Re: GOP votes to allow dumping of mining debris in streams
The 2008 financial collapse made clear the necessity of regulations like Glass-Steagal, and so they were replaced by the Dodd-Frank regulations during the Obama years, but Trump wants to roll them back, exposing us to the risk of another financial collapse in the future.
The fact that our debt based economies are little more than glorified ponzi schemes means that we will always be at risk of a financial crisis. You can't pay back the national debt without destroying your economy unless the private sector replaces the national debt with debt of its own. It's a stupid archaic system imposing debt on everyone, one way or another. No amount of regulation will change that. We don't need better regulation, we need a better system!
ABE- my point is that I don't see any merit in critisizing Trumps move to deregulate the financial system. If he wants to promote economic growth, he has little choice. Arguements that it will produce unsustainable growth are moot due to the fact that the financial system requires constant growth just to give the appearance of sustainablilty. Of course, in the long term, infinite growth is obviously unsustainable. Therefore any arguement citing sustainability must argue for a new system rather than modification or regulation of the existing one.
Trump now saying that the media is under-reporting on terrorist attacks. Released a list of attacks that were supposedly not reported on/enough. It included the single gunman siege in Sydney, Aus. Perhaps it was not reported too heavily in the US(for obvious reasons) but I can assure you it was all over Australia's MSM bloody constantly. The news also mentioned a few other attacks that were both on the list and extensively covered.
I can't help but see it as a ploy to generate fear. It's a blatant lie and will only serve to create more fear of Muslims/terrorism. Watching the news, you ALREADY get the feeling the world is full of crazy terrorists and Trump is telling people there's more not being reported. Trying to gain public support for his immigration policies?
So someone leaked a transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Australia's Prime Minister Turnbull, it is insightful to say the least. Trumps monstrous ego was on display along with a general incoherence and inability to understand a point.
The President: Malcom [sic], why is this so important? I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.
Prime Minister Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right – It is not 2,000.
The President: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.
Prime Minister Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian government is consistent with the principles set out in the Executive Order.
On the other side of the fence, our PM doesn't give two hoots about the people's lives he's playing with, only maintaining face and party policy.
The bottom line is that we got here. I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it. It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion.
That's how our 'leaders' operate, all image, no substance.
Did you read the whole thing? Turnbull was firm (you have to be with children) and got what 'Australia' wanted but he also appeared to be handing Trump a blank cheque regarding Australia returning the favour;
Prime Minister Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Noble [sic] Prize winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people –
The President: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.
Prime Minister Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Noble [sic] Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.
In order to stop people who arrive by boat we detain them offshore at great expense for years and then once they're vetted we send them to the US and take 'anyone you want us to take' in return. It's not about protecting Australians from anything, in fact, he's willing to put us in danger to keep his anti-boat people policy. Take our vetted boat people and give us your nutjobs.
The logic behind the policy is that if we don't let boat people re-settle here under any circumstance then they won't bother coming in the first place. That we're re-settling them in other first world countries seems a little self-defeating really, the horrible conditions we detain them in during the vetting process becomes the only real deterrent.
Here is the Facebook comment I found that link on;
How many of you read the entire transcript? I'm far from a Trump supporter but in this instance it is a very interesting insight into a leader sticking firmly to his policy and another leader trying to broker a deal by his own admission, for political perception only. Trump came out of this one looking pretty good. Trumbull looked underhanded and frankly negotiated terribly.
I certainly don't agree that Trump looked good and I can't see where Turnbull 'negotiated terribly' but he was certainly underhanded. Turnbull is tough on boat people because it plays on the underlying racism in Australia and wins votes, meanwhile, he's happy to let in upto 200k skilled immigrants each year while Australia has an un/der-employment problem. My dissatisfaction stems from a general weariness of pointless political rhetoric and the absence of meaningful policy.
Bernie should've run as an independent. I can understand people's frustration with Trumps regressive LBGT policies and general stupidity but I'm not convinced Hillary would have been better, all thing considered. Her planned invasion of Syria and the possible consequences of such a move, for example.
Actually no. I assumed you had quoted enough to make your points.
Too much material to choose from and I didn't think anyone would care about me criticising Turnbull. The whole thing is an interesting insight into the way they operate behind closed doors. Trump is the same, a bumbling fool. Turnbull is a cunning scumbag, confirming what most of Australia already knew.
I think Trump genuinely has a messiah complex given that he is no more humble when speaking to other world leaders. I can understand him using rhetoric like this against political opponents but with those you have to 'make deals' with?
Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.