor? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
C. His entire family *involved* in the Administration? Most Presidents must protect their families from being over-exposed and subjected to the media glare. He's bringing them all on board. Certainly, some of them may be qualified to help in some ways. But to THIS degree? This is clearly *brand-building* and all about Empire/$$$, far more than any altruistic attempts at doing what's best for our country. HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
2 YEARS? Okay. Lord willin' 'n the creeks don't rise, we'll be here. And I, Glenn, will be the FIRST one in line to beg your forgiveness for my short-sightedness when we agree here that things are MUCH better for having Trump as president. Of course, I'll expect the same from you/yours if the reverse is true.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/17 2:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Let's wait and see what actually happens over the next two years, rather than wallowing around in irrational fears and (often violent) intolerance. |
2 years is certainly a fair grace period. But we don't need as much time to assess some other key points, Glenn. I'd love to hear your perspective on some very important facts that have already revealed themselves. I'd consider you an educated Trump supporter, and I've not met one of those yet who can satisfactorily explain a couple of things:
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
B. "Build that Wall". A mantra for his supporters. Paid for, courtesy of Mexico. By week one, it's obvious to even the most stupid of his voters that IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN THAT WAY. And a trade/tariff war with a hugely significant geographical neighbor? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
C. His entire family *involved* in the Administration? Most Presidents must protect their families from being over-exposed and subjected to the media glare. He's bringing them all on board. Certainly, some of them may be qualified to help in some ways. But to THIS degree? This is clearly *brand-building* and all about Empire/$$$, far more than any altruistic attempts at doing what's best for our country. HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
2 YEARS? Okay. Lord willin' 'n the creeks don't rise, we'll be here. And I, Glenn, will be the FIRST one in line to beg your forgiveness for my short-sightedness when we agree here that things are MUCH better for having Trump as president. Of course, I'll expect the same from you/yours if the reverse is true. |
Trump and his supporters will never admit error. He (and they) twist everything to fit their narrative.
The degreed ones are just as fueled and fooled by FOX NEWS/authoritarianism/bigotry as are those without HS diplomas.
The bottom line is, he (and they) are a------s.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/17 2:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
The degreed ones are just as fueled and fooled by FOX NEWS/authoritarianism/bigotry as are those without HS diplomas.
|
Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want it to be true, or because they are afraid it might be true.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
insidewinder
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 240
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/30/17 7:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
The degreed ones are just as fueled and fooled by FOX NEWS/authoritarianism/bigotry as are those without HS diplomas.
|
Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want it to be true, or because they are afraid it might be true. |
Humans are both too smart for their own good and too damn stupid. We don't recognize that our thinking is not always rational, in fact we are prone to major cognitive blind spots and errors. We are dumb tribal animals who don't accept that we are. I am to the point of hoping out there somewhere are alien civilizations who are to us as we are to slugs or ants or whatever. How can we ever do right by our planet, ourselves as a species, and our fellow creatures of the planet if we can't even get simple stuff right like don't hurt each other for no damn reason?
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15751
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/31/17 1:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Let's wait and see what actually happens over the next two years, rather than wallowing around in irrational fears and (often violent) intolerance. |
2 years is certainly a fair grace period. But we don't need as much time to assess some other key points, Glenn. I'd love to hear your perspective on some very important facts that have already revealed themselves. I'd consider you an educated Trump supporter, and I've not met one of those yet who can satisfactorily explain a couple of things:
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
B. "Build that Wall". A mantra for his supporters. Paid for, courtesy of Mexico. By week one, it's obvious to even the most stupid of his voters that IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN THAT WAY. And a trade/tariff war with a hugely significant geographical neighbor? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
C. His entire family *involved* in the Administration? Most Presidents must protect their families from being over-exposed and subjected to the media glare. He's bringing them all on board. Certainly, some of them may be qualified to help in some ways. But to THIS degree? This is clearly *brand-building* and all about Empire/$$$, far more than any altruistic attempts at doing what's best for our country. HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?
