Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[dmp]

Regarding "We": I have my suspicions about some members here, no electronics contributions, no comment on other sections, just an agenda on the Brewery.  It almost seems like it's part of a organisation plan, am I getting warmer?

DaveP

The only poster that fits that description in my observation is tands, and I've made several posts trying to point this out.
You can see his agenda only by what he tries to obfuscate. 
The methodology to manipulate opinions on facebook etc, are mirrored quite well in the approach tands takes here. Trying to control the narrative, straw men arguments.
I would love it if tands started his own thread to post his links in and left the  other discussion threads alone. Then people here would have the choice to read his viewing history of twitter and fringe conspiracy theory websites articles.

 

[Matador]

I would vote for Trump again tomorrow...

It is interesting to see how much people have twisted themselves into knots in order to justify actions...to be honest I liked the previous JR better!

Opinions vary... Trump is a wealthy fringe whacko... His campaign is self aggrandizing to promote his brand (I bet he claims his campaign as a business expense).  His statements are mostly just silly hyperbole. He claims to be a superior businessman while putting his own businesses into bankruptcy a half dozen times or more. Not my idea of a business leader to take seriously. His claim about his ability to create jobs just begs to be coupled with his "you're fired" cliche sound bite. He will probably end up tarnishing the value of his brand  this time around for not engaging his brain before opening his mouth.

PS: I don't think Trump is very good for American politics,,, even though he is apparently saying what a lot of people are thinking. Some things don't need to be stirred up (IMO). It distracts us from debating/resolving the real issues. 

If you study history past presidents have made similar moves, while no thoughtful person thinks Trump is correct for here and now.

 

[micaddict]

He'll play the Clinton card.

 

[CJ]

the ego operates on the unconscious assumption that it should never be stopped.

therefore, we never admit we were wrong until we acquire the self discipline and humility to do so.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is interesting to see how much people have twisted themselves into knots in order to justify actions...to be honest I liked the previous JR better!

It is possible for both positions to be true...  I am the same JR and not a kool aid drinker of any flavor koolaid.

As I have said a number of times President Trump was not my first, second or third choice.... but compared to Hillary Clinton (or Bernie) I would vote for him again. (If this is playing the "Clinton card" I will consistently play it because it remains true. )

I would only suggest looking at what President Trump has actually done, not what he tweets, or all the hyperbolic media kabuki theater.

The conservative SCOTUS appointment he promised to make and did was (IMO) important.

The deregulation he has supported is mostly a good thing (while I expect opinions to vary about that).

He has surrounded himself with a cabinet that seems better informed than him, and he appears to have taken at least some of their advice. He even moderated some of his more misguided policy statements even before the election.

I thought his recent Afghanistan speech was pretty solid, while it is a major cluster fsk situation over there. I argued here against President Obama's surge-lite (afghanistan it soo poor to stand up an Iraqi like central government and infrastructure, and he only gave his generals a fraction of the troops they required, no wonder it's still a mess). Just like I also argued against President Obama's premature troop withdrawal from Iraq.  The media seems to have forgot all about ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They are still there but systematically being reduced. The Iraqi military have taken back the center of tal afar, but as ISIS held territory shrinks they get more dug in. 

Of course it still stands to be seen if mad dog (and Secretary Tillerson) can thread that needle for President Trump.  He wants to expand India's participation in Afghanistan which Pakistan will consider as second front between them and India (Kashmir is still unsettled), making them even more twitchy (both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons).  This may just be another negotiation to get Pakistan back on the right track, but they have been playing both sides or more for as long as I can remember. Musharaf seemed like the last Pakistan leader that was interested in US as an ally, but he was a military dictator so had to go. When we agreed to pay Pakistan to help find terrorists they made sure they would never run out of them.  :

Trump is not managing the republican congress very well either, but surprise surprise Trump is not an establishment republican either so who could imagine? The congress in gridlock is not the worst thing that could happen, while leaving the ACA to continue it's decline is not very optimistic, and we have budget and debt ceiling coming up soon.

