• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

j brown's body

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
54,351
Reaction score
50,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Trump’s method of irrational threats and bad-faith negotiating did work, to an extent, in private business. Stiffing contractors and lenders was one of Trump’s signature business maneuvers. It worked because he could always find more people to do business with, and the fame he cultivated through his manipulation of the media — also a legitimate Trump business skill — helped draw in a never-ending supply of suckers. The problem is that the supply of foreign countries is finite. The bad will Trump engenders with his irrational charges and crazy threats alienates partners he will need to deal with again. (How can Mexico or anybody make a trade deal with a man who is willing to unilaterally impose tariffs over completely unrelated policy disagreements?)

And some of those reputational costs linger after Trump has left the scene. Americans may think of Trump as a one-off phenomenon, but people around the world tend to associate the actions of a leader with the nation as a whole. At least some of the resentment and distrust Trump generates will cling to future American presidents and citizens. Of course, Trump doesn’t care in the slightest what happens to future generations of Americans. Trump’s deals are designed with the purpose of creating “wins” that he can tout as evidence of his negotiating prowess. His goal is to extract value for Donald Trump, and he is counting on the fact that nobody will think very hard about who will pay the bill.
Click to expand...

Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

There is a an even darker component to this. All democratic societies have plans of succession - where power goes from one leader to another. But it isn't limited to leaders, it can be extended to policy as well. For over a generation, our foreign policy has been guided by principles that have guided our different leaders, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Once one leader decides that "he alone" has the only legitimate policy to put forth, there is no real room for succession - no agreed upon facts or principles that give the policy continuity and stability. The next leader can follow Trump's example, or redo foreign policy all over again. But Trump's way depends upon him alone. It is the way of totalitarians.
 
I agree with this article because sooner or later we'll have another inept liberal in office who will return us to bending over and taking it in the backside. Once that happens, the free for all will begin and countries will pile on while the getting is good.
 
j brown's body said:
Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

There is a an even darker component to this. All democratic societies have plans of succession - where power goes from one leader to another. But it isn't limited to leaders, it can be extended to policy as well. For over a generation, our foreign policy has been guided by principles that have guided our different leaders, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Once one leader decides that "he alone" has the only legitimate policy to put forth, there is no real room for succession - no agreed upon facts or principles that give the policy continuity and stability. The next leader can follow Trump's example, or redo foreign policy all over again. But Trump's way depends upon him alone. It is the way of totalitarians.
Click to expand...

Oh what horse kaka.

You don't think Obama apologizing to the world was an act born of Obama's own beliefs?
Every POTUS puts his own stamp on the office. Hell I bet a few of the 'stamps' Billy-Boy left on the Oval Office furniture, are still there...faded but there.
This is simple-minded, the sky is falling, TDS, horse kaka.
 
j brown's body said:
Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

There is a an even darker component to this. All democratic societies have plans of succession - where power goes from one leader to another. But it isn't limited to leaders, it can be extended to policy as well. For over a generation, our foreign policy has been guided by principles that have guided our different leaders, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Once one leader decides that "he alone" has the only legitimate policy to put forth, there is no real room for succession - no agreed upon facts or principles that give the policy continuity and stability. The next leader can follow Trump's example, or redo foreign policy all over again. But Trump's way depends upon him alone. It is the way of totalitarians.
Click to expand...

Consequences matter. If the consequences help Americans, American voters will respond favorably. If the consequences harm Americans, American voters will respond unfavorably. Anyone who succeeds Trump would be wise to keep this in mind.

Regarding that opinion piece you presented, here is the first paragraph:

I’ve been working up a brilliant moneymaking scheme. My plan is to throw a bunch of wild accusations at my neighbors. I’ll comb city regulations to find rules they’re breaking, and if I can’t come up with anything, I’ll just make stuff up. After I’ve bombarded them with accusations of unfair treatment, I can threaten them with lawsuits. Eventually they’ll give me some money, maybe a few hundred dollars, to drop the matter.
Click to expand...

