DXBtoDOH

Hmm. It was on a Friday. They could have been having brunch or shopping instead? Possibly.

On the other hand, it is America so it's more likely they would have wasted the day watching TV

tintriangle

Not sure how it could have been negative but yes, opportunity cost such as saving or spending on other items would depend upon marginal propensity to consume (there, that's the end of my recall of a lecture room in 197X)

Irishbeekeeper

btw I do know the Kevin Bannon reference but despite all of my 'googling', couldnt get the Goebbels and Potemkin thing

Soooooo trump is a good president because for the next 4 years he will incite more and more of these economic ventures and end up being the ultimate Saviour?

scrubbedexpat141

That's a good point actually. I hadn't thought of it in a positive, just the negative but I think that's Trump's view a lot of the time that he's still fighting these folk.

Although, hopefully changing as I think he tweeted some shit about the marches and then tweeted something about it being their democratic right and was much more positive.

So perhaps Donald the Reasonable may prevail?

DXBtoDOH

There is no such thing as Donald the Reasonable.

The Donald will always be loud, bombastic, flamboyant, egoistical. I think he thrives out of taking the mick out of his enemies and doesn't really care what others think of it or how he does it.

I also don't think he has a real clue as to what to do beyond a vague concept of the right thing to do. My guess is that he will focus on a handful of key initiatives and shout his way into making them happen. And it may be a strategy that works

I also think all the fears that he'll turn back the clock on various so-called 'rights' are unfounded (see comment above about taking the mick). Prior the past year he's never shown any interest in social issues and his life history is anything but socially conservative or religious (he is potentially the most secular and culturally indifferent president the Americans have ever had). But his indifference goes both ways. He's not going to support attempts at rebranding certain groups as deserving of special attention or protection and will openly mock attempts to do so. I don't think it's because he has any particular dislike or contempt of certain ethnicity or gender or sexuality, but his attitude his whole life has pretty much been: 'shut up, stop whinging and go out there and do it!'

scrubbedexpat141

Right. A lot of this is fairly acceptable and agreeable, if it were black and white. I just don't think The Donald is.

Being flamboyant and egotistical is excellent when presenting The Apprentice.
Being clueless bar vague conceptual ideas is great when presenting The Apprentice or investing money in a personal enterprise.

But as the leader of the New World?
Will it work?
Will there be a balance struck?
Will it be an embarrassing presidency of nothing, or will it flourish economically etc?

There are question marks over his tolerances for other 'groups' - take his comments about Muslims and banning them 'until they can figure this out'. I mean, if that's a joke it's pretty shit, if it was serious and people want him to be held accountable for it being part of the reason they voted for him then what the ****? Is that sort of sweeping intolerance really anything other than a nasty negative?

Like Brexit, it's happening / happened now. I'm all for knuckling down and getting on (if I were an American), I hold reservation on The Donald and don't think, from what he was saying in his campaigns that he is a good leader or in fact person if that's how he thinks.
However, he's POTUS now and if he's keen to develop the 'special relationship' then great, if he leads prosperity in the US then it can rub off on us, great.

Let's not forget, I sit right of centre and find him cringe-worthy and extreme in some of his views.
True liberal folk must be marching in their millions.........

IKnowNothing

Hopefully he'll put decent advisers around him and they will be basically run the US with Trump as the figurehead who shouts a lot.

If he gets it done and sorts out the mess that is the USA, and does put America first - in the same way that China puts China first, Japan, South Korea etc. Sadly Britain first isn't the best statement but surely the population of every country should put there country first?

Surely?

Meow

So a woman with an opinion is a shrew? Way to go with the Trump style misogyny.

DXBtoDOH

A woman without a sense of humour is probably a shrew

Miss Ann Thrope

I agree that the ur-Trump, while a vulgar ignoramus and serial assaulter of women, is actually as socially liberal and irreligious a candidate as ever assumed high office in the US. However, the version of Trump that got elected used a number of calculated right-wing strategies right out of the Breitbart playbook starting with the ultra-racist birther nonsense, which created his political base in the Republican party. He buit on this with all sorts of barely coded anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, sexist and racist dog-whistles during the election campaign, which were critical to securing his constituency, both in the Republican primaries and in the general election.

This stimulated the high turn-out of low-education voters in whiter-than-average states in the upper Mid-west that tipped him over the edge in the electoral college (check the exit polls). However, still most of his vote came from the 35-40% of Americans that will always vote Republican no matter who the candidate is. That includes the (let's be frank, racist) white south and more widely spread evangelical vote as well as the club-for-growth rapacious deregulators and science deniers. He continues to have to keep all of these rabid dogs fed with red meat - note the striking number of specifically Christian references in his (mercifully short) inaugural address.

And to those who think, "oh, he'll get good people around him and do the right thing", I say WAKE THE F**K UP and see who he has appointed to those critical positions. If you don't know who Kevin Bannon is (though Beekeeper does) then you better bloody find out quickly. He is the most significant voice in Trump's ear, more even than Kellyanne "alternate facts" Conway.

