The Trump Presidency - Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
The Democrats sent billions of dollars of weapons to Israel and gave them political backing through ceasefire vetoes etc, but would make statements feigning sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
The republicans do all the same things as the democrats and back the Israelis to the hilt, but don’t feign any sort of sympathy or care for the Palestinians.
We are talking about white supremacists who pretend to care about those people of colour around the world and in their own country, vs white supremacists who don’t bother.
The republicans do all the same things as the democrats and back the Israelis to the hilt, but don’t feign any sort of sympathy or care for the Palestinians.
We are talking about white supremacists who pretend to care about those people of colour around the world and in their own country, vs white supremacists who don’t bother.
Reply to what, sorry?
Regarding Mogget's post.
If "This is the end times" is not a good indication of how I feel about Trump I seriously don't know what else could make my position more clear.
So what? It’s not a gotcha.
But this is just what the US "taking off the kid gloves looks like".
My response to your earlier post with the silly and inaccurate analogy of 'taking the kids gloves off'. You can find it by checking your alerts. But sounds like you've updated your view fairly quickly.
Apologies perhaps a bit blunt and snidey but I can't deal with the politics play of the Democrats messaging. They don't deserve any cover and they've certainly not earned the right to judge on hypotheticals.
As another poster says above its all just presentation from the Democrats. Democrat mouthpieces who mere months ago would have attacked those critical of US policy now want to join in with the criticism. Feck their gaslighting, they're all scum.
It is "taking the kids gloves off", in that it's acting in the way of many historical dominant powers. No fecks given, no treading with niceties and no care about who you burn along the way.
Anyway, foreign policy and domestic policy are two completely different beasts. The gloves have come off in foreign policy, especially with Trump favouring threats over anything else and domestically it's gone full Orwellian.
Time and time again he creates problems only to "heroically" fix them and people continue to fall for it.
While you’re here. How much do you trust the military to follow the constitution instead of Trump‘s will, if it ever came to that?
Asked me in 2023 I would have given you a very different answer.
A lot of this stuff, I expected the establishment GOP to completely push back on but they've simply rolled over and allowed it to happen.
I would have said the same thing about the DoD 1 year ago, but I don't have any confidence in that anymore.
For example, 82nd Airbourne being deployed to the Mexican border is farcical and I've no idea how this ended up happening.
That’s what I was afraid of. I have no trust in the police, as they are heavy supporters of Trump anyway. But I wasn’t so sure about the military. Historically speaking, if I don’t remember things the wrong way, police forces usually fall to fascists and likes before the military does and militaries might be more likely to oppose actors trying to destroy democracy.
Thought this was an interesting explanation for people like me who know very little....
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17r1xuAUFG/
"The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece...
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17r1xuAUFG/
"The best, most cogent and elegantly simple explanation into the inexplicably destructive negotiating processes of the president, by Prof. David Honig of Indiana University.
Everybody I know should read this accurate and enlightening piece...
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.
Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."
Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.
The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.
The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.
One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.
There isn't another Canada.
So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.
Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.
Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.
For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.
Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.
From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”
— David Honig
Democracy and what it is and what it means, along with the Constitution are so warped twisted and misunderstood, misrepresented and misquoted yet followed by many you can't predict anything anymore.
Has there been a single statement from Biden, Harris, the Obamas or the Clintons on what Trump is doing?
Biden said that Trump should resign and let Mike Pence be the president
As much as they’re all total cnuts you can’t say they never warned of what’s coming to be totally honest with them. They kept banging that democracy is at risk here but nobody really cared why should they now?
From NYT:
CIA sent White House an unclassified e-mail with some employee's names
CIA sent White House an unclassified e-mail with some employee's names
That's just a horrible analogy. As I said in the post you didn't seem to look up, calling what Trump is doing just realpolitik is an inaccurate euphemism.
Great post. It's the same with people that studied game theory. All this mercantilist economic policy is really, really bad strategic decision making in game theory terms. It would be comical if it weren't so dangerous for the entire world.
