'I feel like I did after 9/11': Robert De Niro shares his anger following Trump's victory

[livingdead]

That's exactly it. He is not against it, he just wants to kill its legacy.

You must already be aware of the egoistical differences between Trump and Obama right? Obama's even publicly insulted Trump to extremes.

The guy's really vindictive. He wants to kill Obama's legacy.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37953528



I'm not on either side, I'm Indian.

I claimed Trump would win this election back in December last year. When Trump and Clinton were selected, I knew the Republicans had it in the bag.

As an Indian, I'm only concerned with what he can offer India. As of now it looks good.

'your side' was directed towards democrats who are on the street... not you...

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Perfectly fine. It's a good decision because only the wealthy can create value.

That model relies on many other factors, but in todays American society it is not possible since the workers are no longer peasants pulled out from the farms. If the average Joe is working 3 jobs to make ends meet, then how is giving some millionaire a massive tax cut going to improve that average Joes life in any way. The argument can be made that it would result in more job creation, and lower prices, but jobs aren't what that person needs right now. They need the state to support them with health, education, and public welfare, so that they can progress and live productive lives.

Agree, it's a stupid decision but he has too many bureaucratic hurdles to cross. Basically, he can't go against the Paris Agreement, Obama has seen to that.

Then he wont get reelected if he decides to run again, or he will lose support midway through his presidency. either way lying about something like that will have serious consequences

Election rhetoric. He just wants the EU to spend more on defence. He's confirmed with Japan and Korea that nothing will change to allay their fears.

Japan and Korea are not members of NATO. I was referring to Europe specifically, Trump wants to basically make them spend more on defence (which they wont pay), and also seeks close relations with Russia, which directly threatens Germany, the EU, and Eastern Europe.

India has massive walls along the Indo-Pak border. And planning one for BD also.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/10/08/indias-great-wall-can-be-seen-from-space/
Nothing wrong with that.

India's border fence is nowhere near the same as a border WALL. the estimates of which btw range from 15-30 billion usd. It also is nonsensical in the sense that border walls don't prevent immigrants, and that most illegals in the US don't cross over the Mexican border to arrive there.

Dunno. He's talking about increasing the defence budget and make the military more pro-active, particularly against China and ISIS. His foreign policy is all rhetoric, so don't worry about that.

He's openly talked about firing Generals that don't do what he says, he wants them to enact his own plans, restart the torturing of combatants (which US generals have pointed out is Illegal and they wont do it), and during his campaign and even long before he's mocked McCain for being captured, veteran suicides, and disabled veterans.

The military is over bloated right now, the generals know this and they've repeatedly asked congress to reduce the budget or to stop building such a large surplus of equipment. Besides, if he promises to pull the US away from wars abroad then why would he also increase their budget?

He'll only change the name. Who the hell names something so important after himself? Obamacare? What was Obama thinking? It was obvious that a Republican will change it. And to add insult to injury, he will rename it Trumpcare and wait until the next Democrat changes the name again.

it was Obamas legacy really, the Republicans despise government intervention on health, they want a return to private healthcare so the government stays out of corporations. There is no way in hell that they would let Trump rebrand, or create his own version of the legislation, since all they are looking for is the complete dissolution of it. Also Trump talked big about how how he would do away with ACA, so going back on that promise would make him look bad, and give the Republicans more ammo to take him down

That's not true bro. If you reduce corporate taxes and slap higher import tariffs, the corporations will create value within the country. He wants to reduce income taxes also. There are so many things that can be made in the US which won't cost a lot more than compared to the international market.

Increased tariffs would only result in higher prices, and would mean that other countries would put their own tariffs on US goods. What corporation would in any way favor that? They will fight tooth and nail, and lobby HARD to stop that going through. Even if it did happen what would be the result? Some companies moving abroad to take advantage of the larger growing markets in Asia and Europe, and simply increase the price for US consumers to counteract the tariff.

Economic Liberalism is the only way to increase economic growth, not protectionism, so removing barriers to trade is key if Trump actually wants to 'make America great again', after all American exports are what made America great in the first place. Tariffs on certain industries such as agriculture make sense, but for the scale and industries Trump wants to hit, it would only be disastrous.