Rather than relating to Trump, this scheme is reminiscent of the tactic Obama used to become an Illinois State Senator when he pored over public records to find ways to disqualify his opponents, leaving Obama as the only person for the citizens to vote for.
 
dobieg said:
I agree with this article because sooner or later we'll have another inept liberal in office who will return us to bending over and taking it in the backside. Once that happens, the free for all will begin and countries will pile on while the getting is good.
Click to expand...

Our allies followed our last liberal leader.
 
j brown's body said:
Our allies followed our last liberal leader.
Click to expand...



Back then, even liberals had some balls. Today your party is made up of a bunch of whippenpoofs and Starbuck metrosexuals.


A far cry from FDR wouldn't you say?
 
Buzz62 said:
Oh what horse kaka.

You don't think Obama apologizing to the world was an act born of Obama's own beliefs?
Every POTUS puts his own stamp on the office. Hell I bet a few of the 'stamps' Billy-Boy left on the Oval Office furniture, are still there...faded but there.
This is simple-minded, the sky is falling, TDS, horse kaka.
Click to expand...
I seem to recall him selling a bunch of military technology to the chinease and the left telling us it was a big nothing burger

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
The notion that Trump has struck a single enduring "deal" with anyone in the past two years is an interesting myth. He's a TV character, in real life he's not a skilled negotiator at all. He's just a tantrum-prone Twitter troll who needs adults to coo and calm him down
 
Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad
Click to expand...
Because the radical left extremists say it is so.
 
trouble13 said:
I seem to recall him selling a bunch of military technology to the chinease and the left telling us it was a big nothing burger

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ya...they're hypocrites.
 
dobieg said:
I agree with this article because sooner or later we'll have another inept liberal in office who will return us to bending over and taking it in the backside. Once that happens, the free for all will begin and countries will pile on while the getting is good.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting? The the Republicans are better with the economy than the Democrats?

Unemployment is a Democrat thing

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

Truman started at 3.4 and ended at 2.9. -0.5% unemployment
Eisenhower started at 2.6 and ended at 6.6. +4% unemployment
Kennedy 6.9 to 5.7. Unemployment -1.2%
Johnson 5.5 to 3.4. Unemployment -2.1%
Nixon 3.4 to 5.5. Unemployment +2.1%
Ford 5.5 to 7.5. Unemployment +2%
Carter 7.6 to 7.5. Unemployment -0.1%
Reagan 7.4 to 5.4. Unemployment -2%
Bush 5.2 to 7.3. Unemployment +2.1%
Clinton 7.1 to 4.2. Unemployment -2.9%
Bush 4.3 to 7.8. Unemploument +3.5%
Obama 8.3 to 4.7. Unemployment -3.5%

So, with the except of Reagan, Republicans have had higher unemployment when leaving office and Democrats have had lower.

Ranking Presidents' Economic Records by GDP Growth - Bloomberg

GDP growth by president

1) Kennedy 5.5
2) Johnson 5.2
3) Clinton 3.7
4) Carter and Reagan 3.4
6) Ford 3.1
7) Trump 2.9 (as of August 2018)
8) Nixon 2.5
9) Eisenhower 2.4
10) Obama 2.1
11) Bush 41 2.0
12) Bush 43 1.7

One to join 4th are Democrats. Then Republicans, then Obama who got handed the worst post war economy. Bottom two are from the same family.
 
Buzz62 said:
Ya...they're hypocrites.
Click to expand...
I prefer to think of it as selective outrage. Its only an issue when the other party does it and its always justified when its their own party guility of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Lovebug said:
Because the radical left extremists say it is so.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Trump haters come in all demographics.