From what I heard from people that used to work in government, during Trump's first term there were a fair number of early retirements from lifelong Republican institutionalists who wanted nothing to do with Trump from State, Justice and Defense. That continued from 2020-2024. While there are no doubt some institutionalists still left, a lot of those departments have already been thinned out. And moves to try to get hundreds of thousands of Federal government workers to leave is an attempt to thin out any potential opposition from inside the institutions even more. At this point, I am actually hoping the end game is just to enrich some billionaires because as awful as that is, its preferable to if he really tries to push the religious conservative and white nationalist stuff after seizing complete control of the Federal departments.
They did, but then as soon as the election ended they were all very cordial. Biden sure had a nice time hanging out with the guy he said was a danger to democracy.
You're assuming he remembered who he was
Well the shit show has started with the Whitehouse rebutting statements made by trump.
Me thinks he crossed the line big time yesterday and even the GOP couldn’t stand by the comments.
Trumps problem is that he’s got 19 months to not completely feck the goose because if he does, I’m not sure the mid terms will look particularly rosey.
Me thinks he crossed the line big time yesterday and even the GOP couldn’t stand by the comments.
Trumps problem is that he’s got 19 months to not completely feck the goose because if he does, I’m not sure the mid terms will look particularly rosey.
Don't it always seems to go,
That your lifts fall out when you fall to the floor,
A wig full of lice, and Putin's tucked in your butt.
I'm so mature
Hopefully he gives them an offer they can't refuse so they are compelled to follow through, then it's the inevitable and long over due fall of the Hashemite kingdom and the Egyptian military junta.
[ Barry from Eastenders : They gonna do it anyway ]
I have a question , all these executive orders he is signing are they binding ? Do they have to be implemented?
Regardless of whether that's true or not - that I think of Pence in a sort of positive light these days is rather disturbing. I thought that whole thing about him traveling to Indianapolis to walk on the game right away to protest the taking the knee thing was already a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and as low as I thought we would go. Boy was I wrong.
Pretty much yes, unless a court blocks them.
Really ! that’s crazy
Yes, unless stopped by a federal judge which then goes to SCOTUS which can overturn (or keep) the federal judge’s order. If they keep it, then the executive order is essentially anti-constitutional thus won’t be implemented. But that is extremely rare.
The Congress can also overturn them by passing legislation that is different to them. But the President can veto the legislation. On turn, the Congress can bypass the veto if 2/3 of both chambers vote so.
In theory, it is a good system with lots of checks and balances, with 3 equal beanches. But Trump somehow created a neo-religion and effectively took over everything, so not much hope either SCOTUS or congress would do anything against him.
Thanks , I understand it better now
Isn't it ridiculous to just give up on the citizens because they didn't make you win?
Oh sweet summer child...
I'm aware that many of those are children yeah. My point is it'd be daft to blame them for the mess the older generation have gotten us all into, so the toddlers will get the benefit of my doubt (for now)!Did you read the second part of my short post? And 340mAre you counting the babies, toddlers, and all other intelligible to vote people?
It was relevant to the point I was making, not trying to catch anyone out. I'm just saying you can't blame everyone in any given country for the actions of the country. Whether that's voting for a terrible president, a stupid divorce from your nearest allies or a terrorist attack on a neighbouring country. Usually the majority of the populations of those countries are totally blameless.
Anyone who actively does not vote for reasons that are not circumstantial (You had a heart attack on election day or had to cover a double shift at work or something), are part of the blame and bear as much responsibility.
You cannot stay politically inactive and then cry about Trump's actions.
No not really. Some of them are actually illegal. Judges have already stated where were the lawyers when some of them were written. Like the EO for removing Birthright citizenship for example. That cannot be removed by EO it is literally in the Constitution. Some of these he's just throwing out there and daring the obvious lawsuits. He can claim he did whatever it is like he said he would.
There is no way that one can possibly stand.
That doesnt mean anything. Trump just rubber stamps security clearances. I actually was put on as a reference for an ex co worker to get security clearance. And I got called and had to do a interview for him by agents. I had to explain the work we did together. Affirm his trustworthiness. They asked if I thought he could be compromised or a threat to national security. There is no way in hell someone like Elon Musk could get security clearance normally. He is not American, he openly flirts with White Nationalists etc and thats in public. I guarantee the Alphabet agencies know more about him that we do.
Last edited: