What do you think in the future on DONALD TRUMP in his term of presidency ?

[Sithara007]

When Barack Obama wanted to remove the sanctions against Iran are only the news of this provoked the fall of prices on the market, besides, Iran is not going to cut oil production by OPEC's decision. Iran is not beneficial to Russia

Iran is one of the top importers of Russian defense equipment (partly because they can't get the western stuff). The bilateral trade between Russia and Iran is huge and they have shared interests in Yemen and Syria. So you can't say that Iran is not beneficial to Russia.

[ovvidiy]

When Barack Obama wanted to remove the sanctions against Iran are only the news of this provoked the fall of prices on the market, besides, Iran is not going to cut oil production by OPEC's decision. Iran is not beneficial to Russia

Iran is one of the top importers of Russian defense equipment (partly because they can't get the western stuff). The bilateral trade between Russia and Iran is huge and they have shared interests in Yemen and Syria. So you can't say that Iran is not beneficial to Russia.

Iran is beneficial for Russia only as a buyer of Russian weapons obsolete. As long as Iran is under sanctions he could not buy Western weapons and can not trade oil. All this suggests that when Trump decides to extend sanctions against Iran, he acts in the interests of Russia.

[Sithara007]

When Barack Obama wanted to remove the sanctions against Iran are only the news of this provoked the fall of prices on the market, besides, Iran is not going to cut oil production by OPEC's decision. Iran is not beneficial to Russia

Iran is one of the top importers of Russian defense equipment (partly because they can't get the western stuff). The bilateral trade between Russia and Iran is huge and they have shared interests in Yemen and Syria. So you can't say that Iran is not beneficial to Russia.

Iran is beneficial for Russia only as a buyer of Russian weapons obsolete. As long as Iran is under sanctions he could not buy Western weapons and can not trade oil. All this suggests that when Trump decides to extend sanctions against Iran, he acts in the interests of Russia.

Trump wants to punish Iran (for obvious reasons). He is not much bothered about Russia. And Iran is not the top-most importer of the Russian equipment. India comes first, if I am not wrong.

[Spoetnik]

I think Early Culyer will get elected again..
and Drumpf will have the law changed so he can stay in power like Adolph Hitler.



USE THE CREAM !

[Nathan047]

So far so good. I like his policies and hope he does well.

[Sithara007]

Drumpf will have the law changed so he can stay in power like Adolph Hitler.

Trump is already 70 years old, and I don't think that he is greedy for power. I am not even sure whether he will run again in 2020. He will be able to do a lot in the next four years. And after that, it is up to the American people to review his rule.

[J Gambler]

i wanna know your thoughts ^^

He wanted to be fame hahahaha and i think he wants to troll the world with his own instinct trump are too old to handle big problems in their country he wanted to divide people on his land , abusing his power

[Spendulus]

Drumpf will have the law changed so he can stay in power like Adolph Hitler.

Trump is already 70 years old, and I don't think that he is greedy for power. I am not even sure whether he will run again in 2020. He will be able to do a lot in the next four years. And after that, it is up to the American people to review his rule.

Should be interesting.
Odd that people pulling out the Hitler Stalin Mao false analogies.

Merkel has destroyed her country and maybe all of Europe - what is she?

[Sithara007]

Drumpf will have the law changed so he can stay in power like Adolph Hitler.

Trump is already 70 years old, and I don't think that he is greedy for power. I am not even sure whether he will run again in 2020. He will be able to do a lot in the next four years. And after that, it is up to the American people to review his rule.

Should be interesting.
Odd that people pulling out the Hitler Stalin Mao false analogies.

Merkel has destroyed her country and maybe all of Europe - what is she?

The Nazi reference suits Angela Merkel much better than anyone else. She single-handedly destroyed the European civilization by importing all these hordes of Muslims from the middle east.

[DooMAD]

Merkel has destroyed her country and maybe all of Europe - what is she?

The Nazi reference suits Angela Merkel much better than anyone else. She single-handedly destroyed the European civilization by importing all these hordes of Muslims from the middle east.

If you can, imagine for just a second that you weren't both so spectacularly and obsessively intolerant of Muslims and actually had thoughts and feelings about other matters of governance.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but just try to imagine it.  Now name one other aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.  Nothing even remotely related to people from outside countries or migration in general.  I'd certainly argue that some of the economic policies need some revision, still a bit too neoliberal for my tastes, but aside from that I don't really have many issues with her.

I find it telling that people who are intolerant of foreign people think that Trump is some kind of saviour and Merkel is the new Hitler, when people who have no issues at all with migration are actually pretty indifferent towards Merkel and see Trump as the fascist, authoritarian tyrant.  Even Robert Mugabe is a fan of Trump.  Peas in a pod.

Also, Tiny Trump meme wins the internet this week.  


Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain why annihilating Dodd-Frank isn't justification to call Trump the biggest clown of them all.  Pretty sure it is:

More batshit mental executive orders.  Trump opens the floodgates for the next financial crisis and round of bank bailouts because, like most politicians, he only cares about the banks and his other rich friends.  If the countless idiots who voted for him get thrown under the bus and ripped off again, he isn't going to care in the slightest.  As long as the money flows to the top of the pyramid, all is well in Mr Trump's world (Hint: you aren't a part of his world, you're just collateral damage waiting to happen).

Let's see you justify dismantling Dodd-Frank, then.  Did you learn nothing from 2008?  I suppose on the plus side, we wouldn't be here on this particular forum right now hodling our bitcoins if it weren't for that mess.  But I honestly don't see the point in not just repeating past mistakes but also compounding them.  The banks need to be kept on a short leash or they will continue to abuse their power to magically create money IOUs, which some people like to pretend are money, from thin air.  The word "responsibility" isn't even in their vocabulary.  There are at least four reasons listed here why trump is a clown.  I promise you this won't end well.

