• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Trump has been elected and has at least attempted to deliver on some (not all) of his promises.
Elected by an outdated system that means you don't have to win the vote to win the election, and he hasn't really managed to (or even attempted to) deliver on any of his promises. If you look at the top ten campaign promises:
  1. Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. He's attempted to get funding from Congress to pay for the wall out of US taxpayers' money, Mexico is supposed to reimburse America by some unspecified mechanism at some date in the future. (Fail)
  2. Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the USA. This is unconstitutional, and always will be. The controls that he attempted to roll out were designed to be blocked by the judiciary. (Fail)
  3. Bring manufacturing jobs back. They were already coming back, US manufacturing jobs had been increasing month-on-month for the last seven years. His biggest success (the Carrier jobs) turned out to be a sham as the jobs still ended up going to Mexico. (Fail)
  4. Impose tariffs on goods from China and Mexico. Nope, not done. (Fail)
  5. Renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA and the TPP. Okay, he pulled out of TPP but that was shooting the USA in the foot and has ceded the Pacific to China. (Partially succeeded)
  6. Full repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Well, that didn't happen. Thankfully. (Fail)
  7. Renegotiate the Iran deal. That hasn't happened yet. Thankfully. (Fail)
  8. Leave social care as it is. The ACA changes that he championed would have cut Medicaid/Medicare in the expansion states, so he failed in his attempt to fail to keep this promise. (Failed at failing)
  9. Cut taxes. Technically he's achieved this but the majority of taxpayers won't see any benefit and most will see an increase when the sunset provisions expire. (Failed)
  10. Take the oil from ISIS. ISIS was on the run before he took office, he's continued the military strategy set in place by Obama. They haven't however, taken any oil. (Succeeded in spite of his actions)
So, even being generous, you would say that he's partially succeeded at one promise, seen success in two and failed in his attempt to fail at one of them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I thought it was Boris who was stabbed in the back by Gove which then forced his withdrawal from the contest?

It was more of a stabbing in the front that Gove did, but yes Gove effectively forced Boris out of the 2016 leadership contest. However, the "stabbing his friends in the back" comment could equally apply to Cameron when Boris decided to throw his might behind Leave - they'd been pretty chummy up to that point, but Boris did what was more likely to get Boris into No 10* rather than what he necessarily thought would be best for the country.

*Bearing in mind that had Remain won, in all likelihood Cameron would have started winding down in 2019 having by that point installed George Osborne as his replacement for the 2020 election.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
Elected by an outdated system that means you don't have to win the vote to win the election

I agree that the electoral college is a bit outdated and somewhat poor in representation since some states are more equal than others. I understand it's intentions were to stop California and New York deciding the results of the elections (both are pretty much safe Democrat seats even despite going Republican a few times), but still. Also, the UK doesn't exactly have a modern voting system either, so the US isn't the only one guilty of such.
So, even being generous, you would say that he's partially succeeded at one promise, seen success in two and failed in his attempt to fail at one of them.

I had to be generous trying to put Donald Trump in positive light to compare him to Boris Johnson. My work was very much cut out, thank you very much. But one thing you are mistaken on...
Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the USA. This is unconstitutional, and always will be. The controls that he attempted to roll out were designed to be blocked by the judiciary. (Fail)

The actual temporary ban was on people from Muslim-majority countries. That meant nobody from that country could enter the US, including non-Muslims. The policy didn't state that Muslims are no longer allowed into the US, nor did it ban any Islamic practices. The list was questionable of course, because if the reason is countries being linked to terrorism, there was some vital ones missing (everybody knows I'm on about Saudi Arabia), but there wasn't really a need to spin it out to be what it wasn't.

