All Things Trump

[JimC]

A rather desperate reply. We are not talking a proven conflict of interest, we are talking about the potential conflicts of interest that accrue when a president with a large commercial empire, who has not stepped down from ownership or control of that empire, being involved with very large commercial deals directly with foreign nations.Someone with a shred of probity would have divested himself of all his business interests for the duration.

Do you really think you can equate that to the standard farming economy selling peanuts in the same way anyone in that business would have?

[Forty Two]

He did what Carter did - he handed over the businesses to his sons.

Carter handed over his business empire to his aged mother and his drunken brother (Billy of Billy Beer fame), and a supposedly "blind" trust operated by his closest confidante and aide named Charles Kirbo. He was both Carter's lawyer and financial trustee, and they'd been close associates for 15 years when Kirbo became trustee. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/04/us/c ... viser.html - that was his trustee of his blind trust - his closest confidante and adviser, who he met with consistently throughout his Presidency.

So, let's say Trump appointed Tom Barrack, Steve Feinberg or Rudy Giuliani as his trustee for his "blind trust" and had dinner with them weekly throughout his Presidency? Better?

Something tells me that anything short of selling everything would suffice, and even that might be a problem unless he donates all the proceeds to Planned Parenthood.

[JimC]

So selling apartments in Trump Tower to foreign companies presents no ethical issues, eh?

None so blind...

[pErvinalia]

They specifically said - - “Today, Americans face a host of new protectionist activity, including threats to withdraw from trade agreements, misguided calls for new tariffs in response to trade imbalances, and the imposition of tariffs on washing machines, solar components, and even steel and aluminum used by US manufacturers."

They are experts, so they should know that the EU has used all of those protectionist activities, and imposed tariffs on the same products. The EU claimed to be scandalised by Trump threatening a 10% tariff on German cars into the US, when the EU itself imposes a 10% tariff on US cars into the EU. As always, when the EU does it, it's reasonable, and when the US does it, it's not. The EU imposes very high tariffs on agricultural products from non-EU countries. The EU puts tariffs on more than 13,000 types of goods imported into it.

So your only argument is "it's not fair that they aren't talking about the EU being stoopid too!". Seriously, your whataboutism is off the scale.

Trump stated unequivocally - “If they drop their horrific barriers & tariffs on US products going in, we will likewise drop ours." What do the experts say? Should the EU also drop its barriers and tariffs, or is it just the US that has to do that?

Basically, you are unable to accept any criticism of the US (and particularly Trump), because you see everything as 100% political.

[pErvinalia]

[quote="chango369";p="2629820"]

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.

The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

...

Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal

[/quote]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1767497

[Animavore]

McCain requested Trump is not invited to his funeral. I've lots of respect for him. He's one of the only Republicans to stand up against the rapist piece of shit. Unlike the rest of the craven, immoral shitheads letting a rapist piece of shit walk all over them.

[Brian Peacock]

They specifically said - - “Today, Americans face a host of new protectionist activity, including threats to withdraw from trade agreements, misguided calls for new tariffs in response to trade imbalances, and the imposition of tariffs on washing machines, solar components, and even steel and aluminum used by US manufacturers."

They are experts, so they should know that the EU has used all of those protectionist activities, and imposed tariffs on the same products. The EU claimed to be scandalised by Trump threatening a 10% tariff on German cars into the US, when the EU itself imposes a 10% tariff on US cars into the EU. As always, when the EU does it, it's reasonable, and when the US does it, it's not. The EU imposes very high tariffs on agricultural products from non-EU countries. The EU puts tariffs on more than 13,000 types of goods imported into it.

So your only argument is "it's not fair that they aren't talking about the EU being stoopid too!". Seriously, your whataboutism is off the scale.

Trump stated unequivocally - “If they drop their horrific barriers & tariffs on US products going in, we will likewise drop ours." What do the experts say? Should the EU also drop its barriers and tariffs, or is it just the US that has to do that?

Basically, you are unable to accept any criticism of the US (and particularly Trump), because you see everything as 100% political.

At the risk of sounding like Galaxian, many people are politically myopic and just don't see the bigger picture. Trade wars have few winners economically even if their prosecution does bolster the perceived potency of politicians in the short-term. Making things more expensive is not the way to boost the economy or create jobs and so protectionism introduced for that purpose is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. This is basically what the 1000+ economist have just said.

Trump is using the threat of protectionist measures and withdrawal from negotiated agreements to try and renegotiate and/or extract more favourable terms. That's a tactic which may have worked for him in business (though his business record isn't great is it) but he's finding that trade negotiators are more interested in facts and figures than bluff and bluster.

Whether it's trade or his personal relationships, the Trump narrative is of course one that proceeds from a position of perceived insecurity. On trade it is that the US is always the poor relation or minor partner in every negotiated trade settlement, that the rest of the world has malign intent and is running rings round the US, and probably secretly laughing at the US behind it's back too. It's almost as if the world's largest economy has no power or potency at all, and the rest of the world must change their naughty ways before the US will even consider joining in.

[Animavore]

We're no longer laughing at them being their backs. Ever since the US voted for a weak, inept, and incompetent patsy; we're laughing in their face.

[Animavore]

Trump. #notaracist

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.3953771

[pErvinalia]

They specifically said - - “Today, Americans face a host of new protectionist activity, including threats to withdraw from trade agreements, misguided calls for new tariffs in response to trade imbalances, and the imposition of tariffs on washing machines, solar components, and even steel and aluminum used by US manufacturers."

