The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

[Fast Eddie B]

Sometimes correlation is causation.

 

[a_unique_person]

So his intent is to start a trade war and this is his first strike.

That's because they are easy to win. Trump is an expert at trade wars.

 

[blutoski]

Some Democrats, notably including Bernie Sanders, oppose trade deals that appear to benefit other countries more than the U.S., or that encourage U.S. businesses to send jobs abroad. China has notoriously stolen U.S. intellectual property without consequences. But not many Democrats think it's a good idea to impose arbitrary tariffs on imports of raw materials that will hurt American manufacturers and consumers.

Worth pointing out that the tariff is not being introduced for an economic or jobs reason: it's falling under a national security/defense clause. There will be a jobs cost, but the rationale is that it will improve national security.

The trade partner most impacted is Canada, followed by the EU. Trade aside, it's impacting these governments' willingness to coordinate armament with the USA. The irony is that frayed alliances will almost certainly weaken the USA's national security.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sometimes correlation is causation.

Well. Correlation is is correlation and that is great. Correlation is a powerful tool and doesn't get enough love.

 

[Craig4]

Is there any evidence it is related?

What difference does it make? While an officer of the US Government a company he held a financial interest in, lobbied another government for a loan for his company and then he did not recuse himself from any involvement with issues related to that country.

(Executive Order 12674)
Public service is a public trust; employees must place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain.

Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.

He violated the first two principals. He continued to be involved in policy maters related to Qatar and held a financial interest in conflict with his official duties.

 

[phiwum]

Putin brags about powerful new nukes that he calls invulnerable.

Trump tweets about 'Alex' Baldwin’s SNL impersonation.

To be fair, would we be better off if Trump had responded?

 

[Segnosaur]

Last week, a Trump confidante dumped $31.3m in stock in a company heavily reliant on steel

Meanwhile, Russian oligarch with connections to Manafort gets out of the aluminium business

Is there any evidence they are related to the tariffs?

You know, there is a chance that the trades were just coincidence. And in other circumstances people might be willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

However, to many/most people, there have been a number of things which make people assume the worst: Lax security within the white house (e.g. Trump revealing secret intelligence information to the Russians), questionable dealings by Trump and his associates both before and after the election (e.g. charges against Manafort involving money laundering; Trump's failure to use a blind Trust), broken promises, and a lack of transparency within the Trump administration (Trump's failure to release his tax returns; attempts to keep visitor logs secret).

When you have a presidential administration that is that rife with scandals, then the natural tendency is to assume the worst and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when potentially negative information comes out. (After all, its been shown that such negative stories are more than likely true than not.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

What difference does it make? While an officer of the US Government a company he held a financial interest in, lobbied another government for a loan for his company and then he did not recuse himself from any involvement with issues related to that country.



He violated the first two principals. He continued to be involved in policy maters related to Qatar and held a financial interest in conflict with his official duties.

Was he aware the company had an interest in Qatar?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be fair, would we be better off if Trump had responded?

Good point.

 

[Segnosaur]

Putin brags about powerful new nukes that he calls invulnerable.

Trump tweets about 'Alex' Baldwin’s SNL impersonation.

To be fair, would we be better off if Trump had responded?

Well, if he were a competent president rather than a racist orangutan then yes. Wouldn't need anything fancy... just a simple statement about "We have a good military who can plan for contingencies such as this" would have been nice, since it would provide reassurances to the population at large.

Granted, Trump being the idiot that he is, would probably screw things up by bragging about the size of his nuclear button again. But the fact that he would have screwed things up doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical against Trump in the first place.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You know, there is a chance that the trades were just coincidence. And in other circumstances people might be willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

However, to many/most people, there have been a number of things which make people assume the worst: Lax security within the white house (e.g. Trump revealing secret intelligence information to the Russians), questionable dealings by Trump and his associates both before and after the election (e.g. charges against Manafort involving money laundering; Trump's failure to use a blind Trust), broken promises, and a lack of transparency within the Trump administration (Trump's failure to release his tax returns; attempts to keep visitor logs secret).

When you have a presidential administration that is that rife with scandals, then the natural tendency is to assume the worst and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when potentially negative information comes out. (After all, its been shown that such negative stories are more than likely true than not.)

I'm equally skeptical of a claim that it was coincidence.

 

[Steve]

A) I disagree.

B) No is an adequate answer.

A) You are wrong.

B) You are wrong.

 

[dudalb]

Georgia lawmakers have passed a bill which punishes Delta Airlines, seemingly in retribution for cutting ties with the NRA

Georgia needs another little visit from General Sherman.....

 

[dudalb]

That's because they are easy to win. Trump is an expert at trade wars.

And anybody familiar with military history knows that when somebody talks about a war being "easy" to win is the time to start really worrying.....And I suspect that applies to trade wars as well.

 

[dudalb]

No response to Putin's threat but Cheeto Benito finds time to attack Alec Baldwin for poking fun at him.

 

[Crossbow]

And anybody familiar with military history knows that when somebody talks about a war being "easy" to win is the time to start really worrying.....And I suspect that applies to trade wars as well.

Thanks much.

That is an excellent point.

 

[Andy_Ross]

To be fair, would we be better off if Trump had responded?

Enforcing the sanctions you mean?

 

[phiwum]

Well, if he were a competent president rather than a racist orangutan then yes.

Well, yeah. I agree, so far as I understand counterfactual statements.

 

[alfaniner]

No response to Putin's threat but Cheeto Benito finds time to attack Alec Baldwin for poking fun at him.

I was amused that he referred to himself as "DJT", almost like my appellation for him, "The PDJT". I wonder if he reads the Forum?

...

Nah, that would require reading and stuff.

 

[bruto]

Was he aware the company had an interest in Qatar?

Why would he be aware of this simply because it's his company, and his father, with whom he is reported to speak daily, was doing the negotiating in Jared's house? It could be that he's just more stupid and clueless than corrupt, but the alternative is not terribly encouraging either.