What If Trump Loses The Election?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

How is it you can so confidently state a falsehood?

Seriously? Do you think Donald Trump personally built Trump Tower all by himself? (That, too, is what sarcasm actually looks like.) Trade deals are negotiated by career State Department/ Foreign Ministry personnel. Presidents do not negotiate them, they approve them and submit them to Congress. This allows them to brand them with their name.

From the Whitehouse communication I linked it CLEARLY states the president has finished negotiating.
Now you clinging on to your falsehood. Whether in it's entirety or in part, the President IS involved in the negotiations.
It's one thing to get something wrong as you did, but another to then double down and try to mislead people.

a reply to: UKTruth

From the Whitehouse communication I linked it CLEARLY states the president has finished negotiating.

So now White House communications are spin free?

Now you clinging on to your falsehood. Whether in it's entirety or in part, the President IS involved in the negotiations.

It has taken years to forge the TPP. Where has the President been all that time? Locked in negotiations? Trump seems to think that trade deals are negotiated in a locked room one-on-one. Sure, Obama attended a summit meeting with other Pacific Rim leaders, but he did little or no actual negotiating.

It's one thing to get something wrong as you did, but another to then double down and try to mislead people.

You mean like Trump does? By the way, good job steering the thread away from these posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have anything to say about those? Or are you going to double down on your transparent efforts to derail the thread?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

From the Whitehouse communication I linked it CLEARLY states the president has finished negotiating.

So now White House communications are spin free?

Now you clinging on to your falsehood. Whether in it's entirety or in part, the President IS involved in the negotiations.

It has taken years to forge the TPP. Where has the President been all that time? Locked in negotiations? Trump seems to think that trade deals are negotiated in a locked room one-on-one. Sure, Obama attended a summit meeting with other Pacific Rim leaders, but he did little or no actual negotiating.

It's one thing to get something wrong as you did, but another to then double down and try to mislead people.

You mean like Trump does? By the way, good job steering the thread away from these posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have anything to say about those? Or are you going to double down on your transparent efforts to derail the thread?

I am just calling out your falsehood, which needs to be done. It was you who incorrectly stated that the President does not negotiate trade deals in another attempt to discredit one of Trumps positions. Clearly the President is involved in negotiations. If you are going to engage in dialogue, as you said you wanted to, please try not to make things up.

a reply to: UKTruth

I am just calling out your falsehood, which needs to be done. It was you who incorrectly stated that the President does not negotiate trade deals in another attempt to discredit one of Trumps positions.

Do you believe that whitehouse.gov tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or does it spin things by giving the President credit for things he only signs off on?

Clearly the President is involved in negotiations.

I never said he wasn't; I merely pointed out that rump's statements about trade deals are, at best, naive.

If you are going to engage in dialogue, as you said you wanted to, please try not to make things up.

Spin away, everyone can see how desperate you are to keep people from reading these posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, since you hold the White House as being an impeccable source:

Please educate yourself before calling someone a "liar."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You said 'The President does not negotiate trade deals'. It's pretty easy to post countless references to him being involved in negotiations. I assume what you meant to say is that he does not exclusively negotiate trade deals. The implication you pushed that Trump's negotiating skills would not be relevant in negotiating trade deals is false. Firstly, you have no idea of the machinations relating to the actual discussions that take place to agree and draft wording and secondly you have no idea what processes Trump would adopt if President. You have no idea, not because of ignorance, but because both are simply not known in detail by anyone other than those involved day to day. You simply used a falsehood to discredit one of Trump's strengths. A few have had suspicions that you started this thread in order to create points to attack Trump and this is a perfect example of such.

a reply to: UKTruth

You said 'The President does not negotiate trade deals'. It's pretty easy to post countless references to him being involved in negotiations. I assume what you meant to say is that he does not exclusively negotiate trade deals.

Here is exactly what I said in context:

Either way he talks about trade deals often and it seems genuine.


The President does not negotiate trade deals, which have to be ratified by Congress. Even if Trump were as brilliant a negotiator as he thinks he is, that would more likely end up serving Trump's needs sooner than America's.

I did not realize that my statement would be taken literally. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. What I should have said is: the President does not do most of the negotiation as he has many other things to do. Presidents generally delegate that sort of thing. Does that clarify things for you?

The implication you pushed that Trump's negotiating skills would not be relevant in negotiating trade deals is false.

Wrong; given that he has said that he will scrap all the general trade agreements in existence, he would have to negotiate deals with every country on Earth individually. Not even Supertrump could do that.

Firstly, you have no idea of the machinations relating to the actual discussions that take place to agree and draft wording

Actually, I do.

and secondly you have no idea what processes Trump would adopt if President. You have no idea, not because of ignorance, but because both are simply not known in detail by anyone other than those involved day to day.

Trump has no idea either. That was my point.

You simply used a falsehood to discredit one of Trump's strengths.

