Donald Trump watch

The most fascinating thing for me regarding USA's foreign policy these days is the development of USA-Saudi-Israel axis. Not a million years I would have expected those 3 to work together. But it is happening. Enemy of my enemy really is a thing.

US's influence is declining on a global stage (relative to where it was, I mean), pulling out of the paris accord, major disconnect with the intelligence arm of the US as it relates to executive power, not re-certifying the Iran deal, filling cabinet positions with large donors like DeVos (widely ridiculed), idiots like Ben Carson, or crooks like Wilbur Ross--people in his administration are either openly compromised (Wilbur, Kushner, Trump Jr etc) or there due to nepotism (whoops, Kushner, Trump Jr again, Ivanka Trump etc) who are known as incompetent. This is proven by continuous leaks that make our government look like it's being run by 6 year olds. There is a lot more. He and his party have failed at all major legislations so far with no guarantee their baby of tax cuts for the rich passes.

Then there are things he tried to do but has failed at: banning trans in the military--was refuted by everyone including his own military, obamacare repeal and replace was 7+ years in the making with majorities in Congress and Republican president--failed by his own senate members, travel ban has tried to be implemented but continues to be ruled unconstitutional (because it is), Mexico has not backed down on "paying" for the wall, and as of right now there is no wall that is planning on being built, factory where he saved jobs is sending jobs overseas anyway (Carrier). In fact, he has followed through on no campaign promises whatsoever.

Indeed, he's done this against the background of the worst approval ratings in the history of the presidency, is under investigation from a special counsel and the senate intelligence committee (if I got that right). Either through the media or through documents released by the special counsel, you can see clear collusion by members of the Trump administration. Meanwhile his former campaign manager has been indicted as well. People all over the world laugh at him (see: the leaked conversations of trump begging the Mexican president).

Bro, that's just off the top of my head.

Pedram wrote:

Unique wrote:

Pedram wrote:


Wasn't implying Maduro is worse than Assad, i just named top five leaders who in my opinion have been a total failure at their jobs, Trump is definitely up there simply by not being to able achieve any legislative victory (and also making things worse) since taking office.

what has he made worst.

I don't expect you to see these stuff as negative but here you go anyway:

Signed order to loosen financial regulations imposed by the Dodd–Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Announced the U.S. would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris climate agreement until officially withdrawing on November 4, 2020.

Signed memorandum rolling-back the Obama administration's policy of easing restrictions with Cuba.

Instructed the Pentagon to develop a policy on transgender service members, notably considering their individual combat deployability, and curtailing subsidies for medical treatment or operations.

Issued a presidential pardon for Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted for contempt of court.

Source

well the climate thing I fully agree on. he sees this whole climate bull shit the same as me. nobody wants to fix the climate problem they only want to make money from it.

CBarca wrote:I wish I could at least laugh at some of the banterous things that he does, says, or has happen. Like McLewis though, with him being president of my nation, it's impossible to see much humor.

Would be curious McLewis to hear your thoughts on how much you think the Trump presidency was racially motivated. Would he have had any chance if our previous president for 8 years wasn't black?

It's impossible not to think there was a degree of racial motivation. There are a lot of white folks who hated Obama simply because he wasn't white. It's that simple. Those same people refuse to admit that yet it doesn't make it any less true. Those same people remain supporters of Trump to this very day.

As for your second question, I think that depends on who would've been president had it not been Obama, which means McCain or Romney. The answer is yes, I still think he would've had a chance due to his populist stance on so many topics. He positioned himself as an anti-McCain and an anti-Romney and that has certainly resonated with lower class GOP voters who see themselves reflected more in him than in either of those 2, who were far more members of the Establishment. So yeah, he'd have a chance, but I don't know if he would've won based solely on his attitude juxtaposed by that of Romney and McCain. The sexual allegations alone would've likely made near impossible for him up against either of them.

McLewis wrote:

CBarca wrote:I wish I could at least laugh at some of the banterous things that he does, says, or has happen. Like McLewis though, with him being president of my nation, it's impossible to see much humor.

Would be curious McLewis to hear your thoughts on how much you think the Trump presidency was racially motivated. Would he have had any chance if our previous president for 8 years wasn't black?

