Trump

[RN7]

I cannot speak for the rest of the Union, but in PA, it was very clear what was going to happen. For the first time that I can remember, Rural PA turned out to vote in numbers equal to or greater than Urban PA (Pittsburgh and Philly). While the vast majority of PA is Democratic-leaning pro-union voters, a few of things happened that caused a "quantum shift" in PA politics. The blame lays SQUARELY at the feet of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

The First Issue was President Obama's "War on Coal." Most of rural PA's jobs involve farming, logging, coal mining and drilling/fracking. Many communities (especially in the Wilds) began to suffer as the various industries who were affected by President Obama's sanctions (to reduce emissions) began to shut down. This didn't take just the best jobs in the region, it took ALL the jobs in the region. It's hard to run a grocery store or other "service related" industry when NO ONE has any money to buy your product. To add "insult to injury," many of the workers were denied Federal funding for job retraining. The feds ACTUALLY HAD THE NERVE TO SAY "you should have seen this coming and planned for it." Hillary vowed to continue with the "War on Coal." While I do believe in Global Warming, it's pretty hard to tell entire communities "You must starve for the good of the planet..." especially when China and India are NOT doing their part. In fact, my absence from the forum lately is due to the oilfield companies abandoning the Allegheny National Forest in force. They are moving out huge amounts of equipment due to the costs of extraction now.

The Second Issue was the debacle that is Obamacare. The Democrats INCORRECTLY assumed that most if not all businesses would simply pay for health care. NOTHING could be further from the truth in PA. The vast majority of affected businesses in my region just dropped ALL of their full-time employees to part-time rather than pay for healthcare. They also tried to "punish" workers for voting Democrat by requiring those workers to work FIVE hours a day for FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. This made it difficult to go get a second job to make up the lost income. To add "insult to injury," several of these workers made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but just enough money to have to pay the FINE FOR NOT HAVING INSURANCE. So not only did Rural PA residents LOSE THEIR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINED THEM FOR BEING TOO POOR TO BUY INSURANCE ON OUR "SO CALLED" HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE! Hillary vowed to continue with this program as well.

The last major Issue that really had rural PA residents "up in arms" was, in fact, ARMS. PA has an absolutely HUGE number of gun owners. It has been stated that there are more hunters in the woods of PA on the opening day of Buck Season than there are Law Enforcement Officer on duty in the ENTIRE US. HALF of all rural PA residents are Veterans. The 1994 Assault Weapons Bill was very poorly received in PA. Hillary wanted a reinstatement of "reasonable gun control measures." Most rural PA residents DID NOT SEE a new Assault Weapon's Bill as "reasonable."

This seems to be the main reason why people turned against the Democrats. Obama/Clinton seem to have been oblivious to what many people actually though about the consequences of their policies. While they were off on a crusade to end global warming and gain applause for championing a number of social issues, they never gave a second thought to how their policies were effecting the income and lives of many Americans who don't live in a big city which was na-ve and irresponsible in the extreme. Also while they were doing all of this they happily lobbied for corporate interests after receiving a nice donation, and as corporations saw their profits soar the industrial heart of most of America was shut down or transferred overseas. Even though I am not American I am married to an American and my son is American, and I do feel great sympathy for many Americans who have suffered during this period. The more I think about all of this the more I think that the Democrats don't deserve much sympathy for the predicament they now find themselves in.

Most PA residents DID NOT VOTE FOR Trump. They VOTED AGAINST Hillary. In fact, if you talk to most PA residents, they will tell you that they want a Convention Of States to make what they see as "much-needed changes" to the Constitution.

I think you nailed it on the head. Many who voted Trump did not care for him as an individual but voted for him to stop Clinton from becoming president and causing more harm.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I will say this: I think the chance for a shooting war with Russia and all that it entails (nuclear exchanges) is significantly lessened. Look, one of the leaked documents from Hillary Clinton's server discussed how she would aim to put 10000 US troops on the ground in Syria (thus virtually guaranteeing contact with Assad's forces or Russian forces). She'd mask it in the form of goading McCain into asking for 100000 and then "propose" a "more reasonable" mere ten thousand.

So we're not going full T2k just yet.

