The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

I didn't brush aside anything. I didn't address it because I think it's quite likely that many who voted Trump did so simply because she's not Hillary, regardless of reason.

Using the term "higher standard" when describing Hillary Clinton, given her proven track record of disregard for the American people and its governance, is laughable.

The "left wing" tactic I mentioned was when you accused the average "anyone but Hillary" voter as being a misogynist, which is a baseless and inflammatory accusation.

:?

None of this addresses my point. The term "higher standard" was not used to describe Clinton, it was used to describe the level of scrutiny applied by a "never Hillary" Trump voter. That same level of scrutiny was not applied to Trump nor was it applied to Bush, that is the double standard here.

Never mind all of the misogynistic merchandise worn by these individuals:

Black pin reading don?t be a pussy. vote for trump in 2016.

Black-and-red pin reading trump 2016: finally someone with balls.

White T-shirt reading trump that bitch.

White T?shirt reading hillary sucks but not like monica.

Red pin reading life?s a bitch: don?t vote for one.

White pin depicting a boy urinating on the word Hillary.

Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a biker and Clinton falling off the motorcycle?s back alongside the words if you can read this, the bitch fell off.

Black T-shirt depicting Trump as a boxer having just knocked Clinton to the floor of the ring, where she lies faceup in a clingy tank top.

White pin advertising kfc hillary special. 2 fat thighs. 2 small breasts ? left wing.

src

here is a Twitter analysis of misogyny against Clinton:

The vast majority of the slurs were associated with Twitter users on the right ? particularly self-identified Trump supporters.

src

and here we have Trump supporters wearing t Anti-Clinton misogynistic memorabilia:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/the-most-misogynistic-things-people-wore-to-trump-rallies.html

There are a number of articles that go on and on about this. This isn't just some "alternative fact."
 
:?

None of this addresses my point. The term "higher standard" was not used to describe Clinton, it was used to describe the level of scrutiny applied by a "never Hillary" Trump voter. That same level of scrutiny was not applied to Trump nor was it applied to Bush, that is the double standard here.

Never mind all of the misogynistic merchandise worn by these individuals:



src

here is a Twitter analysis of misogyny against Clinton:



src

and here we have Trump supporters wearing t Anti-Clinton misogynistic memorabilia:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/the-most-misogynistic-things-people-wore-to-trump-rallies.html

There are a number of articles that go on and on about this. This isn't just some "alternative fact."
You really think right wing voters were holding Hillary to a higher standard than left wing voters did to Trump, or for anyone else in previous elections on either side, really?

Nor did anyone suggest there aren't misogynistic assholes out there. The issue is still your defence that Trump voters are likely uneducated, then in the same post you exclaiming "eff them" and not even willing to consider what some other motivations they might have had for their decision. Then you go off and accuse the average "no Hillary" voter as being misogynistic, hiding behind legitimate issues such as Benghazi or private email servers.

I'm offering you a chance to get yourself out of a hole but you seem intent to keep digging further.
 
Last edited:
You really think right wing voters were holding Hillary to a higher standard than left wing voters did to Trump, or for anyone else in previous elections on either side, really?

Where was this said?

Nor did anyone suggest there aren't misogynistic assholes out there. The issue is still your defence that Trump voters are likely uneducated,

This isn't something I pulled out of thin air...

map2-720.png


src: Donald Trump?s Big Bet
on Less Educated Whites


also:

Education put Donald Trump in the White House

then in the same post you exclaiming "eff them" and not even willing to consider what some other motivations they might have had for their decision. Then you go off and accuse the average "no Hillary" voter as being misogynistic, hiding behind legitimate issues such as Benghazi or private email servers.

When their argument mostly devolves to "She's a cunt", "emails!!!11", and "Benghazi". No, I don't give a shit about their motivations, you want to know why? Because none of those items have anything to do with her policy choices or how she planned to implement them.
 
Where was this said?
On the last page:
Cellos88GT said:
I would argue the average "never Hillary" voter is a misogynistic individual hiding behind the curtains of Benghazi and "EMAILS!!!11" because the reality is, most of those individuals probably voted for a second term Bush Jr., a man that gave us the Patriot Act, a war that was built upon a lie or bad intel, and whose cabinet was littered with private email users. The double standard is damning.