They are experts, so they should know that the EU has used all of those protectionist activities, and imposed tariffs on the same products. The EU claimed to be scandalised by Trump threatening a 10% tariff on German cars into the US, when the EU itself imposes a 10% tariff on US cars into the EU. As always, when the EU does it, it's reasonable, and when the US does it, it's not. The EU imposes very high tariffs on agricultural products from non-EU countries. The EU puts tariffs on more than 13,000 types of goods imported into it.

So your only argument is "it's not fair that they aren't talking about the EU being stoopid too!". Seriously, your whataboutism is off the scale.

Trump stated unequivocally - “If they drop their horrific barriers & tariffs on US products going in, we will likewise drop ours." What do the experts say? Should the EU also drop its barriers and tariffs, or is it just the US that has to do that?

Basically, you are unable to accept any criticism of the US (and particularly Trump), because you see everything as 100% political.

At the risk of sounding like Galaxian, many people are politically myopic and just don't see the bigger picture. Trade wars have few winners economically even if their prosecution does bolster the perceived potency of politicians in the short-term. Making things more expensive is not the way to boost the economy or create jobs and so protectionism introduced for that purpose is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. This is basically what the 1000+ economist have just said.

Trump is using the threat of protectionist measures and withdrawal from negotiated agreements to try and renegotiate and/or extract more favourable terms. That's a tactic which may have worked for him in business (though his business record isn't great is it) but he's finding that trade negotiators are more interested in facts and figures than bluff and bluster.

When it's trade or his personal relationships the Trump narrative is of course one that proceeds from a position of perceived insecurity. One trade it is that the US is always the poor relation or minor partner in every negotiated trade settlement, that the rest of the world has malign intent and is running rings round the US, and probably secretly laughing at the US behind it's back too. It's almost as if the world's largest economy has no power or potency at all, and the rest of the world must change their naughty ways before the US will even consider joining in.

I think 42 just can't help seeing most things through a political lens. And to a degree I'm sure he is right, in the sense that there's probably a lot more political favouritism/bias going on than appears apparent on the surface. I also wonder if the difference is because we aren't from the US. The thought that the bureaucracy here or in the UK is actively working for one side of politics over another would be considered pretty ridiculous. Maybe it really is the case in the US. It does seem from afar that the US is far more partisan than our countries, and the media seems very partisan too. Their democracy (settle down, Scot) seems pretty broken at the moment.

Regarding the trade thing, I think that horse has already bolted. The manufacturing and production base was royally screwed over by neoliberalism in the pursuit of profits for the rich, and it's not coming back. Once the barriers came down, they aren't going back up very easily, if at all. And the US really is over a barrel now thanks to their massive debt. Any trade war will just cause their debt (both private and public) to balloon, and when interest rates go up the private bubble with pop, and eventually the US will have to invade someone and steal all their stuff to pay for the debt they've racked up. But without any sort of serious redistribution of wealth from the neoliberal capitalist class back to the actual consumers in society, the US economy will tank like a motherfucker. I see no way that this can be avoided. It's just a matter of whether Trump causes it to happen sooner rather than later.

What does a wounded bear do? Lashes out. That's the fear. The US is the biggest, baddest bear in the forest. When its economy fails and its credit rating falls to just above junk, there's only one thing left that it can do. Blow the shit up out of some country/countries.

[Brian Peacock]

The US is a fabulous, dynamic place full of wonderful, generous people. It's just run by unaccountable morons with daddy issues.

[Joe]

He did what Carter did - he handed over the businesses to his sons.

Carter handed over his business empire to his aged mother and his drunken brother (Billy of Billy Beer fame), and a supposedly "blind" trust operated by his closest confidante and aide named Charles Kirbo. He was both Carter's lawyer and financial trustee, and they'd been close associates for 15 years when Kirbo became trustee. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/04/us/c ... viser.html - that was his trustee of his blind trust - his closest confidante and adviser, who he met with consistently throughout his Presidency.

So, let's say Trump appointed Tom Barrack, Steve Feinberg or Rudy Giuliani as his trustee for his "blind trust" and had dinner with them weekly throughout his Presidency? Better?

Something tells me that anything short of selling everything would suffice, and even that might be a problem unless he donates all the proceeds to Planned Parenthood.

I remember that. The business got scrutinized pretty heavily as a result of some questionable loans. There was a special counsel appointed by the AG who, while finding nothing worthy of criminal prosecution, documented some irregularities mostly due to Billy Carter's mismanagement. President Jimmy actually answered questions under oath as part of the investigation.

I think you're right that Trump, and Carter, would have faced less suspicion and scrutiny had they placed their businesses and assets in the hands of strangers, and liquidation would have been the best course for allaying suspicion. That they chose not to is understandable. It's not illegal, merely a norm, and only human to want to keep hard won gains, and preserve their legacies.

It appears both men made their choices and had to live with the special counsel investigation, which may becoming a new norm. I don't remember Carter whining this much though.

[Forty Two]

Scandals were a lot quieter in 1977. There was no internet, no twitter, no email, etc. News came out once a day, and you got it by picking up a newspaper. Reporters didn't report every single comment made by every anonymous source, and a lot of the gossip was weeded out.

Things were not necessarily overall better back then, but certain aspects were better. In some ways, it's better now, because the dirt gets aired quicker and more frequently. Back then, a lot of stuff just didn't get reported.

[Brian Peacock]

Boris urges Donald not to junk the Iran nuclear deal.

[Forty Two]

What does the Iran nuclear deal do, again?