If he creates jobs, he will stay. If he doesn't he will not get re-elected. But he won't get impeached, he's way to shrewd for that.

All Trump-haters are hoping for impeachment, but that won't happen. The entire election was a one man show. The people voted him into power because they hope he will change things. You see, if he is stopped midway, Trump will just blame the Republican Party for his failures, that will end careers that way, in the process absolve himself. The Republican Party isn't that stupid.

Trump wont take down the party with him, don't forget millions who voted for Trump were simply Republicans who voted for their candidate. Besides if Republicans can manipulate the narrative to make him seem like a villain, then people would be thankful for protecting them from that madman. Seeing as how he only won because the Midwestern states came out and voted for him hard, it would be difficult for them to support him if he went back on those coal promises, and environmental regulations he threatened to take down.

Also its interesting the rhetoric you and other supporters have when it comes to Trumps policies, "Oh he wont do this or that", "He's too big to fall" etc. no other politician would be allowed those sorts of excuses, yet Trump, a complete political novice is suddenly given a free pass as if he is actually going to do anything other than crash the American economy into the ground, and divide the society in the process.

Another thing I want to point out is that the world as we know it today is at an irreversible stage due to how much climate change has affected our planet. How would increasing emissions from America do anything other than provide short term benefit, because sea levels will rise and temperatures will continue to fluctuate. Its the responsibility of the US as the leader of the western world to spearhead the environmental campaign and make our planet livable and maintain it for future generations, rather than the greedy ambitions of today.

 

[randomradio]

That model relies on many other factors, but in todays American society it is not possible since the workers are no longer peasants pulled out from the farms. If the average Joe is working 3 jobs to make ends meet, then how is giving some millionaire a massive tax cut going to improve that average Joes life in any way. The argument can be made that it would result in more job creation, and lower prices, but jobs aren't what that person needs right now. They need the state to support them with health, education, and public welfare, so that they can progress and live productive lives.

Those 3 jobs kinda people are not common. The problem with welfare is that's a dead end. The guy will always be forever dependent on welfare. His children will have to take him out of welfare.

When more jobs are available, your labour pool increases, basically trained worker pool increases. Then to keep the top jobs, the workers will have to continuously train themselves to be better, so the overall quality will increase over time. So there are benefits when jobs are more. Eventually, if the productivity increases, the reliance on a 3rd job reduces, then you get rid of the 2nd job and so on. With more jobs, you get more consumers, so businesses will continue expanding, thereby creating more jobs. Quality capitalism is always good. The US has crony capitalism, that's why that guy is stuck with 3 jobs that are not going anywhere.

Japan and Korea are not members of NATO. I was referring to Europe specifically, Trump wants to basically make them spend more on defence (which they wont pay), and also seeks close relations with Russia, which directly threatens Germany, the EU, and Eastern Europe.

Bro, the European countries are very rich. The national revenues of the US is just $3T, China's is $2T. France is $1.5T and Germany's is $1T. They can easily outspend China and US put together. If the EU countries spend 2% of their GDP in defence, then US presence is not necessary. We had a thread about it.

France and Germany are creating plans for a common defence also. So the relevance of NATO will reduce or cease to exist, especially with France taking the lead in the EU Army. Trump is right about it. The EU's current defence budget is $200B and more. If they create a common defence plan, they don't need the US at all.

India's border fence is nowhere near the same as a border WALL. the estimates of which btw range from 15-30 billion usd. It also is nonsensical in the sense that border walls don't prevent immigrants, and that most illegals in the US don't cross over the Mexican border to arrive there.

India's border fencing is actually quite expensive. We just don't know how much. The Indo-Bangla fence is about $1.5B, but the Indo-Pak border has a lot of electronic protection, electrification etc. The LoC has triple layers of fencing and so on.

Then he wont get reelected if he decides to run again, or he will lose support midway through his presidency. either way lying about something like that will have serious consequences

His reelection hinges on his ability to get jobs. The main states that voted him into power don't care about the Mexicans as immigrants, they are more worried about the Mexican export industry.

