Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[rda]

The media is simultaneously becoming irrelevant and powerful enough to force a recession, it seems.

They are losing relevancy but this is a gradual process.

There will likely be a big fight influencing the media around Google / Youtube / Facebook filtering right before 2020. If Google / Youtube / Facebook retain their filtering, things will go one way. Otherwise, they will go a different way.

[Ghostpanther]

The main bit of news from G7 is that:

* China has big economic issues,
* this drags down most of other Asian countries for whom China was the biggest partner (eg, buyer).

And the brightest spot, quite ironically for this thread, is the deal between US and Japan which might help some of this.

And you know, the media are free to go with their hysterics about that supposed suggestion to nuke hurricanes. All they are achieving with this is becoming irrelevant.

There is this breaking news on the trade war. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-year-flatline

China signaled on Monday it was now seeking a "calm" end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S., as Asian markets crumbled and China's currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.

Trump said Monday that officials from China called U.S. officials and expressed interest to "get back to the table,” The Wall Street Journal reported. He called the discussions a “very positive development.”

[Cthulhu 2020]

i don't care what your views are. merkel, short little french loser, and every other one of them can burn in hell for all i care. their vision of the world is corrupt, wretched, and unwelcome by most americans. their views are twisted and deserve nothing but scorn.

Untrue, most Americans admire the European way of life. But I realize living in a Trump bubble where you're only around people who hate euros you might think "most Americans" think that.

[rda]

If media is irrelevant, where do you expect people to find specifics?

I should have perhaps said "traditional media are losing relevancy" for clarity.

People will find specifics in the new forms of media. Trump's twitter account is one such rudimentary form - you can see how it works around traditional media outlets who cannot shut it down and have to react to it.

- - - Updated - - -

There is this breaking news on the trade war. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-year-flatline

China signaled on Monday it was now seeking a "calm" end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S., as Asian markets crumbled and China's currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.

Trump said Monday that officials from China called U.S. officials and expressed interest to "get back to the table,” The Wall Street Journal reported. He called the discussions a “very positive development.”

Thanks, I did not see this before. Well. This is kind of promising, although I'd like to see the specifics. I suppose we'll soon know whether this is something or nothing.

[Breccia]

So while some people, desperate to protect Trump's reputation, point to a Japan/US trade deal -- despite there being no details and nothing is signed, making the trade deal as useful as NAFTA 1.0.0.2 and NK's pledge to denuke -- I think this is the quote of G7 (so far):

He’s more or less been isolated by the other leaders. The French government brought in the Iranian foreign and finance ministers to discuss things without even letting the president of the United States know

I want you to think about that. The host (and one of the nations that didn't unilaterally end the Iran Nuclear Deal, despite Iran fulfilling their contractual obligations) did this in public.

I've been vocal from time to time on an "alignment" issue: whether or not you believe an action is the right thing to do, is based on
a) whether you do it, and
b) whether you do it in public
France asked Iran to come to G7, he didn't ask or tell Trump first, and he full fucking frontal'd that in front of the entire planet. He thought working with Iran was the right thing to do, and the fact that the US wasn't given a heads-up means he thought that was the right thing to do too.

Let that sink in. France is one of our allies. Well, they used to be.

Now let's continue with that. Why didn't France tell Trump first? Obviously France doesn't need the US's permission, they can invite people all day long. I believe the answer is the same answer as to why France didn't push for a joint climate resolution: they knew Trump, and only Trump, wouldn't be okay with this.

I'll go one step further: I think France was worried Trump would cancel his visit. Maybe Trump would have, maybe not, but based on the Denmark thing it's a valid concern. And France wanted G7 to continue and not become G6. So he didn't tell Trump, dropped Iran in his lap, put on sunglasses, and said "deal with it".

In public.

That is what the above-quoted person is saying. Not just that the world isn't asking the US's permission anymore. Not just that the world isn't even telling us what they're doing. But that they're doing so, in public, on purpose, because it's the right thing to do. Which is why I'm now going to quote him some more.

Again, his ‘American First’ strategy is becoming ‘America Alone

I’ve been saying for the last two weeks that he’s melting down at the core. A couple more weeks like this, I think it is an unmitigated situation. You’ve got to get Republican leaders to come in and say the truth as some point.

It’s complete irrationality and the markets know this and so the markets have lost patience

"That's great, but, who is that speaker?"

Does it really matter? Circle the part where he's wrong.

[Felya]

There is this breaking news on the trade war. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-year-flatline

China signaled on Monday it was now seeking a "calm" end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S., as Asian markets crumbled and China's currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.

Trump said Monday that officials from China called U.S. officials and expressed interest to "get back to the table,” The Wall Street Journal reported. He called the discussions a “very positive development.”

The “calm” is a shot at Trump’s erratic behavior. From your article:

Stephen Innes, managing partner at Valour Markets in Singapore, compared the difficulty of assessing the volatile market situation to reading tea leaves.

"Nobody understands where the president is coming from," he said, adding that the best thing Trump can do for market stability is to "keep quiet."

"The problem that we're faced right now is that we are making a lot of assumptions ahead of the economic realities."

Trump insists talks have restarted with China, but details remain elusive
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...3c0_story.html

“We’ve gotten two calls and very, very good calls,” Trump told reporters here at the Group of Seven summit. “Very productive calls. They mean business. They want to be able to make a deal.”

Trump later clarified that the calls had occurred as recently as Sunday evening. Other administration officials were more circumspect, and it wasn’t clear how substantive any interaction had been.

“There were discussions that went back and forth, let’s leave it at that,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters.

The results of the G7 was Dow Futures dropping by 300 points. This is Trump’s response to that...

- - - Updated - - -

I should have perhaps said "traditional media are losing relevancy" for clarity.

People will find specifics in the new forms of media. Trump's twitter account is one such rudimentary form - you can see how it works around traditional media outlets who cannot shut it down and have to react to it.

What non traditional media has access to G7 transcripts?

[Twdft]

It's mentioned right in the piece that started it that the idea is not new and not Trump's invention. That he heard of it actually makes him more knowledgeable than people who did not.

Let's just give him the benefit of doubt for a second... so he somehow hears about the idea of bombing the shit out of hurricanes and instead of investing 10 seconds to google and find how it isn't a good idea at all he brings it up in national security meetings. Stable genius right there.

I should have perhaps said "traditional media are losing relevancy" for clarity.

People will find specifics in the new forms of media. Trump's twitter account is one such rudimentary form - you can see how it works around traditional media outlets who cannot shut it down and have to react to it.

So you actually think the ramblings of a guy who can't be arsed to invest 10 seconds to google simple stuff is more relevant than articles by actual journalists. Another stable genius right there.

[Felya]

So you actually think the ramblings of a guy who can't be arsed to invest 10 seconds to google simple stuff is more relevant than articles by actual journalists. Another stable genius right there.

The president of the US is now ‘non-traditional media’ to get the news. The government provides all the news you need... /facepalm

[rda]

What non traditional media has access to G7 transcripts?

Trump's twitter account, right in your quote. I guess you meant to ask "what ... will have access", and the answer is - this could take many different forms. There are various projects aiming to displace Youtube, for example, most aim to start with a specific area, some are growing right now, all are hell-bent on not banning anything unless asked by a third-party because that's a big selling point, etc.

[Dontrike]

all are hell-bent on not banning anything unless asked by a third-party because that's a big selling point, etc.

Because those sites don't have rules to follow? The idea of a lawless site is asking for something like 8chan to happen.

Why you think youtube, facebook, and google needs to be stopped is beyond me still.

[Felya]

Trump's twitter account, right in your quote. I guess you meant to ask "what ... will have access", and the answer is - this could take many different forms. There are various projects aiming to displace Youtube, for example, most aim to start with a specific area, some are growing right now, all are hell-bent on not banning anything unless asked by a third-party because that's a big selling point, etc.

Trump is the president of the US. His twitter account is part of the government response, not the media. The ‘various projects’ you mentioned, don’t have access to G7 meetings or interviews or world leaders. Why don’t you just say where you get your info? Wouldn’t that show non traditional news?

Oh and ‘it takes many forms’ is not an answer to questioning where they would get the access to cover the story.

[rda]

Let's just give him the benefit of doubt for a second... so he somehow hears about the idea of bombing the shit out of hurricanes and instead of investing 10 seconds to google and find how it isn't a good idea at all he brings it up in national security meetings. Stable genius right there.

So you actually think the ramblings of a guy who can't be arsed to invest 10 seconds to google simple stuff is more relevant than articles by actual journalists. Another stable genius right there.

Why invest 10 seconds to google when you can just ask. It's not like he was dying to know whether nuking a hurricane is viable, this was just a question he was interested in before, so he voiced it on a meeting.

The ramblings of a guy who is making decisions for a country are way more newsworthy than any piece of a journalist who just documents those decisions and provides his opinion on them, yes. I don't know what's controversial here, the media themselves confirm this every day by spending most of their time discussing Trump's tweets and appearances.

[Felya]

Because those sites don't have rules to follow? The idea of a lawless site is asking for something like 8chan to happen.

Why you think youtube, facebook, and google needs to be stopped is beyond me still.

Those sites are not providing news. They put a spin on news reported by traditional media. Random Youtube does not have access to report on anything to do with G7. They read traditional news and then spin... that’s it...

[Breccia]

There is this breaking news on the trade war.

Hmm. That's interesting. Almost as interesting as the time it happened in June.

And the time in December.

And that time the preceding May

Anyone here remember what the results of those "calms" were? Oh, right, I do.

The first lasted from May 20 to May 29. Trump ended the truce by raising tariffs.

The second lasted from Dec 2 to May 10. During this time, there were multiple talks between the two countries and China even suspended some tariffs. Then Trump ended the truce by raising tariffs.

