The Trump Presidency Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

"VOTER FRAUD ISN'T REAL! IT'S RACISM FROM THE GOP!"

-Randy Reed and all other libs.

 

 

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pedro-cortes-resigns-pennsylvania-secretary-of-state-voters-20171011.html

[GOCUBSGO 77]

Ok, well I'm sure I could find an equal number of sources regarding Sinclair politicizing local news.

 

Which was my point the whole time.

 

When the right is confronted with things they don't like or agree with, the default response is to shout fake news or criticize the source for their liberal bias.

 

You just did it with Bob's MSNBC video. It goes against what you desperately want to believe so you immediately dismiss it as an untrustworthy liberal source without actual judging the information presented on its merits.

 

 

[Dubey 1,035]

 

 

 

 

http://www.rasmussen...l_over_protests

http://www.rasmussen...use_of_protests

https://poll.qu.edu/...?ReleaseID=2387

https://d25d2506sfb9...ck_20160902.pdf

http://i2.cdn.turner...l.and.trump.pdf

http://big.assets.hu...NFL20170925.pdf

 

 

Yeah... it's just brvy.

 

I'm glad you took the time to dig up a bunch of polls that don't even prove your point.

 

 

[Dubey 1,035]

"VOTER FRAUD ISN'T REAL! IT'S RACISM FROM THE GOP!"

-Randy Reed and all other libs.

 

 

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pedro-cortes-resigns-pennsylvania-secretary-of-state-voters-20171011.html

 

 

to use your favourite argumentative tool: "lol"

 

 

You have an interesting definition of voter fraud, and you are incredibly naive if you think the GOP's intentions are pure with their crackdown on voter fraud.

[Balloon guy 158]

to use your favourite argumentative tool: "lol"

 

 

You have an interesting definition of voter fraud, and you are incredibly naive if you think the GOP's intentions are pure with their crackdown on voter fraud.

 

Do you think democrats fighting voter ID have pure motives?

[Dubey 1,035]

Of course not

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 1h1 hour ago

For the second time in two days, Trump's negotiators have put forward a wildly unpopular NAFTA proposal. My story: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/13/another-trump-poison-pill-for-nafta-ottawa-slams-demand-for-50-us-content-in-cars.html …

 

 

Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 1h1 hour ago

Canadian expert: "Poison pill." Canadian auto union: "Completely ridiculous." Canadian parts industry: "Madness." https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/13/another-trump-poison-pill-for-nafta-ottawa-slams-demand-for-50-us-content-in-cars.html …

 

 

Daniel Dale‏Verified account @ddale8 1h1 hour ago

Interesting point from one expert: US auto-trade demands usually come from US automakers. Trump's proposal is loathed by the automakers.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Ezra Klein‏Verified account @ezraklein 11h11 hours ago

Trump's new policy will increase premiums by 20%, cost the government $194 billion, increase the deficit, destabilize insurance markets, and increase the number of uninsured Americans. There is nothing it makes better; it's pure policy nihilism.

 

 

Trump’s acting like Obamacare is just politics. It’s people’s lives.

Fewer people will have insurance — and the government will spend more.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

From those noted Leftists at the Wall Street Journal

 

https://www.wsj.com/...reat-1508105756

 

Trump’s Nafta Threat

 

Ending the pact would be the worst economic blunder since Nixon.

 

 

Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums. If this is a negotiating tactic of making extreme demands only to settle for much less and claim victory, maybe it will work. Otherwise Mr. Trump is playing a game of chicken he can’t win.

 

Mr. Trump’s obsession with undoing Nafta threatens the economy he has so far managed rather well. The roaring stock market, rising GDP and tight job market are signs that deregulation and the promise of tax reform are restoring business and consumer confidence. Blowing up Nafta would blow up all that too. It could be the worst economic mistake by a U.S. President since Richard Nixon trashed Bretton-Woods and imposed wage and price controls.

 

U.S. demands in the Nafta renegotiations—which returned to Washington last week—are growing more bizarre. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer now wants to add a sunset clause, which would automatically kill it in five years unless all three governments agree to keep it. In other words, the U.S. proposes to increase economic uncertainty and raise the incentive for businesses to deploy capital to more reliable investment climates.

