Jump to content

America under President Trump


Recommended Posts

I think the American Presidential election is far more entertaining an event than any Parliamentary-election in Europe and these power-changing ceremonies how the former President flies away and the new one takes over are quite impressive.

Having said that I won't budge from my view that I still prefer the British style of Parliamentary democracy. In the American system everything is too much centered around the person of the President. When the President is in trouble like Clinton during the Whitewater-scandal the whole system paralyses. The British system is far more agile and able to react to surprising changes of circumstances.

Too bad that one thing which I admire about the American system is completely unsuitable for the Parliamentary-system. That is the term-limits of the head of government. You just can't have a law in Britain that nobody may serve longer than 10 years, two terms, as PM of Britain.

It is the job of wise politicians to realize when enough is enough. Like Aznar in Spain who retired after two terms. Unlike Merkel in Germany who is running for her fourth term as Chancellor in next election.

But, as I said, you can't stipulate that by law.

 

 

p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2017 at 0:54 PM, Argus said:

At minimum wage with no benefits... oh wait, the new labor secretary opposes having a minimum wage...

If it helps any, during the Republican primaries Trump also said that "Wages were too high".

Its a shame that the Democrats didn't hammer that point... their whole election ad campaign could have just consisted of a clip from the debate with Trump saying wages were too high, along with a voice over saying "Do you really think you're earning too much? Trump does". Anyone who was planning on voting for Trump because he was going to stand up for the working man might have had second thoughts.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-explains-wages-too-high-comment/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do former Presidents always completely retire from politics? I understand if they are old like Reagan or Bush Sr when they left office but Obama is only 55 years of age. he could just as well run for Senate in the next election and no term-limits there.

Or is it just that once Presidency is the pinnacle of the political career, returning to a lower position just wouldn't have the same appeal to it.

Regarding term-limits, can someone answer would Carter have been eligible to run for President in 1984 or Bush Sr in 1996? Why not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Why do former Presidents always completely retire from politics? I understand if they are old like Reagan or Bush Sr when they left office but Obama is only 55 years of age. he could just as well run for Senate in the next election and no term-limits there.

Or is it just that once Presidency is the pinnacle of the political career, returning to a lower position just wouldn't have the same appeal to it.

That's probably it.

But, it has happened in the past... Presidents Adams and Johnson ended up serving in congress, and Taft became a supreme court justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Subsequent_public_service

Regarding term-limits, can someone answer would Carter have been eligible to run for President in 1984 or Bush Sr in 1996? Why not?

I think they would be quite eligible to. But, I think loosing the presidency would probably be considered too much of a political liability. But, Cleveland managed to do it... (President Cleveland was defeated in his attempt for a second term, but ended up winning 4 years later.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2017 at 6:02 AM, cybercoma said:

Except when someone presents you with research you "ain't got time for that."

I ain't got time anymore for the liberal/socialist lies and fake news from the fake and phony establishment media. I do my research and I have found that the main scream media do not tell the truth nor give any facts. Just nonsense and constant politically correct establishment news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, segnosaur said:

As has been pointed out,  profits from foreign officials staying at his hotels is only part of the issue. Other types of transactions (giving building permits for any new buildings his business puts up, changes in regulations, etc.) are also potential conflicts of interest.

 

 

What checks and balances? Congress (who would be involved in the impeachment) is currently controlled by the republicans, who are probably not likely to turn on a president who is also a republican because it might give them a bad name. 

 

 

He's also the most flawed president (in terms of being racist, and incompetent, and petty and vindictive). But, it still hasn't changed the fact that shortly we will have a barely-trained orangutan as "leader of the free world" (well, the president used to be the leader of the free world. But now, who gets that label... Putin?)

 

Give it up with such nonsense. Orangutan? I think that the other guy was a trained orangutan. Trump is now the trainer for America the rest of the world, and with the help of Putin the world will be a better and safer place to live in now. But hey, if one continues to listen to the main scream media, they will never get anything right. They will just continue to support the old Soros kind of establishment that pretty much has destroyed the world. Goodbye to that ilk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a kind of law of certainty in the USA that in the mid-term Congres-elections the President's party goes backwards. Therefore Trump really has two effective years to push through his reforms.

