America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

To be fair, that list of promises was unkeepable from the moment he said it. The problem is that I'm not entirely sure that Trump knew that.

It's one thing to be trying really hard. That's a positive. But to be trying really hard because he was so ignorant of the system in place that he ended up saying things that were basically impossible is another. Ten points for effort, minus fifty points for not knowing what was actually required for what he was promising.



It's true, but I'm not sure that Trump realised that the post wasn't a dictatorship. He seems disappointed with both the lack of actual power and the workload required to achieve the little that a President can.

!00% right. The problem isn't that Trump has failed to enact the things he promised in the first 100 days - that was to be expected - the problem is that he promised that he had simple answers to difficult issues - immediately repeal & replace Obamacare, his "secret plan" to defeat ISIS, tear up NAFTA, build the Wall & have Mexico pay for it etc. etc. - & people voted for him based on those fake promises. Equally disturbing is that Trump in his brash, unwarranted self-confidence actually believed that he would be able to solve all these problems with ease: "who knew healthcare was so complicated?" ... anyone who had actually bothered to spend any time learning about it.

 

[Parker]

Most of the people I know who voted for Trump did so solely because they did not want Clinton to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Having Trump pick a conservative Justice is all they wanted from his presidency so many of them are very pleased with him.

 

[Biggles]

Most of the people I know who voted for Trump did so solely because they did not want Clinton to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Having Trump pick a conservative Justice is all they wanted from his presidency so many of them are very pleased with him.

That's an interesting perspective. It's the one thing that Trump has delivered on. It speaks to the GOP's social conservative base, but I'm not sure how significant it will be for the "rust-belt" blue collar voters who swung the election for Trump.

 

[Parker]

That's an interesting perspective. It's the one thing that Trump has delivered on. It speaks to the GOP's social conservative base, but I'm not sure how significant it will be for the "rust-belt" blue collar voters who swung the election for Trump.

I suppose they believe that a conservative supreme court will have more of an effect on their life in the long run than the 4 or potentially 8 years that Trump may hold office.

 

[prousonhairy]

Same here, just about every one I know that voted for Trump, voted because of the Supreme Court seat(s). Even though most didn't care for the guy.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You can be your own judge of which ones he did/didn't keep, but I note that for some of our resident spinners the goalposts seemed to have already moved, to "but he tried really hard, and the things that went wrong obviously weren't his fault".

Which makes it all the more ironic, because that's what a lot of Obama supporters said throughout his presidency too. You know, the president that some resident Trump supporters dismiss as a man of many words and few actions.

 

[Northstar]

It's one thing to be trying really hard.

Has he really been trying hard though? He reminds me of that guy who makes a long list of home improvement jobs, goes and buys the stuff, but doesn't get much further because he didn't really think things through. That doesn't really sound like someone that's trying.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Has he really been trying hard though? He reminds me of that guy who makes a long list of home improvement jobs, goes and buys the stuff, but doesn't get much further because he didn't really think things through. That doesn't really sound like someone that's trying.

He's certainly trying for to improve his golf game.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Has he really been trying hard though? He reminds me of that guy who makes a long list of home improvement jobs, goes and buys the stuff, but doesn't get much further because he didn't really think things through. That doesn't really sound like someone that's trying.

Reminds me of my brother-in-law making multiple trips to Menard's when he was building a deck at his seasonal campsite. He went there 3 times on the day my dad, brother, and I went to the campground to help him build the deck.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Has he really been trying hard though? He reminds me of that guy who makes a long list of home improvement jobs, goes and buys the stuff, but doesn't get much further because he didn't really think things through. That doesn't really sound like someone that's trying.

Has he been trying hard?

And the most important stat of all:

One can argue the merits of each law signed, each executive order, the number of golf trips etc. , but if you listen to the MSM you could come away with the impression that nothing got done and all he did was play golf and tweet. Obviously that isn't the case.