Cellos88GT said:
...the average "never Hillary" Trump voter holding Hillary to a higher standard, even though that individual likely voted for someone that was up to the same antics in the past.

Moving on...

Cellos88GT said:
The information in those articles is interesting, but doesn't prove your point. The first article is a pre-election poll, and the second uses census data to analyze post-election results to show some interesting data, but even the article itself doesn't make the leap in their conclusion that you apparently want them to.

The Atlantic said:
Education is tricky, because it?s tied up with so many other things. College graduates are generally more liberal; they?re also more insulated against unemployment and outsourcing than your average blue-collar factory worker (though that certainly could change). And, of course, there?s the ever-widening income gap between college graduates and everyone else. What looks like a strong correlation between higher education and opposition to Trump might just be a proxy for a hidden economic variable.

... and (emphasis mine)

The Atlantic said:
So what is it? Trump voters aren?t stupid. I have a hard time believing that simply obtaining a college degree would convince a voter to view Trump as a charlatan and not a champion. I?ve previously theorized that a ?hope gap? might explain Donald Trump?s appeal, with people in communities where most residents have fewer educational credentials having a dimmer view of the future. But it?s also possible that a region?s education level is simply the primary ingredient in a larger medley of cosmopolitanism, an indication of its integration with a global world.

... finally

The Atlantic said:
Trump won not solely because of economics, race, or globalization, but by some subtle interplay between the three. Analysts haven?t yet hit on the Grand Unified Theory of Trump, the right set of variables (total international flights? Hours of Netflix watched per person?) to shove education out of the picture and show the true bonds that connect conservative voters. That equation might never balance. But there?s now enough evidence to say, emphatically, that money and race alone didn?t decide this election.

When the source article you cite isn't prepared to make that leap based on its own data, where do you get your conclusion from?

Besides, I was mislead on your ever-changing narrative. I was not refuting that Trump voters were less formally educated than Hillary voters. The original point at which I inserted myself into the discussion was to refute your assertion that:
Cellos88GT said:
education is directly proportional to an individual's ability to reason

... and then you, a post-graduate education in hand, following up with this well-informed gem:
Cellos88GT said:
Fuck Trump voters, I don't give shit what their story is.

So, you wish to cast aspersions on nearly half the voter turnout, without first trying to understand why they voted they way they did? That's not "reason"-able.

Cellos88GT said:
When their argument mostly devolves to "She's a cunt", "emails!!!11", and "Benghazi". No, I don't give a shit about their motivations, you want to know why? Because none of those items have anything to do with her policy choices or how she planned to implement them.
The Benghazi and confidential-information-via-private-email-server issues are genuine issues that showcase the distrust against Hillary by a large portion of Americans. A distrust, I might add, that has been fomenting for over twenty years. To reduce these issues to accusing those concerns as being misogynists is the telltale SJW/left wing tactic. No one is disputing the poorly thought out exclamations of a few voters as being misogynist, but that does not take away from the issues themselves.

To use my professional experience as an analogy, there is (very weak) evidence that statin drugs used to treat high cholesterol (and prevent recurrent heart attacks in affected persons) have increased incidence of late onset diabetes, a tidbit that highly educated (the ones who read multiple news sources/newspapers versus the poorer, less well read individuals) patients have glommed onto The problem is far more complex, as those with high cholesterol/previous coronary disease have additional risk factors (including, but not limited to, smoking, hypertension, obesity) that, statin use or not, predispose them to developing diabetes. Furthermore, their is clear evidence that regardless of statin's causative link to diabetes, the drugs still provide drastically reduced rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which is one of the biggest comorbid complications that diabetics are desparate to avoid.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There are plenty of excellent, well regarded physicians whom I might trust with my patients, but I wouldn't want them anywhere near a public policy due to their lack of worldly experience beyond a small bubble. I'm sure you have engineering colleagues or mentors whose input you would find invaluable on particular projects, but their knowledge outside of that window could be so limited as to be downright frightening.