Tax reform seems like another missed opportunity while we will probably get some kind of watered down tax relief. Another one time (2nd time?)  offshore earnings repatriation, infrastructure deal, etc.

2018 will be interesting since both parties look pretty weak right now. But a lot can happen in a year (for better and worse).

JR

PS: Between here and social media I can understand the frustration caused by repeated personal attacks. Trump is used to punching back, which from POTUS is always punching down, but he can't ignore the bait. Please take away his twitter. 

I try not to reply in kind here and around the WWW as that just makes discussions meaner.

@CJ, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken....  8) Actually I thought Hillary would win in 2016 so i was wrong about that.

 

[DaveP]

If the power of courts is ignored, the whole rule of law and country is undermined.

This is true, but for some reason it's OK to break the law by being an illegal immigrant?

I never have liked lack of balance in an argument,

DaveP

 

[dmp]

This is true, but for some reason it's OK to break the law by being an illegal immigrant?
I never have liked lack of balance in an argument,
DaveP

Not sure why you think I do.  Or why the argument lacks balance.
In the USA, criminal deportations of illegal immigrants were prioritized under the Obama admin and had high numbers.
Hispanic LEGAL immigrants have rights, just like every one else. So a Sheriff that profiles & targets Hispanics in particular is breaking the law laid out by the US Constitution. Equal Protection.

 

[DaveP]

It would be good to see you say something along the lines of, " illegal immigration is wrong, but this guy unfairly targeted a racial group".  That is what I call balanced.

If you don't put both sides then it looks like you are condoning illegal immigration.

I had to go through all kinds of hoops to legally get into France. If others circumvent the system they can expect the consequences.

Out of interest, are Hispanic illegals a majority or minority, it might explain his actions?  In the UK, we go through the charade in the airport of taking our shoes and belts off, passing through the detectors, losing all the women's make-up etc because they don't want to appear racist when it's actually only Islamic Jihadists they are looking for.  But heaven forbid we should be racially profiling, better to screw up everyone's flights instead.  Still I guess your security is not that tight over there.

DaveP

 

[tands]

The countries people are fleeing from are the countries your culture and my culture have been exploiting and destroying for hundreds of years, Dave. Doing it right this second as we sit here.

Our laws are not holy.

 

[DaveP]

Africa is undergoing dramatic economic growth but the population is growing faster than the ability of the economy to absorb it.  The popularity of smartphones has made the West look more attractive than it actually is.  Ever wondered why there seems to be mainly male immigrants from Africa?

It is not the exploitation that has caused the crisis, it's providing medical treatment and water without social insurance and birth control that has caused the population explosion.  We have interfered with  African's lives for the best of humanitarian reasons, but have destroyed their natural equilibrium that had been in place since the dawn of humanity.

We needed ecology to teach us about joined up interconnectedness in nature, we need something similar to describe humanity.

DaveP

 

[tands]

Yeah, over here we made them slaves for 200 years, we're toppling their governments in the south as we've been for the last century, and leaving them and the rest of the world to make our clothes, deliver our packages, and pick our fields. Not much different than slavery. Not to mention what we're doing to iraq, iran, afghanistan, syria, or what our friends the saudis are doing..

I'm disgusted by it, Dave. You should be too.

.

 

[tands]

Male immigrants come because they can find work, and send money back to their families in the countries we've destroyed, Dave.

.

 

[DaveP]

Tands, of course I am disgusted by some of the things that have happened in the past, but I think your world view is distorted by  collective guilt.  I suggest that you travel to discover for yourself whether it is correct to feel the way you do.

I know nothing about South America, except it seems that Central America is controlled by drug lords and the South seems to have more than its fair share of corruption.  America's blame seems to be more about being a consumer of cocaine and burgers, causing drug production and rain forest clearing for cattle.