2 YEARS? Okay. Lord willin' 'n the creeks don't rise, we'll be here. And I, Glenn, will be the FIRST one in line to beg your forgiveness for my short-sightedness when we agree here that things are MUCH better for having Trump as president. Of course, I'll expect the same from you/yours if the reverse is true. |
Anddddd.........just as I expected: crickets. If one cannot explain and justify the very salient points I made above, then no other 'pro-trump' argument is legitimate.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9657
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/31/17 3:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? |
I never heard Trump say anything that could be characterized as "decrying the greed on Wall Street". I think you are attributing Sanders comments to Trump. The only time I heard him mention Wall Street was with regard to Hedge Funds, which he said didn't pay enough tax on some transaction they do. I believe "drain the swamp" has to do with politicians, bureacrats and lobbyists in Washington. I think Trump has talked about term limits for Congress, but he mentions limits on people in government going to work as lobbyists mostly in that "swamp regard".
| Quote: |
| He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED? |
Sanders was big on Clinton and Goldman Sachs. He didn't seem to be bothered much more about the speeches she gave to them than all the rest. If Trump said anything about Clinton/Goldman Sachs it would have been with regard to campaign contributions and favors owed. It would be duplicity if Trump, or due to campaign finance rules, a Trump SuperPAC got big contributions from one of his Goldman Sachs appointees. I don't know whether or not that is the case. Trump did ultimately get a SuperPAC (formerly for Ted Cruz) that was largely funded by a father and daughter. The daughter is the person who suggested Trump use Kellyanne Conway,
| Quote: |
B. "Build that Wall". A mantra for his supporters. Paid for, courtesy of Mexico. By week one, it's obvious to even the most stupid of his voters that IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN THAT WAY. And a trade/tariff war with a hugely significant geographical neighbor? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED?[ |
When Trump was asked during the campaign how he would get Mexico to pay for the walk, he never said they would write a check. He talked about getting it from wire transfers that illegal aliens send back home, or via trade maneuvers ("we have a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with them").
| Quote: |
C. His entire family *involved* in the Administration? Most Presidents must protect their families from being over-exposed and subjected to the media glare. He's bringing them all on board. Certainly, some of them may be qualified to help in some ways. But to THIS degree? This is clearly *brand-building* and all about Empire/$$$, far more than any altruistic attempts at doing what's best for our country. . |
You mean his son-in-law. His daughter was rumored to be going to be in the White House, but apparently she never did. And his sons are not part of it.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15751
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/31/17 2:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? |
I never heard Trump say anything that could be characterized as "decrying the greed on Wall Street". I think you are attributing Sanders comments to Trump. The only time I heard him mention Wall Street was with regard to Hedge Funds, which he said didn't pay enough tax on some transaction they do. I believe "drain the swamp" has to do with politicians, bureacrats and lobbyists in Washington. I think Trump has talked about term limits for Congress, but he mentions limits on people in government going to work as lobbyists mostly in that "swamp regard". |
I know the most specific "swamp" statements were regarding Politicos, but by lashing out against "corruption", he dupes his followers into believing he's against ALL corruption...."swampiness" isn't only found in D.C.
(From the recent past)
| tfan wrote: |
| howee wrote: |
| He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED? |
Sanders was big on Clinton and Goldman Sachs. He didn't seem to be bothered much more about the speeches she gave to them than all the rest. If Trump said anything about Clinton/Goldman Sachs it would have been with regard to campaign contributions and favors owed. |
If you really believe he didn't pound on Hillary's G/S connections, then you just didn't pay attention. He did his very best to use that as just one part of her Evilness. Yet.....now look at his cabinet.
| tfan wrote: |
| When Trump was asked during the campaign how he would get Mexico to pay for the walk, he never said they would write a check. He talked about getting it from wire transfers that illegal aliens send back home, or via trade maneuvers ("we have a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with them"). |
If, as you suggest, the implication wasn't there (for Mexico to pay outright) then why would their president even have addressed it? It was a very direct implication, the kind used by the slimiest of snakes. Trade Deficit? Average Joes don't get how that'd work. They don't realize that his method will cost every household $$ when the trade tariffs hit. They were just told "Mexico will pay for it."