Oh, people not choosing to vote for Hillary because she's a woman is misogynist? If so, are you willing to call blacks racist against whites for 1) turning out in historically record numbers to vote for Obama in 2008 and 2012, whereas they previously didn't vote in nearly as significant a turnout?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/upshot/black-turnout-in-1964-and-beyond.html

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-20

Also, to go back to an earlier point, the New York Times article you cited refutes your own claim that Trump voters held Hillary to a higher standard to Republicans they voted for in previous election, because most of that group didn't bother to vote at all.

(parenthesis and emphasis mine)

New York Times said:
Here?s how the population of actual voters broke down in the last presidential election (Obama/Romney). Only about half of whites with no college degree voted, leaving about 29 million votes on the table in an election decided by five million votes.
















?
 
On the last page: ... Moving on...

I didn't say anything about left-wing voters in either of those quotes, so I'm not sure what it is we're disagreeing upon anymore.


The information in those articles is interesting, but doesn't prove your point.

Remember, those articles were cited to refute this point of yours:
The issue is still your defence that Trump voters are likely uneducated,

When the source article you cite isn't prepared to make that leap based on its own data, where do you get your conclusion from?

I wasn't expecting it to. My conclusion is based off my experience with teaching and education, if you want me to dig up articles that relate education to rational decision making, I'd be more than happy to.


Besides, I was mislead on your ever-changing narrative. I was not refuting that Trump voters were less formally educated than Hillary voters. The original point at which I inserted myself into the discussion was to refute your assertion...

So are you refuting that rational decision making isn't a product of education?


... and then you, a post-graduate education in hand, following up with this well-informed gem:

You and I both know that quote was tongue-in-cheek and was really an allusion to a placement of blame for the fucked up government that we all now have to endure.

What I'm trying to understand is: How the people, that now regret voting for him, did not have the foresight to foretell this cluster fuck? The writing was on the wall over a year ago that this asshole was unfit for this job.

In my experience, mistakes like this are made due to a lack of not having all of the information in front of you in order to make the best decision. Knowing how to acquire said information and reason about said information requires a sufficient level of education background. Given the education disparity between Trump and Non-Trump voters is how I arrived at my original point.
 
I didn't say anything about left-wing voters in either of those quotes, so I'm not sure what it is we're disagreeing upon anymore.
...

Cellos88GT said:
I would argue the average "never Hillary" voter is a misogynistic individual hiding behind the curtains of Benghazi and "EMAILS!!!11" because the reality is, most of those individuals probably voted for a second term Bush Jr., a man that gave us the Patriot Act, a war that was built upon a lie or bad intel, and whose cabinet was littered with private email users. The double standard is damning.

Cellos88GT said:
...the average "never Hillary" Trump voter holding Hillary to a higher standard, even though that individual likely voted for someone that was up to the same antics in the past.
No, you accused Trump voters of holding Hillary to a double standard. I showed you data that refutes that. I asked you (underline mine in this repeat):

JimCorrigan said:
You really think right wing voters were holding Hillary to a higher standard than left wing voters did to Trump, or for anyone else in previous elections on either side, really?
You made accusations, I refuted them. I posited that left wing voters would be just as likely to hold right wing candidates to the same double standard you accuse right wing voters of holding left wing candidates to, and you haven't said anything to dispute this.

Cellos88GT said:
Remember, those articles were cited to refute this point of yours:
JimCorrigan said:
The issue is still your defence that Trump voters are likely uneducated

Ahem...

JimCorrigan said:
I was mislead on your ever-changing narrative. I was not refuting that Trump voters were less formally educated than Hillary voters. The original point at which I inserted myself into the discussion was to refute your assertion that:
Cellos88GT said:
education is directly proportional to an individual's ability to reason....Fuck Trump voters, I don't give shit what their story is.

Cellos88GT said:
I wasn't expecting it to. My conclusion is based off my experience with teaching and education
Then why reference that article at all if that's not where you drew your conclusion from?