Frigidweirdo said:
What are you suggesting? The the Republicans are better with the economy than the Democrats? Unemployment is a Democrat thing
United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

Truman started at 3.4 and ended at 2.9. -0.5% unemployment
Eisenhower started at 2.6 and ended at 6.6. +4% unemployment
Kennedy 6.9 to 5.7. Unemployment -1.2%
Johnson 5.5 to 3.4. Unemployment -2.1%
Nixon 3.4 to 5.5. Unemployment +2.1%
Ford 5.5 to 7.5. Unemployment +2%
Carter 7.6 to 7.5. Unemployment -0.1%
Reagan 7.4 to 5.4. Unemployment -2%
Bush 5.2 to 7.3. Unemployment +2.1%
Clinton 7.1 to 4.2. Unemployment -2.9%
Bush 4.3 to 7.8. Unemploument +3.5%
Obama 8.3 to 4.7. Unemployment -3.5%

So, with the except of Reagan, Republicans have had higher unemployment when leaving office and Democrats have had lower.

Ranking Presidents' Economic Records by GDP Growth - Bloomberg

GDP growth by president

1) Kennedy 5.5
2) Johnson 5.2
3) Clinton 3.7
4) Carter and Reagan 3.4
6) Ford 3.1
7) Trump 2.9 (as of August 2018)
8) Nixon 2.5
9) Eisenhower 2.4
10) Obama 2.1
11) Bush 41 2.0
12) Bush 43 1.7

One to join 4th are Democrats. Then Republicans, then Obama who got handed the worst post war economy. Bottom two are from the same family.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of hyperbole. Reagan was handed as bad en economy as Obama, except that it was a double dip recession coupled with sky high interest rates. Bush 43 was handed a recession. Johnson was handed the result of Kennedy's tax cuts. If you want to be more reasonable, start 9-12 months into a Presidents term and run 9-12 months past. Then you are truly getting the period in which he has influence.

All that said, economics tend to ignore the Oval Office. Major changes, like the banking/monetary reforms in the 1980s, have lasting effect. Lesser changes tend to delay or accelerate rather than change the direction of the flow.
 
Jay59 said:
That's a bit of hyperbole. Reagan was handed as bad en economy as Obama, except that it was a double dip recession coupled with sky high interest rates. Bush 43 was handed a recession. Johnson was handed the result of Kennedy's tax cuts. If you want to be more reasonable, start 9-12 months into a Presidents term and run 9-12 months past. Then you are truly getting the period in which he has influence.

All that said, economics tend to ignore the Oval Office. Major changes, like the banking/monetary reforms in the 1980s, have lasting effect. Lesser changes tend to delay or accelerate rather than change the direction of the flow.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However the 2020 presidential election will probably be about whether the economy is good or not.

Regardless of whether Trump's done anything about it or not.

However the person I was replying to implied that Democrats are bad for the economy. I don't see this. And the person I was replying to must think this too because they didn't respond.
 
dobieg said:
I agree with this article because sooner or later we'll have another inept liberal in office who will return us to bending over and taking it in the backside. Once that happens, the free for all will begin and countries will pile on while the getting is good.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that conservatives are not even more obviously inept? Have you slept through Reagan, Bush, George W and this presidency? Trump has redefined executive branch incompetence, pettiness and stupidity to such a degree that no liberal will ever again have to reasonably endure name calling from conservatives. You guys have so thoroughly demonstrated the incredibly low ethical and intellectual standards of the right wing that NO liberal could ever sink to these depths of depravity and ignorance. The bar has been set so low by Trump and friends that the GOP voters have willingly bent over and taken it in the backside, like good apologists do, rather than admit they made a grave mistake. I think that speaks to the fact that conservatives hold no allegiance to facts and prefer, instead, to imagine their reality into existence. Well, democracy, to work, requires factual information to reach the voters and that is why you guys hate it so much.

We should just elect liberals to govern reality and conservatives to be the emperor of make-believe land and call it even. That is where they are most comfortable, anyway, denying science, obstructing progress and, simultaneously, speculating about whether their deity is satisfied with the number of women and poor people they subjugate. What morons!
 
