Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

So Trump's "inexpensive" golfing habit has cost the US...about $340M dollars in the past 3 years.

Very cheap indeed.

Here's a list of time when Trump criticized Obama for golfing dozens of times - https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2017/3...ack-obama-golf

[zenkai]

So Trump's "inexpensive" golfing habit has cost the US...about $340M dollars in the past 3 years.

Very cheap indeed.

Here's a list of time when Trump criticized Obama for golfing dozens of times - https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2017/3...ack-obama-golf

why did you edit out the word "could"?

[Felya]

So Trump's "inexpensive" golfing habit has cost the US...about $340M dollars in the past 3 years.

Very cheap indeed.

Here's a list of time when Trump criticized Obama for golfing dozens of times - https://www.sbnation.com/golf/2017/3...ack-obama-golf

This retweet was the worst and as far as I got:

"@BackOnTrackUSA: @realDonaldTrump While Obama vacations,golfs, attends parties & jazz concerts, ISIS is chopping heads off of journalists."

Just a reminder, when talking about Saudi Arabia dismembering an American resident and journalist, Trump didn’t golf... he talked about how much money SA spends on condos at Trump property and then vetoed congress, to permit selling weapons to them.

[Zan15]

In other good news...trade wars are easy to win!!

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-de...e0c785f68.html

Despite promises, Trump's trade deficits are only growing

World total –380.8b +23.3%
China –114.6b +23.9%
European Union –78.6b +26.7%
Mexico –67.4b +0.4%
Germany –58.0b +2.6%
Japan –35.5b +13.8%

etc etc etc




President Trump's trade war has led to even bigger trade deficits with China, even though it was intended to improve the trade balance. But it's not just China — the deficit has increased with most of our other major trade partners, too.

Why it matters: While economists agree that trade deficits aren't a good way to measure a trade relationship, they are the metric Trump fixates on, made campaign promises about and uses to evaluate relationships with other countries.

Throughout his campaign, Trump vowed that he would wipe away the U.S.'s trade deficits: "You will see a drop [in the trade deficit] like you’ve never seen before.”
Reality check: Among the U.S.'s 15 biggest trading partners, the trade balance has moved in the wrong direction for Trump in 10 of those countries between 2016 and 2018, while the aggregate trade deficit has jumped from $503 billion to $628B.

While Trump can explain the deficit spike with China as a short-term sacrifice for long-term benefit, it doesn't account for the wider trend.
The latest: The U.S. trade deficit in the first 6 months of 2019 is even bigger than in the last two years.

What's going on: Trump's tax cuts are as much to blame for the increase in the trade deficit as anything else, writes Axios Markets editor Dion Rabouin:
More money in Americans' pockets leads to more consumption, often of Chinese-made goods.
The tax cut helped boost the value of the dollar, which makes imports to the U.S. relatively cheaper.

The big picture: Trade deficits mean we buy more from a country than they buy from us, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the relationship is unfair, writes Axios business editor Dan Primack.


For example, you have a “trade deficit” with your local grocery: you give them money and get food in return.
Between the lines: Despite the dubious merit of the trade deficit as a useful barometer of the health of a trade relationship, Trump's obsession with the number has led to strained relations with key allies.

As Axios' Jonathan Swan reported in 2017, the trade deficit is one of the items he always wants to be briefed on before meeting with a foreign leader.
Trump picked a fight with Justin Trudeau over the trade balance, later acknowledging that he made up numbers in arguing that the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada. It has a surplus.

Coupled with immigration, the trade deficit has been a major source of Trump's animus toward Mexico.
It led Trump to threaten auto tariffs on Europe.

[Thekri]

@Skroe

Why I never respect Army Generals as a whole. If he has criticism of Obama { I admit not reading the book) yet gives this President a pass shows his true character.

Also with him and Mueller they are empty suits. These people are the ones we need in the lead. Amazing enough they get trashed by the party they belong.



Maybe Mattis was a true ideologue to Trump's belief. Anyways we have seen Generals follow fascist leaders (rhymes with Shmitler). Im sure Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly certainly was with Trump on radical belief of immigration.

That is quite a leap there. I wrote about this a while ago. Obama is in a very different position, as his political career is over, he isn't running for anything, and therefore he is fair game for criticism. Obama also didn't appoint Mattis to any roles.

His true character is being shown in not taking shots at Trump, and that is putting the nation above his personal interests. Don't you think the book would have sold better if he packed it full of juicy gossip about Trump? Of course it would have. Mattis a product of military professionalism however, he is more concerned with the long term health of the country.

