Cheers !!

[newcastle]

Presumably the Congress & Senate, although both Republican majority, will keep Trump under some control. After all, the Republican establishment did not back some of his wilder statements.

I'm not sure what damage he can do with "Executive Orders"....which seem almost as arcane as our "Royal Prerogative".

Of most concern will be his appointment of a conservative judge to the vacant seat in the Supreme Court....bad news for anyone hoping for liberal interpretations of the constitution.

[BENNU]

phpBB [video]

[Horus]

And so many armchair pundits will have to eat crow, no doubt like the Brexit result the losers will still be complaining for years to come. Once again a liberal elite has been given its marching orders by a white working class who’s voice has been ignored for years and when you consider that he alienated quite a large proportion of voters with his outspoken remarks, then had he toed the line he would most likely have won with a much larger majority. It will be interesting to see how this impacts upon our European neighbours who never want to dig into their pockets to pay for NATO and leave America to pick up 75% of the bill for what is their own defence. At least this country plays its part and pays its dues, but it looks even more likely that Mr Junkers will have to form his own army without our own being the natural backbone of any such venture. It will be interesting to see how his policies affect the Middle East and quite a few places may find themselves less secure than they once believed.
Who’s next for the revolution? Which EU member will be the next to fall? We live in interesting times.

[newcastle]

We live in interesting times.

It's known as the "old Chinese curse" for good reason

I doubt there'll be much carping about the result...just bemusement and dismay. Electing a US President is not as if you're voting for a government or a schedule of policies as if they were part of a manifesto to be implemented.......at least I hope not, with regard to some of his more exotic ideas

I'm hopeful that the more mature members of Congress and the Senate will keep US domestic & foreign policy within rational bounds. Downgrading NATO,,,,building a wall....vetting all muslim visitors....locking up Hilary....maybe not!

Whilst I have no wish for "interesting times" I'm looking forward to having a laugh and a poke at some of the absurdities we're bound to see from this creature

[Horus]

Well for anyone with American friends or acquaintances it will come as no surprise, I have heard many express their dislike of Obama and of Clinton and their intention to vote for Trump, no doubt like the Brexit result American politicians were too complacent and did not have their fingers on the voters pulse.

[Horus]

I'm hopeful that the more mature members of Congress and the Senate will keep US domestic & foreign policy within rational bounds. Downgrading NATO,,,,building a wall....vetting all muslim visitors....locking up Hilary....maybe not!

It will have nothing to do with the more mature members of Congress and the Senate reigning him in, remember that he was not supported by many if any of those that make up the Republican party and in a situation similar to our own Labour party we have a grass roots support for the leader that is not echoed in the elected MPs. Trump went his own way during the campaign and ignored their dismissal and lack of support of him as a Republican candidate, so he owes them nothing. He has never really been a true Republican and has his own views and opinions and speaks his mind so does not toe any party line and as in the UK the ruling party may not like the decision on Brexit, but it knows not to go against the will of the people if they want to keep their seats.

[newcastle]

My American acquaintances are, without exception, shocked, horrified - and embarrassed - that someone like Trump could be elected.

They put it down to a victory for the 'anti-establishment' brigade which turns out to have been more resolute than anyone imagined...despite the unpopularity of their candidate.

Obama's popularity has been consistently over 50%....well ahead of the 25-30% reported for Trump & Clinton.

They've voted for "change" and might well have voted in Kermit the Frog had he stood as Republican candidate.

[newcastle]

I'm hopeful that the more mature members of Congress and the Senate will keep US domestic & foreign policy within rational bounds. Downgrading NATO,,,,building a wall....vetting all muslim visitors....locking up Hilary....maybe not!

It will have nothing to do with the more mature members of Congress and the Senate reigning him in, remember that he was not supported by many if any of those that make up the Republican party and in a situation similar to our own Labour party we have a grass roots support for the leader that is not echoed in the elected MPs. Trump went his own way during the campaign and ignored their dismissal and lack of support of him as a Republican candidate, so he owes them nothing. He has never really been a true Republican and has his own views and opinions and speaks his mind so does not toe any party line and as in the UK the ruling party may not like the decision on Brexit, but it knows not to go against the will of the people if they want to keep their seats.

Of course they'll reign him in!

He's very limited in what he can do without the backing of Congress & Senate....and he's already antagonised many of them. They won't feel any obligation to implement his "headline catching" proposals...and nor will the voters be that bothered. They voted for a change of direction rather than expressing a love for Trump, the man. As always...."it's the economy, stupid!".

His role will be restricted to trying not to make a fool of himself, particularly on the international stage, while the executive quietly buries his more bizarre ideas and gets on with a Republican economic agenda.

[Horus]

I'm hopeful that the more mature members of Congress and the Senate will keep US domestic & foreign policy within rational bounds. Downgrading NATO,,,,building a wall....vetting all muslim visitors....locking up Hilary....maybe not!