Canada and Mexico both have now stated they want to renegotiate NAFTA which will hopefully work out well for US industry.

The Chinese gov't has reached out to Trump to start preliminary talks, but who knows what they get up to.

All in all I'm guardedly optimistic. Yes, the election itself was a shitshow but which one hasn't been

The social justice crowd of <censored> who are now demanding the entire voting process be usurped and the presidency just given to Hillary Clinton crack me up. What does not amuse me is that George Soros is funding the entire affair and is out and out trying to foment an armed uprising in the United States to further his globalist aims. At some point I think US federal law enforcement needs to intervene against him.

[Raellus]

The social justice crowd of crybullies who are now demanding the entire voting process be usurped and the presidency just given to Hillary Clinton crack me up. What does not amuse me is that George Soros is funding the entire affair and is out and out trying to foment an armed uprising in the United States to further his globalist aims. At some point I think US federal law enforcement needs to intervene against him.

First off, let's not start throwing loaded terms like "social justice crowd of crybullies" out there- it's not constructive and it's liable to cause offense. Consider that, despite the sample size on this thread, not everyone here voted for Trump or shares his POVs.

Let's be fair. Neither side has been/is handling the election results with much grace.

Yes, some in the anti-Trump bloc are acting childishly and that's unfortunate. On the other hand, I wonder how Trump supporters would have acted if he had lost the election, especially if he'd won the popular vote. He was claiming the election was rigged well before election day- priming the pump, if you will.

On FB, I saw quite a few memes of gun-porn accompanied with "In case Hillary wins..." tags in the days leading up to the election. What does that suggest And the GOP has plenty of shadowy financiers with agendas too.

And, unless you live under a rock, there's been plenty of rather unsettling incidents of post-election hate-speech against groups perceived as not falling into the Trump demographic. At least he came out and said "stop it" (in a 60 Minutes interview that aired last night).

[Raellus]

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis--vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

[kato13]

Let's be fair. Neither side has/is handling the election results with much grace.

Fully agree. Feel free to drop the hammer and/or use any tools (edits, warnings, bans, locks) available to you.

We have done OK so far, but this board is not for this purpose and I don't want to lose users.

The only reason I am allowing this is this is an intelligent group and Intelligent people like to discuss ideas. Please everyone don't make me regret this.

[RN7]

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis--vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

This aspect of Trump's presidency is a lot more interesting to me as I think it relates to the general aspect of T2K. Other domestic American issues are obviously very important to American members and others, but I think they are also a bit too divisive to discuss in a civilised tone and are maybe a bit beyond the scope and interest of this forum.

I know Kato doesn't want a full blown firefight over the result and implications of Trump becoming president. However its also too significant of an event to just ignore as it will effect the entire world in a way that no previous US presidential election has ever done before.

So maybe it would be better to just discuss certain aspects of how Trump will lead America over the next four years, and concentrate on maybe foreign trade and the economy, and US political relations with NATO allies, Russia, China and the Middle East.

[ArmySGT.]

A Trump presidency might actually encourage Russian and Chinese aggression. If Trump tries to distance the U.S. from NATO, even a bit, Putin might interpret it as carte blanche to officially annex East Ukraine or even the Baltics. Without the U.S.A., NATO is a paper tiger.

Protectionist trade policy vis--vis China might encourage China to act out in East Asia.

I hope not, but we shall see.

I really hope it spurs the Euros to take their own national defense seriously. To fund it properly, not use it as a dumping ground for unemployed youth, and as a cauldron for mixing up some social/cultural experiments with a demographic that cannot legally resist.

Yes, I am aware that most European nations cannot come close to approximating the U.S. defense expenditures. Completely, aware. I was in Germany, Spain, and the Balkans in 99-02..... and as an MP worked with other nations in Enduring Freedom......

There are Armies, and then there are Armies.

I am not talking about modern arms.... I am talking about field training and specialized training schools..... The U.S. was never able to call on European Alpine mountain troops for operations in Afghanistan.... despite the participation of nations with said troops on active duty.

Ok... I am getting ranty here and just going to stop.

[ArmySGT.]

Who's going pay for it

Wait........ You guys don't build a wall every November I thought this was why yanks only crossed in the summer.

[kato13]

I really hope it spurs the Euros to take their own national defense seriously.

