Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

15859616364169

Comments

  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I don't understand how this shut-down thing works - what right does the government have to demand work from civil servants without paying them?

    I think the technical term for someone who has to work without being paid is "slave", and didn't they outlaw that (eventually) quite some time ago?
  • Yeah. I suppose they rely on employee's sense of duty and love for the work like some charitable organisations here. I can't believe that Public Servants haven't devised a work-around on the books - something like everyone turning a blind eye to people leaving early. That's often what can happen here when a manager decides they are not going to pay overtime. Its the good old weapon of the underclass - cheat a bit to make things fairer.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    romanlion wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    Romanlion makes a foolish decision indeed when they support Trump. At present, he is hooked and the line is running, but he is not yet reeled in. He might yet break the line, but he is tiring. People like Romanlion would do well to abandon their tarnished idol quickly, before they end up fruitlessly protesting for his release from a Federal Prison somewhere, their image used as an example of ridiculous and unwarranted loyalty.

    I suppose you could have me more wrong, but it would take effort.

    He could have got you less wrong, but you would need to provide more than a mere assertion.

    Hear hear. My recollection is that Romanlion claims to support an independent of one stripe or another (no prizes for guessing which side of the spectrum). The evidence of their posts on both this and the old forum is consistent with the most ardent of Trump supporters. This is especially true of Romanlion's recent post concerning Trump's meeting with the leadership of the Democratic party. It's like the post was written by a blind adherent, unable to see past the huge shadow their idol throws in their mind. It had no balance, no insight, and betrayed no evidence of the author having watched the meeting unfold on television, or have considered any of its implications. Rather, it was like a regurgitation of whatever prejudiced pundit Romanlion follows, no doubt a pundit who would have self-published a photocopied pamphlet every now and then before the arrival of the internet, or maybe had a weekly programme on community access radio. Make no mistake: Romanlion is a huge fan of President Trump.

    But would

    I love this.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    If my employer doesn’t pay me I can walk out. It is true some Fed workers are not allowed to strike under normal circumstances. But we have entered the Twilight Zone. What we need is a good French like Revolution has

    Don't you mean we've entered the Twilight Zone for the umteenth time in recent US political history? If my boss doesn't pay me I see if I can access my leave entitlements for that period. Also, in Australian industrial convention, if you strike during a lockout you lose the chance to argue for make-up pay.

    I suspect that, in this US situation, if workers can't access pay for the regular work they're still doing, they can't access paid days off, either.

    As suggested, they should strike!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Piglet wrote: »
    I don't understand how this shut-down thing works - what right does the government have to demand work from civil servants without paying them?

    Most affected federal workers are on furlough, meaning that they're neither working nor paid. Some (the military, TSA, secret service, postal carriers, etc.) are considered "essential" and required to work even if their pay is interrupted. In past shut downs affected federal workers were given their cumulative back pay, whether they were furloughed or not, as part of the budget agreement. Unfortunately government contractors, like janitors, cafeteria workers, or private security guards, are usually not included. They're just out several paychecks (though they're typically not working during a shut down either).
  • Most of us enjoy a bit of extra time off but missed pay cheques (checks) is a big deal.

    I mean, most of us know that we are very few missed pay cheques from not being able to pay the rent / mortgage...

    AFZ
  • I am curious, many people are saying because of Trump’s irrational behavior countries can no longer trust the US. Will the US be able to regain that confidence after he is removed?
  • I think a new President could restore trust easily through their words and actions. From what I see, the issue currently is Trump and his arse lickers. Remove them and install someone world leaders can work with and all will be as it was.
  • Note about Postal workers: the USPS is semi autonomous and does not depend on a budget passed by Congress.
  • So now T is whinging and whining about the Fed Reserve¹. He really is a pathetic excuse for, well, anything.

    ¹ the "only problem" re the economy according to a tweet
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am curious, many people are saying because of Trump’s irrational behavior countries can no longer trust the US. Will the US be able to regain that confidence after he is removed?