It will have nothing to do with the more mature members of Congress and the Senate reigning him in, remember that he was not supported by many if any of those that make up the Republican party and in a situation similar to our own Labour party we have a grass roots support for the leader that is not echoed in the elected MPs. Trump went his own way during the campaign and ignored their dismissal and lack of support of him as a Republican candidate, so he owes them nothing. He has never really been a true Republican and has his own views and opinions and speaks his mind so does not toe any party line and as in the UK the ruling party may not like the decision on Brexit, but it knows not to go against the will of the people if they want to keep their seats.

Of course they'll reign him in!

He's very limited in what he can do without the backing of Congress & Senate....and he's already antagonised many of them.

His role will be restricted to making a fool of himself, particularly on the international stage, while the executive quietly buries his more bizarre ideas.

You hope! but as with Brexit vote people are being proved wrong all the time, there was a lot of difference with the Obama administration as he did not have their support, this time its different.
Whatever you may think, if the American voters see a Senate or Congress blocking the things they supported during the elections then I foresee trouble ahead. You are expressing exactly the same sentiments of a ruling elite blocking the will of the people as you do with the Brexit vote and it is exactly that sentiment that any sane politician will avoid. Teresa May knows better than to try and go against the will of the electorate and the Senate and Congress will do the same, maybe some of the wilder ideas will be dropped, but basic trump policies on trade, military involvement, unfettered immigration etc. will be affected regardless of what you would like to think will happen, so I say, sit back and watch, only time will tell.

[Hafiz]

Horus not so. The following spend more than the UK, as a percentage of GDP: France, Poland, Armenia, South Korea, Ukraine, Greece and Turkey. Japan’s seeming under-expenditure might be just that – with a lot spent on its ‘coast guard’. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/fil ... -share.pdf

Some draw a straight line between national military expenditure and contribution to NATO. They are not the same things.

The 75% US NATO contribution is just another Trump lie which has been repeated so often that people believe it. In a long and complex article the Washington Post does its own maths and concludes:

“Currently that would be about 22 percent, compared to about 15 percent for Germany, 11 percent for France, 10 percent for the United Kingdom, 8 percent for Italy, 7 percent for Canada, and so forth.”

In any event some of the previous laggards have increased their expenditure/contributions in the last 18 months. Most would understand that, following 2008, there were cut back on military expenditure, including the UK. This is changing. Examples of rapid recent increases in 2014-15 (before Trump) have Lithuania and Poland at yearly increases of between 20-30%. In the same period the UK contribution decreased by 5.8%. (these are NATO figures). Typically the Trumplanders don’t look at the forward increased commitments from NATO allies. https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/doc ... ending.png

The Trumpeters distort the following fact. If you add up all the total military expenditures of all NATO members, for whatever purpose, you get a number of which the US expenditure is 72% (not 75%). The US component of this total expenditure includes all its military activities, South America, Africa, North Asia, South Asia, Indian Ocean, Pacific, South Atlantic, Military-Space Programs, Nuclear Deterrent and First Strike, all military activity within the US, treaty obligations with Japan, Israel, Korea, Tiawan, Australia etc. Its its global effort most of which is conducted outside NATO.

It is comparing oranges with potatoes. Sure the US spends a lot more than Europe on its total military but on the protection of Europe, which is the purpose of NATO, the US spends about $500 million out of a Nato budget of about $2.5 billion. The $500 million is 1/1400th of the total US military budget for the world. Similarly not all UK military expenditures are contributed to NATO and most of it is spent outside NATO. Of that NATO fund the US contributes a not unreasonable 22%.

A proper comparison would be to add into the pot all the military expenditures of all other US partners - Australia, NZ, Japan etc. But these people arent interested in an argument about facts and logic.Even then the US would spend a lot compared with its allies but a lot of that is by choice, outside NATO and its other alliances, and in pursuit of its own interests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... -for-nato/

Other expert opinion: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/0 ... n-defense/

A long serious study, with every chart you could want, on global military expenditure to 2014 showing the substantial withdrawal of overseas US assets/personnel is at: http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trend ... ing/p28855

For a long description about the various categories US NATO contributions (Active, contingent) https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... pabilities. This also says 22% but it’s the White House so they are lying.

Of course if you read blogs or Brietbart the US contribution could be $US 30 trillion and they are not lying they are just a half educated 25 year old blogging slob living in their parent’s basement

Its another sweet sounding Trump lie swallowed whole by unthinking people too lazy to follow a complicated argument. The world is a complicated place.

Newcastle, the President has extensive powers, without congress, on military, diplomatic, and trade matters. Where congress is a constraint is judicial appointments (thousands of them), cabinet appointments, expenditure/tax bills, ambassadorial appointments and a surprising amount of detail almost all of which is about domestic affairs. The international stuff is pretty much his.

[Horus]

More semantics from you Hafiz along with your usual accusations that the rest of us are to lazy to carry out your epic research, most of us don't have the luxury of finding every obscure fact to support our view, but here is one for you.