Funnily enough even, some of the people calling it unconstitutional don't seem to have a problem with doing away the second amendment. The point I'm trying to make there is that you cannot make an argument against a policy on the grounds of being unconstitutional while also advocating for policies that are unconstitutional themselves without sounding somewhat hypocritical. There's better arguments for and against the travel ban and gun control without the need to bring up the constitution. Freedom of religion, for example, is a basic human right, so there's no need to even consider the constitution in that case.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
I understand it's intentions were to stop California and New York deciding the results of the elections (both are pretty much safe Democrat seats even despite going Republican a few times), but still
You understand incorrectly. The Electoral College predates California's statehood. It was established in the second clause of the Constitution, California didn't become a state until some 80 years later.
The actual temporary ban was on people from Muslim-majority countries. That meant nobody from that country could enter the US, including non-Muslims.
You've ignored the fact that exceptions were specifically made for Christians. That instantly made it non-enforceable and they knew it.
 
Last edited:

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
You understand incorrectly. The Electoral College predates California's statehood.

That's fair enough then.
You've ignored the fact that exceptions were made for Christians. That instantly made it non-enforceable and they knew it.

Nobody, not even on the forums when I've said a similar thing beforehand, ever told me that part before. I'm not unknown to making mistakes on these forums after all.

EDIT: The original response may have been a little over the top, and as such has been amended.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
I understand it's intentions were to stop California and New York deciding the results of the elections (both are pretty much safe Democrat seats even despite going Republican a few times), but still.
The Electoral College predates California's statehood. It was established in the second clause of the Constitution, California didn't become a state until some 80 years later.
As an aside, of the elections since California joined the Union it has voted Republican 23 times and Democrat 18 times (and third-party once).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Exactly. When people cant find any substance to back themselves up they resort to bullying and start making personal remarks.
Oh, there's plenty of evidence that DJT's presidency isn't going at all well. I think the suggestion is that your username sums up how things have gone over the last year quite well, except the Trump administration would better be suited to Confused24/7.
 

SilentGrade

Member
Joined
17 Dec 2017
Messages
135
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...on-says-no-need-new-russia-sanctions-despite/

Russia will target US mid-term elections, says CIA director
The Trump administration on Monday evening stopped short of imposing fresh sanctions on Russia as punishment for its election meddling, providing further ammunition for critics who say the White House colluded with the Kremlin.

The announcement came soon after the director of the CIA warned that Russia would interfere in this year’s mid-term elections.

Last year Democrats and Republicans passed a bill authorising the administration to use sanctions to both punish Moscow and to prevent future meddling.

Congress set a January 29 deadline to introduce new measures or explain why it had not done so.

On Monday evening Heather Nauert, State Department spokeswoman, indicated that the mere threat of sanctions had been sufficient and no further action was needed.

"Today, we have informed Congress that this legislation and its implementation are deterring Russian defence sales," she said.

"Since the enactment of the ... legislation, we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defence acquisitions."

The statement sparked immediate anger that Mr Trump was either hiding something or failing to take the threat seriously.

Mr Trump has repeatedly played down allegations – backed by his own intelligence agencies – that Russia interfered in the last election to sway the result in his favour.

The deadline was seen as a key test of his willingness to take firm action at a time when his White House and staff remain under intense scrutiny amid allegations that they were aware of Russia’s campaign.

On the same day, Andrew McCabe stepped down as deputy director of the FBI, as Mr Trump and other Republicans keep up pressure on federal agencies they believe are biased against them.

And Republicans on the House intelligence committee voted to release a classified memo they wrote alleging that the FBI and the Justice Department used government surveillance during the investigation into Russian interference.

Taken together, Mr Trump’s critics said the developments amounted to a serious threat to democracy.

Evan McMullin, who ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, was among those who criticised the failure to introduce fresh sanctions.

So apparently Trump has today decided to straight up ignore congress in implementing new sanctions against Russia, despite the fact the original bill passed the Senate and House with single digit opposition and required the sanctions be implemented except for National security reasons.

Is this as bad as it gets?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Is this as bad as it gets?

Under normal circumstances, you would have thought so. In the current climate, it'll probably be as bad as it gets today, but I wouldn't guarantee that he won't outdo himself before the week is out
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,374
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Under normal circumstances, you would have thought so. In the current climate, it'll probably be as bad as it gets today, but I wouldn't guarantee that he won't outdo himself before the week is out

Indeed, and there's at least another three years of record low presidential standards yet to be mined.
 

