Yes, Trump Pulled a Bait-and-Switch, but That Doesn't Mean Kamala Would Have Been a Better Choice

[WestCanMan]

Just because things are as bad as they are under The Orange Tyrunt, that doesn't mean that we'd all be better off with Kamala as president. 

Sure, we might all end up speaking 'Murican in 3 years, but would the Chinese even let us live if they took over? They killed a lot of their own people in the '50s, I wouldn't bet on them being any nicer to us. And I would definitely bet on a weaker and weaker America over the course of 4 years if Kamala won.

[User]

Are you competing with some of the others on here for creating the most worthless thread?

 

[CdnFox]

I honestly don't believe there's any doubt that Kamala would have been worse. It may not have been immediately apparent but the actual damage probably would be deeper and farther. Trump may be having a moment right now but that impart is because he knows he's probably going to run into trouble in the midterms. I suspect he'll settle down and start worrying about running the country before too long. 

He's going to have to worry about a couple of things. First, he's driving government spending and economic factors as if he were driving a speedboat rather than a super tanker which is a lot more accurate. That tends to lead to a lot of instability and if he's not careful he could see inflation or economic slowdown as a result. Some stocks have already taken a pretty brutal hit. And that's if there aren't tariffs or the like.

Laying off massive numbers of government workers, cutting back government spending radically and suddenly and making people fearful for their jobs all have very negative effects on the economy and can lead to economic slowdown  at least in the short term. People voted for him to get rid of inflation and bring back good jobs and wages and if they see it going the opposite way that will not be good

And the second thing is the tariffs and trade relationships are going to wind up being a killer for him if they get out of control. It will turn an unstable economic situation into an absolute economic disaster with high inflation and underperforming growth. And you could have some very serious long-term consequences, Canada is already getting very serious about diversifying away from America and other countries will feel the same. It's not like anybody will refuse to sell to or buy from America anymore, But it will be a drag on their economy that can last a long time.

We'll see. You can't really judge his effectiveness until after the first year

[gatomontes99]

I don't see what negative things Trump is doing?

In a month we got numerous hostages home, border concessions from Mexico and Canada, NATO is taking on more responsibility, Russia is negotiating an end to the war, billions are being cut from our bloated budget, Panama is reigning in Chinese control of the canal, NC hurricane victims are finally getting help, trade policy finally benefits the US and so on. This has been the greatest month in my life.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

I don't see what negative things Trump is doing?

In a month we got numerous hostages home, border concessions from Mexico and Canada, NATO is taking on more responsibility, Russia is negotiating an end to the war, billions are being cut from our bloated budget, Panama is reigning in Chinese control of the canal, NC hurricane victims are finally getting help, trade policy finally benefits the US and so on. This has been the greatest month in my life.

LOL i was young and foolish once

 Did you ever see that movie force 10 from navarone? They put the explosives in the dam and blow them, but nothing happens.  After a minute the commander says "It DIDN'T WORK, NOTHING IS HAPPENING!!" and the demolitions expert says "wait for it".  THey wait and suddenly cracks start to appear, then water, then it all falls apart in a tremendous rush 

 

Wait for it.   

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

LOL i was young and foolish once

 Did you ever see that movie force 10 from navarone? They put the explosives in the dam and blow them, but nothing happens.  After a minute the commander says "It DIDN'T WORK, NOTHING IS HAPPENING!!" and the demolitions expert says "wait for it".  THey wait and suddenly cracks start to appear, then water, then it all falls apart in a tremendous rush 

 

Wait for it.   

Ok. Your fictional scene from a movie is very convincing.

[Aristides]

Trump hasn't even been in office a month, don't you think you are being a bit premature considering what he has done already?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok. Your fictional scene from a movie is very convincing.

LOL  kid that would not have annoyed you if you genuinely thought i was wrong  

Trump is going too far too fast on too many fronts and it's already put the car industry in the states and their stocks into a tailspin.  The laying off of that many people that fast will be an issue. picking trade wars is already having an impact on many us industries and communities, Canada for example is the number one customer for over half the states and is actively looking for alternatives to do business with now even if they cost more.  The tax on china products isn't going to help either, 

The us's influence worldwide is about to start to slide a bit. The next time the us calls for help in a war im' not sure the response is going to be as strong as in the past.  I think that other countries will be less likely to buy us military tech, and will begin developing their own again. 

