America - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

Predictably of course the Kingdom of Oil Fields Saudi Arabia is exempted from Trump's no immigrants from countries with links to terrorism list despite the fact that nearly every 9/11 hijacker was Saudi. No self-respecting western country should have trade deals or foreign relations with a country like that.

Yeah, did any of those loud mouth ****ers actually leave?

None of them wanted to go to Mexico. Strange that.

 

[xyloscissor]

And you cant ignore that all of the countries that were left of the list also include a Trump business deal that is in direct conflict with his role as President. I have yet to see any evidence that the Donald does anything for anybody that does not benefit his bank account.

Who should we let in then in your opinion, all of them? none of them? Oh I know, only the ones from countries The Trump didn't do business with?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Who should we let in then in your opinion, all of them? none of them? Oh I know, only the ones from countries The Trump didn't do business with?

It's almost as if you're arguing just for the sake of it.

It's the consistency, or lack thereof. Trump went all gung-ho on the "No Muslims" ra-ra front, but now, rather conveniently, his ban doesn't seem to include any countries his company stands to benefit from.

Are we now to believe there are exceptions to this "No Muslims" approach? Should we now not paint everybody with the same brush? That sounds suspiciously like a dirty liberal train of thought.

 

[IforceV8]

Who should we let in then in your opinion, all of them? none of them? Oh I know, only the ones from countries The Trump didn't do business with?

Sorry sweetheart, I am not playing the moving goalpost game with you.

 

[xyloscissor]

It's almost as if you're arguing just for the sake of it.

It's the consistency, or lack thereof. Trump went all gung-ho on the "No Muslims" ra-ra front, but now, rather conveniently, his ban doesn't seem to include any countries his company stands to benefit from.

Are we now to believe there are exceptions to this "No Muslims" approach? Should we now not paint everybody with the same brush? That sounds suspiciously like a dirty liberal train of thought.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it by a long shot, think about it, I'm sure he would like to keep them all out but he can't. I already said that in the post before. So far he is keeping to his promises to a large degree, we all know it's not possible to keep them all.

I'm being practical while others are not, at least he is saying no as much as he can. I'd still like an answer to my question, what should he be doing that he is not?

Sorry sweetheart, I am not playing the moving goalpost game with you.

What? Nothing has changed on my end, I told you why he did what he did and you say no no no he is protecting his own interest. I say he is protecting the country's interests.(even if that includes his, which I doubt was a consideration)

Am I really your sweetheart, because that would make me very happy, I'm a pitcher 👍

 

[Joey D]

"We're gonna build a wall, a tremendous wall. And MEXICO American businesses and consumers are going to pay for it!"
___________________
Top US imports from Mexico from here, it's not just tomatoes and tequila.

This is what I was afraid of. If Trump thinks having American businesses pay for a wall, then he really doesn't know as much about business as he wants you to believe. That 20% tariff will just be passed on to consumers and many of the products that strictly come from Mexico will just go up in price instead of having the company eat the difference. I'm also guessing some of these exports will end up in control of the cartels and they will just smuggle it into the US.

I'm still confused on what a wall will actually do. Something that can be defeated with a ladder or a shovel isn't exactly something that I would consider securing the border.

Hmm.💡

I can tell you why some of those countries were left off...oil. Trump probably didn't want to risk an oil embargo. The US also has military bases in Turkey, Qatar, and Kuwait, and I'm guessing Trump didn't want to jeopardize those installation being in those countries especially if he plans to step up the war against ISIS. So I'm guessing it's less about Trump's business dealings and more about US oil and military interests.

 

[Carbonox]

Yeah, did any of those loud mouth ****ers actually leave?

I'm sure Lena Dunham probably would've, but no other country in the world wants her. Which I fully understand.

 

[Joey D]

I'm sure Lena Dunham probably would've, but no other country in the world wants her. Which I fully understand.

Sadly, the same can be said for Amy Schumer too.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sure it is just a amazing coincidence.

No, it probably isn't a coincidence that Trump doesn't have business dealings in countries that are unstable :censored:holes like Somalia, Libya, Iraq or Syria. It's also probably not a coincidence that companies owned by a highly prominent American businessman didn't deal too much in Iran. And countries in the region that have traditionally been very US friendly probably don't make it coincidental to have American business dealings.



So when does the "gotcha" come into play?