It was not a falsehood, it was an over-generalization. Negotiation is not one of Trump's strengths. He simply bullies people, and if they are too strong and get the terms they want, Trump simply breaks the contract.

en.wikipedia.org...

A few have had suspicions that you started this thread in order to create points to attack Trump and this is a perfect example of such.

And there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that you are trying to derail this thread by making it about me, instead of letting Trump supporters speak for themselves. Is this the kind of thing you are afraid of?

a reply to: UKTruth


TPP negotiation rounds.

You think Obama was at all these meetings? Or even any?

Do you think the ADD simpleton Trump would sit through meetings like this?

a reply to: DJW001

I think we have established your falsehood.
However, I accept your point that you were over-generalizing and not talking literally.
I will treat your other points and views in the same way.

a reply to: DJW001

1.As a Security Council permament member, why not get the UN to monitor polling stations? Although said in jest, i am part serious there. As there is so much political polarisation within the US at the moment, neither side will trust whoever monitors polling stations - so get a neutral party to do it.

2. Trump is unstable so you never know what you may get. He is as likely to be dignified in defeat (he is perfectly capable of dignified behaviour) as he is to explode at the reporters and everyone else on election night - therefore i can't make a prediction here. From a neutral perspective, i don't think such unpredictability is a good trait for the possible leader of the worlds only superpower. That said, the alternative is a compulsive liar.

3. As long as the result follows the electoral rules in place, i don't think he could do much either way. Say he gets the popular vote but not the electoral colleges (or whatever it is), i am sure he would raise it for future elections (as in trying to get changes in place) but i don't think he would use it as an excuse to go to court over this election. Although, with my first sentence for point 2, you never know!

4. Wouldn't really care either way. Unstable liar or compulsive liar - neither is a particularly great choice for either the USA or the rest of the world!

5. Can't answer because there are so many imponderables. For example, why would the Supreme Court have ruled on the election? Is there any evidence of voter fraud? etc, etc. I am not a Trump fan (or Clinton!) but i don't think the Donald would moan if the decision was overturned for legitimate reasons. And if, hypothetically, it was overturned for illegitimate reasons, then he would every right to moan and whinge and incite protests.

Whatever happens though, the world will keep on spinning, we will keep on getting older and taxes will continue to be accrued.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: UKTruth


TPP negotiation rounds.

You think Obama was at all these meetings? Or even any?

Do you think the ADD simpleton Trump would sit through meetings like this?

The negotiations do not start and end in meeting rooms.
Can you confirm that Obama "does not negotiate trade deals". Can you list the specifics of how he has been involved, or not? Other meetings, telephone calls, correspondence, emails... If you can confirm no input form Obama on any specific points and no briefings he has given to his office about the negotiations then I think we could conclude that Obama ' does not negotiate trade deals'. I'll await your confirmations.
However, I think the over-generalization and non literal nature of the comment has now been admitted and established so we're good.

Here's Obama following a meeting he had on TPP and specifically referencing directing their teams... Perhaps he just said 'i want a trade deal' and didn't give specifics?



This is Obama's deal, though given it's widespread condemnation I understand the need to distance Obama from it and avoid yet another colossal failure from him.

a reply to: UKTruth
Here is your proof:
The US has three branches of government.
The Judicial Branch rules on the Constitutionality of an agreement or treaty.
The Legislative Branch (specifically the Senate) confirms the treaty or agreement.

It is the Executive Branch that proposes and or negotiates treaties and agreements.

If my memory serves me correctly, the POTUS is in charge of the Executive Branch.

In the old days, the POTUS was responsible for what went on in the Executive Branch.... you know, as in 'the buck stops here'.

US Constitution Treaty Clause

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

a reply to: Flavian

1.As a Security Council permament member, why not get the UN to monitor polling stations? Although said in jest, i am part serious there. As there is so much political polarisation within the US at the moment, neither side will trust whoever monitors polling stations - so get a neutral party to do it.

First, thank you for posting on topic. Have a star. Yes, if Trump truly believes that the elections are fixed he could and should call for UN monitors instead of implicitly urging his supporters to violence. Of course, he probably doesn't trust the UN, so perhaps he could call on the international observers who certified the Crimean referendum.

2. Trump is unstable so you never know what you may get. He is as likely to be dignified in defeat (he is perfectly capable of dignified behaviour) as he is to explode at the reporters and everyone else on election night - therefore i can't make a prediction here. From a neutral perspective, i don't think such unpredictability is a good trait for the possible leader of the worlds only superpower. That said, the alternative is a compulsive liar.

Agreed. Even a "liar" like me has to concede that he is unpredictable enough to lose graciously.

3. As long as the result follows the electoral rules in place, i don't think he could do much either way. Say he gets the popular vote but not the electoral colleges (or whatever it is), i am sure he would raise it for future elections (as in trying to get changes in place) but i don't think he would use it as an excuse to go to court over this election. Although, with my first sentence for point 2, you never know!

Agreed.

4. Wouldn't really care either way. Unstable liar or compulsive liar - neither is a particularly great choice for either the USA or the rest of the world!