| tfan wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| C. His entire family *involved* in the Administration? Most Presidents must protect their families from being over-exposed and subjected to the media glare. He's bringing them all on board. Certainly, some of them may be qualified to help in some ways. But to THIS degree? This is clearly *brand-building* and all about Empire/$$$, far more than any altruistic attempts at doing what's best for our country. . |
You mean his son-in-law. His daughter was rumored to be going to be in the White House, but apparently she never did. And his sons are not part of it. |
Not just YET. And the family of the POTUS reaping gigantic financial gain on a global scale is undeniable.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9657
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/31/17 4:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
I know the most specific "swamp" statements were regarding Politicos, but by lashing out against "corruption", he dupes his followers into believing he's against ALL corruption...."swampiness" isn't only found in D.C.
(From the recent past) |
Every Goldman Sachs tweet that article lists was with regard to either Cruz or Clinton being beholden to them due to some monetary connection. He didn't characterize Goldman Sachs as Sanders did. If we take hiring Goldman Sachs people as Treasury Secretary as corruption, then Trump is guilty of corruption. I personally don't like Wall Street bankers being selected as Treasury Secretary, particularly after those Goldman Sachs guys who Bush picked were part of the 2008 meltdown and bailout. I am not sure what a Treasury Secretary does, but I would prefer to see a professor of finance or economics in the position, but even then, Lawrence Summers showed that those guys can be tied into and do the bidding of business anyway.
When the Trump campaign came up with "draining the swamp" with less than a month to go in the campaign, it was entirely focused on lobbying and lobbyists. He broke that promise if Goldman Sachs is considered a partial lobby group, but I think "lobbyists" refers to people who work for an organization whose entire purpose it so lobby the US congress (e.g. AIPAC), even if companies will lobby directly.
| Quote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| howee wrote: |
| He CERTAINLY was bright enough to have never mentioned such intentions during his campaign, and denounced HRC for her G/S connections. Is this not a duplicity of epic proportions? HOW IS IT JUSTIFIED? |
Sanders was big on Clinton and Goldman Sachs. He didn't seem to be bothered much more about the speeches she gave to them than all the rest. If Trump said anything about Clinton/Goldman Sachs it would have been with regard to campaign contributions and favors owed. |
If you really believe he didn't pound on Hillary's G/S connections, then you just didn't pay attention. He did his very best to use that as just one part of her Evilness. Yet.....now look at his cabinet. |
I listened to a lot of Trump speeches and I don't remember him "pounding on Clinton and Goldman Sachs" (I do remember him "pounding on Clinton", but primarily about her emails and the Clinton Foundation) . Google shows that he mentioned it - but as in "they own her" because she has taken money from them. I haven't seen a monetary connection between Goldman Sachs and Trump noted.
There was a campaign commercial that ran near the end that had an image of the Goldman Sachs CEO as someone said "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” But I don't think Trump had anything to do with producing that commercial as he never said words like that himself.
| Quote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| When Trump was asked during the campaign how he would get Mexico to pay for the walk, he never said they would write a check. He talked about getting it from wire transfers that illegal aliens send back home, or via trade maneuvers ("we have a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with them"). |
If, as you suggest, the implication wasn't there (for Mexico to pay outright) then why would their president even have addressed it? It was a very direct implication, the kind used by the slimiest of snakes. Trade Deficit? Average Joes don't get how that'd work. They don't realize that his method will cost every household $$ when the trade tariffs hit. They were just told "Mexico will pay for it." |
The president of Mexico addressed it because Trump said "Mexico will pay for it" in tweets and campaign speeches. He only addressed the details in interviews. But looking at a document on his campaign website, there is something that I didn't see in the interviews. He mentioned getting money from wire transfers of illegal aliens back to Mexico during the campaign - which sounded like a "tax". But here he proposed requiring a Patriot Act regulation regarding banks to be applied to Western Union, which could (assuming their fake ID wasn't good enough) stop the transfer of money from illegal aliens back to Mexico. It was felt that this would then make Mexico pay for the wall to get the annual $24 billion in money transfers flowing again. That is, they would ultimately write a check. That document also talks about tariffs potentially paying for the wall. And it adds an increase in visa fees. It seems to imply that the increase in visa fees will not be what pays for the wall, but get Mexico to cough up the money so that they will be able to continue to send their poor to the US.