It's impossible not to think there was a degree of racial motivation. There are a lot of white folks who hated Obama simply because he wasn't white. It's that simple. Those same people refuse to admit that yet it doesn't make it any less true. Those same people remain supporters of Trump to this very day.

As for your second question, I think that depends on who would've been president had it not been Obama, which means McCain or Romney. The answer is yes, I still think he would've had a chance due to his populist stance on so many topics. He positioned himself as an anti-McCain and an anti-Romney and that has certainly resonated with lower class GOP voters who see themselves reflected more in him than in either of those 2, who were far more members of the Establishment. So yeah, he'd have a chance, but I don't know if he would've won based solely on his attitude juxtaposed by that of Romney and McCain. The sexual allegations alone would've likely made near impossible for him up against either of them.

if there is enough racist people in America to decide a presidential election in trumps favour how did Obama get enough votes to become president when he ran.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:

CBarca wrote:I wish I could at least laugh at some of the banterous things that he does, says, or has happen. Like McLewis though, with him being president of my nation, it's impossible to see much humor.

Would be curious McLewis to hear your thoughts on how much you think the Trump presidency was racially motivated. Would he have had any chance if our previous president for 8 years wasn't black?

It's impossible not to think there was a degree of racial motivation. There are a lot of white folks who hated Obama simply because he wasn't white. It's that simple. Those same people refuse to admit that yet it doesn't make it any less true. Those same people remain supporters of Trump to this very day.

As for your second question, I think that depends on who would've been president had it not been Obama, which means McCain or Romney. The answer is yes, I still think he would've had a chance due to his populist stance on so many topics. He positioned himself as an anti-McCain and an anti-Romney and that has certainly resonated with lower class GOP voters who see themselves reflected more in him than in either of those 2, who were far more members of the Establishment. So yeah, he'd have a chance, but I don't know if he would've won based solely on his attitude juxtaposed by that of Romney and McCain. The sexual allegations alone would've likely made near impossible for him up against either of them.

if there is enough racist people in America to decide a presidential election in trumps favour how did Obama get enough votes to become president when he ran.

Many people couldnt afford to vote. The country was in a recession and many people on the lower end of the spectrum werent allowed to or couldnt afford to take off and vote.

Also many people wouldnt have voted either way because they were mad at republicans(bush mainly) for the recession.

I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper. the reason I asked the question was unless America changed its population then the same people that put trump in office are the same people that put Obama in office.

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper. the reason I asked the question was unless America changed its population then the same people that put trump in office are the same people that put Obama in office.

Cant afford to vote is exactly what it sounds like. People too impoverished to give up the time it would take to vote.

The vast majority of Americans live in 2 states:

1)Paycheck to Paycheck- This means they walk a tight rope in which they make just enough to survive. No savings or anything like that. They earn what they live on, and then wait until the next pay period to earn enough to live on again. In many cases expenses will carry over and they are in debt. This was even more pronounced during the recession in 08.

2) Right to work states- In right to work states your boss can fire you at ANY time for ANY reason. This is very important to note when you look at how many layoffs happened during the recession, and how many more people were available to take your job if you didnt tow the line. Oh, you want to be late to your shift to vote? You're fired, and Billy up the street will happily take your job and not be late to vote. You are on a tight rope.

People just surviving cant expend the effort to vote because they have to work to survive as their expenses are finely tuned. They cant afford the risk.

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

Pretty sure it's the same here. At least it was this week.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

To be fair when it was started it was done so as not to interfere with farming duties as the voting population were mostly farmers.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

To be fair when it was started it was done so as not to interfere with farming duties as the voting population were mostly farmers.

In 2017, that is a pretty retarded reason, even if it wasn't that in 1790

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

but that wouldent make sense to the argument either. most of the poor people without jobs are black. so if what people are saying is true then it would mean a lot of black people voted for trump. be interesting to see what states voted for Obama and what states voted for trump.

Unique wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

but that wouldent make sense to the argument either. most of the poor people without jobs are black. so if what people are saying is true then it would mean a lot of black people  voted for trump. be interesting to see what states voted for Obama and what states voted for trump.

Black people are not most of anything in America outside of NFL/NBA players. You are aware that black people are ~11% of the population in the ENTIRE country right?