He's openly talked about firing Generals that don't do what he says, he wants them to enact his own plans, restart the torturing of combatants (which US generals have pointed out is Illegal and they wont do it), and during his campaign and even long before he's mocked McCain for being captured, veteran suicides, and disabled veterans.

It's all rhetoric.

The military is over bloated right now, the generals know this and they've repeatedly asked congress to reduce the budget or to stop building such a large surplus of equipment. Besides, if he promises to pull the US away from wars abroad then why would he also increase their budget?

The opposite. They are saying it's not enough. The F-22 was cut, one carrier was cut, the SSN programs were cut, the destroyer was cut, LCS was cut, lots of programs were cut.

it was Obamas legacy really, the Republicans despise government intervention on health, they want a return to private healthcare so the government stays out of corporations. There is no way in hell that they would let Trump rebrand, or create his own version of the legislation, since all they are looking for is the complete dissolution of it. Also Trump talked big about how how he would do away with ACA, so going back on that promise would make him look bad, and give the Republicans more ammo to take him down

Come on, that's not going to affect Trump one bit. He'll say he introduced a new act and the Congress shot it down. There's no chance for private healthcare to thrive after Obamacare.

Increased tariffs would only result in higher prices, and would mean that other countries would put their own tariffs on US goods. What corporation would in any way favor that? They will fight tooth and nail, and lobby HARD to stop that going through. Even if it did happen what would be the result? Some companies moving abroad to take advantage of the larger growing markets in Asia and Europe, and simply increase the price for US consumers to counteract the tariff.

Economic Liberalism is the only way to increase economic growth, not protectionism, so removing barriers to trade is key if Trump actually wants to 'make America great again', after all American exports are what made America great in the first place. Tariffs on certain industries such as agriculture make sense, but for the scale and industries Trump wants to hit, it would only be disastrous.

That's actually not true. With automation in particular, it won't matter where you manufacture goods anymore. Geography is less important as long as you have the raw materials. And the US is a large enough country and has enough raw materials, more than China does in fact.

China exports $225B worth of goods to the US while importing only $25B. If you stick a big tariffs on imports and reduce corporate taxes, the business worth $225B will flood back into the US. Another country's retaliation won't matter because Trump only wants to target China.

Trump wont take down the party with him, don't forget millions who voted for Trump were simply Republicans who voted for their candidate. Besides if Republicans can manipulate the narrative to make him seem like a villain, then people would be thankful for protecting them from that madman. Seeing as how he only won because the Midwestern states came out and voted for him hard, it would be difficult for them to support him if he went back on those coal promises, and environmental regulations he threatened to take down.

Those regions are more interested in jobs. Trump has to deliver jobs in anyway, not just mining.

Anyway, Trump cannot withdraw from the Paris Agreement, so it's unnecessary to discuss it.

Also its interesting the rhetoric you and other supporters have when it comes to Trumps policies, "Oh he wont do this or that", "He's too big to fall" etc. no other politician would be allowed those sorts of excuses, yet Trump, a complete political novice is suddenly given a free pass as if he is actually going to do anything other than crash the American economy into the ground, and divide the society in the process.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

I'm not on either side, I'm Indian.

I claimed Trump would win this election back in December last year. When Trump and Clinton were selected, I knew the Republicans had it in the bag.

As an Indian, I'm only concerned with what he can offer India. As of now it looks good.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Those 3 jobs kinda people are not common. The problem with welfare is that's a dead end. The guy will always be forever dependent on welfare. His children will have to take him out of welfare.

When more jobs are available, your labour pool increases, basically trained worker pool increases. Then to keep the top jobs, the workers will have to continuously train themselves to be better, so the overall quality will increase over time. So there are benefits when jobs are more. Eventually, if the productivity increases, the reliance on a 3rd job reduces, then you get rid of the 2nd job and so on. With more jobs, you get more consumers, so businesses will continue expanding, thereby creating more jobs. Quality capitalism is always good. The US has crony capitalism, that's why that guy is stuck with 3 jobs that are not going anywhere.