Groningen

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
2,866
An Amtraktrain (train 51 to Chicago) with Republicans going to White Sulphur Springs for a meeting has hit a garbagetruck (1 dead) in Crozet, Virginia. After the accident secret service with automatic weapons searched the surrounding area to find the attackers. Donald Trump will visit the event tomorrow. The locomotivenumber is 4.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
Is there any indication it was an attack rather than an accident?
Yes for one trains in the US have quite a habit of hitting vehicles on crossings and for another I rather feel that it would be a much more major story if there was a suggestion it was an 'attack'! I can't find any mention on BBC News and definitely not the top story on the website of CNN, the New York Times or the Washington Post.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,091
Yes for one trains in the US have quite a habit of hitting vehicles on crossings and for another I rather feel that it would be a much more major story if there was a suggestion it was an 'attack'! I can't find any mention on BBC News and definitely not the top story on the website of CNN, the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Garbage news rather than fake news, perhaps?:smile:
 

TheNewNo2

Member
Joined
31 Mar 2015
Messages
1,008
Location
Canary Wharf
If a terrorist did try to kill politicians by putting a lorry on the railway, that seems... well, quite a low success probability method. Chances of anyone on the train dying are fairly low, chances of the right person dying nigh on zero. And with the availability of guns it would have been comparatively easy to rake the train with gunfire after it had stopped.

Just the same old story, vehicle doesn't get clear of level crossing in time through breakdown or driver error.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,248
Location
No longer here
An Amtraktrain (train 51 to Chicago) with Republicans going to White Sulphur Springs for a meeting has hit a garbagetruck (1 dead) in Crozet, Virginia. After the accident secret service with automatic weapons searched the surrounding area to find the attackers. Donald Trump will visit the event tomorrow. The locomotivenumber is 4.

There weren’t any attackers. The only fatality was the driver of the truck.
 

Groningen

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
2,866
From our local newspaper (Dagblad van het Noorden); translated with Google Translate: Immediately after the crash, a team of security guards, dressed in black and equipped with automatic weapons, surrounded the stranded train and searched the area for possible attackers. / By the way it was not locomotive 4, but 145. It was a chartered train; so maybe not open for regular passengers.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
From our local newspaper (Dagblad van het Noorden); translated with Google Translate: Immediately after the crash, a team of security guards, dressed in black and equipped with automatic weapons, surrounded the stranded train and searched the area for possible attackers. / By the way it was not locomotive 4, but 145. It was a chartered train; so maybe not open for regular passengers.

Which is a world away from what you originally said.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,686
Location
Redcar
Immediately after the crash, a team of security guards, dressed in black and equipped with automatic weapons, surrounded the stranded train and searched the area for possible attackers.
Aha, now that I can believe. The word 'possible' is very important in this context :)
 

Groningen

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
2,866
Maybe they thought that that truck was put on the tracks deliberately. There is still the question what locomotive was used; the 4 and/or 145. The 145 has damage; the 4 could be the locomotive at the other end.
 

Groningen

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
2,866
You never know what real terrorist do, but luckely they weren't. Knowing the condiotion of USA tracks the speed was not high as the back part of the train is still visible. The train behind (the 51 to Chicago) has now a delay of more than 6 hours.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
Watch the first part of this segment (from around 30s onwards) and tell me there isn't a problem:
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,679
Location
Another planet...
He's also boasted about the record ratings his SOTU address achieved... despite not actually breaking any records!

It's funny, but it'd be funnier if he didn't actually have his absolutely normal-sized hands on the nuclear button.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
He's also boasted about the record ratings his SOTU address achieved... despite not actually breaking any records!
Indeed. He claimed he had the all-time highest ratings for a State of the Union address. The facts:
  • Trump (2018) - 45.6 million
  • Obama (2010) - 48.1 million
  • Bush (2002) - 51.7 million
  • Clinton (1998) - 53.1 million
  • Bush (2003) - 62.1 million
I don't know what is sadder - the fact that he's out and out lied, or the fact that he felt the need to lie.
 

Top