Celloss88GT said:
if you want me to dig up articles that relate education to rational decision making, I'd be more than happy to.
Knock yourself out. I know education helps (helps, just helps) with rational decision making, I was just trying to get you to realize the utter irony of you exclaiming that while simultaneously displaying the opposite of rational decision making.

Cellos88GT said:
So are you refuting that rational decision making isn't a product of education?
See above.

Cellos88GT said:
You and I both know that quote was tongue-in-cheek and was really an allusion to a placement of blame for the fucked up government that we all now have to endure.
"I'm only kidding, gais!" is not a valid defense.

Cellos88GT said:
What I'm now trying to understand is: How the people, that now regret voting for him, did not have the foresight to foretell this cluster fuck? The writing was on the wall over a year ago that this asshole was unfit for this job.
FTFY with one emphasized change. You weren't doing that previously. So let's take this current statement at face value:
1) Do you know people do regret voting for him (I know I'd hate myself, but I'm not nearly 50% of the voting American public), or are you just basing this off anecdotes and personal feeling?

2) I'm willing to concede that yes, many people felt he was unfit for the job, but they chose to vote for him anyway. "Why?" is indeed the question that everyone should be posing. There are probably a multitude of reasons, and I'm willing to bet that for many, they felt he was the devil they didn't know versus Hillary being the devil they did.

Cellos88GT said:
In my experience, mistakes like this are made due to a lack of not having all of the information in front of you in order to make the best decision. Knowing how to acquire said information and reason about said information requires a sufficient level of education background. Given the education disparity between Trump and Non-Trump voters is how I arrived at my original point.
This is the most cogent thing you've posted in this discussion thus far. Are you now walking back your previous assertion about widespread (as opposed to individual) misogyny?

Also, so what if many of Trump's voters had less education? Does that make their concerns any less valid? One of the reasons the "coastal elites" are so loathed by the rest of Americans is because of the utter condescension they exhibit in proclaiming they know what's best for everyone else. Populism is ultimately why Trump won. It was a giant "eff you" to the status quo. It's why Brexit won. However you feel about these populist uprisings, they are democratic, and you ignore them at your peril.
 
Also, so what if many of Trump's voters had less education? Does that make their concerns any less valid? One of the reasons the "coastal elites" are so loathed by the rest of Americans is because of the utter condescension they exhibit in proclaiming they know what's best for everyone else. Populism is ultimately why Trump won. It was a giant "eff you" to the status quo. It's why Brexit won. However you feel about these populist uprisings, they are democratic, and you ignore them at your peril.

Quoted for truth.

I agree that the political elites were condescending to middle America. The problem, the way I see it, is not less educated voters, but lack of knowledge and understanding of what the presidency requires.

Trump's "eff you" to the status quo was paired with his "How hard can it be?" attitude, which people found appealing. They failed to understand that the presidency is not a regular job, where you may be able to learn on the job through mistakes and rough drafts. You are expected to be qualified and know what is expected of you from the very start. It's not a company where your profits may go down one day, but you will improve the next. It's people lives at stake here.
 
I wonder when will people understand two opposing opinions can both be right? Chill out guys.

Also, about populism, it quickly spirals out of control. If you would like to know what it does to countries after years and years, look at Venezuela and Argentina.
 
Last edited:
I do expect better from you. I'm no Trump supporter (see above), but I would like to see you provide a more compelling argument for your statements.

I can help!

So far, all trump supporters I've met in my varying travels and working with fellow blue collar types, the not so bright ones for some reason gravitated towards trump. The smarter ones (or ones that portrayed themselves to be) seemed to have more level head that both popular choices sucked but, they also didn't seem to really disclose which direction they went.

It's why I chose 3rd party. Getting asked by my father and brother asking which two to choose and then going ahead and saying Gary Johnson, they did that "you're a fucking moron" head shake people do when they're 110% sure they're correct and there's no way they're wrong. It was irritating.
 
Thought I'd put this here without commenting:

A Delicate Meeting Can Merkel Bring Trump to Reason?

