Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) dead? Trump wasting no time.

Fretwired

Although the Clinton factor helped Trump. A candidate without her negative baggage could have done better.

mike_l

When American politics stops being about who has the money to get elected, and starts being about issues then you'll not get the likes of Trump or Hilary being the candidates. This is where Trump's rhetoric won the election

Personally I think America needs a Trump (I do think he's a prime cunt) to get the "proper" politicians dealing with what their people have issues with, and not focusing on how they can make another million.


I also think that if Bernie Saunders had been the opposition candidate then Trump wouldn't have been elected.

Evilmags

The only two Democrats who would have beaten Trump are Biden and Mrs Obama. 

digitalscream

Evilmags said:

The only two Democrats who would have beaten Trump are Biden and Mrs Obama. 

I think you're right there, as we'll most likely find out in four years' time.

mike_l said:

Personally I think America needs a Trump (I do think he's a prime cunt) to get the "proper" politicians dealing with what their people have issues with, and not focusing on how they can make another million.

Here's the problem, though - how much damage is Trump going to do in the meantime, with the Senate and Congress both controlled by Republicans and his knowledge-phobic cabinet? Even when they do disagree with him, he's already said he's not going to be particularly shy about using Executive Privilege.

I suspect the Republicans know he's unlikely to get a second term (for all sorts of reasons), so they're going to concentrate on forcing bills through which are all-but-irreversible by whoever takes over; things like the Dakota Access Pipeline (once the damage is done, it's there to stay).

mike_l

My point being, how much damage would be done without a Trump?

The politicians have been so far separated from the people for years that the people feel that they have no voice. Hence why the one who does say those things gets elected.

ICBM

mike_l said:

I also think that if Bernie Saunders had been the opposition candidate then Trump wouldn't have been elected.

I don't think so. He would have been too easy to paint into a corner as a self-avowed liberal and socialist, which are terms of disapproval bordering on calling someone a Communist in America.

I don't think he would have appealed to swing-state middle America any more than Hillary did - and that's where the election was lost, since as I'm sure you're aware she actually won, on total votes cast, by a considerable margin - all of it in the coastal states. She won California by more than the difference in popular vote across the whole of America. Bernie would have won heavily in California too.

Evilmags said:

The only two Democrats who would have beaten Trump are Biden and Mrs Obama. 

And Michelle would never have accepted it. Why they didn't pick Biden is beyond me.

digitalscream

mike_l said:

My point being, how much damage would be done without a Trump?

The politicians have been so far separated from the people for years that the people feel that they have no voice. Hence why the one who does say those things gets elected.

Without a disruptive influence, very little changes - and, on the whole, things haven't exactly been terrible until last year (over here or over there). There seems to be a sentiment that "It has to change, and anything has to be better than this", which isn't actually true.

Does anyone truly believe that - in the long term - Trump will do anything other than protect his own interests, and that the Republicans won't use the fact that Trump is a relatively weak president to shore up their own power base? I fail to see how those things can possibly result in something good for the population.

Fretwired

If Trump boosts the economy and gets people back into work and sorts out healthcare he'd beat a combined ticket of Jesus and Elvis to get a second term.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

If Trump boosts the economy and gets people back into work and sorts out healthcare he'd beat a combined ticket of Jesus and Elvis to get a second term.

If any president managed that, it'd be the same result.

Do we really think Trump can do what far, far smarter people (and one trained monkey) failed to do?

mike_l

digitalscream said:

 

Does anyone truly believe that - in the long term - Trump will do anything other than protect his own interests, and that the Republicans won't use the fact that Trump is a relatively weak president to shore up their own power base? I fail to see how those things can possibly result in something good for the population.

Protecting his interest will make him the same as all the other politicians, from every side.
And his interests now include getting re-elected.

mike_l

ICBM said:

mike_l said:

I also think that if Bernie Saunders had been the opposition candidate then Trump wouldn't have been elected.

She won California by more than the difference in popular vote across the whole of America. Bernie would have won heavily in California too.

Same can be said of UKIP over here, and the Scottish Nationalists, with regards to numbers of votes/seats in parliament.

digitalscream

mike_l said:

digitalscream said:

 

Does anyone truly believe that - in the long term - Trump will do anything other than protect his own interests, and that the Republicans won't use the fact that Trump is a relatively weak president to shore up their own power base? I fail to see how those things can possibly result in something good for the population.

Protecting his interest will make him the same as all the other politicians, from every side.
And his interests now include getting re-elected.

Protecting his *business* interests, which he's refused to divest despite instruction to the contrary in the Constitution. No other president has done that, and it's a pretty clear indication of how he's going to go about things.

mike_l

digitalscream said:

Protecting his interest will make him the same as all the other politicians, from every side.
And his interests now include getting re-elected.