Bannon had a knife-edge strategy to get Trump elected that worked; just! They had only one shot and had to run the table - and they did it. A lot of luck was involved (bad weather in Milwaukee and Detroit, a transport strike in Philadelphia - low turnout in those big cities handed 3 critical states to Trump by a whisker); a lot of Republican chicanery with voter-suppression initiatives in locally Republican-controlled states (most significantly WI, MI, OH, IA PA, NC and FL, all of which flipped blue to red); FBI Director Comey's ham-handed (I'm being charitable) interference; the drip-drip of Putin-enabled wikileaks email releases making "Hillary's email" an issue without many voters really understanding the issue at all. It all came together in a perfect storm which will be almost impossible to repeat. Hillary won the popular vote by a bigger number and percentage than W beat Kerry in 2004, only slightly less in % terms (and more in actual votes) than Leave's Brexit margin in the UK - think about that! And yet Trump still won the election because of how Bannon's strategy worked out in the electoral college.

That's why there will be no nice and reasonable Trump. He has to keep that riled-up constituency with a permanent hard-on so they will turn out for him next time again because he knows that he turns off most voters. That's why he has the most hard-right cabinet of (incompetent) extremists in American history. That's why his inaugural address was not a unifying rallying call to the nation (let alone the world) but a crude partisan shout-out to the alt-right and paleo-cons and theo-cons and all the other assorted mongrel nasties. That's why he issued those spiteful executive orders in his first hour to gut voting and civil rights, support for mitigation of climate-change and affordable health-care.

Judge him by his actions: his actions so far have vindicated the most depressing and alarming speculation about how his presidency would unfold. Be afraid, be very afraid....

Meow

Keep digging.

DXBtoDOH

I figure if I keep digging I'll soon be able to turn out a decent play about shrews

Meow

You wish.

I guess the infinite monkey theorem might work one day...

tintriangle

Hmmmm.

If it is possible to set aside the man and just consider the role, here's John Redwood's (someone who has had a degree of success in senior business and government positions) take on some of the Trump Administration's initial ideas.
John Redwood's Diary



Letter to America
Posted: 22 Jan 2017 09:21 PM PST
Dear President Trump
I congratulate you on your installation as President. Your vision to create more jobs, revitalise US infrastructure, boost US take home pay and inject more life into US economic leadership is a bold one. We in the UK are also embarked on a similar task as we leave the EU. We too need to build more roads, railways, bridges, energy plants and water supply facilities. We too need to make more things for ourselves and import less to narrow our trade gap. Our two countries can indeed trade with each other more, as ours is a fair trade with a reasonable balance of imports and exports for each party.
Your proposals to produce more realistically priced energy will help restore your manufactures. Cheap energy is a vital part of a flourishing industry. Your plans to cut corporate and individual tax rates will energise entrepreneurs, spawn more investments, and allow people to keep and spend more of their earnings. That in turn creates demand which generates more jobs. The USA in recent years has pioneered much of the digital revolution and has done well in creating more companies and jobs in technology, but has suffered from Chinese, German and Mexican imports of industrial goods which could have been made more extensively in the USA. Tax reform, cheaper energy, a better regulatory climate and a President who supports manufacturing will make a difference.
Both the USA and the UK could benefit from an early free trade agreement between our own two countries. Fair trade which results in a sensible balance between the trading parties can enrich and enhance both sides. If our two countries draw one up and sign it, it will show the world that the USA is not afraid of fair trade, and it will put more weight behind the UK’s intention to be an even more successful world trading nation open for business globally.
I was pleased to read you are planning a summit in due course with Mr Putin. The West has made mistakes in recent years with its military interventions in the Middle East. Some carefully planned joint working with Russia which also has a presence and diplomatic interests there might help achieve the important but more limited objective you have set in combatting ISIS. Past policy has suffered from conflicting and ambitious aims which have resulted in all too many civil and religious wars in the region.
The UK and the US can make common cause to strengthen NATO for our mutual defence. As one of the few countries that does hit the minimum 2% GDP target for defence spending, the UK is a natural ally in your campaign to get all NATO members to spend at least the minimum. If I tried only paying a portion of the insurance premium I owe to insure my home the insurance company would cancel the cover. Why are countries that want their allies support any different if there is a minimum? The EU does not allow its members to pay a lower subscription, and none of our EU friends short change the Commission.
I am pleased our Prime Minister will visit on Friday. There is plenty of scope to increase our joint working on intelligence, defence, trade, economic policy and general foreign policy. I wish you every success in tackling the problems in the USA that you have identified.
Yours etc

Meow

John Redwood. The John Redwood who became a laughing stock for (badly) miming the Welsh national anthem when Secretary of State for Wales? The John Redwood who voted consistently against LGBT rights and same sex marriage, and for the reintroduction of capital punishment?

I won't be giving any credence to anything he says.

(I've even set aside the Vulcan references in the interests of fairness.)