And canada will be looking to build more pipelines for the first time in a while, specifically to make it's oil and lng avialable to other markets. Which means it won't be available to the us. not to mention we control a shockingly large supply of the world's strategic metals and minerals. 

In a way this may well work out very well for canada long term.  Trump was right in that we're being far too complacent on the US as an 'anchor customer', and we need to get away from putting all our eggs in one basket and move away from doing busienss with the us as much for our trade or military. 

But that's not good for the US. 

Sorry to burst your bubble.. 

[gatomontes99]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  kid that would not have annoyed you if you genuinely thought i was wrong  

Trump is going too far too fast on too many fronts and it's already put the car industry in the states and their stocks into a tailspin.  The laying off of that many people that fast will be an issue. picking trade wars is already having an impact on many us industries and communities, Canada for example is the number one customer for over half the states and is actively looking for alternatives to do business with now even if they cost more.  The tax on china products isn't going to help either, 

The us's influence worldwide is about to start to slide a bit. The next time the us calls for help in a war im' not sure the response is going to be as strong as in the past.  I think that other countries will be less likely to buy us military tech, and will begin developing their own again. 

And canada will be looking to build more pipelines for the first time in a while, specifically to make it's oil and lng avialable to other markets. Which means it won't be available to the us. not to mention we control a shockingly large supply of the world's strategic metals and minerals. 

In a way this may well work out very well for canada long term.  Trump was right in that we're being far too complacent on the US as an 'anchor customer', and we need to get away from putting all our eggs in one basket and move away from doing busienss with the us as much for our trade or military. 

But that's not good for the US. 

Sorry to burst your bubble.. 

What world are you living in?

https://intellizence.com/insights/layoff-downsizing/major-companies-that-announced-mass-layoffs/

The only layoffs are in the electric car side of things. SWA layoffs are primarily because Boeing couldn't get their shìt together and deliver Max 7s. The Government layoffs are reducing bloat and inflation and will help fuel the understaffed job market that is reeling from boomer retirements. We are perfectly fine. And we don't need your LNG. We are trying to get rid of our excess to Europe. Which would have helped end the Ukraine war, but Biden's handlers decided to cut it off and help Russia.

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

What world are you living in?

https://intellizence.com/insights/layoff-downsizing/major-companies-that-announced-mass-layoffs/

The only layoffs are in the electric car side of things. SWA layoffs are primarily because Boeing couldn't get their shìt together and deliver Max 7s. The Government layoffs are reducing bloat and inflation and will help fuel the understaffed job market that is reeling from boomer retirements. We are perfectly fine. And we don't need your LNG. We are trying to get rid of our excess to Europe. Which would have helped end the Ukraine war, but Biden's handlers decided to cut it off and help Russia.

Reducing bloat and inflation are good things. But when you move too quickly it creates as many problems as it solves.

First off you have to pay the people out. That means a lot of money gets spent for absolutely zero work. In the long run it may be worth it but it creates headaches in the short term because once again jumping tons of money into the economy without it creating wealth puts pressure on inflation. You then have higher unemployment and those people will be out looking for work and that creates problems. They're not exactly competing for McDonald's jobs. And all of the millions of other government workers are nervous about their positions so they tend to spend less. In times of uncertainty people hoard their money because they don't know what's going to happen so they're not out buying cars or houses or racking up their credit cards. That has an impact on the economy. Remember about 20 to 25% of the employees in the country are government workers.

By itself it would be a significant impact but perhaps manageable. But then you add in a trade war which also creates stress on the economy. And then things you can't control like the chicken situation and egg prices.