The neutrality and reliability of the Military officer is the single most important aspect of American Democracy. I know that sounds grandiose, but it is absolutely true. No government can survive pressure or attack from their own military, and maintaining that standard even through someone like Trump is essential to this nations survival. A President, any president, even Trump, must be able to speak freely with his generals and cabinet members without fear of them publishing some salacious book prior to their next election. If the president does not trust his Generals to remain out of politics, he will forever question their political loyalty, as Trump did with Mattis (Unfounded, as it appears). Their loyalty is to the nation, and the proper format for any information that Mattis might feel actually endangers the nation is not in a memoir.

If you want a much more eloquent statement of this principle, here is former Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey's OPED during the 2016 Election, indirectly tongue lashing people like Gen. Flynn.

There is no shortage of dirt on Trump. We do not need to here it directly from Mattis. It would not make a difference if we did. But we must have a military that does not control our political landscape.

[Shalcker]

You need to read a history book written by someone other than Putin.

I'm not sure you've read any Western history book on that matter because that's simply common knowledge.

[D Luniz]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/busin...les/index.html

Uh oh, Walmart is ending the sale of handguns in Alaska (last place they sell them), and is ending the sale of ammo for handguns and ammo frequently used by mass-shooters with assault style rifles.

And they're asking folks to not open carry in any of their stores.

Let's see how this plays out...

Funny thing, Alaska is probably one the few places I say "ya, have the Walmart sell guns". Houston, we dont have bears digging in our garbage.

[kaelleria]

Funny thing, Alaska is probably one the few places I say "ya, have the Walmart sell guns". Houston, we dont have bears digging in our garbage.

We have bears digging in our garbage in Connecticut... I don't think that's a great example.

[Paranoid Android]

WaPo: “Mississippi wedding venue apologizes after rejecting interracial couple based on 'Christian belief'” https://t.co/6rceWtw00Y

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...911505408?s=19

Remember when these laws were made to protect religion from making cakes for gay weddings.

Looks as though as some of want to expand their religious 'freedoms'.

[Crispin]

I'm not sure you've read any Western history book on that matter because that's simply common knowledge.

Could you please point out which history book, that supports the British intent you're describing?

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...911505408?s=19

Remember when these laws were made to protect religion from making cakes for gay weddings.

Looks as though as some of stated they want to expand their religious 'freedoms'.

It's almost like it's always been about protecting the right of people to discriminate against others. Almost...

[Shalcker]

This is ludicrous, as Russia literally signed a non intervention pact with Nazi Germany and then... you know... the iron curtain that includes Poland as a buffer for Russia against western aggression.

And then Britain literally signed defence pact with Poles... with secret part about defending them specifically in case of Hitler's attack.

A week later and Britain had a chance to prove their worth... and they were found lacking willingness to actually help Poles in any significant way.

They bombed Germany with leaflets, ffs.

From wiki:
Polish historian Paweł Wieczorkiewicz wrote: "Polish leaders were not aware of the fact that England and France were not ready for war. They needed time to catch up with the Third Reich, and were determined to gain the time at any price." Publicist Stanisław Mackiewicz stated in the late 1940s: "To accept London's guarantees was one of the most tragic dates in the history of Poland. It was a mental aberration and madness." On the same day when Britain pledged her support of Poland, Lord Halifax stated: "We do not think this guarantee will be binding." Other British diplomat, Alexander Cadogan wrote in his diary: "Naturally, our guarantee does not give any help to Poland. It can be said that it was cruel to Poland, even cynical."

Polish - British military negotiations, carried out in London, ended up in fiasco. After lengthy talks, the British reluctantly pledged to bomb German military and installations if the Germans carried out attacks of this kind in Poland. Polish military leaders failed to obtain any more promises. At the same time, the Polish side negotiated a military loan. The Polish ambassador to Britain, Edward Raczyński, called these negotiations "a never-ending nightmare". Józef Beck in his memoirs wrote: "The negotiations, carried out in London by Colonel Adam Koc, immediately turned into theoretical discussion about our financial system. It was clear that Sir John Simon and Frederick Leith-Ross did not realize the gravity of the situation. They negotiated in purely financial terms, without consideration for the rules of the wartime alliance. As a result, the English offer gave us no grounds for quick reinforcement of our army."

On 2 August 1939 Great Britain finally agreed to grant Poland a military loan of £9 million, which was less than Turkey received at the same time. Poland had asked for a loan of £60 million.

And then
Beginning of WWII, 1939

On the eve of the Second World War, the Polish government tried to buy as much armaments as it could and was asking for arms loans from Britain and France. As a result of that in the summer of 1939 Poland bought 160 French Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 fighters and 111 English airplanes (100 light bombers Fairey Battle, 10 Hurricanes, and 1 Spitfire). Although some of these planes had been shipped to Poland before 1 September 1939, none took part in combat, due to the extension of negotiations by France and Britain in the face of war. Because of resistance by the British, the weapons that the Poles most wanted, about 150 technically advanced fighters, were not supplied. The total amount of the loan from British government was also much smaller than asked for. Britain eventually agreed to lend just 8 million pounds instead of the 60 million that Poland asked for.