Protecting his *business* interests, which he's refused to divest despite instruction to the contrary in the Constitution. No other president has done that, and it's a pretty clear indication of how he's going to go about things.

And how many are "non-executive directors" of companies? Which commands a salary, without having to actually do any work?
Does not disclosing his business interests make him a bad president (I see the point of not obeying the constitution)?

He has already bought (some of) Ford's production back in to the US, which means he has (partly) done what he said he would do. If he carries on getting the production back into the US (by whatever means) and boosting the economic situation then he'll be regarded as a good president.

Like I said, I can't stand the bloke, but the politicians have separated themselves from the general population, and are seen as looking after their own interests first, rather than doing what's best for the population.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Do we really think Trump can do what far, far smarter people (and one trained monkey) failed to do?

It's possible as he'll have big business on his side. If he cuts corporation tax and big firms respond by re-shoring jobs back to the USA he'll win. If he tears up climate change rules and goes for coal and fracking he'll win with the people in the rust belt.

What you could see are states like California and some states on the east coast wondering if they'd be better off out of the union. California thinks it does. As the sixth-largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. The Calexit campaign exists - maybe Brexit is having a different effect in the USA. And Texas never saw itself as really American. Texans first and foremost - Texit .. :-)

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-calexit-california-considers-leaving-us-after-trump-win-2444019

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

digitalscream said:

Do we really think Trump can do what far, far smarter people (and one trained monkey) failed to do?

It's possible as he'll have big business on his side. If he cuts corporation tax and big firms respond by re-shoring jobs back to the USA he'll win. If he tears up climate change rules and goes for coal and fracking he'll win with the people in the rust belt.

What you could see are states like California and some states on the east coast wondering if they'd be better off out of the union. California thinks it does. As the sixth-largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. The Calexit campaign exists - maybe Brexit is having a different effect in the USA. And Texas never saw itself as really American. Texans first and foremost - Texit .. :-)

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-calexit-california-considers-leaving-us-after-trump-win-2444019

Interesting perspective, but I was under the impression that there's no legal way to leave the union short of a war?

EDIT: Like this...

littlegreenman

ICBM said:

mike_l said:

I also think that if Bernie Saunders had been the opposition candidate then Trump wouldn't have been elected.

I don't think so. He would have been too easy to paint into a corner as a self-avowed liberal and socialist, which are terms of disapproval bordering on calling someone a Communist in America.

I don't think he would have appealed to swing-state middle America any more than Hillary did - and that's where the election was lost, since as I'm sure you're aware she actually won, on total votes cast, by a considerable margin - all of it in the coastal states. She won California by more than the difference in popular vote across the whole of America. Bernie would have won heavily in California too.

Evilmags said:

The only two Democrats who would have beaten Trump are Biden and Mrs Obama. 

And Michelle would never have accepted it. Why they didn't pick Biden is beyond me.

He said he wouldn't run due to the death of his son Beau in 2015 from a brain tumour, stating he wouldn't be able to commit 100% to the task. So VP Biden he stayed and ran a cancer charity on the side.

He's very recently not discounted running in 2020.

mike_l

littlegreenman said:

 
He's very recently not discounted running in 2020.

Please can the world have 2 decent candidates, rather than a Reality TV buffoon, and a woman who thinks she'll get elected because of her gender.

Emp_Fab

The man is an asshat who will do to the US economy what he's done to his businesses - bankrupt it.

If it weren't for all the suffering he's going to cause I would have said I can't wait for all his dumbass supporters to be left scratching their mullets, utterly flummoxed at how it could be that the big mouthed salesman with a trail of bankrupt businesses behind him wasn't really a financial genius after all.

UnclePsychosis

Emp_Fab said:

The man is an asshat who will do to the US economy what he's done to his businesses - bankrupt it.

If it weren't for all the suffering he's going to cause I would have said I can't wait for all his dumbass supporters to be left scratching their mullets, utterly flummoxed at how it could be that the big mouthed salesman with a trail of bankrupt businesses behind him wasn't really a financial genius after all.

---He's already started the process of making sure that he can blame the opposition for his failures though. He'll blame the "mainstream media" and the "liberal elite" (as far as I can tell this is anyone who has voluntarily read a book) and anyone else (gays, immigrants, scientists with their "facts" etc) for sabotaging him. The big worry for me is what if they believe him and really double down on the craziness? 

Its a tactic some Brexiteers have tried over here too---"If this goes wrong it's your fault for not supporting us". 

octatonic

This is pretty excellent:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https://www.facebook.com/gq/videos/10155702520898098/