"In 2006, the 28 members of NATO agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. According to NATO records, by 2012 only four members met this bare minimum standard; the United States, Great Britain, Greece, and Estonia. During the Cold War, the U.S. accounted for roughly 50% of defense spending by NATO members. Now after years of shrinking defense budgets in Europe, the U.S. share is more than 75%."

That came from the mouth of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in 2013 and I doubt if much has changed since, but I am sure that Australia makes huge contributions to world peace.

[newcastle]

Teresa May knows better than to try and go against the will of the electorate and the Senate and Congress will do the same

The "will of the electorate"?

Do we mean the will of Donald Trump....elected president by majority of the electoral college.....or the other person that the majority of the electorate voted for.

[Horus]

Either way he is in charge and it would do us all well to just wait and see how he performs, too many armchair pundits ready to pounce.

[Major Thom]

Makes you wonder how much of the Election Campaign was shown on Egyptian TV. I wonder how the Egyptian People felt and what they thought about Trump, when he said We are closing our borders to all Muslims? Maybe that bit not shown but you can find it on Youtube.

[newcastle]

Either way he is in charge and it would do us all well to just wait and see how he performs, too many armchair pundits ready to pounce.

I suppose it is unfair to criticise Trump on the basis of what he said on the run up to the election. After all, he's not the first person to spout all kinds of rubbish in order to sway an electorate one way or another. He obviously took to heart the tips given by Farage.

And if we're concerned that his "locker room" discourse, his remarks on Mexicans, muslims, etc. really represent the man himself......well, he has a couple of months to undergo a character transformation.

[Major Thom]

The problem isa leopard never changes it's spots. To me anyone who back Trump is themselves racially motivated. Because Trump has spouted out all and sundry in front of the cameras, he either lives up to his promises or he backtracks and looses faith. The interview with Obama yesterday Trump looked like a rabbit in the headlights, he was probably thinking what have I got myself into. His body language certainly made him look uncomfortable and inexperienced.

[newcastle]

To me anyone who back Trump is themselves racially motivated.

That's as silly an over-statement as some of Trump's wilder utterances.

I recall similar inanities circulating in relation to Brexit.

Many backed Trump as the "lesser evil". Many were focused on his economic intentions and probably ignored remarks alluding to race, gender and religion and assumed they were just electioneering hyperbole.

I thought the meeting with Obama looked as if it went well.

It will be interesting to see how a man with no experience of political office, and an excitable temperament, copes with the pressures of being POTUS.

[Brian Yare]

POTUS being a hypocoristicon for HIPPOPOTomUS?

[newcastle]

POTUS being a hypocoristicon for HIPPOPOTomUS?

Well that 's one new word I've learned today!

[Hafiz]

First – Mrs Clinton got more votes. So its not true that the majority of Americans voted for Trump. Therefore the ‘will of the people. is for Mrs Clinton and Horus should be backing her.

Second a lot will depend on his cabinet.

Apparently, unlike previous aspirants, he faces a few problems in preparing for government.

First his team thus far lacks people of experience and skill for cabinet. Second over a hundred American conservative diplomats and military signed a letter six months ago saying he was deplorable and they would not serve him.

So there is a shortage of suitable candidates for the most important jobs in the world – including 200 ambassadorships.

Second some of those that have stuck with him and who would have claims to jobs are discredited, dangerous or might soon be in jail. For example the former Governor of NJ, Christie, is expected to be indicted for a felony, Gingrich is discredited and unstable and Stephen Bannon, his campaign advisor seems to have domestic violence, anti-semitism and persoanl finance issues as well as a very unstable personality which would seem to make him a less than suitable choice as Chief of Staff. Bannon’s media career also seems to have been based on a complete disregard for the truth. http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-kn ... en-shapiro and https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/grap ... ve-bannon/ And (on Bannon and other unsavory associates) https://newrepublic.com/article/138421/ ... -long-game

One of the problems for a thin skinned narcissist and egoist is the tendency to surround himself with like minded people. On the other hand many rise to the challenge of a new and unfamiliar job and change. However, at 70 years of age the chances of change seem slim: but you never know. One of Regan's strengths was the choice of brilliant and widely respected professional cabinet secretaries and leaving them to do the work whilst he did the smooging.

Update: Trump had a long conversation with our PM where he confirmed a strong US pacific military role but was definite on opposing free trade. So a UK trade deal is a way off and our Pan Pacific Partnership seems stalled at best. Further update;: Mrs Clinton for all her glass ceiling rhetoric did less well (in percentage terms) with college educated women than Al Gore in 2000.

Horus – the US share of NATO is 22%. If you are not prepared to believe NATO’s own figures then there is nothing more I can say. As far as research is concerned, I usually base my opinions on evidence – what do you base yours on? The evidence I use is internationally regarded mainstream media and reputable research outlets. Is that to be regarded as a liability or something to apologize for?

Bye the bye what is the source for your most recent quote on 75% of NATO?