But in any event, the details never were that we would demand Mexico pay for the wall and they would comply. We would either get it via tariffs/fees or via actions that deprive Mexico of money such that they pay for the wall in order to continue to get the money from another source. So you could say that the president of Mexico was addressing the fact that Mexico would not pay for it to stop Trump's other actions.
| Quote: |
| Not just YET. And the family of the POTUS reaping gigantic financial gain on a global scale is undeniable. |
I don't think that the NET effect is gigantic at the retail level. Plenty of people don't like Trump and will avoid his businesses. During the campaign Trump lost money from his candidacy, as organizations pulled events out of his properties. Will they return now that he is president? Given his unpopularity and the strong resentment against him, I doubt it. It doesn't seem that globally he is popular either.
Developers do have to rely on local governments to allow, and sometimes choose them from a group, to develop an area. Trump's company may get favoritism in that regard, but it seems it would have to come as pressure from the national government as Trump couldn't do much to help a foreign city. But that is apparently what happened in Scotland BEFORE Trump even ran for President. He got the national folks to override or pressure the local folks on his golf course proposal. Instead of using power, he must have gone the traditional route - bribes.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15751
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/31/17 11:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? |
I never heard Trump say anything that could be characterized as "decrying the greed on Wall Street". |
Perhaps not.....you may very well have "never heard" such a thing....LOTS of people "never heard" a LOT of things that were implied, if not said outright. Probably Wall Street itself would be inclined to disagree with you.
| Quote: |
| "Wall Street hates him because he is a class traitor," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group. "He has bought into the populist rhetoric that Wall Street is greedy and makes too much money...He sounds more anti-Wall Street than Elizabeth Warren." |
Now, we can go back and forth "proving" not a whole lot. I stick to the simplest observations: DID he ever announce that he'd fill his cabinet with Goldman Sachs people? Of course not. Why? Has he turned to G/S for his administrators? Yes. Why? If you can't see the disingenuous, radically deceitful nature of his behaviors, I can't help ya any further.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9657
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/17 8:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
A. For someone who vowed to "Drain The Swamp" of corruption, and decried the greed of Wall Street, WHY would he populate his cabinet with Goldman Sachs cronies? |
I never heard Trump say anything that could be characterized as "decrying the greed on Wall Street". |
Perhaps not.....you may very well have "never heard" such a thing....LOTS of people "never heard" a LOT of things that were implied, if not said outright. Probably Wall Street itself would be inclined to disagree with you.
| Quote: |
| "Wall Street hates him because he is a class traitor," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group. "He has bought into the populist rhetoric that Wall Street is greedy and makes too much money...He sounds more anti-Wall Street than Elizabeth Warren." |
|
That article s from September 2015 and says Trump wants to raise taxes on the rich, something that would get them into a tizzy. Trump soon came out with a tax plan that lowers taxes on the rich.
It only talks about what I already mentioned - Trump wants to tax hedge funds on a certain transaction they do. There was no campaign criticism of Wall Street in general like a Sanders or Warren would do. They did mention him saying in a 2009 interview that Wall Street bankers were "fat cats", but that was 2009, not a campaign statement.
| Quote: |
Now, we can go back and forth "proving" not a whole lot. I stick to the simplest observations: DID he ever announce that he'd fill his cabinet with Goldman Sachs people? Of course not. Why? Has he turned to G/S for his administrators? Yes. Why? If you can't see the disingenuous, radically deceitful nature of his behaviors, I can't help ya any further. |
He never said he wouldn't put a Goldman Sachs person on his cabinet. I don't see that he implied it either. He attacked connections between Cruz/Clinton and Goldman Sachs. I didn't see him attacking Goldman Sachs.
I will readily concede that Trump can be disingenuous and radically deceitful, but I don't see it in this case because I didn't hear him condemning Goldman Sachs or even Wall Street in general.
|
|
|
|
