What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[11B4V]

No, this is can't possibly be so.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kushner-pushed-trump-administration-officials-to-inflate-value-of-saudi-arms-deal-report/ar-BBQ7NIK?ocid=AMZN

I mean, based on the last couple of years how could it not be so?

Why "would" it be so.

[Syt]

.....

That photo is crying out for a comment from CdM, something along the lines of piles of dead foetuses.

[garbon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418370-gop-lawmaker-says-its-awfully-tough-for-ivanka-trump-to-comply-with

Top GOP lawmaker says 'it's awfully tough' for Ivanka Trump to comply with government email standards

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said that "it's awfully tough" for government officials like Ivanka Trump to comply with government communication standards when sending emails.

"When things like this come up, it's important people understand, they need to make sure they're doing what they can," Goodlatte told CNN's Erin Burnett on "OutFront" late Monday.

"And it's awfully tough, as everyone knows, when you're sending emails about a lot of different things to make sure that you're doing it according to the rules in the White House or wherever you're doing it," the Virginia Republican added.

Goodlatte also said that Trump's reported use of a personal email account while in the White House is "very different" from Hillary Clinton's use of a private server while serving as secretary of State.

"I do think, of course, it's very different to send private emails about matters that are not classified information," Goodlatte said. "There's a criminal penalty imposed for doing that — when you have classified information that is transmitted improperly, as was the allegation, and I think the facts now support, with regard to Hillary Clinton."

...

[Syt]

 

[The Larch]

Goodlatte? Is he sponsored by Starbucks?

[Syt]

Goodlatte? Is he sponsored by Starbucks?

That would be "good" latte.

[The Larch]

Goodlatte? Is he sponsored by Starbucks?

That would be "good" latte.

They wrote his name wrong.

[Syt]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/trump-threatens-gm-over-ohio-they-better-damn-well-open-a-new-plant.html

Trump threatens GM over Ohio plans: 'They better damn well open a new plant there'

- President Donald Trump tells The Wall Street Journal that he warned GM CEO Mary Barra that her company was "playing around with the wrong person."
- Trump also says that he told Barra on Sunday night that GM should open a new plant in Ohio, saying, "They better damn well open a new plant there very quickly."
- GM plans to cease operations at plants in Ohio, Michigan, Maryland and Ontario by next year — and to cut back production at two other plants, as well — and cut its work force by 15 percent.

President Donald Trump on Monday tore into General Motors for its newly announced plan to halt production at multiple plants in the U.S. and Canada, telling reporters that he warned GM CEO Mary Barra that her company was "playing around with the wrong person."

GM's plan to cease operations at plants in Ohio, Michigan, Maryland and Ontario by next year — and to cut back production at two other plants, as well — will cost up to $3.8 billion and shrink the Detroit-based carmaker by more than 14,000 jobs, or about 15 percent of its salaried staff.

Trump told The Wall Street Journal in an interview Monday that he spoke with Barra on Sunday night to discuss the downsizing plan. He told her that GM should stop making cars in China and open a new plant in Ohio to replace the ones being closed.

"They better damn well open a new plant there very quickly," Trump told the Journal. "I love Ohio," Trump said. "I told them, 'you're playing around with the wrong person,'" he added, according to the newspaper.

Trump continued: "I said, 'I heard you're closing your plant,'" he recalled from his conversation with Barra. "'It's not going to be closed for long, I hope, Mary, because if it is you have a problem.'"

The president, who had lamented the empty factories and depressed rural towns when he visited the state in July 2017, had promised the state's residents that their jobs are "all coming back." He won the state in 2016 by more than 8 percentage points.

Trump joined Ohio leaders, including several Democrats, in blasting the move. Sen. Sherrod Brown, a potential 2020 rival for Trump, called the decision "corporate greed at its worst."

Barra insisted that GM's restructuring was a pre-emptive step to take during strong economic times to protect her company through a future economic slowdown while continuing to invest in new technologies, the Journal reported.

The Journal's interview was published shortly after Trump told journalists outside the White House that he wasn't happy with GM's plan. He also noted that the Chevrolet Cruze was not selling well and urged the company to put something else in its place. GM killed the Cruze and several other passenger cars as part of its cost-cutting plan, USA Today reported Monday.

"I said, 'then put a car in here that is selling well, but get it opened fast,'" the president said in the Journal interview.

Meanwhile, Barra met with Trump's top economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, on Monday at the White House.

The president's remarks came as he was headed to Mississippi, where he plans to host two rallies in support of GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who has come under fire — including from former corporate donors — for remarks viewed as racially insensitive.

[The Brain]

In Trump's defense a command economy IS superior.

[The Minsky Moment]

GM sells many more cars in China then it does in the US.  And the Chinese market is still growing faster.

Of course, Trump's tariff war with China makes it even less likely that GM's China producion could be brought to the US.   

[FunkMonk]

Trade wars are Good and EASY TO WIN! GM doing very bad business, sinking revenues! They better stay, or else!

[Tonitrus]

Well, if not for Uncle Sugar bailing them out, they'd either be gone or owned by the French.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, if not for Uncle Sugar bailing them out, they'd either be gone or owned by the French.

And therefore what?  I can see you going two ways with this.  Either that the shareholders and fat cat management have a moral obligation to keep jobs in the US, even if it loses them money, or that the workers shouldn't expect to get bailed out again by "moral suasion" and economy wrecking tariffs. My guess is you were thinking of the first.  Keep in mind that the bailout consisted of Tio Azucar injecting a wad of cash in exchange for a huge equity position, which he subsequently sold off to investors, who are not necessarily the same investors who got bailed out previously.

[The Brain]

The US sure likes to meddle in private business. Sweden let SAAB Automobile fall, and I think it was a good choice.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trying to make commercial sense out of Trump's industrial policy is a fool's errand; Trump is a simpleton and his "policy" is just a series of slogans, posturing and PR exercises ("here's me acting tough"  "Oh look what a great deal I got")

The engine behind these policies are the Bannonites, who thrive even in their leader's absence and seem to have secured some support or at least lack of active opposition from the national security side "grownups" - Pompeo in particular is a China hawk and seems to have concluded that this is the path of least resistance.  If you start with the Bannonite assumption that the US and China are locked into an existential, zero-sum battle for mastery, a civilizational conflict in Huntingtonian terms that will inevitably result in either military conflict or unilateral surrender, then the lack of commercial sense is irrelevant. But if you are operating on that assumption, having a coherent security strategy that addresses that problem is essential, and clearly we don't have that either.  One problem is that Trump doesn't share the Bannonite world view. Trump bashes China because the bilateral trade deficit is too high; if he could get it down and take credit for the "deal" he'd do it in a heartbeat.  Trump is Mr. Transactional - he doesn't do existential conflict.

The other problem is that the Bannonites don't have anyone vaguely competent enough to form a national security strategy and they don't occupy the right offices to push through such a policy even if they were able.  They seem to be content with generally reorienting policy and "sending China a message."  They certainly are sending China a message - but the message is that no one is in charge and that there is no reason to conclude that any concession they might theoretically offer would be reciprocated.  The "policy" thus risks simply escalating conflict by default and indeed that may be the objective.