And pretty soon business takes a look at this and begins to say maybe now is not the time to invest, maybe we'll just sit back and watch what happens and keep our powder dry. And that means lower business investment which is the exact opposite of what trump is hoping for with his tax cuts. And that presents a problem

And these are all structural issues. Which means that the problems they cause don't show up instantly, in fact they tend to be very subtle at first.  But just like that dam i mentioned the structural weakness causes failure over time and suddenly things can't easily be corrected.

Governments and economies are not like businesses. They have some pretty major differences. You can walk into a business and fire half the people and restructure on the fly and actually be stronger. That is generally not how it works with governments And economies.

So you're not going to see anything right away, but it will have an impact and his deficits are going to be pretty horrendous I suspect.

We will see. God knows the man has got a horseshoe up his ass at the best of times so maybe he'll get really lucky and something will happen to swing the odds in his favor. But I think what you're more likely to see is a couple of years of lackluster growth at best accompanied with high borrowing and money printing.

hell if that's all you wanted you could have kept Biden

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Just because things are as bad as they are under The Orange Tyrunt, that doesn't mean that we'd all be better off with Kamala as president. 

Well most people everywhere prefer stability and adherence to the law vs chaos, economic uncertainty, etc.

And you can't tell me that weakening NATO is anything but a long term decline for the entire western alliance, which very few Democrats or Republicans would have tolerated as a policy direction.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well most people everywhere prefer stability and adherence to the law vs chaos, economic uncertainty, etc.

 

That's probably one of the bigger differences. Trump offers very short-term chaos for long-term stability. Kamala offered the appearance of short-term stability but long-term chaos and economic disparity.

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trump offers very short-term chaos for long-term stability.

This is the dumbest, most opposite-of-reality comment I've ever read.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well most people everywhere prefer stability and adherence to the law vs chaos, economic uncertainty, etc.

And you can't tell me that weakening NATO is anything but a long term decline for the entire western alliance, which very few Democrats or Republicans would have tolerated as a policy direction.

I'd argue that letting hundreds of thousands of criminals across the border and hundreds of thousands of muslims weakens NATO. 

America has enough enemies within it now to easy topple a country with a normal military, like Canada. 

[Matthew]

23 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

d argue that letting hundreds of thousands of criminals across the border and hundreds of thousands of muslims weakens NATO. 

America has enough enemies within it now to easy topple a country with a normal military, like Canada. 

Immigration has been making the US stronger for hundreds of years. It's always been disliked by bigots but the alleged dangers of it have always been and continue to be mostly imaginary.

Edited February 20 by Matthew

[Barquentine]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And canada will be looking to build more pipelines for the first time in a while

Don't count on that. The price of oil could tumble in the next couple of years.

[gatomontes99]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Reducing bloat and inflation are good things. But when you move too quickly it creates as many problems as it solves.

First off you have to pay the people out. That means a lot of money gets spent for absolutely zero work. In the long run it may be worth it but it creates headaches in the short term because once again jumping tons of money into the economy without it creating wealth puts pressure on inflation. You then have higher unemployment and those people will be out looking for work and that creates problems. They're not exactly competing for McDonald's jobs. And all of the millions of other government workers are nervous about their positions so they tend to spend less. In times of uncertainty people hoard their money because they don't know what's going to happen so they're not out buying cars or houses or racking up their credit cards. That has an impact on the economy. Remember about 20 to 25% of the employees in the country are government workers.

By itself it would be a significant impact but perhaps manageable. But then you add in a trade war which also creates stress on the economy. And then things you can't control like the chicken situation and egg prices.

And pretty soon business takes a look at this and begins to say maybe now is not the time to invest, maybe we'll just sit back and watch what happens and keep our powder dry. And that means lower business investment which is the exact opposite of what trump is hoping for with his tax cuts. And that presents a problem

And these are all structural issues. Which means that the problems they cause don't show up instantly, in fact they tend to be very subtle at first.  But just like that dam i mentioned the structural weakness causes failure over time and suddenly things can't easily be corrected.

Governments and economies are not like businesses. They have some pretty major differences. You can walk into a business and fire half the people and restructure on the fly and actually be stronger. That is generally not how it works with governments And economies.