    That may be difficult. Contra Climacus, the fact that the U.S. electoral system could spit out someone like Trump will be lurking in the back of the minds of other countries for a while. They may be reluctant to plan anything relating to the U.S. further ahead than the next presidential election for quite some time to come.
  • Good point; thank you. I was seeing T as an aberration, never to be repeated.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    I think US credibility hasn't been damaged all that much by Trump. Western leaders are predisposed to want to work with the USA, and are inclined to view Trump as an aberration. I also think that everyone that matters has a realistic view of the United States as a nation looking to protect its interests first, as all nations are. We are not looking at the place through rose-coloured glasses and while it is difficult to comprehend why Republicans would nominate a bloke with Trump's background, it really isn't a huge problem. It's just another thing to laugh about and shake your head. The increase in isolationist and anti-globalist sentiment in the mainstream of the Republican Party is a much bigger concern than Trump. America retreating into itself is a nightmare scenario.

    I certainly take the view that an alliance with the United States is worth putting up with a dud in the oval office from time to time, and almost every politician in Australia takes the same view. I loathe Trump, but if he makes the request I will fully support putting Australian soldiers anywhere he wants. Despite all appearances to the contrary and the resignation of Jim Mattis, Trump is not a lone wolf, not on Syria policy or elsewhere. There remains a solid set of institutions that are behind him and also limit his actions.

    Plus, Trump is going to have such a tough 2019.

    Romanlion you linked an article about Australia recognising West Jerusalem as capital of Israel. There's a thread on Aussie Politics called "Simon says Bill's in like a Shot." The mooted move of the embassy, which didn't eventuate, was discussed there. I didn't see the connexion between the text you quoted and the article, but I can say that the recognition was idiotic, in that it even pissed off the Israelis, who don't recognise a distinction between West and East Jerusalem. They say that the whole of Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Our PM is a lame duck. His Government is so on the nose that he can't even get good press for our booming economy. This was one more pointless distraction from good economic news. Maybe he's trying to mirror Trump, although as I understand things the Trump economic miracle is looking a bit shaky at present..
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I loathe Trump, but if he makes the request I will fully support putting Australian soldiers anywhere he wants.

    Looks like the proposed invasion of Venezuela has at least one supporter on the Ship. Trump seems like the sort of person you shouldn't trust with a blank check, particularly one that's denominated in other people's lives.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I like the following quote from the linked article:
    a military option for overthrowing [the President] . . . and quelling the growing political and economic crisis his mismanagement of that country has wrought.

    Talk about irony!
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    With his rigged elections and extension of executive powers, Mr. Maduro sounds like just the sort of leader Trump would like and admire (and emulate if he thought he could get away with it).
  • Australian media are reporting on the tracking of Air Force One by planespotters as Trump made his way to visit the troops. Who'll get it in the neck for allowing that to happen?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I loathe Trump, but if he makes the request I will fully support putting Australian soldiers anywhere he wants.

    Looks like the proposed invasion of Venezuela has at least one supporter on the Ship. Trump seems like the sort of person you shouldn't trust with a blank check, particularly one that's denominated in other people's lives.

    Trump wouldn't be the first one to initiate a disastrous war this century. That credit belongs to Bush. What's another disastrous war between friends, as long as it is fought somewhere far away from home? Whether we trust Trump or not, he is the American President. Americans and private Australian citizens have the luxury of judging whether he is also a knuckle. That privilege does not extend to Australian politicians and public servants, at least not in public. Rest assured that this private citizen's upset at the American electorate and the Republican Party for installing such an unsuitable and reckless candidate is endured with some knowledge of the geopolitical ramifications of having a corrupt playboy in hock to the Russian Mafia in the most pivotal office on the planet.