The problem for him regarding that is that many, if not most, Republican members of Congress totally disagree with him on a number of issues.

Very unstable and tumultuous times may be ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I didn't expect him to be so transparent about his protectionism. That's one of the reasons he was elected but DAYUM, "America First"? That was the rally cry of Americans trying to stay out of WW2. 

 

Why wouldn't Trump be so transparent ?   He has been spouting such rhetoric from day one.

CBC wonks are already hitching Canada's success to Trump....pathetic.    Wish Trump well or "Canada is doomed".

President Trump is not responsible for the success of Canada's economy or foreign policy.

America First !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Topaz said:

Well. it didn't take long the police  are throwing  smoke bombs at protesters and I doubt Trump and gang will be having their walk to the White House, there about 1000 people MSNBC is reporting. Also Alex Jones was attacks  because his support  of Trump and his view on Russia and the attacker screamed at Jones YOU NAZI! U support Russia and Jones yelled back U stupid F*******, Russia fought against the Nazis!!!

But that was when Russia was Communist. Putin's Russia would, I think, have gotten along quite well with Hitler.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Trump has already trashed President Obama's energy policy....he promised coal miners that he would do just that:

 

Quote

The newly minted Trump administration wasted little time establishing that it will chart a starkly different course on energy policy than President Obama. On the White House website Friday, a new page called "An America First Energy Policy Plan" appeared shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. The plan asserts that Trump and his new hires will move to eliminate climate regulations and boost coal, oil, and gas production.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603418/president-trump-takes-immediate-aim-at-obamas-climate-action-plan/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America under President Trump means bad news for the Clinton Foundation money-for-influence scheme.   Without much fanfare, it will be shutting down in Trump's America because Hillary Clinton lost and can't sell much influence anymore.   

Quote

It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity," either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to the next president of the United States.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/

 

The Clinton's will have to find another scam....maybe go back to the real estate game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will he do to help all the opioid users who voted for him? In West Virginia, for example, where he did very well:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/12/19/How-West-Virginia-Became-Ground-Zero-Opioid-Epidemic

I didn't hear a lot of specifics about that in the speech. 

 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I pray for America's success under Trump.  May this indeed inspire.

 

"We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

 

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow."

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

I LOVE THE CEREMONY!

 

Political correctness just openly got kicked out the window - what with all the blatant Christian-laden prayers at the ceremony, nt to mention his speech!!!!! :)

 

Yes, it was remarkable.   The invocation and benediction featured six clergy, but no imam !   "God" was in Trump's muscular, angry speech without apology.   Church service was attended by principal players before the inauguration, as is tradition going back to John Adams.   President Trump will attend services again this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cybercoma said:

You should be careful talking about Trump "winning" the election as though that's some sort of popular consensus on his ideas and (lack of) policy. Three million more voters picked Hillary Clinton. He did not win the popular vote.

 

He wasn't running to win the popular vote, and neither was Clinton.   Both were running to secure enough state electoral college votes to be the next president.  Their election strategies specifically and explicitly were designed and executed around this election reality.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Way to miss the point entirely. Let me repeat it for you:

Winning the election is not a satisfactory condition to infer that the American public supports his policies and ideas, especially when he lost the popular vote by 3 million.

 

Nonsense....if Trump has won the popular vote by 100,000 he would suddenly have a mandate?   Donald Trump received a larger percentage of cast votes than did the party of Canada's prime minister, so I guess Trump has a much stronger mandate than Trudeau.   Isn't logic fun ?

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Yes. Logic. The logic of comparing the nomination of a president in a republic to the appointment of a prime minister under a parliamentary system. I'm sure you'er having fun trolling, but logic isn't what you're using.

 

And yet...Trump won...and your wannabe candidate lost.   That's the reality, and if the U.S. Congress supports him, Trump's agenda will prevail.

Voters in Canada's parliamentary system expressed less confidence in Trudeau and his party than did Americans for Donald Trump and his party.

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...