 

The U.S. also wants to change Nafta’s “rules of origin” for autos. Cars now made in North America can cross all three borders duty-free if 62.5% of their content is Nafta-made. Mr. Lighthizer wants to raise that to 85% and add a subclause requiring 50% be made in the U.S.

 

Mr. Lighthizer needs to get out more. Nafta’s current rules-of-origin for autos are already the highest of any trade agreement in the world, says John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Raising them would give car makers an incentive to source components from Asia and pay America’s low 2.5% most-favored-nation tariff. A higher-content rule would hurt Mexico, but it won’t bring jobs to the U.S.

 

Adding a domestic content requirement also would violate World Trade Organization rules, so neither Mexico nor Canada are likely to agree. And if they did, it would harm U.S. workers. Auto companies that now make cars for export in the U.S., using Nafta-made components, would simply move abroad more of their manufacturing.

 

It’s hard to overstate the damage that ending Nafta would inflict on the U.S. auto industry. Under Nafta, companies tap the comparative advantages of all three markets and have created an intricate web of supply chains to maximize returns. As Charles Uthus at the American Automotive Policy Council said last week, Nafta “brings scale, it brings competitiveness, it brings efficiencies [and] synergies between all three countries, and it brings duty-free trade.” Its demise would be “basically a $10 billion tax on the auto industry in America.”

 

Last week the Boston Consulting Group also released a study sponsored by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association that found ending Nafta could mean the loss of 50,000 American jobs in the auto-parts industry as Mexico and Canada revert to pre-Nafta tariffs.

 

Mexico has elections next year and no party that bows to unreasonable demands by Mr. Trump can win. The Mexican political class appears willing to call his bluff, which is making American business very nervous. More than 300 state and local chambers of commerce signed an Oct. 10 letter to Mr. Trump imploring him to “first ‘do no harm’ in the Nafta negotiations.”

 

It noted that 14 million American jobs rely on North American daily trade of more than $3.3 billion. “The U.S. last year recorded a trade surplus of $11.9 billion with its NAFTA partners when manufactured goods and services are combined,” the letter said. “Among the biggest beneficiaries of this commerce are America’s small and medium-sized businesses, 125,000 of which sell their goods and services to Mexico and Canada.”

 

 

Ending Nafta would be even more painful for U.S. agriculture, whose exports to Canada and Mexico have quadrupled under Nafta to $38 billion in 2016. Reverting to Mexico’s pre-Nafta tariff schedule, duties would rise to 75% on American chicken and high-fructose corn syrup; 45% on turkey, potatoes and various dairy products; and 15% on wheat. Mexico doesn’t have to buy American, and last week it made its firstwheat purchase from Argentina—30,000 tons for December delivery.

 

Canada and Mexico know that ending Nafta will hurt them, but reverting to pre-Nafta tariff levels could hurt the U.S. more. Mr. Trump can hurt our neighbors if he wants, but the biggest victims will be Mr. Trump’s voters.

[Balloon guy 158]

Of course not

 

Then we can agree that some people on the right are crooked about voter ID and some on the left are.

 

The left says that asking people to prove they have a right to vote is too hard for some.

 

The right says that the vote is too important to ignore the ease with which people can break the law and vote multiple times or vote for someone else.

 

Can we just argue from those two positions and leave out the outliers on both sides?

[Balloon guy 158]

From those noted Leftists at the Wall Street Journal

 

https://www.wsj.com/...reat-1508105756

 

Trump’s Nafta Threat

 

Ending the pact would be the worst economic blunder since Nixon.

 

 

Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums. If this is a negotiating tactic of making extreme demands only to settle for much less and claim victory, maybe it will work. Otherwise Mr. Trump is playing a game of chicken he can’t win.

 

So Trump might be using these 'threats' to get a better deal for America? I'm on board so far.

