Trump's statements and promises

OT has been strangely quiet on this. I guess everyone is spent talking about the election. But it's not the election anymore. Now the reality of Trump's presidency is dawning. If you thought he has moderated his positions over the election, his recent statements indicate otherwise.

So what can we expect from Trump's presidency? Consider some things he just said:

Source

Source

I dunno about you, but as a non-American I find statements like these concerning.

What do you think? And what does white, rural/male America expect from their new president? Just bring back the jobs? Or the fulfillment of every single promise he made/makes becoz "'Murica!"? If Trump sparks a war or something what can and will be done?

 

What I find disturbing is how this is polarizing things in Canada. The right wing is so frustrated at getting kicked out last year that they've shifted their support to people like Kellie Leitch - a female Trump wannabe who is a very well-paid surgeon in her non-political life, and who keeps ranting about the "elites" and the "liberal media", has espoused racist views that can't quite be characterized as hate speech (she's careful about that) but it's pretty obvious what and who she means, and for some reason she has a pathological hatred of the fact that Justin Trudeau:

1. Is generally popular among a lot of younger demographics in Canada and elsewhere in the world;

2. Receives numerous requests from ordinary people to pose with them for selfies (he doesn't initiate the request, he doesn't own the camera, he doesn't keep the pictures);

3. Has occasionally appeared in public while shirtless.


And this doesn't even begin to get into all the nauseating Trump praise I see from the Reformacons on CBC.ca.

 

I don't think people truly expect that much out of Trump. As it was stated by a lot of people before the election, one of the main driving forces behind the support for Trump was that people were just fed up with being forced to choose between the same tired old politicians that haven't done anything for them in decades. As one article I read put it, voting for Trump was supposed to be a "brick through the window" to get the political establishment's attention. Now that he's actually won, I think the political establishment in the US is going to wake up and realize they have to change the way they've been governing or people like Trump are going to start getting elected more often.

There are some of his supporters that are like this, but I don't think they constitute the majority of those who voted for him. Like I've said before, I think most of the votes for Trump were really just anti-Hillary votes more than they were pro-Trump votes.

Depends on the circumstances. In any event though, while the president is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces, Congress still exercises a great deal of power over the military because Congress controls the funding for the military and only Congress can declare war. The president can only unilaterally use military force for 90 days without congressional approval. After 90 days, the president must ask Congress for an extension on that 90 days or ask them to formally declare war.

So if Trump does try to go on some insane military crusade, there are definitely some safeguards in place that can stop him from doing so.

 

I wouldn't be relying too much on the intrinsic passive strengths of US law and institutions really. Almost identical political, constitutional and legal systems exist elsewhere in the world, and don't always have a great track record constraining demagogues and thin-skinned would-be tyrants.

 

I will start making fun and grumbling when he actually lands in office and starts making policy. I'd be more concerned about net neutrality because there is noone sensible to override him there.

 

You're way too optimistic here. Trump is likely to make a lot of stupid mistakes, so I think the message will be closer to "look what happens when you elect someone different" than "we've changed and will govern differently from before"

 

Trump is flexible and can adapt to new circumstances as well as stand against a great odds but he has made it clear he is no warmonger. Spending military budget on nukes is just a way how to feed the hungry wolf of MIC while cut down corruption in military - it aint easy to steal a nuke... Is he going to deliver what he promised? I say he has already did more than that. If you put all his promises together they are being outweighted by the fact that he did show you can beat the system if you play your own game and dont let yourself to be enslaved by the despondent elite and blind majority. That being said I think he is going to continue to deliver. Its just the question of how much...

 

I think that Trump is a clown, and may actually be dangerous.
Thanks USians for having pitted Trump against the only candidate he could defeat in the general elections

 

The neocon politics which started during Clinton era , brought to full swing under Bush and somewhat covertly continued under Obama has made a cirque of the US democracy. It required a clown to get elected in against that system and my guess is it needs a bit of a clownmanship to handle the rest of the clowns as well. You think Trump may be dangerous (which so far I have seen no evidence of) but that would certainly be no exception in White house as of late. But the way I see it he poses challenge to the mindsets of people who allowed the previous failures and proved to be impotent in handling repeated crisis and he may be a danger to the increasingly undemocratic rigged system as well. And for that he is my champion.

The difference between Trump and Bernie is that while the former is less modest and has more vices he can control and direct the "beast". Good is often not enough to deal with the problems you need power as well to make the difference.

 

I agree that Trump is a direct result of Bush W and then Obama's errors as well. Problem is... things are getting worse all the time, and Trump is also inept as a public relations guy (Obama was way better there, and W was so stupid that no one cared what he said anyway).

 

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the same influential people that de facto held the power during GWB Junior's presidency were also pulling the strings during Obama's two terms? Are you referring to Bolton, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfield and so forth? For some time I have been having similiar thoughts, would you be so kind as to expand on that in detail?

I personally would say they started with Reagan, not Clinton, and that the later years of the Clinton-era were dominated by him struggling with the "scandal" pushed into the public eye by the Neoconservatives, while a troupe of Ayn Rand worshippers took over Bill's economic policy and did their best to **** up You know, Greenspan and so forth.

 

or as said by Wikipedia:

 

You know, Trump should at least quit twitter:

 

Danny Zuker's insult game is on point. That's some respectable banter. For some reason I expect so much more from the Trumpster, definitely a big letdown. I hope he never quits Twitter btw. One of the few things that crack me up. Twitter in general is pretty good social network wise, quality content..




Rappers shouldn't complain that people treat them like big children :>

 

After the fall of USSR the neocons got a free play...

 

As long as Trump doesn't plan on waging war against a sovereign nation, the 2001 approval of the use of military force against terrorists permits him to do pretty much whatever he wants. It's been used by Obama to authorize everything from inserting military advisers into Syria and some African nations, to sending troops to the front lines in Iraq to take back territory from ISIS, to continued military operations in Afghanistan, to carrying out drone strikes against ISIS and al-Qaeda leadership. Congress has little appetite to revoke the authorization, because now they don't have to go on the record as for/against any particular military operation.

I mean, look at what happened in Libya. We blockaded and bombed troops of another sovereign nation, and even though those actions were probably illegal, and Congress condemned them, ultimately nothing happened as a result. These "safeguards" are not very safe - even when Congress tried to stand up to the president on matters of military intervention, they were pretty much incapable of doing so. I wouldn't expect that to change under President Trump, not while Republicans are in control, and afraid of what the Trump base might do if they go against him. And if Democrats manage somehow to wrest control of Congress in 2 years, they might try to stand up to him only to find out that they really have no way of doing so.

I can't possibly warn people enough - don't count on Congress to protect us, our troops, or the rest of the world from whatever havoc this person might wreak as president. If a president is willing to ignore them, he is pretty much free to do so. And given how spineless Congressional leadership has been this election season, I wouldn't expect them to be growing backbones any time soon. Trump has a nose for weakness, and is more than willing to exploit it. This is not a dynamic that gives me much hope of anyone moving to check his power.

 

^I agree, but Hillary would be at least as trigger-happy as Trump. So it is not like on this subject alone (war) Trump is the scarier of those two.

 

We're well past the point where Hillary is relevant to anything. Trump won the election and is going to be president. Whether you are personally scared by her hypothetical administration is quite beside the point. Trump needs to be judged on his own merits, and his own merits alone.

 

^Well, yeah, but it is a bit funny to accuse him of the one thing he isn't as scary as the democrat candidate was, namely causing a massive war.

 

Lybia and in fact much of north Africa is in chaos and Trump is not the one with blood on his hands. As a matter of truth it was him and Bernie who were a big solitaires against the foreign interventions. Were is this talk of him being a hawk or something coming from? What I see is a guy openly admiting the little hate he has vs. system where most hide their hate and surpress it behind some noble ideals. I have no doubt which one is closer to sanity.