The third truce lasted from June 26 to Aug 1 or 6, depending on if you think Trump ended the truce by announcing the new increased tariff schedule, or by declaring China a currency manipulator.

So, no. This is not a positive development. Every time China has agreed to a truce, Trump has broken it.

[rda]

The president of the US is now ‘non-traditional media’ to get the news. The government provides all the news you need... /facepalm

I didn't say anything like "the government provides all the news you need". I merely remarked that Trump's twitter account has been successful in working around traditional media.

For the record, I would be really, really, really happy if the media's job of delivering up to date and useful information was being done by the media, but the problem is, a lot of traditional media are now doing less and less of that, and are now just propaganda hosts who want to force their own political agenda. That's why they are becoming less relevant. People want real news, they don't want the bias or at least they want the bias clearly separable. They are getting less and less of that from traditional media, so they turn to alternative forms of it that develop.

- - - Updated - - -

So, no. This is not a positive development. Every time China has agreed to a truce, Trump has broken it.

Not really. Eg, the last time that truce was broken because the Chinese didn't hold their end on what they promised. I mean, it was the US who then hit China, but this happened because the US fulfilled their end and the Chinese dragged their feet for a long time and then said "nah, we cannot do this to this date, too little time left to figure it out".

[Breccia]

Actually I'm not done. Let me quote a few more headlines:

After turbulent G-7 summit, Trump says China wants to make a trade deal

Trump Says China Talks Coming, Beijing Calls for Trade War Resolution

Trump says China calling for a deal as "they've lost millions of jobs"

Trump says China trade deal coming, Beijing calls for resolution

G-7: Trump says China ready to negotiate on trade war

Trump says China called, requested to restart trade talks

U.S. Stocks Rise as Trump Says China Wants a Deal (we'll get back to this one)

Trump says China wants to restart trade talks

This is how responsible journalism (not just some old guy with Twitter) are handling the situation now.

"Trump says".

Because so many of the things he says turn out to be false, in order to protect themselves, journalists are now using "Trump says" when there is no proof.

Now I called attention to the WSJ above, because I believe this is the reason why Trump claims he got a call at night when nobody else was around. Trump took a beating on the stock markets, bigly beating, YUGE beating, and he's hoping that doesn't happen again today. So, yes, he's either pushing a story he can't prove, or he's lying, so the stock market doesn't take a dive again. I believe it's the same reason he waited until after the markets closed before announcing yet higher tariffs -- which he has not taken back yet, those are still going forward.

But now, just for fun, a few more headlines:

Trump says China can't hurt American farmers: True or False?

Trump says China giving US a gift in tariff payments

Trump says China tariffs help, not hurt the US

President Trump says China 'missed a great opportunity' on trade

Trump says trade deal 'possible' with China's Xi, tariffs could be lower

Trump says he could do 'a lot more' on China trade

Trump Says China Deal ‘Close’ Ahead of New Talks

U.S. President Trump says China wants to make a deal more than he does

Trump says China ‘moving troops’ to Hong Kong border as police clash with protesters

The source (directly or indirectly) for all of these is FOX News. Every single one, except maybe the last one, Trump was wrong. I especially like that last one: FOX News doesn't say "China moves troops". They quote Trump's twitter. Then they just kind of give up. Read the article. It's sad.

What does the FOX say?

[rda]

^^ Yes, that's why I said that I'd like to see the specifics. To see what exactly "China wants to restart trade talks" means. I mean, I am sure they want to restart, but details are important. As I also said, I guess we'll soon know.

[Shalcker]

Let's just give him the benefit of doubt for a second... so he somehow hears about the idea of bombing the shit out of hurricanes and instead of investing 10 seconds to google and find how it isn't a good idea at all he brings it up in national security meetings. Stable genius right there.

Hey, Google is purveyor of fake news and slanted search results, and Trump just tweeted story about that a few days ago!

Clearly national security people are more trustworthy (as they should be).

[rda]

Apparently Trump skipped the climate talks at the G7.

It's good that he did that. What exactly did you expect from those talks? Climate change is happening, but there is no catastrophe looming and all talks about trying to stop climate change are just pandering for political points.

[Endus]

For the record, I would be really, really, really happy if the media's job of delivering up to date and useful information was being done by the media, but the problem is, a lot of traditional media are now doing less and less of that, and are now just propaganda hosts who want to force their own political agenda. That's why they are becoming less relevant. People want real news, they don't want the bias or at least they want the bias clearly separable. They are getting less and less of that from traditional media, so they turn to alternative forms of it that develop.

The media has always engaged in presenting editorial opinions and journalist's analysis. That's their purpose. It isn't to simply present naked facts without comment.

All you're doing, here, is directly attacking the basic freedom of speech and freedom of the press, to try and suppress points of view that you personally don't support. It's an attempt to justify quashing those you disagree with, nothing more.

Same with your position attacking Google, Facebook, and Youtube's freedoms. You want to deny them freedom of speech, so you can control and restrict what they are allowed to communicate.