Upon the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany. On 3 September a naval blockade of Germany was initiated, and an attempt was made to bomb German warships in harbour on 4 September. Most British bomber activity over Germany was the dropping of propaganda leaflets and reconnaissance. On 4 September, during a Franco-British meeting in France, it was decided that no major land or air operations against Germany would take place, and afterwards French military leader Maurice Gamelin issued orders prohibiting Polish military envoys Lieutenant Wojciech Fyda and General Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki from contacting him. In his post-war diaries, General Edmund Ironside, the chief of the Imperial General Staff, commented on French promises: "The French had lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it".

The French initiated full mobilisation and began the limited Saar Offensive on 7 September but halted short of the German defensive lines and then withdrew to their own defences around 13 September. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed by dispatch marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The Polish military envoy to France, general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki, upon receiving the text of the message sent by Gamelin, alerted marshal Śmigły: "I received the message by general Gamelin. Please don't believe a single word in the dispatch". The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from 17 September to 20 September. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.

Neither UK nor France were good guys there.

[Crispin]

What is the point of that post, other than being extremely off-topic?

UK and France were not ready to defend Poland, pickup a map and you'll see why. There's a difference on incapable of a proper defense and invading them with Hitler.

[Paranoid Android]

.@VP Pence in Ireland: "If you have a chance to get to Doonbeg you'll find it's a fairly small place, the opportunity to stay at Trump National in Doonbeg, to accommodate the unique footprint that comes with our security detail and other personnel made it logical." https://t.co/yqOSjKt9M3

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/116...476523522?s=19

Video attached.

Our Vice President just did a promo for a Trump property.

It's around the 1:30 mark.

[Breccia]

Funny thing, Alaska is probably one the few places I say "ya, have the Walmart sell guns". Houston, we dont have bears digging in our garbage.

...you would shoot a bear with a handgun? Why not a rifle or shotgun, which Wal-Mart still sells?

Unrelated: nearly 2,000 lawsuits against opioid makers can now proceed to trial.

A U.S. judge on Tuesday rejected efforts by major drugmakers, pharmacies and distributors to dismiss claims that they caused the nation’s opioid crisis, clearing the way for a scheduled landmark trial even as he pushes for a nationwide settlement.

U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who oversees roughly 2,000 opioid lawsuits by states, counties and cities, said the plaintiffs can try to prove that drugmakers’ deceptive marketing of the painkillers caused a harmful, massive increase in supply that pharmacies and distributors did not do enough to stop.

“A factfinder could reasonably infer that these failures were a substantial factor in producing the alleged harm suffered by plaintiffs,” the Cleveland-based judge wrote.

The ruling was among seven decisions and orders totaling 80 pages from Polster ahead of a scheduled Oct. 21 trial by two Ohio counties against Purdue Pharma, the OxyContin maker accused of fueling the epidemic, and several other defendants.

Polster also refused to dismiss civil conspiracy claims against drugmakers, pharmacies and distributors, and said federal law did not preempt much of the plaintiffs’ case.

Other defendants included the drugmakers Endo International Plc and Johnson & Johnson; pharmacy operators CVS Health Corp, Rite Aid Corp, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc and Walmart Inc; and distributors AmerisourceBergen Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and McKesson Corp.

Polster also refused to dismiss a variety of claims against generic drugmakers Allergan Plc, Mallinckrodt Plc and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Opioid addiction claimed roughly 400,000 lives in the United States from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Now, this seems to me to be good news overall. If a company is found intentionally overselling a product, knowing that the oversales would lead to injury, crimes, or death, holding them responsible is completely called for.

But here's the thing: I don't think any of the two thousand lawsuits are actually brought by the United States itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I won't mind at all. But I looked for such a filing, or headline, and didn't see either. And no, 47 states plus DC isn't what I mean.

Trump campaigned on and ran under the promise of tackling opioid issues. It made sense, addiction killed a beloved family member, and the CDC says opioids have killed 400,000 people since 2000. On average, that's six 9/11's and a Katrina per year. Trump's promise in this context was one of the few I actually got behind and wanted to see action on.

Nope.

Other than some whitehouse.gov notes and the State of the Union, I haven't seen any movement since October, by signing a law he didn't write and doesn't do much.