This is my favorite factoid on the subject.

New York City spends more on policing than 13 NATO members each do on their national defense.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/06/nato-summit-2016-alliance-members-must-commit-to-increased-defense-spending

Another important quote

In 2015 (the date for which the most recent NATO figures are available), only five of 28 NATO member states-Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United States, and the United Kingdom-spent the required 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

Some countries spend less than half the required amount. If Trump being elected motivates them to keep up with their commitments, I think that is a positive change.

[.45cultist]

This summer a middle eastern diplomat told John Kerry it was better to be an enemy than a friend to the U.S. There is more chaos than believed, and as we know, a believable timeline, scenario is difficult.

[dragoon500ly]

This summer a middle eastern diplomat told John Kerry it was better to be an enemy than a friend to the U.S. There is more chaos than believed, and as we know, a believable timeline, scenario is difficult.

Oh yes, this little quote has been making the rounds for some time. The political failures of the last ten years will be coming home to roost!

Around my office, the general opinion is for an upsurge in terrorist attacks, both in Europe and the U.S.. Couple this with the latest antics by the Palestinian Authority, and there is a excellent chance for yet another round of Arab-Israeli fighting.

Next couple of years are going to be very interesting...and more than a little stupid!

[RN7]

To give my own two cents on what's going to happen under Trump.

Infrastructure: Trump made a lot of references to how the US has fallen behind other countries in the condition of its road and rail network, bridges and airports, and there is talk about renovating the deprived inner-cities. Certainly in comparison to some Western European countries, China, Japan and the Gulf States the US has neglected its transport infrastructure. This is a major project and could cost up to one US$ trillion or more and I'm not sure how he is going to fund it, but it would be a popular move and I think we can expect some action on this in the near future. I think it will be part of his strategy to rebuild American industry, and it will provide a big boost to the construction and steel industries.

Climate Change: Trump is no believer in climate change and is heavily critical of other countries such as China and India which are now the main contributors to emissions. He will almost certainly pull America out of or heavily modify the Paris Climate Agreement to suit America. He really has no choice if he wants to revitalize the coal industry and expand the energy and petrochemical sectors which will be vital to creating jobs and expanding the economy. This could prove a major political problem for Trump over the next few years.

NAFTA: I think it's fair to say that it's dead at least in its current form. I don't think Canada has too much to worry about but Mexico certainly does. All of those factories which relocated to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labour exist for the purpose of exporting manufactured products back to the US. They make huge profits for US companies and the Mexican government takes its cut in various types of taxes, and the factories employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of Mexicans. It's going to be tough on the Mexican economy as these factories are on the frontline if Trump carries through his promise to bring industry back to America, but Mexico is a potentially rich country and it's a shame its government and ruling class have done little to exploit that fact. Trump could also use the threat of this to force Mexico to at least patrol its own border if not partially fund a wall/fence on the border.

NATO and Europe: Trump wants the Europeans to pay their share of the defence burden. The US accounts for 70% of NATO's budget so the Europeans have no real argument here. To be fair Britain does spend its fair share on defence, but the other big European powers such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain really do not. I don't think Trump is anti-NATO but he does expect rich European countries to spend more on their own defence. Higher defence spending will hit the budgets of all European countries, and with Russia flexing its muscles in the east and a lot of money and resources being diverted to cater for the flood of immigrants and refugees it could lead to a lot of discontent in Europe as other services are strained. Europe has a lot less to worry about in trade issues than Asia as US owned factories in Europe are mainly US owned subsidiaries that have been around for decades or were specifically built to have access to the European market. However Ireland's status as a tax haven for some US corporations will be heavily scrutinised, and Germany could take some flak for running a US$ 75 billion trade surplus with America.

It will be interesting to see how Trump develops US relations with the major European powers over the next couple of years. Brexit highlighted the relative faults and limitations of the European Union, and with Jean Claude Juncker wanting to escalate the formation of a EU Army because Trump is now US president it will be even more interesting to note how individual European countries will really support a new army that excludes the US and British armed forces. Trump's political views are also the polar opposite to Angela Merkel and Francoise Hollande in Germany and France, although maybe less divergent with those of Britain's Theresa May. With Europe's financial problems and the chaos caused by the huge influx of refugees I think it's possible we could also see right wing governments taking power in France and Germany in the very near future.