Angela Merkel is planning a dual strategy for her first face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump on Tuesday. She wants to foster close personal relations with the new U.S. president, but she also wants to make clear the Berlin is armed for a trade war against Washington. By SPIEGEL Staff

March 10, 2017 06:23 PM

The world already knows how Angela Merkel feels about Silvio Berlusconi. The former Italian prime minister allegedly sought pleasure with underage prostitutes, he wasn't particularly fastidious about the rule of law and he sought to grin away his country's problems. Italian newspapers also reported a few years ago that he made some rather untoward remarks about the German chancellor's posterior in a telephone conversation. Berlusconi was precisely the kind of politician Merkel abhors.

Nevertheless, she usually got what she wanted from him. At an EU summit in December 2008, she deployed a mix of charm and toughness to secure his agreement on her climate policies. It was a fabled event, and diplomats still tell stories today about how she wrapped the vain Italian leader around her little finger.

Merkel's people are hoping for some similar magic at an upcoming encounter that will be even more sensitive. On Tuesday, she will meet with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. It will be the first in-person meeting between the two since the U.S. election in November. And it could be the most difficult meeting Merkel has ever faced as chancellor.

The two couldn't be more different. On the one side is an unsophisticated yet self-absorbed political neophyte who has made it clear that there is nothing he won't sacrifice to achieve what he sees as America's interests. On the other is one of the most experienced leaders in the world, one who many see as being the last defender of democracy and Western values -- a view that Merkel herself considers to be a dangerous misjudgment given the limits of German power. Indeed, she calls it "absurd."

The task at hand could hardly be more important. Trump is not only the most powerful man in the world. He has also shown that he cares nothing about the rules of Western political game. His plans could rupture the European Union and weaken Germany economically.

Trump has announced that he plans to fight Germany's export surplus. And although his statements on NATO have been contradictory, it is clear that he wants alliance partners to increase their defense spending. Plans for his foreign policy with Russia are also half-baked. Will he back the Western sanctions against Moscow that Merkel worked hard to implement? Merkel and Trump will have no lack of issues to discuss.

Merkel Will Seek Good Relations

But sources close to Merkel are certain about one thing: The chancellor will seek to establish a good relationship with the president. Trump relies less on the traditional mechanism of politics than his predecessors and he often makes decisions impulsively, without regard to well-established procedures.

"Trump's actions are driven more by his instincts and business experience than by political rationality," says Norbert R?ttgen, the foreign policy spokesman for Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). He traveled to Washington a few weeks ago for talks. "That doesn't make dealing with him any easier."

Merkel doesn't want to rely on a charm offensive alone. She's also prepared to stand her ground on some issues, especially trade policy. The chancellor will be accompanied on her trip by Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser and BMW head Harald Kr?ger according to an agreement she reached with US Vice President Mike Pence at the Munich Security Conference in February.

Kaeser and Kr?ger are to explain to Trump how many jobs and training positions their companies create in the United States. The president has greater trust in executives than politicians and Merkel is hoping that Trump will listen to the heads of two blue chip Germany companies.

Cautious Optimism

In terms of foreign policy, Merkel is said to be less pessimistic than she had been right after Trump's election. Thus far, the president hasn't moved to implement his most radical demands. The nuclear deal with Iran is still in place and the idea of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been delayed for now.

The clarity with which U.S. representatives at the Munich Security Conference in February expressed their support for NATO also calmed some of the worst fears. Officials in Berlin believe that Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will lean much more toward pragmatic realpolitik than initially feared.

In addition, Trump's new National Security Adviser Herbert Raymond McMaster is regarded in Berlin as being much more calculable and well-informed than his addled predecessor Michael Flynn, who was forced to step down because of his misrepresentation of contacts he had with the Russian ambassador to the United States prior to the election.

During a video call with McMaster, Merkel's foreign policy adviser Christoph Heusgen's impression was of a man firmly rooted in traditional Republican foreign policy and that McMaster is someone Germany can work well with.

Merkel has been studying Trump from afar. She has watched his speeches and she is certain that he intends to do what he can to fulfill his promises. She is also convinced that direct contact with Trump is vital, something she realized during an extensive phone call she had with him on Jan. 28, during which she explained the Ukraine conflict to the new president.

