Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

[Tisme]

12/1/16

"We will destroy ISIS. At the same time, we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks," Trump told attendees at the U.S. Bank Arena. "Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It's time."

 

[SirRumpole]

I think LuuTzu is right -- a few quarters that are good for the bottom line. I worry that those few quarters will be followed by a few centuries of dark ages.

Howard, there is a thing called an election, in 4 years. Trump only barely scraped in this time, if he stuffs it up do you think he will be re-elected ? If he is then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.

 

[noco]

Judging from the individuals Mr. Trump is selecting to lead the government agencies, LuuTzu's guess is likely correct.

Appointees proposed so far -- A Secretary of Energy who wants to dismantle the Department of Energy. A Secretary of State who has announced that the US will go to war with China -- real war, not cold war, not a trade war, not a proxy war -- over the islands. An Attorney General whose record of human rights activities is near-criminal. Supreme Court appointees who are actively opposed to equality. A Secretary of Education who opposes public education. The Director of the Federal Communications Committee who opposes net neutrality. A Secretary of the Treasury whose company he headed was directly responsible for many foreclosures during, and contributing to, the financial crisis of 2008. The list goes on and on.

The consequences are already evident. For example, disregard for the environment has emboldened the State of Wyoming to fine companies that use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Insulting Mexico about a wall that will never be built, and would be of no value if built, but that will severely and adversely affect US - Mexico relations.

All headed by an infantile, egotistical, pathological liar. The parallels in history are too scary to list.

Very few have been confirmed to date, but that does not really matter. It is unlikely that better -- meaning more friendly to the world and all its inhabitants and all its creatures -- candidates will be proposed. What we see so far is likely what we will get -- even if these particular individuals are replaced by others.

One of the real tragedies is that the policies and actions of the US will not be contained within the US.

I think LuuTzu is right -- a few quarters that are good for the bottom line. I worry that those few quarters will be followed by a few centuries of dark ages.

Thanks for listening, Howard

So Howard do you think Obama was better than what you think Trump might be and that Hillary Clinton would have been better than Obama?

 

[wayneL]

Howard, there is a thing called an election, in 4 years. Trump only barely scraped in this time, if he stuffs it up do you think he will be re-elected ? If he is then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.

Just scraped in?

You did actually see the election results didn't you Horace? Trump gave Hilary and absolute whopping according to the college system that is used to decide president.

 

[SirRumpole]

Just scraped in?

You did actually see the election results didn't you Horace? Trump gave Hilary and absolute whopping according to the college system that is used to decide president.

The college system is BS. Clinton won the popular vote.

 

[Smurf1976]

My guess is that the Market believes that Trump will throw away environmental regulations, CC stuff, get friendly with Russia to end the sanctions, start a few proxy wars with China...

I was definitely expecting a more negative view (in the market) in Australia. I can see how US business might benefit but I just can't see what's really in it for Australia. At most if might keep iron ore and coal prices up for a while if China starts building a lot of military hardware etc but beyond that I'm not seeing it. How do we benefit from rising protectionism and the US moving to boost its own production in two of our key exports (coal and gas)?

Obviously the market thinks otherwise.

 

[luutzu]

The college system is BS. Clinton won the popular vote.

So did Bernie Sanders. He came out of nowhere and got very close to the popular votes as Hillary. And that's without much money, without name recognition, without the Clinton and DNC machine working together to screw him over.

There were voter fraud, restrictive closed primaries that only allow Democrat voters, registered at least six months in some states, to participate.

Then there's the Superdelegates who were all in Clinton's pockets long before the race even got started.

So not only were Bill Clinton's and Obama's policies alienated the Democratic (and independent/neutral voters) base, leading to voters wanting anyone but the establishment... they intentionally work against a popular candidate that is Sanders... all just so Hillary can be president.

If anyone's to blame for Trump, blame the Clintons and Obama and his DNC.

 

[SirRumpole]

I was definitely expecting a more negative view (in the market) in Australia. I can see how US business might benefit but I just can't see what's really in it for Australia. At most if might keep iron ore and coal prices up for a while if China starts building a lot of military hardware etc but beyond that I'm not seeing it. How do we benefit from rising protectionism and the US moving to boost its own production in two of our key exports (coal and gas)?

Obviously the market thinks otherwise.

We may come under pressure from the US not to sell coal and iron ore to China in the event of a conflict.

Will the US compensate us for lost revenue ?

 

[SirRumpole]

The resistance begins. In a Twitter account, far , far away...



US government scientists go 'rogue' on Twitter in defiance of Trump gag orders



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/us-federal-departments-go-rogue-on-twitter/8216352

 

[luutzu]

I was definitely expecting a more negative view (in the market) in Australia. I can see how US business might benefit but I just can't see what's really in it for Australia. At most if might keep iron ore and coal prices up for a while if China starts building a lot of military hardware etc but beyond that I'm not seeing it. How do we benefit from rising protectionism and the US moving to boost its own production in two of our key exports (coal and gas)?

Obviously the market thinks otherwise.

Maybe the Market reckons that since we've sold a large chunk of our assets and resources to China for lots of cold hard dollars, the coming war with China will mean us Aussies get to take it all back and there's not a thing they can do about it.

Except maybe send in a couple of fleets and airborne battalions? Who'd be crazy enough to do that right?