 

 

Mr. Trump’s obsession with undoing Nafta threatens the economy he has so far managed rather well. The roaring stock market, rising GDP and tight job market are signs that deregulation and the promise of tax reform are restoring business and consumer confidence. Blowing up Nafta would blow up all that too. It could be the worst economic mistake by a U.S. President since Richard Nixon trashed Bretton-Woods and imposed wage and price controls.

 

Lots of poisoned words here, Obsession? First time he's made a move in 8 months on NAFTA. Might want to look up what that word means. NAFTA threatens our entire economy? Maybe Mexico's, probably Canada.s, not ours.

.At least they got the fact that Trump's economy is doing great. It's almost like he knows what he's doing????

 

 

U.S. demands in the Nafta renegotiations—which returned to Washington last week—are growing more bizarre. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer now wants to add a sunset clause, which would automatically kill it in five years unless all three governments agree to keep it. In other words, the U.S. proposes to increase economic uncertainty and raise the incentive for businesses to deploy capital to more reliable investment climates.

 

 

You mean keep the investments in our own borders? that's so bizarre for a US president to want that.

Hold all 3 countries to the agreement? That's a bizarre thing to want in a trade negotiation.

 

 

The U.S. also wants to change Nafta’s “rules of origin” for autos. Cars now made in North America can cross all three borders duty-free if 62.5% of their content is Nafta-made. Mr. Lighthizer wants to raise that to 85% and add a subclause requiring 50% be made in the U.S.

 

Mr. Lighthizer needs to get out more. Nafta’s current rules-of-origin for autos are already the highest of any trade agreement in the world, says John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Raising them would give car makers an incentive to source components from Asia and pay America’s low 2.5% most-favored-nation tariff. A higher-content rule would hurt Mexico, but it won’t bring jobs to the U.S.

 

Guess they better pony up for that wall construction, sounds like they have some incentive now

 

 

Adding a domestic content requirement also would violate World Trade Organization rules, so neither Mexico nor Canada are likely to agree. And if they did, it would harm U.S. workers. Auto companies that now make cars for export in the U.S., using Nafta-made components, would simply move abroad more of their manufacturing.

 

Yea, think about that......if it's cheaper to make cars somewhere else, then car manufacturers might move their companies to other countries. Good thing that's not true now because NAFTA stops that from happening.....because we get the parts to make the cars from foreign countries so we are in effect making them now in other countries?

 

 

It’s hard to overstate the damage that ending Nafta would inflict on the U.S. auto industry. Under Nafta, companies tap the comparative advantages of all three markets and have created an intricate web of supply chains to maximize returns. As Charles Uthus at the American Automotive Policy Council said last week, Nafta “brings scale, it brings competitiveness, it brings efficiencies [and] synergies between all three countries, and it brings duty-free trade.” Its demise would be “basically a $10 billion tax on the auto industry in America.”

 

Last week the Boston Consulting Group also released a study sponsored by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association that found ending Nafta could mean the loss of 50,000 American jobs in the auto-parts industry as Mexico and Canada revert to pre-Nafta tariffs.

 

American jobs would be lost because parts for cars can no longer be made in Mexico? More like dollars would be lost when car companies can no longer exploit cheap Mexican labor.

 

 

Mexico has elections next year and no party that bows to unreasonable demands by Mr. Trump can win. The Mexican political class appears willing to call his bluff, which is making American business very nervous. More than 300 state and local chambers of commerce signed an Oct. 10 letter to Mr. Trump imploring him to “first ‘do no harm’ in the Nafta negotiations.”

 

It noted that 14 million American jobs rely on North American daily trade of more than $3.3 billion. “The U.S. last year recorded a trade surplus of $11.9 billion with its NAFTA partners when manufactured goods and services are combined,” the letter said. “Among the biggest beneficiaries of this commerce are America’s small and medium-sized businesses, 125,000 of which sell their goods and services to Mexico and Canada.”

 

 

Women and children hardest hit?

Anyone know any small businesses trading internationally?