Agreed, that's why I am advocating for third party voting. Your chosen candidate may not win, but the winner will not be able to claim a mandate.

5. Can't answer because there are so many imponderables. For example, why would the Supreme Court have ruled on the election? Is there any evidence of voter fraud? etc, etc. I am not a Trump fan (or Clinton!) but i don't think the Donald would moan if the decision was overturned for legitimate reasons. And if, hypothetically, it was overturned for illegitimate reasons, then he would every right to moan and whinge and incite protests.

I suspect he will whinge no matter what. My concern is that he might urge violence, and that is followers would comply. So far this thread suggests that they would not.

Whatever happens though, the world will keep on spinning, we will keep on getting older and taxes will continue to be accrued.

Correct, and, thanks again.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: UKTruth
Here is your proof:
The US has three branches of government.
The Judicial Branch rules on the Constitutionality of an agreement or treaty.
The Legislative Branch (specifically the Senate) confirms the treaty or agreement.

It is the Executive Branch that proposes and or negotiates treaties and agreements.

If my memory serves me correctly, the POTUS is in charge of the Executive Branch.

In the old days, the POTUS was responsible for what went on in the Executive Branch.... you know, as in 'the buck stops here'.

US Constitution Treaty Clause

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Thanks - I think it is pretty obvious that Obama is in charge of negotiations, but I kind of accept that people will just state absolute falsehoods these days to make a point.

In fairness, there are many broken contracts to back this up. That said, he must have some negotiations skills in order to have gained his wealth (yes, i know it is easy to make money when you inherit loads in the first place but he has considerably added to that total).

I don't think a Trump Presidency would be a good thing. However, he certainly isn't all bad and he addresses some issues that the Politicos seem oblivious to as it is completely out of their realms of reality (which isn't necessarily their fault but does demonstrate how far removed they are from the average person).

So, much as it pains me to say it, Hillary is probably a better bet - but only if Trump runs her extremely close and that forces a rethink in political circles as to political representation within your nation.

Third and even Fourth parties with a realistic chance of winning would show more representation of the people in a nation that has historically prided itself on its representation of the people. Sadly though, i think there is more chance of Lincoln rising from the grave and marching on Washington than decent 3rd / 4th parties emerging.

a reply to: UKTruth

Whilst the leader is in overall charge of negotiations, they generally do not have much actual involvement. Take our nation and our EU trade deals - there are over 60'000 pieces of legislation. Realistically, how many of those do you think our PM's were present for and involved in? I would wager a tiny percentage (especially when considering that each of those 60'000 bits of legislation could be months in the planning).

What they do however is give an overall indication of how they wish those deals to be negotiated and what the expected outcomes are. It is then up to the individual negotiating teams to achieve those goals (or not!).

Butcherguy is totally correct with his "buck stops here" assessment for the old days. These days, they simply hide behind the negotiating team so can't be directly blamed. As an example, again look at our negotiations over the years with the EU (Cameron and Blair were masters at this). If deals went well, it was a case of "I have got this deal", if deals didn't materialise as planned it was more "the team has tried hard to reach a deal".

a reply to: DJW001

The one likely to win has been selling us out since the very beginning. She has proven time and time again not to have the interests of the American people at heart. Evidence of this can be seen with the misappropriation of millions of dollars in donations, and giving a free pass to anyone that donates to her riches. That is another thread, or multiple threads, books, movies etc. the long list of corruption is endless.

The Presidency has been usurping the will of Congress and the American people for a very long time. They are trying to do it again with the TPP, but this time they are trying to further consolidate power into the executive branch behind our backs:

Trade Promotion Authority

If Hillary is willing to rob the people of Haiti of millions of American donation dollars, while being 100% bank rolled by the same banks that have been sailing us down the river, what do you think she will do when it comes down to passing legislation that has been hand written by the banking cartels, Hollywood, big pharma, and other large corporate powers?

Bill Clinton bowed down to these same powers with the DMCA, and we are going to see it again, except this time it will be much worse.

I take no comfort in that.

a reply to: Winstonian

That is entirely off topic. The questions are about Trump supporters' reaction to a Trump loss.

a reply to: Winstonian

Double post.

a reply to: UKTruth

Thanks - I think it is pretty obvious that Obama is in charge of negotiations

And I think it is pretty obvious that the person in charge of negotiations is not necessarily the one sitting in a locked room doing the negotiating. This is, of course, completely off topic, unless you want to derail it into a discussion of Trump's shady business tactics. I would prefer to let Trump supporters continue to express themselves in a troll free environment, however.

a reply to: butcherguy

And that's how the Executive Office should be. Responsible for it's entire branch.

Not just claim credit for any good work, but responsibility for the bad too.

I don't know how well Trump would do in the situation. I don't think he got to where he is by just pointing fingers.

However, if Trump were to loose, and Hillary wins: I think she has show us quite well that pointing fingers and not taking responsibility will most certainly be her motto.