    Our troops go where the American President wants them to go, when s/he asks and whoever s/he is. Supporting the policy the American President is pursuing is only of secondary importance (if that). The underlying policy is only relevant insofar as it alters the degree of difficulty required in obtaining and retaining the support of the Australian electorate. The policy we are pursuing is shadowing the United States wheresoever it goes. We remember who came to our aid last time we were in the shit and we know who is most likely to come to our aid if we are in the shit again. That's the policy we are pursuing, not making judgments about whether or not Venezuela ought be the target of an American led invasion. Anyway, you Americans never invite us to your South American adventures. I think that's about your historical colonialism in the region.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump wouldn't be the first one to initiate a disastrous war this century. That credit belongs to Bush.

    Kennedy, actually.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Trump wouldn't be the first one to initiate a disastrous war this century. That credit belongs to Bush.

    Kennedy, actually.

    Wasn't that last century?
  • I thought that link was going to be about Vietnam Amanda. We fell into that one like a tower with untreated concrete cancer. Ahhh, the Bay of Pigs. What a cock-up.
  • Australian media are reporting on the tracking of Air Force One by planespotters as Trump made his way to visit the troops. Who'll get it in the neck for allowing that to happen?

    Apparently the trip has been in the works for several weeks, making it the first time he has not blabbed and tweeted about sonething. Obviously it took the military, the Secret Service AND and the fear of getting shot down to shut him up. He made up for it by posting a video without redacting the identities of members of a SEAL team on a secret mission.

    The " surprise" trip also means a ton of right-wingers can point at earlier headlines - "Trump doesn't visit troops at Christmas" - and crow about the lame-stream media being unfair and lying about Trump.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    [...] He made up for it by posting a video without redacting the identities of members of a SEAL team on a secret mission. [...]
    Doesn't that count as treason or something similar, and which is legally relevant? I'm sure he can't just do this! This is clearly more than sheer stupidity, wantonly putting your own troops at risk?

    Any thoughts?
  • Apparently the trip has been in the works for several weeks, making it the first time he has not blabbed and tweeted about sonething.

    I think the word you're looking for there is "allegedly", not "apparently". Trusting this administration*'s assertions that this visit was planned all along and kept secret seems to give them a lot more good faith than they've earned by any plausible measure of the term.
    Wesley J wrote: »
    [...] He made up for it by posting a video without redacting the identities of members of a SEAL team on a secret mission. [...]
    Doesn't that count as treason or something similar, and which is legally relevant? I'm sure he can't just do this! This is clearly more than sheer stupidity, wantonly putting your own troops at risk?

    Any thoughts?

    As noted when President* Loose Lips burned some Israeli sources to the Russians, the president has the authority to declassify anything he wants to. This includes the identities of people in very dangerous situations.
  • He really is a complete dolt. He doesn't want to be 'managed' so his social media isn't vetted so he blows the identity of SAS equivalent personnel. Nice one, bonehead.
  • .
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    He really is a complete dolt. He doesn't want to be 'managed' so his social media isn't vetted so he blows the identity of SAS equivalent personnel. Nice one, bonehead.

    How many has he left to die?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    You've got to give me more than that Romanlion. Your comment is too ambiguous for me to discuss... if you are looking for a discussion.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    @SimonToad said:
    "I loathe Trump, but if he makes the request I will fully support putting Australian soldiers anywhere he want.s"

    Simon Toad may personally support following the USA into whatever far-away irrelevant wars the President of the Day uses to prop up the American arms industry. And so, I am ashamed to say, do some Australian politicians - unfortunately usually the ones in power at the time. Unfortunately on such matters, neither parliament nor the electorate are consulted before such commitments are made.

    But I , and I strongly suspect most Australian shipmates, regard it as idiotic to unquestioningly follow an idiot (e.g into Iraq), and usually not in Australia's national interest. Cases where it might be in our direct interest , e.g. to allow free passage through the South China Sea, can be treated as such.
  • Hear, hear, Tukai.
  • Mine is the conservative position, for sure, and quite possibly the ultra-conservative one. We have turned down requests to increase force size in Iraq on the grounds of domestic political problems (although I'm not sure how it was put to the Americans). It is possible that we could turn down the odd request for initial involvement here and there and retain their goodwill. I say its not worth the risk. Much better to be utterly reliable.