 

 

 

Ending Nafta would be even more painful for U.S. agriculture, whose exports to Canada and Mexico have quadrupled under Nafta to $38 billion in 2016. Reverting to Mexico’s pre-Nafta tariff schedule, duties would rise to 75% on American chicken and high-fructose corn syrup; 45% on turkey, potatoes and various dairy products; and 15% on wheat. Mexico doesn’t have to buy American, and last week it made its firstwheat purchase from Argentina—30,000 tons for December delivery.

 

Wait? It's buying wheat from somewhere else while NAFTA is still in effect? But I thought this would only happen if we changed NAFTA?

 

I guess that will mean we will have more Turkeys and Potatoes to sell in America? Which will drive down the costs for Average Joe America who is too dumb to know that we must pay inflated costs so that Big Farma can keep making maximum profits?

 

 

 

 

Canada and Mexico know that ending Nafta will hurt them, but reverting to pre-Nafta tariff levels could hurt the U.S. more. Mr. Trump can hurt our neighbors if he wants, but the biggest victims will be Mr. Trump’s voters.

 

So Trump's voters are the working class Americans who make things and keep the economy going?

 

That's got to hurt the democrats to admit this.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ezra Klein‏Verified account @ezraklein 11h11 hours ago

Trump's new policy will increase premiums by 20%, cost the government $194 billion, increase the deficit, destabilize insurance markets, and increase the number of uninsured Americans. There is nothing it makes better; it's pure policy nihilism.

 

 

Trump’s acting like Obamacare is just politics. It’s people’s lives.

Fewer people will have insurance — and the government will spend more.

 

Obamacare's payments to insurance companies was illegal, Trump made congress deal with it.

Having no insurance is a choice many people make.

Mainly because they are young and don't need it.

My insurance under Obamacare for myself went from $350 a month for a $5,000 deductible to $650 a month. Then it was flat out canceled. The plan I have now is about $900 a month USING the ACA, but I get subsidies because I am carrying loss. Once my loss is gone I will not be able to afford any insurance.

 

Obamacare is a disaster, worse than a disaster, and its getting worse every day.

 

Best thing we can do is kill the whole program and allow market forces to drive down insurance.

 

That and cap lawyer's fees.

 

But Trump is going to

[FCP Bob 1,312]

This is really how Trump seems to view everything.

 

For Me To Win, You Have to Lose

 

 

Going on two years ago I read something formative to my understanding of Donald Trump. It was a column by then-Times business columnist Joe Nocera. The column was about a particular swindle with a golf resort. Standard Trump. But the part that mattered was Nocera’s observation about Trump’s fundamental way of doing business and interacting with other people, one he knew from years of covering Trump.

 

What was taking place in Jupiter was an essential part of Trump’s modus operandi. In every deal, he has to win and you have to lose. He is notorious for refusing to pay full price to contractors and vendors after they’ve completed work for him. And he basically dares the people he has stiffed to sue him, knowing that his deep pockets and bevy of lawyers give him a big advantage over those who

In every deal, he has to win and you have to lose. It actually goes a bit deeper. He doesn’t know he’s won until you lose.

Then a couple days ago TPM Reader DM sent me a post from the real estate economics blog ‘Calculated Risk’. It covered the same ground but placed it in a business school conceptual framework.

 

Here’s the key passage …

In general, there are two types of negotiations. There is the “win-lose” type (or Distributive negotiation) where one party receives more and the other party receives less. This is the common approach when buying a car or real estate, or haggling at a street market.

The other type of negotiation is “win-win” (or Integrative negotiation). This type is used when negotiating between a company and a worker’s union, with long term suppliers, negotiating agreements between international allies – and even with adversaries.

The tactics for the two types of negotiations are very different. In the first type (win-lose), bluffing, threats (like threatening to walk away), even lying are commonly used. (Sound familiar?)

The approach to an integrative negotiation includes building trust, understanding the other party’s concerns, and knowing the details of the agreement – with the goal to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.

As the author, Bill McBride, goes on to explain, it’s not as simple as one approach is bad and another good. They’re each appropriate in a specific context. If you’re haggling over the price of a used car or bargaining at a flea market, it really is zero sum. It’s a one-off negotiation judged by a single metric – price. One side’s big score has to come at the other side’s expense.