Maybe its not that common, but people at the lower end of the ladder definitely are, approximately 14% (43 million) people in the US lived in poverty. In California the most wealthy state, that percentage is 24%. The US currently doesn't have a level of public welfare that both supports and empowers unemployed people, look at states following the ideology of Democratic Socialism, particularly in Scandinavia where poverty is low, and human development is high. They also follow a very Laissez Faire type policies, which although means reduced growth, also means that more people of all classes are able to advance, and those people therefore have more money to pump back into the economy as their relative purchasing power.

More jobs does not result in more consumers, its the other way around,, and having lower purchasing power means that companies have less consumers, so really no growth occurs and there will just be stagnation.

Bro, the European countries are very rich. The national revenues of the US is just $3T, China's is $2T. France is $1.5T and Germany's is $1T. They can easily outspend China and US put together. If the EU countries spend 2% of their GDP in defence, then US presence is not necessary. We had a thread about it.

France and Germany are creating plans for a common defence also. So the relevance of NATO will reduce or cease to exist, especially with France taking the lead in the EU Army. Trump is right about it. The EU's current defence budget is $200B and more. If they create a common defence plan, they don't need the US at all.

Exactly, they would just pull out of NATO, resulting in about a hundred years worth of diplomacy going straight into the trash. Nothing good would occur as a result, Russia would just be empowered to take

India's border fencing is actually quite expensive. We just don't know how much. The Indo-Bangla fence is about $1.5B, but the Indo-Pak border has a lot of electronic protection, electrification etc. The LoC has triple layers of fencing and so on.

OK well then that only proves that a border wall/fence doesnt work, becasue terorists are supposedly still infiltrating from Pakistan side, and Bengali cow smugglers are still smuggling over the border.

Also the small amount stretched over a longer period of time is not the same as $30 billion within 4-8 years, especially with the US economy overstretched as it is.

It's all rhetoric.

Then people are taking it seriously, it is one of the major points of criticism against the guy.

The opposite. They are saying it's not enough. The F-22 was cut, one carrier was cut, the SSN programs were cut, the destroyer was cut, LCS was cut, lots of programs were cut.

Programs were cut, but equipent like the m1a1 Abrams tank, are still being mass produced just so that congresss members can hold onto their districts for now, otherwise it is really not necessary.

Come on, that's not going to affect Trump one bit. He'll say he introduced a new act and the Congress shot it down. There's no chance for private healthcare to thrive after Obamacare.

It goes against everything that republicans, and by extension his supporters stand for. Also private healthcare is still king in America,Obamacare still hasn't really caught on, which is why the republicans are so open about its opposition.

That's actually not true. With automation in particular, it won't matter where you manufacture goods anymore. Geography is less important as long as you have the raw materials. And the US is a large enough country and has enough raw materials, more than China does in fact.

China exports $225B worth of goods to the US while importing only $25B. If you stick a big tariffs on imports and reduce corporate taxes, the business worth $225B will flood back into the US. Another country's retaliation won't matter because Trump only wants to target China.

Right so automation means that entire industries can suddenly be moved at will, thats not how it works. Setting up factories is not cheap, and businesses create their plans based on 5-10 year projections rather than simply moving overnight. Also if these industries are so automated, then not many jobs will be bought back into the US, the average worker with a minimal education/skill level wont know how to program, fix, or design the machines needed for this type of operation, menaing that there is little benefit here.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

Then you should be open to criticism, theres a reason why not many manufacturers, businessman, or economists support Trumps plans. The bulk of his support comes from the layman, who doesn't understand the mechanics in play, and simply voted Trump because he promised to get their low skill job in the factories.

 

[randomradio]

Maybe its not that common, but people at the lower end of the ladder definitely are, approximately 14% (43 million) people in the US lived in poverty. In California the most wealthy state, that percentage is 24%. The US currently doesn't have a level of public welfare that both supports and empowers unemployed people, look at states following the ideology of Democratic Socialism, particularly in Scandinavia where poverty is low, and human development is high. They also follow a very Laissez Faire type policies, which although means reduced growth, also means that more people of all classes are able to advance, and those people therefore have more money to pump back into the economy as their relative purchasing power.

More jobs does not result in more consumers, its the other way around,, and having lower purchasing power means that companies have less consumers, so really no growth occurs and there will just be stagnation.

You mean to tell me an additional infusion of $225B per year won't help the US economy?

You forget that all the stuff that the US imports, most of that can be made in the US. The consumer demand is higher than American production. So why leave that to other countries?

Exactly, they would just pull out of NATO, resulting in about a hundred years worth of diplomacy going straight into the trash. Nothing good would occur as a result, Russia would just be empowered to take

Diplomacy matters more. Instead of having 28 states with individual militaries, US and EU will just have 2 militaries, much easier to counter Russia.

OK well then that only proves that a border wall/fence doesnt work, becasue terorists are supposedly still infiltrating from Pakistan side, and Bengali cow smugglers are still smuggling over the border.

There's a difference between both. Due to the uneven terrain, there's no fencing in some parts. So the most highly trained terrorists do make it across by crossing ravines and rivers, climbing mountains, under the cover of fire. Basically Mexican civilians won't stand a chance.

As for smugglers, that has more to do with corruption and lack of adequate fencing over rivers and other places.

There is no such terrain disadvantage in the US-Mex border. The wall will stop most of the infiltration. And stronger immigration laws will prevent people from overstaying their visa.

Also the small amount stretched over a longer period of time is not the same as $30 billion within 4-8 years, especially with the US economy overstretched as it is.

The effect of illegal immigration is greater. It's not good for the economy because the immigrants lower wages and quality. That's why someone has to work 3 jobs instead of 2 or 1.

Then people are taking it seriously, it is one of the major points of criticism against the guy.

Yes, it's a problem when rhetoric wins elections.

Programs were cut, but equipent like the m1a1 Abrams tank, are still being mass produced just so that congresss members can hold onto their districts for now, otherwise it is really not necessary.

No, you need the tanks. Don't fall for anti-military criticism. Your military is much 'weaker' than it was 30 years ago, while enemy countries have stronger militaries than 30 years ago. Sequestration is killing the US military.

It goes against everything that republicans, and by extension his supporters stand for. Also private healthcare is still king in America,Obamacare still hasn't really caught on, which is why the republicans are so open about its opposition.

Rather than affordable care, what you need is free healthcare like in Europe. For that you need to create more jobs. The wealth distribution is very uneven. If you bring back lots of jobs, things will fall into place.

Right so automation means that entire industries can suddenly be moved at will, thats not how it works. Setting up factories is not cheap, and businesses create their plans based on 5-10 year projections rather than simply moving overnight. Also if these industries are so automated, then not many jobs will be bought back into the US, the average worker with a minimal education/skill level wont know how to program, fix, or design the machines needed for this type of operation, menaing that there is little benefit here.

Bro, you are importing $225B worth of goods, machinery and machine related, from China alone. THe US has a market, but industry has been underutilized.

Then you should be open to criticism, theres a reason why not many manufacturers, businessman, or economists support Trumps plans. The bulk of his support comes from the layman, who doesn't understand the mechanics in play, and simply voted Trump because he promised to get their low skill job in the factories.

It's temporary because they think Trump will blanket ban imports from China, but he won't. More like, he can't.

For example, let's say Trump sticks a 15% import duty on everything coming in from China, 15% is the max he can, anything else requires amendment. But if China makes something that the US can't, then Trump will not tax that. But for stuff like cars, Trump will tax that. Trump can tax individual items.

Trump plans to do three things.
-Slap duties on imports.
-Reduce corporate taxes.
-Reduce income tax.

So for some things, American consumers may have to pay more, but the decreased taxes increases their purchasing power anyway, so the govt earns more through taxation on goods. An increase in jobs, he wants to create more than a million new jobs, that will increase the consumer base. It's all good in theory, so let's see how he implements that.