 

[Omnis]

If Trump's tax plan goes through, then everything will have been worthwhile. 15% corporate, and a doubled standard deduction? That's fantastic. People are going to hire or give bonuses/dividends like crazy.

I'll actually be able to save something rather than paying a fifth of my yearly earnings to uncle sam.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I love how you ignore the things he had done.

Not all political promises are made equally. He might have fulfilled some smaller promises, but the bigger ones have not been.

 

[IforceV8]

 

[Danoff]

You gotta be kidding!

Trump in office is exactly what I might have expected him to be. He's not a "deep thinker" - he has simplistic, gut responses to most issues - things that have worked well for him in his real estate & celebrity/TV career. The reality is, governing the United States is hard - very hard. Foreign policy is complicated with many aspects to weigh in the balance. Trump, in his egotistical self confidence imagined that bluster & tough talk would work - it won't ... & he's starting to realize that. The same is true with many domestic issues - his failure to push through a replacement for the ACA surprised him: "who knew health care was so complicated".

A big chunk of American voters also have "simplistic, gut responses" to many issues - that's why they voted for him. But just because they like the idea of simple answers doesn't mean that simple answers will be effective. The border wall, NAFTA, relations with China - every issue is way more complicated than Trump ever imagined. The proposed changes to the tax code will be next thing to blow up in his face as the implications of huge tax cuts for the rich & corporations start to become apparent - a ballooning deficit & accelerating inequality between the rich, & the poor & middle class.

Trump doesn't have the intelligence, the focus, the imagination or the patience to deal with complex issues. This is going to become more & more apparent as time goes on. It was pathetic to hear him, yet again, go on about his "great victory" on election night during today's speech in front of the NRA. Really ... when have you ever in the past heard a President keep bringing up his election success in that way?

I don't actually disagree with any of that. But it does take some humility to admit that it was more complicated than he expected, and I really cannot remember a president so determined to deliver on campaign promises. What's been going on is that during the campaigns politicians have been selling ridiculous over-simplified bad ideas to voters for a long time to get votes - all the while knowing that they'd never deliver (because it would be a bad idea to do so). So the moment they get into office they ditch most of their platform, especially the most ridiculous elements.

Trump actually believed that stuff (or at least it seems that way), so when he showed up he set out to really deliver the dumb stuff that people swallowed during the campaign. And I give him credit for that. Like I said, I don't really like his platform, but I still kinda like him. It may not have been smart, or humble or whatever you want to say, for him to run the campaign that he did and then try to deliver on those promises... but he did, and he has, and I see something in that that has been missing from politics for a very very long time.

Try to keep in mind, I despise at least half of just about every politician's platform. So I look for other qualities to appreciate, because it's a virtual guarantee that their policies are half baked. I hope that after actually getting (or at least seeing an honest attempt and reasonable failure at delivering) what they wanted, a good portion of America can finally wake up and stop wanting these bad ideas.

 

[DK]

What's triggering Trump? It's checks and balances!

No wonder he loves the likes of Putin and Duterte.

In more positive news, Gorka is set to leave the White House.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What's triggering Trump? It's checks and balances!

No wonder he loves the likes of Putin and Duterte.

In more positive news, Gorka is set to leave the White House.

Sounds more like an issue with how they go about passing laws, and less about checks and balances. If he had complained about the courts holding up his travel bans in that as well, I could see your interpretation being correct. However, the article mentions how his ban was struck down and then amended and resubmitted.

What seems to have him, is his own party not backing him and making it difficult to see legislation he wants. Which as far as I know has been an issue for most Presidents, even when they have a party majority. Though in the case of Trump it seems worse then people realize. Also I question why the Article says he has issue with the constitution, the closest thing I can think of that is comparable at hand, is the exact reason why people call for term limits on Representatives.

 

[huskeR32]

People are going to hire or give bonuses/dividends like crazy.

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 644632

That is exactly what rich people do... far more effectively than government.

 

[Dennisch]

President Donald Trump said he would meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un amid heightened tensions over his country’s nuclear weapons program if the circumstances were right.

“If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it,” Trump said Monday in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News. “If it’s under the, again, under the right circumstances. But I would do that.”

The U.S. has no diplomatic relations with North Korea, and as recently as last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at the United Nations that the U.S. would negotiate with Kim’s regime only if it made credible steps toward giving up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

“Most political people would never say that,” Trump said of his willingness to meet with the reclusive Kim, “but I’m telling you under the right circumstances I would meet with him. We have breaking news.”

Asked later about Trump’s comments, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that “clearly conditions are not there right now” for a meeting. He said “we’ve got to see their provocative behavior ratcheted down.”

North Korea has become the most urgent national security threat and foreign policy issue facing Trump as his first 100 days in office passed. Kim’s regime has continued development of its nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile program in defiance of international condemnation and sanctions. Military analysts have said North Korea is on course to develop a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. mainland as soon as 2020, during Trump’s term in office.


Bloomberg.

 

[DK]

I was wondering, how's Kansas doing?

 

[UKMikey]

If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

Appetising...

 

[Danoff]

If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

Appetising...

Also a very poor analogy. A closer analogy would be one in which the horse grew the oats, and someone came and stole the oats to give to the sparrows, but wasted most of the oats in the process. Ironically, had they let the horse have his oats, the sparrows would have had more as well.

 

[UKMikey]

Also a very poor analogy. A closer analogy would be one in which the horse grew the oats, and someone came and stole the oats to give to the sparrows, but wasted most of the oats in the process. Ironically, had they let the horse have his oats, the sparrows would have had more as well.

I'm not sure that'd be a closer analogy. Horses can grow oats? All they do is work and consume. As far as I know they only generate one thing.

 

[Danoff]

Horses can grow oats? All they do is work and consume. As far as I know they only generate one thing.

That's why it's a poor analogy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The U.S. has no diplomatic relations with North Korea, and as recently as last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at the United Nations that the U.S. would negotiate with Kim’s regime only if it made credible steps toward giving up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Isn't that a case of putting the cart before the horse? The United States wants a diplomatic solution to see North Korea disarm, but will only meet with the North Koreans once they have started to disarm. So what incentive do the North Koreans have to agree to meeting the Americans?

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that a case of putting the cart before the horse?

Well what choice do they have? You shouldn't change horses mid-stream. North Korea is such a tragedy, I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What's triggering Trump? It's checks and balances!

For those of you who might wonder what 'fake news' is, that article is a great example.

"Donald Trump slams 'archaic' US constitution that is 'really bad' for the country"

What load of crap.

 

[TexRex]

I was wondering, how's Kansas doing?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well what choice do they have?

Open up discussions without any conditions attached. The United States wants North Korea to disarm, so talk about the terms in those discussions. But so long as it's presented as "start to disarm and then we can talk", it will only reaffirm the North's belief that the United States is trying to inflict its view of the world on everyone else. It also seems to be doomed to fail from the outset so that if conflict comes about, the Trump administration can say "well, we tried the diplomatic approach" - but if they knew it wasn't going to work and proposed the talks in such a way that it would fall apart before it began, did they really try? Or did they just tick a box and move on?

 

[Danoff]

Open up discussions without any conditions attached. The United States wants North Korea to disarm, so talk about the terms in those discussions. But so long as it's presented as "start to disarm and then we can talk", it will only reaffirm the North's belief that the United States is trying to inflict its view of the world on everyone else. It also seems to be doomed to fail from the outset so that if conflict comes about, the Trump administration can say "well, we tried the diplomatic approach" - but if they knew it wasn't going to work and proposed the talks in such a way that it would fall apart before it began, did they really try? Or did they just tick a box and move on?

That post was mostly about carrying on using horse references. Sorry for beating a dead horse.