 

[luutzu]

We may come under pressure from the US not to sell coal and iron ore to China in the event of a conflict.

Will the US compensate us for lost revenue ?

They'll compensate us by not Liberating us the same way they do other third world countries with lotsa natural resources and a couple of canoes

 

[luutzu]

12/1/16

My brother sent me a link from WashingPost extract of his CIA speech.

The dude spent some 5 minutes of a 20 minute speech talking about the size of his Inauguration crowd and how pictures apparently do lie.

A bit unreal.

 

[luutzu]

The resistance begins. In a Twitter account, far , far away...



US government scientists go 'rogue' on Twitter in defiance of Trump gag orders



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/us-federal-departments-go-rogue-on-twitter/8216352

Heard that the Women's March on Washington the same day was larger than his Inauguration. Some of the signs was really funny... "This pu$$y grabs back!"

Then there's thousands of people gathering in NY etc. on very short notice to protest his DAPL pipeline, anti-abortion executive orders etc.

He might be great for American democracy. Or the end of it.

 

[McLovin]

The college system is BS. Clinton won the popular vote.

About 70k votes out of 130m would have flipped the election. Not that it really matters. Whatever you may think of Trump he won the election.

 

[SirRumpole]

About 70k votes out of 130m would have flipped the election. Not that it really matters. Whatever you may think of Trump he won the election.

No it doesn't alter the fact that he is President. Whether the majority think he is legitimate and what they do about it is another matter.

 

[noco]

The college system is BS. Clinton won the popular vote.

Rules is rules.....Clinton lost...Get over it.

The liberals won 52% of the preferred prefernce vote in South Australia last election but Jay Wetherill became Premier and the Labor Party won....Now how about that?

 

[McLovin]

Your Donny Trump suit is about to go up 20%.

 

[luutzu]

Judging from the individuals Mr. Trump is selecting to lead the government agencies, LuuTzu's guess is likely correct.

Appointees proposed so far -- A Secretary of Energy who wants to dismantle the Department of Energy. A Secretary of State who has announced that the US will go to war with China -- real war, not cold war, not a trade war, not a proxy war -- over the islands. An Attorney General whose record of human rights activities is near-criminal. Supreme Court appointees who are actively opposed to equality. A Secretary of Education who opposes public education. The Director of the Federal Communications Committee who opposes net neutrality. A Secretary of the Treasury whose company he headed was directly responsible for many foreclosures during, and contributing to, the financial crisis of 2008. The list goes on and on.

The consequences are already evident. For example, disregard for the environment has emboldened the State of Wyoming to fine companies that use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Insulting Mexico about a wall that will never be built, and would be of no value if built, but that will severely and adversely affect US - Mexico relations.

All headed by an infantile, egotistical, pathological liar. The parallels in history are too scary to list.

Very few have been confirmed to date, but that does not really matter. It is unlikely that better -- meaning more friendly to the world and all its inhabitants and all its creatures -- candidates will be proposed. What we see so far is likely what we will get -- even if these particular individuals are replaced by others.

One of the real tragedies is that the policies and actions of the US will not be contained within the US.

I think LuuTzu is right -- a few quarters that are good for the bottom line. I worry that those few quarters will be followed by a few centuries of dark ages.

Thanks for listening, Howard

He'll definitely be very good for the corporate welfare state.

Saw William Black interviewed on the Real News Network and the guy couldn't help but laugh out loud at the (unintentional) jokes Trump pulls with each of his Cabinet pick - like what you were saying, picking people to lead department they practically want to destroy or make a buck out of.

The nominee that got Black to laugh so hard was Trump's pick for what's her name that own and ran the WWF wrestling monopoly as Secretary of the US Small Business Administration.

It's funny because she got no experience running any department beside making money and donating $7.8M or so to Trump's campaign. Funny because she made her money by not employing her wrestlers but forced them to be their own independent business contractor. That way, if they suffer injuries, then they better be insured. No need to pay them healthcare, benefits etc. etc.

Then what wouldn't be so funny is when she's confirmed, a department that was designed to help small business and your average entrepreneur getting some tax breaks and cheap loans to start something... well those dreamers can stay in their garrage as she redefine what is a "small business". Her WWF is a small business and why would anyone want to put too much regulations on small business, right? But they will get cheaper loans from gov't, more tax breaks.

But just to show that Trump isn't a total idiot... his recent order to gut contraception from gov't benefits... while being sold as pro-life, family value and all that, is going to shift the current $1B+ American families currently receives to help with birth control.

Then there's the planned 20% tax on goods from Mexico to pay for that wall. Wouldn't US consumers ultimately pay for that tax increase? Will all of that extra cash goes towards the wall or somewhere else?

 

[luutzu]

2 1/2 minutes to Midnight.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-doomsdayclock-idUSKBN15A2JJ

 

[McLovin]

Then there's the planned 20% tax on goods from Mexico to pay for that wall. Wouldn't US consumers ultimately pay for that tax increase? Will all of that extra cash goes towards the wall or somewhere else?

Of course it will. It's a tax on US consumers. Who do you think will be the first to complain about the rising cost of products? The prez has pretty limited scope to raise taxes without congressional approval, so I'd put it more in the sabre rattling column at the moment.

Maybe Mexico could lease some land to China for a military base along the border to recoup some of the money they miss out on.