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is what I was afraid of. If Trump thinks having American businesses pay for a wall, then he really doesn't know as much about business as he wants you to believe. That 20% tariff will just be passed on to consumers and many of the products that strictly come from Mexico will just go up in price instead of having the company eat the difference. I'm also guessing some of these exports will end up in control of the cartels and they will just smuggle it into the US.

The 20% tariff can only be passed of to consumers for so long, and not at all if alternatives are readily available that are cheaper. If the tariffs remain in place, for some goods it may well be cheaper to import them from somewhere tariff free, like Canada (please spare us Mr. Trump) or homegrown as production comes online. Who is going to buy a Dodge Ram truck that goes up in price by $6K overnight when a comparably equipped domestically produced pickup is available for the same price?

The real cost isn't the tariff being passed on to consumers IMO, it's the tariffs Mexico would likely throw up in response which will hamper the export of Amercian goods and services to Mexico. Given that Mexico has a yuuuuge trade surplus with the U.S., they aren't exactly in a position of strength. They need the Americans far more than the Americans need them.

Perhaps this is all negotiating tactics on the part of Trump. He's known for taking outrageous positions at the start of negotiations. We shall see how it turns out.

 

[prousonhairy]

Miami is the first "sanctuary city" to start complying with Trumps immigration policy.


http://usat.ly/2jD8s6X

 

[Biggles]

You're right, there's definitely a border/drug enforcement difference, but I don't get this fixation on trade deficits. Making consumer goods more expensive to eliminate a trade deficit and "win" doesn't really help anybody besides the contractors who'll be paid to build a wall.

Trump created a narrative about how the US was "losing" at everything (in spite of the fairly apparent fact that the US remains the richest, most powerful country on the planet). This "alternative" narrative was the basic underpinning of his campaign. Now that he's President he has to continue with the narrative & find a solution to the problem he invented for political purposes.

Perhaps @Danoff can volunteer to explain something about economics & the mutual benefits of international trade to the President - it doesn't even have to be "Austrian" economics, just basic grade 8 level will do.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Perhaps this is all negotiating tactics on the part of Trump. He's known for taking outrageous positions at the start of negotiations. We shall see how it turns out.

That is what I think.

 

[xyloscissor]

Miami is the first "sanctuary city" to start complying with Trumps immigration policy.

Up until now I don't recall ever seeing The Fed hold a city hostage in this way and I have mixed feelings, but I also didn't realize just how out of hand the funding of these cities has become. It is true that I happen to agree with the move solely because I believe immigration to be a federal matter not up for debate. I've already mentioned the few times states took immigration into their own hands but at least at those times the states wanted to do more not less. I also think all those social program dollars to be a joke.

Whenever I think of The Fed overextending their reach it's been on a state level, mainly with highway funding but there have been a few others such as when the 'national I.D.' stuff was going on. Anyway here are some instances when The Fed decided that highway funds would only be given to states that comply with various sweeping federal laws that should be left to the state imo.

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

North Carolina Law May Risk Federal Aid

Without any doubt I don't like to see states held hostage because it strips their rights under The Constitution, hopefully once Trump is done reversing Obama's EO's and whatever else he feels necessary he will hold true to his promise and return power of state.

Meantime, I'll live with the strong arm of these cities and I hope it exposes just how crooked it all has become. Cities should answer to the state. Actually we don't even need city government at all because county is more than enough.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump continues to insist that there was a massive crowd in attendance for his inauguration:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/donald-trump-abc-america-interview/8217192

If you think this sounds like yesterday's news, so do he - but what's alarming is that despite insisting that he doesn't want to talk about it, it's incredibly easy for the media to get him to talk about it.

 

[xyloscissor]

Trump continues to insist that there was a massive crowd in attendance for his inauguration:

The narcissism is great with this one Obi Wan Kenobi lol.

He might be right if we use the alternate facts and include all the viewers on t.v. and inter highways. The truth is it means literally nothing either way.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The truth is it means literally nothing either way.

Except that it shows the continued complete lack of finesse from Trump when dealing with the media. He seems totally incapable of showing anything other than aggression wgen confronted with a story that he doesn't like. What do you think is going to happen when he is drawn into a serious issue that he takes umbrage to?

 

[xyloscissor]

Except that it shows the continued complete lack of finesse from Trump when dealing with the media. He seems totally incapable of showing anything other than aggression wgen confronted with a story that he doesn't like. What do you think is going to happen when he is drawn into a serious issue that he takes umbrage to?

Obviously I meant the attendance means nothing.

He'll fumble with the media for the next four years but he has always done that, his entire career. Actions speak louder than words however and he has all sorts of people around him to keep him in check well enough.

Should I post what Obama looks like when he speaks freestyle? Sure, why not.



Not to mention setting up a prompter at a small school kids qna, how about actually lip syncing a speech? Not the end of the world.

all the same, so what?

 

[Liquid]

I'm sure trying to stifle Mexican exports and working anti-productively by threatening the Mexican economy won't lead to an increase on the number of people ironically trying to move to the US.

Passing on the cost of a wall to US taxpayers taxes the definition of "Mexico" paying for it. What were people expecting? The wall to be built and then sending an invoice to the Mexican government?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What were people expecting? The wall to be built and then sending an invoice to the Mexican government?

Probably.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Passing on the cost of a wall to US taxpayers taxes the definition of "Mexico" paying for it. What were people expecting? The wall to be built and then sending an invoice to the Mexican government?

Probably.

I doubt it is that simple. For example, on Day one, Trump all but withdrew the US from the TPP and the NAFTA agreements, two agreements that seriously benefited Mexico. By cancelling his meeting with Trump, Mexico seriously risked its position in renegotiations on the NAFTA agreement, which would have been Trump's preferred weapon of choice in getting the wall paid for.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The Clock needed to be adjusted, as @Scaff recently mentioned, even the UK has taken to firing Trident missiles in our direction.

You can't ever get a start too early or too late, on your "demo run of bombing America". I mean hell NK love the game, and dream of a day they'll get out of their front yard with a missile.

 

[DK]

The price of cocaïne will surely go up.

Welp, there goes any support Trump had on Wall Street.

I'm sure trying to stifle Mexican exports and working anti-productively by threatening the Mexican economy won't lead to an increase on the number of people ironically trying to move to the US.

Passing on the cost of a wall to US taxpayers taxes the definition of "Mexico" paying for it. What were people expecting? The wall to be built and then sending an invoice to the Mexican government?

Hey, maybe he'll get New Mexico to pay for it.

 

[Robin]

The White House cannot spell our PM's name

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...hedule-for-visit-with-donald-trump/ar-AAmipwk

 

[Dennisch]

The White House cannot spell our PM's name

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...hedule-for-visit-with-donald-trump/ar-AAmipwk

Or your PM is secretly a porn star.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump continues to insist that there was a massive crowd in attendance for his inauguration:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/donald-trump-abc-america-interview/8217192

If you think this sounds like yesterday's news, so do he - but what's alarming is that despite insisting that he doesn't want to talk about it, it's incredibly easy for the media to get him to talk about it.

Well, you keep bringing it up. I had a massive amount of people here. They were showing pictures that were very unflattering, as unflattering — from certain angles — that were taken early and lots of other things. I'll show you a picture later if you'd like of a massive crowd...{...}We had a crowd — I looked over that sea of people and I said to myself, "Wow.".

The crowd as viewed from the podium or how Trump would have seen it:

In terms of a total audience including television and everything else that you have we had supposedly the biggest crowd in history. The audience watching the show. And I think you would even agree to that. They say I had the biggest crowd in the history of inaugural speeches. I'm honoured by that. But I didn't bring it up. You just brought it up.

This is more than likely true. The day after the inauguration NBC alone had 10 million hits for their inauguration video. Individual affiliates had multiple millions of hits. I don't know if anyone keeps track of internet viewing statistics but given the explosion of smart phones and internet availability vs. 8 or even 4 years ago, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude it was the most watched inauguration in history. If you include comic reworks like Bad Lip Reading, it's probably a slamdunk

 

[xyloscissor]

If anything, asking about the crowd size shows a complete ineptness on the part of the media. I could do a better job than that simply by asking @Scaff 's question; "Mr. President why did you use the single word 'alien' ?"

 

[Pako]

I liked Sean's interview with the POTUS, but I think we all know the problems and dangers we face. Reminding us of those issues does not solve those issues we have already identified. I'm ready for answers and solutions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If anything, asking about the crowd size shows a complete ineptness on the part of the media. I could do a better job than that simply by asking @Scaff 's question; "Mr. President why did you use the single word 'alien' ?"

It's a gotcha tactic. Bring up something about the issue, get him talking about it, then chastise him about talking about it. In a perfect world he'd just dismiss it right away and say he wants to get down to real business not nonsense but Trump gonna be Trump, that's why he won He should co-op Al Sharpton's theme - keepin' it real, keepin' it real!

 

[ryzno]