    Interestingly, our political leadership post-WW2 has usually been in the position of supporting American advice to the President to intervene. We don't so much want to follow as urge intervention. "All the way with LBJ" is relevant of our attitude. We have never been dragged into an American war.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It is possible that we could turn down the odd request for initial involvement here and there and retain their goodwill. I say its not worth the risk. Much better to be utterly reliable.

    How much American good will is actually at risk though? In the hierarchy of American allies has Australia gained esteem relative to France and Germany, for example, since 2003? As nearly as I can tell Australia hasn't had a major boost in American esteem by participating in the Iraq War, nor have those other two nations really suffered any long-term reduction. A few short-term and mostly symbolic negative reactions perhaps, but nothing serious or long-term enough to justify the risk to life participating in American adventurism would have involved.
  • Possibly. The risk I talk about is that the US does not go to war to protect us.
  • Missed the edit window.

    I see the US as the guarantor of our freedom. We don't get that for nothing. The price is paid partly in supporting the US militarily when requested, in giving the US access to our facilities for military use, in the provision of bases and other facilities like Pine Gap and in ensuring that our equipment is compatable with US equipment. It necessarily involves a certain amount of military spending ourselves. I'm sure there's stuff I've missed - Intelligence sharing is very important.

    Obama was right to demand that US allies pay their share, and to come to an agreement with those large European nations that took their foot off the pedal after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

    This is why I am very unhappy with all forms of American isolationism - whether anti-globalists on the lunatic right or the radical pacifists on the extreme left. I like the sensible centre - my version of course ;)
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Simon -- if you think the US, at least under the present administration, is willing to guarantee anyone's freedom, I have a bridge to sell you. The present lot neither know nor care about Australia, and put no value at all upon past loyalty or support. I speak with some bitterness, since Canada has learned very clearly that there is absolutely no benefit at all to supporting the present lot -- all it gets you is being screwed over.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    If only more of those 'merrikans still idolizing these thugs would reach the same harsh-but-sensible conclusion.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Living under this administration is supremely scary and depressing for those of us not under Trump's spell. :worried:
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Kind of a "red pill or blue pill?" thing, like choosing your reality in "The Matrix".
  • Simon -- if you think the US, at least under the present administration, is willing to guarantee anyone's freedom, I have a bridge to sell you. The present lot neither know nor care about Australia, and put no value at all upon past loyalty or support. I speak with some bitterness, since Canada has learned very clearly that there is absolutely no benefit at all to supporting the present lot -- all it gets you is being screwed over.

    All that is needed John is the idea that they might, although in my secret heart of hearts I passionately believe that America will act to defend Australia if America is in its right mind. I want as many American assets here as possible to bolster that belief. I want the Pentagon to say, "We can't let the Aussies go down Madame President, it's an irreplaceable cog in our defence network." Then I want them to break into this song in the oval office.

    I despise Trump for a whole swag of reasons. As a patriotic Australian one of the big reasons is that Trump damages the assumption in the eyes of other countries that America will act to defend us. It is his isolationist and anti-globalist views (more his isolationist views really) that makes Australia less safe.

    So, that bridge: Is it the one the guy from Arizona bought? The old London Bridge? If so I'm going to need a bigger shed.
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Simon -- so against whom do you want US support in time of trouble?

    I think its perfectly clear that the present administration really, seriously, doesn't give a fig about any of its former allies -- which it appears to despise. And I think you are wildly away from reality in your hopes and fears. THe US (administration) is not in its "right mind" and will not be for a couple of years. And it will take several years at best before anything resembling the alliances and trust of former decades are restored. Look to your own defences, if you really fear an invasion. You'll get no help from the US in any foreseeable future.
  • I think you're underestimating institutional weight in the US and overestimating Trump's personal resolve. I am presently reading that Trump is backing away from an immediate and complete withdrawal of troops from Syria, for instance. Trump's virulent and sustained attacks on the Justice Dept and the FBI have got him precisely nowhere. The Mueller Report is going to come down on Trump like Thor's hammer. It may or may not get him out of the White House, but he will need Senator Graham and friends to survive.