So you're not going to see anything right away, but it will have an impact and his deficits are going to be pretty horrendous I suspect.

We will see. God knows the man has got a horseshoe up his ass at the best of times so maybe he'll get really lucky and something will happen to swing the odds in his favor. But I think what you're more likely to see is a couple of years of lackluster growth at best accompanied with high borrowing and money printing.

hell if that's all you wanted you could have kept Biden

I don't think it's bad to go fast. In part, because we only have until the midterms to get stuff done. So get it done now, and start managing the results.

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Immigration has been making the US stronger for hundreds of years. It's always been disliked by bigots but the alleged dangers of it have always been and continue to be mostly imaginary.

Get off your kindergarten soapbox you f'ing dummy. 

How do "Death to America" protests in Michigan and New York make the US stronger? 

How is it bigoted to say that bringing them to the US weakens the country? 

Do you understand how much time and energy it takes to protect every mall and airport in America from those people, as well as protecting all of the critical power and communications infrastructure? 

How does that make America stronger? Tell me in adult words, don't rattle off another kindergarten speech with snotty insults. 

[gatomontes99]

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/direction-of-country

Look at how the right track has shot up under Trump. Don't ever think it isn't working. It is.

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Immigration has been making the US stronger for hundreds of years. It's always been disliked by bigots but the alleged dangers of it have always been and continue to be mostly imaginary.

You are conflating immigration with illegal immigration. 

 

11 hours ago, Matthew said:

And you can't tell me that weakening NATO is anything but a long term decline for the entire western alliance, which very few Democrats or Republicans would have tolerated as a policy direction.

Who is weakening NATO right now?

Trump and his administration have clearly been advocating for NATO to be stronger. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Don't count on that. The price of oil could tumble in the next couple of years.

It hardly matters. It secures our own supply and with lateral gas and electricity running alongside it it will have value no matter what. And right now we sell oil to the Americans at a huge discount, So even eliminating that would be worth it

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, User said:

Trump and his administration have clearly been advocating for NATO to be stronger. 

NATO is already much weaker right now than it was a month ago. US diplomatic actions in the last month have greatly improved the prospects of Russia and China at the expense of US trust and prestige.

[User]

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

NATO is already much weaker right now than it was a month ago. US diplomatic actions in the last month have greatly improved the prospects of Russia and China at the expense of US trust and prestige.

How is NATO weaker? 

What actions, how are you quantifying them?

 

[Matthew]

30 minutes ago, User said:

How is NATO weaker? 

What actions, how are you quantifying them?

When the US defends a client state  and then suddenly reverses course, treats them like an enemy, and sides with their invader--obviously other allies and client states will then feel less secure. In this case the client state was literally invaded by Russia attempting to expand their empire. It's the whole point of NATO originally to be a bulwark against Russian imperialism. So our nation's sudden disinterest in doing that is seen as a portent of things to come.

With Russias military industry picking up and trump team saying the US will now have a backseat role in NATO, they now have every incentive to strike elsewhere sooner rather than later.

[User]

14 hours ago, Matthew said:

When the US defends a client state  and then suddenly reverses course, treats them like an enemy, and sides with their invader--obviously other allies and client states will then feel less secure. In this case the client state was literally invaded by Russia attempting to expand their empire. It's the whole point of NATO originally to be a bulwark against Russian imperialism. So our nation's sudden disinterest in doing that is seen as a portent of things to come.

With Russias military industry picking up and trump team saying the US will now have a backseat role in NATO, they now have every incentive to strike elsewhere sooner rather than later.

OK, so your entire argument boils down to you don't like what Trump is currently doing with Ukraine. Nothing you said quantitatively shows how NATO is actually any weaker. 

Ukraine is not a "client state" of the US. We have not reversed course. Aid is still flowing. Trying to negotiate a peace is not reversing course. They are not being treated like the enemy. We have not sided with the invader. 

All you have is subjective feelings you are speculating on, nothing quantitative here. 

Our nation does not have a sudden disinterest in being opposed to Russian imperialism. 

What exactly did Trump or team say about having a "backseat?"

You are just making up all this crap.