A Shift on Russia

That Saturday afternoon, the president telephoned first with Merkel and afterward with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Officials in the Chancellery believed that the Americans had arranged the sequence intentionally so that Trump, a Putin admirer who has spoken out in favor of a new deal with the Kremlin, could first get an introduction to Russian policy from Merkel. It appears that less Moscow-friendly actors in Washington hoped that the strategy might help prevent Trump from getting too close to Putin.

The plan seems to have worked. Since then, hope has been mounting in Berlin that Washington, even under Trump, will continue to back the Minsk peace process and that it will not move unilaterally to lift sanctions. Merkel also sees it as a good sign that Fiona Hill, a recognized expert on Russia who is also a sharp critic of Putin, was appointed to the National Security Council.

Merkel is hoping to see the same kind of shift on a host of other issues important to the international community, including the Iran deal, the situation in Libya and climate change.

She also plans to explain the tenets of the European Union to the president. Officials in Berlin say that a person who found it surprising after the election that the promises he made about U.S. health care policy would be difficult to implement may have some catching up to do on other issues as well.

The trick will be finding the right tone -- to teach without sounding pedantic. "We have to fight for the trans-Atlantic relationship by proposing projects that will lead to mutual success," says R?ttgen. That is Merkel's view as well. She is likely to point out to Trump, for example, that Germany has already begun implementing the U.S. president's demand for increased military spending.

A Great Threat to the Global Economy

Even though there is cautious optimism in the Chancellery about foreign policy, Merkel and her staff are preparing for the worst when it comes to trade. Even as vague as they may still be, Trump's plans could become the greatest threat to the global economy since the financial crisis, with Germany standing directly in the firing line.

Almost 50 percent of all jobs in Germany are dependent on exports. The Americans alone last year purchased 107 billion euros worth of German goods, whereas only 57 billion worth of U.S. goods got imported to Germany. The country would suffer severely if the U.S. started a trade war with Europe or China.

In order to assuage Trump, Merkel is deploying a dual strategy. In addition to her charm offensive, she also wants to send the message that, if push comes to shove, she has a nastier side as well.

On the one hand, Merkel wants to emphasize in the meeting the significant degree to which the Americans also benefit from good trans-Atlantic relations. German Economics Minister Brigitte Zypries put together a package of data for the chancellor following a meeting with trade associations last week. It shows that one-third of German foreign investment flows into the United States. It also shows that German car companies now manufacture more automobiles in the country than they export to it from Germany.

But what happens in the likely event that Trump sticks to his "America First" plans? If that happens, then Merkel is expected to push for a united EU front to blockade Washington. At a summit in Brussels on Thursday, Merkel noted, "We renewed our support for free trade."

Europe To Brace for Trade War

A few days earlier, European trade ministers met for a working lunch in Brussels and agreed to a joint position. The agreed that the EU should not fuel the conflict, but it should prepare for the possibility of a trade war with the United States.

The goal, in such a case, would be that of isolating the U.S. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstr?m was asked to begin negotiating further agreements with other countries and regions of the world. She is currently touring the Far East in order to expedite current talks on trade agreements with Japan, India and Australia. At the same the, the EU countries are pushing ahead with their plans for public courts that would arbitrate conflicts relating to controversial investment projects. It's an initiative that the Trump administration wants to put a stop to at all costs.

Trump's trade policy adviser Peter Navarro has been the most outspoken about calling Germany the enemy. The Harvard graduate views it as a "serious issue. Germany is one of the most difficult trade deficits that we're going to have to deal with but we're thinking long and hard about that." He has also accused EU politicians of deliberately devaluing the euro to give European exporters a price advantage over their American competitors.

Even before Trump's election, Navarro had been considered an outsider with his views. Now he's the president's chief ideologist on trade. Many of Trump's allies are pushing for a radical tax policy measure to stop the stream of goods from abroad, a measure referred to in official jargon as a border adjustment tax -- a plan whereby exports would be exempt from taxes but companies would not be able to deduct money they spend on imports.. "We are taking this very seriously," says one high-ranking source in the Chancellery.