    As to our potential enemies, the big one is an expansionist China, but the more likely is a nightmare (for us) scenario in Indonesia. When the Portuguese pulled out of Timor Leste in the mid-1970's we gave the Indonesians the nod to invade. What followed was a massacre and a draconian crackdown, followed by years of guerilla war and repression. As things stand, with a newly independent Timor Leste and democratisation and economic improvement in Indonesia, it is unlikely that there will be a problem, but there might. The Military has run Indonesia for most of its existence and it is self-financing. Like many armies in developing countries, they run their own businesses. It doesn't need the civilian authority to give it money. It's possible that Generals with a score to settle and who never wanted to withdraw will take power there. That is when things will get sticky. Darwin is quite close. There is a large reservoir of goodwill for Timor Leste in this country.

    China is expanding its soft power in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka was one of the first countries to benefit. China lent them a large sum for infrastructure projects. When Sri Lanka couldn't repay the money as per the terms, China took control of a port. Details are sketchy in my mind because they mostly come from a Sri Lankan mate who hates his Govt and the Chinese. I also have a friend who spend most of his life in Vietnam. He really hates the Chinese and anything communist. Nevertheless, the Sri lankan experience is indicative of how the Chinese are trying to expand their influence and presence in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans.

    Plus, I think the world generally is going to be more unstable politically in the next 50 years than it has been since the 1950's. I think refugee problems and xenophobia are likely to increase, and I think we are in for further drifts away from moderate politics. When China collapses economically, it is going to create a tidal wave of poverty. China will destabilise, and the democratic advances made in South East Asia will be endangered. At that point, I would like us to have a very strong and very stable relationship with the USA, as well as the defensive alliance already in place.

    It's not all doom and gloom, John, but I think that's where our risks are. I hope things continue to go well for South East Asia, and that the Chinese Government can be reformed without too much death and destruction.

  • Remember previously I said Fed Workers should strike if they are not getting paid while working. Well, reports are saying the Federal Workers' Unions are filing suit to restore payments to the workers.
  • I thought of you when I read that Gramps.
  • This makes interesting reading. How unreality TV, flattery, a morally deficient TV promoter and other nonsense got trumpy the popularity to run for american president. trumpy borrowed TV tropes from "the apprentice" re running for office.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    He actually didn't want to be president. He hoped to use the publicity to force the network into giving him a better deal for the "Apprentice" program.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    He actually didn't want to be president. He hoped to use the publicity to force the network into giving him a better deal for the "Apprentice" program.

    I wonder how much he regrets it now that it turns out to be the worst job in the world for being admired and getting your own way?

  • For those who are interested you can watch the opening of the new session of the House of Representatives live on C-SPAN here. I'm not sure how well that link works if you're not in the U.S.
  • And now it's official. Nancy Pelosi received 219 votes to return as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her Republican rival, Kevin McCarthy, received 192 votes while 21 other Representatives voted for someone else or merely voted "Present". One member did not cast a vote and the seat for North Carolina's 9th Congressional District is still vacant due to apparent voting irregularities in the recent election.

    Pelosi is the first former Speaker of the House to return to the role since Sam Rayburn did so in 1955.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 2019
    Yay!!!

    What do people think of the Democratic strategy of isolating border security from other Govt operations, ending a shutdown for everyone, but requiring another funding vote on border security in February?

    I like it, but I never let lack of knowledge prevent me from forming an opinion.
  • This is yet another example of Trump's frightening ignorance.
  • Ignorance, or is it just Yet Another Example of how he is in Russia's pocket and will always support them and praise their actions?
This discussion has been closed.