Almost no one who’s studied the legislation and understands the magnitude of an epidemic in which an estimated 72,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2017 thinks it will do any such thing. The bill’s provisions to expand addiction treatment, speed up research on alternative drugs, and provide Medicaid funding to treatment centers with more than 16 inpatient beds will certainly help, as will $6 billion in funding to fight opioids, “the most money ever received in history,” Trump said. But many public-health experts, and some of Trump’s Democratic opponents in Congress, say something closer to $100 billion is needed over 10 years to end or “make an extremely big dent” in opioid addiction. Senator Elizabeth Warren cites “broken promises” by an administration that still does not have a confirmed director of its Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) after nearly two years in office.

He was sworn in January. He does exist.

Oh, and only 15 people voted against it.

"House or Senate?"

Total. Trump couldn't have blocked it if he wanted to. His signature was 100% irrelevant. He sure as hell doesn't get to take credit for it.

But this is familiar territory. Here's the new part. Back in July Trump spent several weeks talking about the Executive Order he claimed he was writing that would dramatically lower drug prices. It was opposed by some free-market Republicans and, of course, pretty much every pharm company in the states, duh, but bear in mind, this is an Executive Order, something Trump loves to do when people tell him he can't.

It's September. Nothing's happened.

So, there are three options.

A) Trump realized he couldn't do anything, but was too scared to ask for help, and just let the idea die while everyone else did the work he promised he would do. For the record, I believe this is the most likely answer.

B) The drug companies told Trump not to do it, and he cowered like a little whiny bitch because of all their power and money. It'd be a real shame if medical prices skyrocketed in 2020 and Trump's campaign lost funding, huh?

C) Trump, after talking to the drug companies, is their possible lifeline. Realizing they'd lose all their money if they both lost in opioid lawsuits and also Trump's promised E.O. to lower drug prices -- however that works, the details aren't clear, most transparent administration everyone -- the drug companies did what Trump is best at: settle out of court and proclaim victory. By agreeing to work with Trump's lowered prices by the honor system rather than E.O. or law, Trump agrees to bail out the companies threatened by the suit, possibly even stepping in and blocking the lawsuits or issuing a pardon.

"Can he do that?"

He's doing it with the Wall. Why not? Basically, all Trump has to do is challenge the lawsuit's authority to stall for a year, get credit for lowering drug prices, and his campaign racks up fat stacks of blood money. It's possible the DoJ could challenge the 2,000 state/local/individual lawsuits with a federal one, claim they take priority, and promise to slowroll or softball the suits in 2021.

I see no reason at all that the drug makers, knowing Trump is hurting in 2020 already and that he loves big news he can take the credit for, wouldn't offer this option in an attempt to avoid what could be billions upon billions in legal penalties. It's not like massive douchebag companies haven't done this sort of thing before.

I admit this isn't the most likely course of action. An E.O. that would work the way Trump claims it will seems basically impossible to do. But until then, Trump is standing there doing nothing but replacing old promises he didn't keep with new promises he hasn't kept yet, either.

[Shalcker]

Ah, common knowledge. The plea of someone spouting bullshit.

You haven't supported your position in any way yet. I've done it multiple times.

It is pretty clear who is the one bullshitting here.

[Thekri]

https://www.archives.gov/research/fo...katyn-massacre

Basic reading for you to start with.

Stop feeding the Russian conspiracy theorists. Apparently mod warnings mean nothing now, and clearly they aren't going to do anything about this (Although they might ban me for saying this, but whatever), but we are over 5 pages into off-topic nonsense about the way history didn't happen. So just ignore them and go back to the topics at hand.

[Paranoid Android]

Trump’s cash grab – a move that lawmakers in both parties fear will hurt military readiness – affects 127 projects, including $1.8 billion in projects within the United States https://t.co/wdIT4GzCPB

https://twitter.com/politico/status/...015764993?s=19

Well, Democrats have their game plan for the Flint water crisis and any other project that will energize their base.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/...015764993?s=19

Well, Democrats have their game plan for the Flint water crisis and any other project that will energize their base.

So is this how Democrats can cut military spending to boost social programs? We can just take from planned projects for the Pentagon with money already earmarked for it and move it to completely unrelated projects?

Because that sounds pretty awesome, to me. Authoritatively awesome.

[akris15]

So is this how Democrats can cut military spending to boost social programs? We can just take from planned projects for the Pentagon with money already earmarked for it and move it to completely unrelated projects?

Because that sounds pretty awesome, to me. Authoritatively awesome.

You already know how this is going to end "its ok for me but not for thee" type of attacks here in a few years although Republicans already set precedent with this.

This is what happens when you allow the courts to be political because what is going to be the justification when Democrats pull this trick? If you rule against it but allowed Republicans in the past (ie now with is allocation of funding) then all you do it further ramp up the Democrat base when here in 5-10 years the Republican party is dead Demographically...