On her first visit with Trump, Merkel plans to be very open about her views on the tax plans. Her preparatory paper for the meeting states that she plans to call the punitive import measure a "protective tariff" and the tax relief for American exports a "export subsidy." She views both as being hostile acts that could trigger a trade war.

Merkel also plans to note that a levy like that would violate the pre-existing tax agreement between Germany and the U.S. They would also be out of compliance with World Trade Organization rules. The implicit threat is that Germany would not shy away from lodging a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO).

How Germany Could Strike Back

If none of that bears fruit, the Chancellery has begun reviewing ways it could strike back at the U.S. One idea would be to incrementally increase duties on American imports. Agreements reached within the World Trade Organization framework provide enough maneuvering room to allow for that. Another possibility would be to allow German companies to write off the U.S. import tax on their German tax declarations, thus compensating them for their competitive disadvantage.

Ultimately, Germany could also take a bigger step: lowering corporate taxes and the amount of social contributions employers are required to pay here. Both would make Germany more attractive to international corporations, but they would also cost tax payers billions of euros -- initially at least.

As the defenses are mounted against Trump, Merkel is counting on the European Commission, which recently said it wants to significantly bolster its arsenal for potential trade wars. Last November, the EU executive paved the way for improving its defense instruments, which it had originally planned to deploy against China.

But they might also help bring Trump to reason if they are approved by the European Council, the powerful body comprised of leaders of the EU member states, and the European Parliament. Furthermore, the EU has long been investigating Google for competition violations and other companies such as McDonald's and Starbucks for tax-evasion models. If need be, those investigations could be broadened at any time.

Merkel is hoping things won't get that bad. Her trip would already be considered a success if she were able to find a reasonable basis for discussion with the U.S. president. At the same time, Merkel is up for re-election in September and she will also have to keep voters in Germany in mind. She can't alienate the new president, but it also wouldn't play well domestically if she allowed herself to be treated as a supplicant the way British Prime Minister Theresa May recently did during her visit with Trump.

The fact that a discussion in the Chancellery is even necessary regarding how far the chancellor can go in her criticism of Trump's violations of Western values and principles is in itself indicative how the situation has changed. In the past, these were the kinds of considerations that Merkel's staff made prior to trips to Russia or China. Now it's the government in Washington, once one of Germany's closest partners, that worries the government in Berlin. "In terms of international policy," Merkel adviser R?ttgen says, the U.S. has now become an "element of uncertainty of a structural nature."

By Christiane Hoffmann, Alexander Neubacher, Ralf Neukirch, Christoph Pauly, Christian Reiermann and Gerald Traufetter

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international...ficult-visit-with-donald-trump-a-1138244.html
 
No, you accused Trump voters of holding Hillary to a double standard. I showed you data that refutes that.

I don't think that data refutes that. Neither Romney nor Obama were really littered with the same level of controversy as Clinton and Trump. It also doesn't explain the re-election of Bush Jr. and his administration, responsible for killing more Americans than Hillary and whose cabinet was littered with users of private email servers.

Then why reference that article at all if that's not where you drew your conclusion from?

Again, I referenced the article because of your doubts regarding the lack of education of Trump voters.


Knock yourself out. I know education helps (helps, just helps) with rational decision making, I was just trying to get you to realize the utter irony of you exclaiming that while simultaneously displaying the opposite of rational decision making.

Saying "fuck Trump" voters is rational decision making because in my experience, it is impossible to have a discussion with these people and I blame most of that on the lack of having a formal education. No, professor would let a student to yell at them in anger nor allow them to use Breitbart articles as sources. It's a level of civility that is completely ignored.

1) Do you know people do regret voting for him (I know I'd hate myself, but I'm not nearly 50% of the voting American public), or are you just basing this off anecdotes and personal feeling?

One only has to look as far as his approval rating, I'd venture to say there are a contingent of Trump voters in there...