That kind of ‘deal-making’ is really all Trump knows – only in a particularly extreme and cartoonish form. His whole business history is one of cutting ‘deals’ in which he gets lots of gain and little risk and the other guy basically gets screwed. At a minimum, any down side is for the other guy to carry. Even for Trump, the way of doing business had its limits. By the time he became President no major US bank would do business with Trump. He’d burned so many bridges he was reduced to getting most of his capital from shady international operators and money launderers. You can only screw people over so many times before they refuse to work with you anymore.

As President, Trump is playing out the same pattern on every front. Trump failed repeatedly to repeal Obamacare. Now he’s literally and even openly trying to throw the national health insurance market into chaos to force Democrats to do his bidding. This is catastrophic for the people who are imperiled. But it’s not even very effective on its own terms. He doesn’t understand the political dynamics involved – Democrats have zero interest in coming to his rescue. He doesn’t understand what it means to be President. His only prism for success is one-off ‘deals’ in which he gets a ‘win’.

Nor is this the only example. You see it with the Iran Nuclear Deal, NAFTA – which observers think he is increasingly likely to terminate. You saw it when he threatened to start a trade war with South Korea in the midst of threatening a real war with its arch-rival North Korea.

Let’s go back to McBride: “In the first type (win-lose), bluffing, threats (like threatening to walk away), even lying are commonly used. (Sound familiar?)”

In a global order in which the US derives massive benefits from being the disproportionate beneficiary of many international agreements and the very structure of the global system itself, the US is uniquely dependent on trust and the ability to act through soft power. Over recent weeks there’s been a repeated refrain from anti-Obama national security and foreign policy hands. They think Trump is making a mistake by unilaterally abrogating agreements they did not themselves support in the first place. They can see that not remaining by commitments has a steep cost in itself.

Peer nation-states make agreements with the US in part because we tend to stick to our agreements, even through the change of administrations. The entirety of Trump’s vision of ‘deal-making’ is one in which you bully and cajole and threaten the other party until you get a deal that works for you and not them. That may make sense in the highly shystery world of New York real estate. But in the global order we’re going to be dealing with Germany and France and China and Mexico … well, we’re going to be dealing with them forever. Not everything is Kumbaya in international relations. Far from it. But except in war, and not even always them, it’s not zero sum.

This is the root of Trump’s focus on bilateral agreements and contempt for multilateral treaties and agreements. The latter are frameworks for international relations, in which various parties should derive benefits. The very concept is basically inscrutable to Trump. For him, ‘deals’ between nation-states are just real estate transactions writ large. You can see it in the language and mindset he is currently bringing to numerous trade regimes and agreements.

Both abroad and with Congress we can see clearly what should have been clear in advance: President Trump has no idea how to negotiate international accords or treaties or how to pass laws. These require building coalitions and trust because you’ll need to work with the same actors again in the future. You also need to build coalitions of people or nations each of whom think they have something to gain from the effort. As Nocera noted in that column about the golf resort swindle, Trump’s idea of business is basically cheating. That doesn’t necessarily mean breaking the law, though Trump does plenty of that. It means making money by trickery and hard dealing in which the other party usually ends up screwed. Those just aren’t the skills that end up being effective for a President. But that’s all Trump knows. That’s why we currently have what amounts to governance via chaos and outburst. Trump doesn’t know how to be President.

[brvheart 1,752]

You just did it with Bob's MSNBC video. It goes against what you desperately want to believe so you immediately dismiss it as an untrustworthy liberal source without actual judging the information presented on its merits.

 

Just like I would expect you to do with Fox News or Breitbart. And with good reason. Because 99% of the time it will be editorialized, not objective.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is really how Trump seems to view everything.