African problems are centred around tribalism which has always caused more death and destruction than anything the West has done.  I have lived and worked there so I saw it first hand.  You will not find the anger about the past there that you find in yourself.  they are far more concerned about corruption within their own governments today.

Any commodity is subject to the laws of supply and demand, it is fundamental.  If populations explode then people become cheap and they work for less, it is a sad and horrible truth but the only way to combat it is to reduce the supply.  I have heard of women in Bangladesh telling activists to leave them alone because they need the work.

I have traced my family tree back to 1690 and found that it was much the same situation in England in the past.  My ancestors had 8 -12 children per generation until 1900 when they dropped to three with the availability of birth control.  It was no accident that their lifestyle improved at the same time.  The shortage of cheap labour resulting from this caused succeeding governments to open the door to immigration to increase supply.  Merkel did exactly the same thing recently.

If populations were stable then it would not be possible to exploit cheap labour and wages would rise.

DaveP

 

[tands]

I know nothing about South America,

I don't think I can change that, Dave, but here is a fairly singular documentary made during/in el salvador's civil war (Reagan). It's about an hour, but it moves well. You can just imagine this repeated over and over for different countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHO-WiiZba0

Actually, I'm laughing at Pence, who it seems to me has been tasked with selling a war on venezuela. First Charlottesville, then the hurricane, then kim jong un shoots a missile over japan.  People weren't paying attention to his venezuela noises to begin with.

 

[micaddict]

Yup, if you know nothing about South (or the whole of Latin) America, do watch the documentary.

And yes, it's only one example.

And yes, it's representative of the rest.

You can do Chile and all the others later.

 

[DaveP]

Maybe there's hope ???
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40779377

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Tands, of course I am disgusted by some of the things that have happened in the past, but I think your world view is distorted by  collective guilt.  I suggest that you travel to discover for yourself whether it is correct to feel the way you do.

Not just travel, but spending time working with locals in other nations.... In the US maybe spend time in different states first. The US is large and diverse inside it's borders. Working for a large international corporation can provide opportunities for both international travel and exposure to other cultures.

I know nothing about South America, except it seems that Central America is controlled by drug lords and the South seems to have more than its fair share of corruption.  America's blame seems to be more about being a consumer of cocaine and burgers, causing drug production and rain forest clearing for cattle.

That is a somewhat simplistic over generalization but some truth in among the stereotypes..  Yes huge corruption and crime (kind of related. ).  Watching the Brazil olympics was an interesting test of what they could accomplish despite the business climate. They did pretty well considering. Of course SA is huge so lots of good stories too.

SA does not exist in a vacuum and many of our enemies foment mischief in this continent to tweak us. The previous european powers still have influence in SA from past colonialism.  The worldwide left-right political divide is alive and active in SA. Of course this is a gross oversimplification too.

African problems are centred around tribalism which has always caused more death and destruction than anything the West has done.  I have lived and worked there so I saw it first hand.  You will not find the anger about the past there that you find in yourself.  they are far more concerned about corruption within their own governments today.

Tribalism is also dominant in middle east politics but not necessarily viewed that way, it is more convenient to view it along a simpler religious divide, than a patchwork of extended families/tribes. (The ME is northern Africa after all. )

Any commodity is subject to the laws of supply and demand, it is fundamental.  If populations explode then people become cheap and they work for less, it is a sad and horrible truth but the only way to combat it is to reduce the supply.  I have heard of women in Bangladesh telling activists to leave them alone because they need the work.

The "too many people" argument is older than you and me  (Thomas Malthus’s ‘Essay on the Principle of Population' 1798).  Just like Al Gore predicted NYC would be underwater by now, past predictions said we could never feed this many people, so this many would starve to death by now.  Of course many people are hungry but mainly due to inefficiencies in farming and food distribution (and government mismanagement).