2) I'm willing to concede that yes, many people felt he was unfit for the job, but they chose to vote for him anyway. "Why?" is indeed the question that everyone should be posing. There are probably a multitude of reasons, and I'm willing to bet that for many, they felt he was the devil they didn't know versus Hillary being the devil they did.

They voted for him because he appealed to the feels of white people. When people get that excited about stupid shit the blinders go up and their ability to predict goes out the window. Never mind the fact that Trump was visible in every person's media channel.


This is the most cogent thing you've posted in this discussion thus far. Are you now walking back your previous assertion about widespread (as opposed to individual) misogyny?

No, because the fact that misogynistic anti-Hillary merchandise exists at all and was adorned by individuals indicates that there is a level of tolerance for this type of behavior and ridicule amongst Trump voters. Never mind the fact that Trump's lewd behavior towards women largely went unaddressed and unanswered by his supporters.

Also, so what if many of Trump's voters had less education? Does that make their concerns any less valid?

No, but it raises concerns about the "information" they're using to make such an important decision. Especially in the framework of the EC system. Most of these people believe that climate change doesn't exist and cite blatantly false articles to support their beliefs, should they really be allowed more voting power?

One of the reasons the "coastal elites" are so loathed by the rest of Americans is because of the utter condescension they exhibit in proclaiming they know what's best for everyone else. Populism is ultimately why Trump won. It was a giant "eff you" to the status quo. It's why Brexit won. However you feel about these populist uprisings, they are democratic, and you ignore them at your peril.

Because often times we do. When you don't believe in climate change, human equality, or evolution, you don't deserve to make the rules for everyone else. If it weren't for the coasts and liberal cities we'd still have slavery, smog cities, and barely any clean water to drink.
 
Trump: "I just found our Obama had my phones tapped."

America: "Wait, what? Really?"

Trump: "Yeah, totally. Congress, you should investigate that pronto and get to the bottom of this."

Senate: "Oh...um...I guess, OK.

*several days later*

House Intelligence Committee: "Ok, you asked for it. Give us your proof by Monday."

giphy.gif


Either way, this is going to be huge.
 
Trump: "I just found our Obama had my phones tapped."

America: "Wait, what? Really?"

Trump: "Yeah, totally. Congress, you should investigate that pronto and get to the bottom of this."

Senate: "Oh...um...I guess, OK.

*several days later*

House Intelligence Committee: "Ok, you asked for it. Give us your proof by Monday."[...]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-...ests-evidence-for-trump-wiretap-claim/8347766
A Republican-chaired intelligence committee has asked the Trump administration for evidence to backup the US President's claim Barrack Obama had "wires tapped" at Trump Tower during last year's presidential campaign.[...]
Mr Trump has asked Congress to investigate.
Early last week, Mr Schiff said the committee would answer the President's call to investigate the claim.
He said he would also ask FBI Director James Comey directly when he appears later this month before the full committee, which is investigating Russian activities during the election.
"We should be able to determine in fairly short order whether this allegation is true or false," Mr Schiff said.[...]
This is moving faster than I expected ... I am positively surprised.
 
Maybe other agencies are trying to make sure they correct the public before it leaves their minds and remember what trump said without knowing whether or not it's true.
 
His new travel ban executive order is already being challenged by judges aswell.
 
Good.
 
On the subject of voters, was just thinking that I only know people that voted for Trump or didn't vote at all. None of the Trump voters I know are racist or stupid, but we just generally disagree in one area mostly. They are small government, I'm not.

In other news, I hope this US attorney stuff has some legs....might be interesting.
 
Instead Mr Spicer insisted his boss had not been speaking literally.
?He doesn?t really think that President Obama went up and tapped his phone personally but I think there?s no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election,? he said during his daily briefing. [...]

dramatic.gif


The current President of the United States of America does not think that the former President put on a Janitors Overall, snuck into his office to place wiretaps after office hours. WHAT A RELIEF!
How can this get any more bizarre? https://twitter.com/hashtag/microwave

Yeah, sure. The Trump team was misunderstood again ...
I mean what are they gonna do? Watch what they're saying?
 
Last edited:
Top