Russia: Trump and Putin seem to have a lot of mutual respect for each other, so we should see a diffusion of tension with the Russians. However I think Putin imagines that Russia will be an equal to America on the world stage, but I don't think Trump thinks that and has a tongue in cheek attitude to Putin. Trump will certainly lift the current sanctions against Russia which is crippling the Russian economy, and I think he will give Russia a free hand in the Crimea, the Ukraine and the former Soviet states as they are of no real interest to America. The US will probably also cooperate with Russia over Syria and ISIS. I could also see Trump using the threat of Russia to force European members of NATO to spend more on their own defence.

The Middle East: I think Trump's attitude to the Middle East will cause some problems. Trump will go after ISIS more aggressively than Obama, so we will see more US forces sent to the region and there will be some cooperation with the Russians in Syria in this matter. Other than that I think Trump's attitude towards the Middle East is that its more trouble than its worth. America no longer needs oil from the Arabs and OPEC, so they can no longer dictate American policy in the region. Trump is definitely pro-Israeli which is bad news for the Palestinian National Authority and its backers. Its also bad news for Iran and we will see an abandonment or radical modification of Iran's nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia could also find themselves in trouble as I can't see Trump tolerating their export of Islamic fanatics and manipulation of oil prices while America underwrites its national security.

China and Asia: Trump heavily criticised China in his election campaign and I can't see him backing away from changing the current status quo of US-Chinese trade relations. I don't know if Trump will carry out his threat to impose heavy taxes on Chinese imports and start a full scale trade war. Trump may simply tax selective Chinese imports and dangle incentives to encourage US companies to bring the factories back to America, but it's not good news for the Chinese economy no matter what way you look at it and I think China's day in the sun is over. At the very least China will have to seriously reduce its US$ 343 billion trade surplus with America and reel in its government backed cyber-espionage/thievery.

China of course is a lot more economically and politically powerful than Mexico. China owns US$ 1.3 trillion worth of US Treasury Bonds and could seriously disrupt the supply chain that supplies the US and the developed world with manufactured goods. China could also target selective US companies in China and not buy any more airplanes from Boeing. But the Chinese economy is already in serious trouble largely due to its own making, and the money it earns from its trade surplus is dependent on factories which make goods for foreign corporations (mostly American). If the US imposes tariffs on Chinese imports and also sanctions certain Chinese companies and individuals from trading and using US dollars like they are currently doing with Russia then the Chinese economy could collapse. A hardline Chinese government could also cause a lot of trouble in the Far East for America and its allies. Chinese defence spending is of course linked to its economy but finding money for arms has never been a problem for communist dictatorships. China could cause no end of trouble in the South China Sea and threaten Taiwan and other countries in the region with whom it has territorial disputes notably Japan. China could also encourage and even fund North Korean aggression. The role of Russia could also be important in this respect as Russia is the main source of Chinese arms purchases and military technology and a lot of its energy and raw materials.

Other Asian countries could also face the wrath of Trump over trade. Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan have a combined trade surplus of US$ 130 billion with America, with Japan alone accounting for a US$ 67 billion trade surplus. Japan is likely to face the worst criticism as Japan also owns US$ 1.1 trillion of US Treasury Bonds which is nearly as much as China, and is the second largest investor in America after Britain. Japan also spends 1% of its economy on its own defence and this expenditure is less than Britain and France despite the fact that the Japanese economy is as large as the combined British and French economies. Like many NATO countries in Europe Japan has no argument here. The knock on effect of trade trouble with China and other could also put the entire Asia-Pacific region into recession, and will also hit the resource and energy export orientated Australian economy.

[Project_Sardonicus]

I'm just fascinated if he's krell or if he's going to lead new america

[WallShadow]

I'm just fascinated if he's krell or if he's going to lead new america

Or steal the Heart of Gold with the Infinite Improbability Drive and go swanning off about the Galaxy with a neurotic robot, an Earth Chick, and two impromptu hitchhikers who are being sought by Vogons...

[James Langham2]

As a quick thought, if this election can be this disputed, just think of the disputes in the canon election!