Indeed wages moderate on a supply-demand curve, but for private enterprise an additional factor controls whether a pay rate high enough to attract workers, can earn enough from that work output to be sustainable. So mandating $25/hr for burger flippers will not magically make that work worth it. Like Japan I expect more robots and less youth employment if minimum wage rates rise too high.

I have traced my family tree back to 1690 and found that it was much the same situation in England in the past.  My ancestors had 8 -12 children per generation until 1900 when they dropped to three with the availability of birth control.  It was no accident that their lifestyle improved at the same time.  The shortage of cheap labour resulting from this caused succeeding governments to open the door to immigration to increase supply.  Merkel did exactly the same thing recently.

I won't speak for your ancestors but in the distant past large families were needed to mitigate against higher death rates.  12 children in one  19th century family seems like a luxury only wealthy could afford.  From a quick google, UK adult death rates improved dramatically after 1850 (due to improved nutrition, and sanitation). Typical family size dropped from 5.5 children in 1871 to 2.4 children by 1921. Since then we have dropped below the replacement rate of 2 children per couple.

If populations were stable then it would not be possible to exploit cheap labour and wages would rise.

DaveP

There are two ways to look at this "exploitation" . I have written about this before but the number in extreme poverty around the world is falling still..  Of course many in the US consider extreme poverty as not having netflix.

I try to avoid simple answers for hard problems.  Japan has a stable (shrinking ? not growing) population and is forced to depend on robots more these days because they do not embrace immigration.  Immigration is generally a win-win but it must be lawful and orderly. 

Dave I agree with you more than not, but added some of my own observations.

JR

@ tands regarding waging war against venezuela I have actually written a lot about that country's gradual economic decline  since well before Chavez died. Venezuela was once one of the wealthiest nations in SA but decades of socialism have taken a toll.  They were buoyed up by huge oil reserves and high oil prices, until that market became more competitive. While just about every other oil producing nation is pumping more oil today than in the past, venezuela has allowed its nationalized oil industry to degrade dues to lack of maintenance and new investment after the government took the facilities away from private industry. Oil exports are the only thing keeping venezuela from being a failed state now and that output is expected to drop even further (not to mention their aging oil infrastructure have higher per barrel costs, reducing revenue generated from those sagging oil output sales.).  The venezuelan people have poor access to food and medicine, while Maduro is dissolving the democratic legislature and trying to perfect his conversion to dictatorship.  Maduro's cuban "advisors" are helping him maintain order. He has also armed his political supporters  to help control a very unhappy population.  I do not support regime change, even one as deplorable as Maduro's, but the venezuelan people deserve any help they can get, and a better future.

 

[DaveP]

I won't speak for your ancestors but in the distant past large families were needed to mitigate against higher death rates.

Yes, 12 ended up as 8 and 8 ended up as 5 on average.  My family were watermen and lightermen on the river Thames in London, they had an apprenticed trade which probably put them above labourers, but far from well off.  Their wives used to have a baby every two years on average, they used breast feeding as birth control, as that was all that was available.

@JR.  Interesting data.  I tend to make simple broad strokes so as not to bore people and to encourage debate.  There is not much point in me writing essays that no-one will read.

DaveP

 

[tands]

We both know that whoever the US government has in mind to replace Maduro will be worse for the venezuelan people you claim to care so much about, John, and better for us. Spare me your crocodile tears.

 

[DaveP]

A few examples of UK media bias picked up today.

Trump going to Houston too soon and putting a strain on their resources.

Melania going to Houston in stilletos

Melania disaster chic.

Melania will need more than a Flotus hat.

I seem to remember Bush being criticized for not helping Katrina soon enough, but when Trump learns from that lesson he gets no support from the press, only snide remarks

Surely Trump makes enough mistakes for them to feed on, without the press lowering themselves when he does something right?

So much integrity has gone south since I was a kid, it used to be that bankers and journalists had a very high professional reputation  along with doctors, these kind of cheap shots do their cause no good at all.  If people can't pull together in a disaster then they are in trouble.

DaveP