 

 

Both abroad and with Congress we can see clearly what should have been clear in advance: President Trump has no idea how to negotiate international accords or treaties or how to pass laws. These require building coalitions and trust because you’ll need to work with the same actors again in the future. You also need to build coalitions of people or nations each of whom think they have something to gain from the effort. As Nocera noted in that column about the golf resort swindle, Trump’s idea of business is basically cheating. That doesn’t necessarily mean breaking the law, though Trump does plenty of that. It means making money by trickery and hard dealing in which the other party usually ends up screwed. Those just aren’t the skills that end up being effective for a President. But that’s all Trump knows. That’s why we currently have what amounts to governance via chaos and outburst. Trump doesn’t know how to be President.

 

 

I mean has anyone in journalism ever paused to think before they write?

 

Trump has been a developer for 30 years, and he doesn't pay anyone their full price?

 

I know this is hard to understand but there are very very few companies that can build big things. In fact only Trump can build anything.

 

This is why contractors who don't get paid keep going to work for him. Because he is the only game in town.

 

Trump has been successful as a developer because no one is willing to put a lien on the properties they helped build because Trump can hire really good lawyers who can make the government back down from enforcing labor laws, contractual laws, heck even the law of supply and demand.

 

Trump's lawyers are sooooo good no one can put a lien on property.

 

And as we all know the main requirement for being president is the ability to negotiate coalitions to act on international issues. Because NOTHING can be done without a committee in the entire world.

 

If Pakistan, Uruguay and Thailand aren't with you, forget getting anything done in the world.

 

This is why Bush's war in Iraq was sooo successful; he got 30 nations to join in. That is leadership, that is how you succeed!

 

 

Of course if you think being President is hard, imagine how hard to be a journalist. Not only do you need to have spell-checker...you must be able to read the minds of people you never met and extrapolate why they can/cannot accomplish anything after you make up some arbitrary rules for it.

 

That and re-write 30 years of a public companies successes with make believe stories that just so happen to fit the narrative you already have written.

[Fenxis 99]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/politics/trump-widow-johnson-call.html

[Balloon guy 158]

NYT is going to be losing a lot of its senior staff soon.

 

O'Keefe strikes again

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Interesting story about the failure of the Trump Tower in Toronto

 

How every investor lost money on Trump Tower Toronto (but Donald Trump made millions anyway)

[JustDoIt 10]

 

https://www.nytimes....hnson-call.html

 

Waited twelve days............he blew it should have blamed it on a filmmaker

 

"he knew what he was gettin into"....yep he said it. Of course you have heard the whole conversation.

 

Amazing....other families have stated they appreciated the call from the President.

 

One family provided the tape, why don't you listen to that tape? Might help you put things into context.

 

Let's see..........phone call was set up 24 hours before actual call....and the congresswoman just happen to be there listening.

 

The Congresswoman totally politicize a very sad moment........SAD

 

But at least Present did not get people killed in Libya and then lie about it.

 

 

 

.

[Fenxis 99]

One of these days you'll realize how far up your ass you have from defending DT actually doing all the BS that used to be levied at the Dems.

 

Cuckservative indeed.

[JustDoIt 10]

One of these days you'll realize how far up your ass you have from defending DT actually doing all the BS that used to be levied at the Dems.

 

Cuckservative indeed.

 

Who are you talking to?

[GOCUBSGO 77]

Who are you talking to?

 

I think it applies to several people in this thread.

[Dubey 1,035]

if it feels like he is talking to you, he is probably talking to you.

[Balloon guy 158]

Hopes Dim

 

I know its a fake news site, but still...it looks like the hopes of the dems that the Russian investigation will not get Trump after all.

 

Might get someone else though....

[Dubey 1,035]

Hopes Dim

 

I know its a fake news site, but still...it looks like the hopes of the dems that the Russian investigation will not get Trump after all.

 

Might get someone else though....

 

I'm going to assume you didn't actually read the article that you quoted.

 

this pretty much sums up the article:

 

"Nine months into the Trump administration, any notion that Capitol Hill would provide a comprehensive, authoritative and bipartisan accounting of the extraordinary efforts of a hostile power to disrupt American democracy appears to be dwindling"

 

 

 

 

it is absolutely incredible but not particularly surprising that you would post this story in support of your side. It clearly does not matter what the words actually say. You are going to take from it whatever you want to take from it.