D_NATURED said:
Are you saying that conservatives are not even more obviously inept? Have you slept through Reagan, Bush, George W and this presidency? Trump has redefined executive branch incompetence, pettiness and stupidity to such a degree that no liberal will ever again have to reasonably endure name calling from conservatives. You guys have so thoroughly demonstrated the incredibly low ethical and intellectual standards of the right wing that NO liberal could ever sink to these depths of depravity and ignorance. The bar has been set so low by Trump and friends that the GOP voters have willingly bent over and taken it in the backside, like good apologists do, rather than admit they made a grave mistake. I think that speaks to the fact that conservatives hold no allegiance to facts and prefer, instead, to imagine their reality into existence. Well, democracy, to work, requires factual information to reach the voters and that is why you guys hate it so much.

We should just elect liberals to govern reality and conservatives to be the emperor of make-believe land and call it even. That is where they are most comfortable, anyway, denying science, obstructing progress and, simultaneously, speculating about whether their deity is satisfied with the number of women and poor people they subjugate. What morons!
Click to expand...


Couldn't you have saved everyone the trouble of reading your long winded rant and just called me a stupid head instead?


It seems some are so enamored with their own writing, they just don't know when to stop.
 
dobieg said:
Couldn't you have saved everyone the trouble of reading your long winded rant and just called me a stupid head instead?


It seems some are so enamored with their own writing, they just don't know when to stop.
Click to expand...

That's it, I don't think you are personally stupid. I think that conservatives are collectively stupid and hire the stupidest leaders. Somehow, you keep doing things, as a party, that completely contradict morality and justice. Then I have to hear from conservatives that THEY are not immoral or or unjust, they're just being betrayed that way by the liberal media. Well, here's your chance. Tell me how Trump is not uniquely unethical as a president and a human being. It's not like he's hidden enough of his past for there to be doubt. Please explain how I misunderstand him.
 
j brown's body said:
Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

There is a an even darker component to this. All democratic societies have plans of succession - where power goes from one leader to another. But it isn't limited to leaders, it can be extended to policy as well. For over a generation, our foreign policy has been guided by principles that have guided our different leaders, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Once one leader decides that "he alone" has the only legitimate policy to put forth, there is no real room for succession - no agreed upon facts or principles that give the policy continuity and stability. The next leader can follow Trump's example, or redo foreign policy all over again. But Trump's way depends upon him alone. It is the way of totalitarians.
Click to expand...

For a generation, our politicians - both parties - have sold out this country for their own greed and power, for which the relative wealth of the USA compared to the rest of the world has been more than cut in half, while at the same time the country has gone absurdly into debt, ceased being the industrial/manufacturing powerhouse of the world, and it takes 2 family incomes to make 3/4ths the buying power a single income family made.

HOPEFULLY, the Trump presidency HAS permanently damaged the grotesque selling out of the USA and abandoning the core principles that made this country great in the first place.
 
D_NATURED said:
That's it, I don't think you are personally stupid. I think that conservatives are collectively stupid and hire the stupidest leaders. Somehow, you keep doing things, as a party, that completely contradict morality and justice. Then I have to hear from conservatives that THEY are not immoral or or unjust, they're just being betrayed that way by the liberal media. Well, here's your chance. Tell me how Trump is not uniquely unethical as a president and a human being. It's not like he's hidden enough of his past for there to be doubt. Please explain how I misunderstand him.
Click to expand...

Explain how you think the last generation of leadership IMPROVED - or even held ground - for us Americans? I say they sold us out.
 
Last edited:
Frigidweirdo said:
What are you suggesting? The the Republicans are better with the economy than the Democrats?

Unemployment is a Democrat thing

United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

Truman started at 3.4 and ended at 2.9. -0.5% unemployment
Eisenhower started at 2.6 and ended at 6.6. +4% unemployment
Kennedy 6.9 to 5.7. Unemployment -1.2%
Johnson 5.5 to 3.4. Unemployment -2.1%
Nixon 3.4 to 5.5. Unemployment +2.1%
Ford 5.5 to 7.5. Unemployment +2%
Carter 7.6 to 7.5. Unemployment -0.1%
Reagan 7.4 to 5.4. Unemployment -2%
Bush 5.2 to 7.3. Unemployment +2.1%
Clinton 7.1 to 4.2. Unemployment -2.9%
Bush 4.3 to 7.8. Unemploument +3.5%
Obama 8.3 to 4.7. Unemployment -3.5%

So, with the except of Reagan, Republicans have had higher unemployment when leaving office and Democrats have had lower.

Ranking Presidents' Economic Records by GDP Growth - Bloomberg

GDP growth by president

1) Kennedy 5.5
2) Johnson 5.2
3) Clinton 3.7
4) Carter and Reagan 3.4
6) Ford 3.1
7) Trump 2.9 (as of August 2018)
8) Nixon 2.5
9) Eisenhower 2.4
10) Obama 2.1
11) Bush 41 2.0
12) Bush 43 1.7

One to join 4th are Democrats. Then Republicans, then Obama who got handed the worst post war economy. Bottom two are from the same family.
Click to expand...

Notice the steady decline? Yet many Democrats now RANT BOTH to preserve the past (this OP), while ranting for all the extreme changes they want. There is almost NO topic where most Democrats don't rant the EXACT diametric opposite claims at exactly the same time.
 
j brown's body said:
Why All of Trump’s Deals Are Bad

There is a an even darker component to this. All democratic societies have plans of succession - where power goes from one leader to another. But it isn't limited to leaders, it can be extended to policy as well. For over a generation, our foreign policy has been guided by principles that have guided our different leaders, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Once one leader decides that "he alone" has the only legitimate policy to put forth, there is no real room for succession - no agreed upon facts or principles that give the policy continuity and stability. The next leader can follow Trump's example, or redo foreign policy all over again. But Trump's way depends upon him alone. It is the way of totalitarians.
Click to expand...

If you see the attendance at any Trump rallies compared to the attendance at Clinton's, Biden's or any other Democrat's rallies, President Trump definitely is NOT alone!
 
Buzz62 said:
Oh what horse kaka.

You don't think Obama apologizing to the world was an act born of Obama's own beliefs?
Every POTUS puts his own stamp on the office. Hell I bet a few of the 'stamps' Billy-Boy left on the Oval Office furniture, are still there...faded but there.
This is simple-minded, the sky is falling, TDS, horse kaka.
Click to expand...

Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for traveling the world trashing the USA, while at the same time bombing and attacking more countries than any president since WW2.
 
joko104 said:
Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for traveling the world trashing the USA, while at the same time bombing and attacking more countries than any president since WW2.
Click to expand...

No he got the Nobel peace prize just for being elected. It was not for any accomplishments, but given as an aspirational prize for being the first black president. Whether we agree with the committee's choice, or agree with his foreign policy or not, it is not for anything he did after being elected.
 
uptower said:
No he got the Nobel peace prize just for being elected. It was not for any accomplishments, but given as an aspirational prize for being the first black president. Whether we agree with the committee's choice, or agree with his foreign policy or not, it is not for anything he did after being elected.
Click to expand...

Jagland said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals.[11] The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician's promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for."[9]
Click to expand...
2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

I dunno how much I believe that exactly, but this is of more important note:

In remarks given at the White House Rose Garden on the day of the announcement, Obama stated, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."[15]

"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," Obama said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." He said those common challenges included the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons (which he said might not occur in his lifetime), nuclear proliferation, climate change, tolerance "among people of different faiths and races and religions", peace between and security for Israelis and Palestinians, better social conditions for the world's poor, including "the ability to get an education and make a decent living; the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future." The United States, he said, is "a country that's responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies."[15]

The award, he said, "must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity — for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy [referring to Aung San Suu Kyi]; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace."[15]

He did not take questions from reporters after giving his statement.
Click to expand...
2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

A great orator.

And he didn't keep the money.

Obama announced early that he would donate the full 10 million Swedish kronor (about US$1.4 million) monetary award to charity.[20] The largest donations were given to the housing charity Fisher House Foundation who received $250,000, and the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund which received $200,000. Eight organizations which support education also received a donation. $125,000 was donated to the College Summit, the Posse Foundation, the United Negro College Fund, the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation, and the American Indian College Fund. $100,000 was donated to Africare, and the Central Asia Institute.[21][22]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom