The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[GreenGoo]

Not willing to leave all the petty nonsense to the tan suit critics, Vogue and others are picking apart the Drumpf Christmas picture for vague and insubstantial reasons.

None of the criticisms suggest he looks unpresidential though, so progress, I guess?

I'll post a link later if I remember.

[Skinypupy]

And Wall of Voodoo with Mexican Radio on repeat.

Mmmmm...BBQ iguana.

[GungHo]

And Wall of Voodoo with Mexican Radio on repeat.

Mmmmm...BBQ iguana.

Wait...is this the Fallout 76 recipes thread now?

[GreenGoo]

Not willing to leave all the petty nonsense to the tan suit critics, Vogue and others are picking apart the Drumpf Christmas picture for vague and insubstantial reasons.

None of the criticisms suggest he looks unpresidential though, so progress, I guess?

I'll post a link later if I remember.

[geezer]

Not willing to leave all the petty nonsense to the tan suit critics, Vogue and others are picking apart the Drumpf Christmas picture for vague and insubstantial reasons.

None of the criticisms suggest he looks unpresidential though, so progress, I guess?

I'll post a link later if I remember.

It IS, objectively, a weirdly lit image.

[GreenGoo]

You should go on the talk show circuit and discuss it in excruciating detail.

You didn't answer the more important question though. Does it make him look presidential?

[Skinypupy]

It looks like they were photoshopped into a postcard.

[LawBeefaroni]

You should go on the talk show circuit and discuss it in excruciating detail.

You didn't answer the more important question though. Does it make him look presidential?

If it kept him from actually doing anything for a few hours it was well worth it.

[Paingod]

corporate naming rights

Genius.

I vote we let companies put billboard ads on the side facing Mexico. Nokia could put up "Connecting People" ... maybe Samsung's "Everyone's Invited" logo?

[Daehawk]

He looks as though he could be mumbling "hurry and take the pic this smile is hurting me"....during the photo shoot at The SHining's hotel.

[pr0ner]

Looks like we're still on "Mexico will pay for the wall; the military will build it!" phase of things.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 8282545152

[LordMortis]

TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

[Daehawk]

Hey Dipshit's mouth and keyboard are moving so dipshit stuff must be coming from it.

[Kraken]

TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

I saw this explained somewhere a few days ago. It's so convoluted that Trump can't possibly have understood it, much less come up with it himself.

First, he doesn't understand how tariffs work. He thinks Mexico is paying them to the US Treasury. Second, there's some actuarial sleight-of-hand about Mexico's costs under neo-NAFTA, which he compares to having no treaty, rather than to old NAFTA. In reality, neo-NAFTA is so similar to old NAFTA that it barely budges the numbers.

Basically, it's bullshit. But we already knew that.

[LordMortis]

TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

I saw this explained somewhere a few days ago. It's so convoluted that Trump can't possibly have understood it, much less come up with it himself.

First, he doesn't understand how tariffs work. He thinks Mexico is paying them to the US Treasury. Second, there's some actuarial sleight-of-hand about Mexico's costs under neo-NAFTA, which he compares to having no treaty, rather than to old NAFTA. In reality, neo-NAFTA is so similar to old NAFTA that it barely budges the numbers.

Basically, it's bullshit. But we already knew that.

I'd like to see the explanation. If it's through tariffs then yeah, lies, as expected but even more expected is there ain't no plan, which is also lies as expected. Still, I'd like to know rather than throw stones without knowing.

[Kraken]

If I stumble upon the story I'll link it. I think it was at Politifact or Factcheck.org, and it would have been right after Trump issued the lie.

[LordMortis]

https://www.businessinsider.com/gofundm ... rs-2018-12

Great Americans (Mexicans? if they're trying to pay for it) have stepped up. If they can keep up this pace, they will have five billion in, what, a mere 18 years? I'm sure Donald would love those contributions and make sure they go to wall building.

[Kraken]

TrumpTrade spells out that Mexico is paying for the Wall? Does he show how?

I saw this explained somewhere a few days ago. It's so convoluted that Trump can't possibly have understood it, much less come up with it himself.

First, he doesn't understand how tariffs work. He thinks Mexico is paying them to the US Treasury. Second, there's some actuarial sleight-of-hand about Mexico's costs under neo-NAFTA, which he compares to having no treaty, rather than to old NAFTA. In reality, neo-NAFTA is so similar to old NAFTA that it barely budges the numbers.

Basically, it's bullshit. But we already knew that.

I'd like to see the explanation. If it's through tariffs then yeah, lies, as expected but even more expected is there ain't no plan, which is also lies as expected. Still, I'd like to know rather than throw stones without knowing.

Found it: it was factcheck.org. Here's the relevant section in its entirety:

Can USMCA Pay for the Wall?

To be clear, there is nothing in the USMCA spelling out that Mexico will pay for any border wall. The president’s argument is more nuanced than that.

As he told the Wall Street Journal in January, Mexico could pay for the wall “indirectly” if the U.S. makes a “good deal” renegotiating NAFTA. “Say I’m going to take a small percentage of that money and it’s going to go toward the wall,” Trump said. “Guess what? Mexico’s paying.”

Economists and trade experts we interviewed called the president’s logic misguided.

Although the president has given conflicting statements about the cost of a wall, the White House released an immigration plan in January that sought $25 billion for the wall. A cost estimate sent by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to lawmakers that month sought $18 billion over 10 years for the first phase of border wall construction. (On Dec. 7, Trump estimated the cost of the wall at $15 billion to $20 billion).

Can increased tax revenue from the USMCA pay for the wall?

Assuming the cost is closer to $25 billion, economists told us there’s not enough new benefits to the U.S. in the new trade agreement to pay for the wall.

“Even if we accept conceptually the argument that government revenue attributable to the revised trade agreement constitutes ‘Mexico paying for the wall,’ there are no plausible assumptions of USMCA’s impact that would see government revenue increase by $25 billion,” said Geoffrey Gertz, a fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institution and a research associate at the Global Economic Governance Programme at the University of Oxford.

“Ultimately USMCA is very similar to NAFTA, and so we shouldn’t expect any substantial economic shifts from the new agreement,” Gertz told us via email. “It’s difficult to argue that that NAFTA was ‘anti-USA’ and ‘very costly’ but that USMCA will save us lots of money, because there’s not a huge difference between the two agreements.”

One of the concessions won by U.S. negotiators is a requirement that “40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour.” The idea is to level the playing field for higher-wage American manufacturers. The USMCA also takes some steps to reduce barriers to U.S. export of dairy products to Canada.

But Kent Smetters, a professor of business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, told us none of the concessions won by U.S. negotiators amounts to enough to offset the cost of a border wall.

“USMCA is definitely positive for the U.S. economy but a fairly minor update to NAFTA,” said Smetters, who was an economist at the Congressional Budget Office in the 1990s. “The real value comes from renewing the essential elements of NAFTA itself.”

“USMCA provides some specific trade openings that benefit all three countries along with some IP [intellectual properties] updates. (The value of the IP update is hard to assess until we understand the enforcement commitment.),” Smetters said. “Relative to NAFTA, the Mexican government would not nearly lose enough tariff revenue that could be constituted as paying for the wall, at least the wall as previously envisioned by the Administration; nor would the U.S. government revenue increase enough based on a dynamic score. In fact, the additional revenue to U.S. relative to NAFTA would, optimistically, not cover annual maintenance and improvements of the wall much less the original build.”

Alan V. Deardorff, the John W. Sweetland professor of international economics and professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, said he is not convinced that the USMCA will result in extra revenue to the U.S. government.

“In economic terms, the new deal is not in fact better than the old one, but it may (only may) benefit US workers to a small extent,” Deardorff told us in an email. “U.S. firms (except for a handful of dairy farmers who gain a little) will do worse, not better, since it increases their costs. I don’t see any way that it actually brings in money to our government. It is likely to hurt Mexico, as presumably intended, but not in a way that benefits us. So no, the statement [from Trump] does not make sense.”

Trump’s claim seems to assume any gains from USMCA are “extractions from Mexico,” Gertz added. “This assumes a zero-sum view of trade, where one country’s gains are another’s losses – which cuts against the typical economists’ arguments that free trade is positive sum, that both sides to the agreement benefit.”

[GungHo]

Uh-oh..looks like the dogs are biting the hand that feeds

Fox questioning the dear leader? Too funny.

[Paingod]

The problem with being dragged through the woods by a pack of ravening wolves on leashes is that they might turn around and see you struggling to keep up.

[Blackhawk]

I just realized that, in a couple of generations, 'I'll build a wall' will be spoken in the same general spirit as 'want to buy a bridge?'

[Isgrimnur]

Screw the poor

The Trump administration unveiled a plan Thursday to force hundreds of thousands more Americans to hold jobs if they want to keep receiving food stamps, pursuing through executive powers what it could not achieve in Congress.

The country’s food assistance program, which is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, already requires most adults without dependents to work if they collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period. But USDA regulations allow states to waive the requirement in areas with unemployment rates that are at least 20 percent greater than the national rate.

The USDA is now proposing that states could waive the requirement only in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent. The current national unemployment rate stands at 3.7 percent.
...
Since the 1996 welfare law took effect, every state but Delaware has sought a time-limit waiver at some point, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which tracks such exemptions.

That would currently be ...

Spoiler:

none of them.

[Sepiche]

Aaaaand chaos...

President Trump will not commit to signing legislation that would avoid a partial government shutdown on Saturday, his press secretary said, further roiling a chaotic debate that is splintering the Republican Party.

“At this moment, the President does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall. The President is continuing to weigh his options,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday in a statement.

The tumultuous turn of events has seen Trump reverse himself numerous times in recent days on the issue, first demanding $5 billion from Congress for a wall along the Mexico border, then declaring the military would pay for it, only to insist that the money come from Democrats next year.

As talks appeared to break down Thursday, senior Republicans in Congress even appeared unsure of what Trump actually wanted before he would sign legislation. The breakdown has prompted a hastily arranged meeting between Trump and House Republicans at noon Thursday.

[Jeff V]

That would currently be ...

Spoiler:

none of them.

20% more of 3.7% is 4.44%, so the last 8 states on that list + DC would qualify.

[Isgrimnur]

I meant if the change goes into effect, no one will be eligible. Which is the intent, I'm sure.

[malchior]

Aaaaand chaos

Nothing says 'I have confidence in my decisions' more than when he impulsively changes course at the faintest sign of resistance from the Fox News wing of the government.

[Smoove_B]

Hey, let's not blame this on Trump. After all, remember that the Democrats in both the Senate and House have been blocking all governmental activity proposed by the GOP since he took office. They're obstructionists!

(insert giant barf roll-eye)

[pr0ner]

I like how it's no longer just a wall, but steel slats OR a wall.

[Skinypupy]

Aaaaand chaos...

President Trump will not commit to signing legislation that would avoid a partial government shutdown on Saturday, his press secretary said, further roiling a chaotic debate that is splintering the Republican Party.

“At this moment, the President does not want to go further without border security, which includes steel slats or a wall. The President is continuing to weigh his options,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday in a statement.

The tumultuous turn of events has seen Trump reverse himself numerous times in recent days on the issue, first demanding $5 billion from Congress for a wall along the Mexico border, then declaring the military would pay for it, only to insist that the money come from Democrats next year.

As talks appeared to break down Thursday, senior Republicans in Congress even appeared unsure of what Trump actually wanted before he would sign legislation. The breakdown has prompted a hastily arranged meeting between Trump and House Republicans at noon Thursday.

Goddammit, you asshole. I would get a day off tomorrow if the funding deal went through as expected. Now I'll be working all day on contingency plans instead.

I've basically given up getting angry about the business disruption and the $$ I lose as a result of these things. Trumpian whims are so far out of my circle of influence that they're not worth expending any mental energy on.

[pr0ner]

FYI, that meeting produced ZERO progress.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1075819021621186565

[malchior]

FYI, that meeting produced ZERO progress.

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1075819021621186565

But Ryan said it was productive!

But seriously it is hilarious that Ryan says the Senate bill is Trump's problem but Trump brought over the *House* republican leadership. That totally makes sense.

[Octavious]

Good let the idiot own a shutdown. Meanwhile the stock market is imploding... Everything is GREAT!!!!!!!!

[malchior]

Meanwhile the stock market is imploding... Everything is GREAT!!!!!!!!

Hey we can't hang it all on Trump. You have to factor in the idiotic Tories as well. It really is not great that 2 out of the top 5 economies in the world are in the hands of self-destructive imbeciles at the moment.

[Octavious]

There is no way the Dems cave in this right? I mean I don't see any possible reason they would unless Trump gave them something ridiculous in return. So if that doesn't happen how long can the idiot carry this on for?

[Scoop20906]

I'm really starting to get pissed. Why must my livelihood be at the whim of a petulant man-baby having a temper tantrum?

[GreenGoo]

I can't see how they could fold. They've already offered 1.6 billion for general border security items and he turned that down. They've made an offer. It was a fair (imo) offer, and I believe it was an offer that had bipartisan support, I think. None of it was for a new wall, although some of it was for fencing/barriers/already existing walls and repairs.

[malchior]

There is no way the Dems cave in this right? I mean I don't see any possible reason they would unless Trump gave them something ridiculous in return. So if that doesn't happen how long can the idiot carry this on for?

They won't because even Republican senators think this is beyond the pale absurd. They are just leaving town. I just saw Corker literally laughing about this. If I read his mood right, he referred specifically to Syria and said essentially that with the President making big impact decisions at random that nothing they can do is reasonable.

So my reaction is one he was being nonchalant about all this and it is the holidays and they are just throwing more uncertainty on tons of people. Nice work, you smug piece of shit. And two HE IS A FUCKING US SENATOR - IF ONLY HE COULD DO SOMETHING. I'm so fed up with all these pieces of shit. Your President is crazy. You'll basically say that on tv. Yet you won't do anything. To hell with all these bottom feeder fuckers.

[Jeff V]

I think they need to pull a Spinal Tap -- approve the spending but stipulate it can only be 50" tall.

[Isgrimnur]

We salute you, our over-inflated orange lord.

[LawBeefaroni]

I like how it's no longer just a wall, but steel slats OR a wall.

Steel Slats sounds like a pop-country singer or band.

But yeah, pretty soon it will be snow fencing OR chicken wire.