The majority of the poor in America are white as they are the majority(as an ethnic group) in this country.  Once you get out of the cities or the south you rarely see ethnic minorities at all.

The idea that the majority of poor in America are black is one based in media talking points.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

but that wouldent make sense to the argument either. most of the poor people without jobs are black. so if what people are saying is true then it would mean a lot of black people  voted for trump. be interesting to see what states voted for Obama and what states voted for trump.

Black people are not most of anything in America outside of NFL/NBA players. You are aware that black people are ~11% of the population in the ENTIRE country right?

The majority of the poor in America are white as they are the majority(as an ethnic group) in this country.  Once you get out of the cities or the south you rarely see ethnic minorities at all.

The idea that the majority of poor in America are black is one based in media talking points.

so when people say black people cant get jobs and don't get the same chances as white people in education and employment then its all a lie.

Unique wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote:
but that wouldent make sense to the argument either. most of the poor people without jobs are black. so if what people are saying is true then it would mean a lot of black people  voted for trump. be interesting to see what states voted for Obama and what states voted for trump.

Black people are not most of anything in America outside of NFL/NBA players. You are aware that black people are ~11% of the population in the ENTIRE country right?

The majority of the poor in America are white as they are the majority(as an ethnic group) in this country.  Once you get out of the cities or the south you rarely see ethnic minorities at all.

The idea that the majority of poor in America are black is one based in media talking points.

so when people say black people cant get jobs and don't get the same chances as white people in education and employment then its all a lie.

There are laws on the book(Affirmative Action) which directly stipulates that admissions take race into account.

Say you were American and born in the same time as me(~late 80's) and wanted to enter Latter education the same year as me.

You: White male who scored in the top 25% in examinations.

Me:Asian male who scored in the top 10% in examinations.

On paper my examination scores are higher than yours. On a pure meritocracy I would get in over you right?

Now add a variable:

Say, while you scored in the top 25% of all examination when compared to other white males you scored in the top 5%.

Say I, who scored in the top 10% of all examinations only scored in the top 30% when compared to other Asian male applicants.

You would get in to the average US university over me despite the fact I scored higher than you barring some miraculous external factor(Me being a famous table tennis player, being the nephew of George Takei,,,ect,ect).

Wouldnt this be a clear example of the same education not being available to people based on race? That is the case in America right now, and Harvard is being sued for this very fact.

Come on Unique how did you make that jump? how is that even related?

rincon wrote:Come on Unique how did you make that jump? how is that even related?

i wasn't giving my opinion I was asking a question. I made a statement before saying that in the usa black people have the same chances as anyone because if a black guy can be president that a black guy can be anything he likes. that statement was shot down by people saying that's not true. now somone said most of trumps votes were for racist reasons yet my theory was the same people that voted for Obama also voted for trump. then betty said that's not true because most people with jobs didn't bother to vote because they cant get the time off or they are worried about getting fired. so I assumed by everything ive been told that most of the people in that bracket would be white. so that would mean that in the poor places where jobs are scarce more black people would be on that list. so a lot of the people that voted in them places would be black. now betty is saying that's not right. now I'm not arguing because I don't know the facts I'm simply asking what facts are true because they cant both be true.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about cant afford to vote. how poor do you have to be if you don't have enough money to tick a box on a piece of paper

For some retarded reason elections in the US are on a Tuesday that is a regular work day as any other.

This exactly.

@Unique yes they can both be true. Betty said that the majority of poor people are not black, not that the majority of black people are not poor. If 60% of black people are poor, that is indeed the majority but that is only about 6-7% of the US according to Beth's figure. Then if 20% of non-blacks are poor that's already about 18% of the US. So most of the poor population wouldn't be black, but most of the black population is poor.

rincon wrote:@Unique yes they can both be true. Betty said that the majority of poor people are not black, not that the majority of black people are not poor. If 60% of black people are poor, that is indeed the majority but that is only about 6-7% of the US according to Beth's figure. Then if 20% of non-blacks are poor that's already about 18% of the US. So most of the poor population wouldn't be black, but most of the black population is poor.

I understand what your saying about % but if only 11% of americans are black and trump got most of his votes for racist reasons then how did Obama get to serve 2 terms as president. he would have had to get votes from the same people that voted for trump.

Unique wrote:

rincon wrote:@Unique yes they can both be true. Betty said that the majority of poor people are not black, not that the majority of black people are not poor. If 60% of black people are poor, that is indeed the majority but that is only about 6-7% of the US according to Beth's figure. Then if 20% of non-blacks are poor that's already about 18% of the US. So most of the poor population wouldn't be black, but most of the black population is poor.

I understand what your saying about % but if only 11% of americans are black and trump got most of his votes for racist reasons then how did Obama get to serve 2 terms as president. he would have had to get votes from the same people that voted for trump.

Many people who voted for Obama didnt vote at all last year is the answer you are looking for.

Unique wrote:

rincon wrote:@Unique yes they can both be true. Betty said that the majority of poor people are not black, not that the majority of black people are not poor. If 60% of black people are poor, that is indeed the majority but that is only about 6-7% of the US according to Beth's figure. Then if 20% of non-blacks are poor that's already about 18% of the US. So most of the poor population wouldn't be black, but most of the black population is poor.

I understand what your saying about % but if only 11% of americans are black and trump got most of his votes for racist reasons then how did Obama get to serve 2 terms as president. he would have had to get votes from the same people that voted for trump.

Hillary was a crap candidate that didn't get the support of many. A lot less people voted in the last election that on Obama's. Also not everyone that voted for Trump is racist of course, nor did he likely get most of his votes for racist reasons. The US has a lot of racism but its not all of them.

rincon wrote:

Unique wrote:

rincon wrote:@Unique yes they can both be true. Betty said that the majority of poor people are not black, not that the majority of black people are not poor. If 60% of black people are poor, that is indeed the majority but that is only about 6-7% of the US according to Beth's figure. Then if 20% of non-blacks are poor that's already about 18% of the US. So most of the poor population wouldn't be black, but most of the black population is poor.

I understand what your saying about % but if only 11% of americans are black and trump got most of his votes for racist reasons then how did Obama get to serve 2 terms as president. he would have had to get votes from the same people that voted for trump.

Hillary was a crap candidate that didn't get the support of many. A lot less people voted in the last election that on Obama's. Also not everyone that voted for Trump is racist of course, nor did he likely get most of his votes for racist reasons. The US has a lot of racism but its not all of them.

I agree with that. my sons play call of duty on line with lots of americans and they cant believe some of the racist stuff they say.

Now he's repeatedly retweeting some British far-right racist group

One keeps wondering how much lower and how much more blatant this whole thing can get
If the US electorate doesn't react strongly in coming elections, i.e. mid terms and 2020, this will be a serious, serious worry that the most basic standards of political discourse have been irreparably shattered on the highest level

We are in 'anything goes' territory with regards to the so-called *bleep* 'leader of the free world' and it's absolutely shocking

Especially when paired with the serious assault on the very notion of news and facticity that is under way and being relentlessly propagated by the right wing

I mean I realize everyone hates the guy, laughs about him, complains about him every daym and we all know he's intolerable, but when is the US public going to take a stand and say enough is enough?

The guy needs to go. HE NEEDS TO GO. He needs to step down. STEP DOWN. Not today, yesterday. Forget impeachment or any of that shit.
Relentless public pressure is needed to show that such blatant violation of all a democracy and a lawful state stands for by the very top elected guy is not accepted any longer.

Everyone in the US who has a camera pointed at them, a blog readership or a twitter following, needs to push and demand Trump to step down.
The media have to take a stand and demand he steps down.
Public figures have to take stand and *bleep* DEMAND he steps down.

You guys need to take a CONCERTED effort to *bleep* get us rid of this catastrophy that has taken over. I'm close to vomiting here. I feel *bleep* physically sick.

How on earth is this not happening? If a German chancellor would say or behave only 1% as vile and disgusting as Trump, they'd have to go. Because everyone would demand they go. They'd be gone within a week.

Forget replying or conversing with the right wing. It's a waste of energy. They are dangerous lunatics who are out to detroy democracy and the notion of human rights.

Get busy demanding the guy to leave. How is this not happening?


This is *bleep* serious