[Spendulus]

.....
Let's see you justify dismantling Dodd-Frank, then.  Did you learn nothing from 2008?  I suppose on the plus side, we wouldn't be here on this particular forum right now hodling our bitcoins if it weren't for that mess.  But I honestly don't see the point in not just repeating past mistakes but also compounding them.  The banks need to be kept on a short leash or they will continue to abuse their power to magically create money IOUs, which some people like to pretend are money, from thin air.  The word "responsibility" isn't even in their vocabulary.  There are at least four reasons listed here why trump is a clown.  I promise you this won't end well.

You're defending a piece of complex legislation written by bankers for bankers, and asserting it's for the benefit of the little man.

I don't buy that.  Not one bit.

Neither have you offered a shred of evidence that your assertions have backing.

Neither does the article you quote support your personal faith in Dodd Frank.

[Sithara007]

Merkel has destroyed her country and maybe all of Europe - what is she?

The Nazi reference suits Angela Merkel much better than anyone else. She single-handedly destroyed the European civilization by importing all these hordes of Muslims from the middle east.

If you can, imagine for just a second that you weren't both so spectacularly and obsessively intolerant of Muslims and actually had thoughts and feelings about other matters of governance.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but just try to imagine it.  Now name one other aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.

Stop this political correctness BS. I am intolerant of Muslims because the Muslims are intolerant of me. And regarding Merkel, her policies have been a disaster. She has caused the disintegration of the European Union, as a result of her authoritarian policies.

[DooMAD]

.....
Let's see you justify dismantling Dodd-Frank, then.  Did you learn nothing from 2008?  I suppose on the plus side, we wouldn't be here on this particular forum right now hodling our bitcoins if it weren't for that mess.  But I honestly don't see the point in not just repeating past mistakes but also compounding them.  The banks need to be kept on a short leash or they will continue to abuse their power to magically create money IOUs, which some people like to pretend are money, from thin air.  The word "responsibility" isn't even in their vocabulary.  There are at least four reasons listed here why trump is a clown.  I promise you this won't end well.

You're defending a piece of complex legislation written by bankers for bankers, and asserting it's for the benefit of the little man.

I don't buy that.  Not one bit.

Neither have you offered a shred of evidence that your assertions have backing.

Neither does the article you quote support your personal faith in Dodd Frank.

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash?  Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks?  You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins.  Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man.  If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.

Merkel has destroyed her country and maybe all of Europe - what is she?

The Nazi reference suits Angela Merkel much better than anyone else. She single-handedly destroyed the European civilization by importing all these hordes of Muslims from the middle east.

If you can, imagine for just a second that you weren't both so spectacularly and obsessively intolerant of Muslims and actually had thoughts and feelings about other matters of governance.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but just try to imagine it.  Now name one other aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.

Stop this political correctness BS. I am intolerant of Muslims because the Muslims are intolerant of me. And regarding Merkel, her policies have been a disaster. She has caused the disintegration of the European Union, as a result of her authoritarian policies.

As soon as you stop this populist correctness BS.   

Care to name any specific authoritarian policies which aren't related to migration that are destroying Europe?  Or are you just pissing into the wind here?  Until I see that you are capable of taking off your hate-goggles and looking at the overall picture, I can't take you seriously.

As for Muslims, a tiny fraction of extremists are intolerant of you.  I'm fairly sure the average Muslim just thinks you're an irrelevant bigot not worth a second thought, but aside from that bears you no ill will.  The fact that you tar over a billion people with the same brush also does little for the possibility of me taking you seriously.

Now name one other specific aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.

[Spendulus]

.....
Let's see you justify dismantling Dodd-Frank, then.  Did you learn nothing from 2008?  I suppose on the plus side, we wouldn't be here on this particular forum right now hodling our bitcoins if it weren't for that mess.  But I honestly don't see the point in not just repeating past mistakes but also compounding them.  The banks need to be kept on a short leash or they will continue to abuse their power to magically create money IOUs, which some people like to pretend are money, from thin air.  The word "responsibility" isn't even in their vocabulary.  There are at least four reasons listed here why trump is a clown.  I promise you this won't end well.

You're defending a piece of complex legislation written by bankers for bankers, and asserting it's for the benefit of the little man.

I don't buy that.  Not one bit.

Neither have you offered a shred of evidence that your assertions have backing.

Neither does the article you quote support your personal faith in Dodd Frank.

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash?  Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks?  You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins.  Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man.  If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.
.....

Assuming that a large and complex piece of legislation written by bankers for bankers has any relation at all to the bolded above is really not logical.  Think about it.  How many bankers went to jail?  Why?

[The_prodigy]

i wanna know your thoughts ^^

Trump are too old to handle kind of problems on his country USA is the most powerful country where he is the most powerful man trump already did some good but trump looks like always trolling and fooling people hoping trump will be a good president of america and all people will loved him soon.

[DooMAD]

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash?  Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks?  You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins.  Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man.  If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.
.....

Assuming that a large and complex piece of legislation written by bankers for bankers has any relation at all to the bolded above is really not logical.  Think about it.  How many bankers went to jail?  Why?

America's inability to prosecute bankers isn't in question.  We know that's never going to change regardless of what regulatory measures are or aren't in place.  Although to answer your question, some argue it's around 35, but Dodd-Frank probably wasn't pertinent to all of them.  Sure, if more punitive measures had been involved in drafting that legislation, more banksters would be locked up.  And some critics did complain that the law didn't go far enough in that regard.  But how the immoral activities are punished isn't the question here.  It's how you define which activities are permissible and which aren't permissible to begin with.  That emphasis will now shift because the focus is now on keeping the money flowing at all costs, whereas before it was keeping the money flowing while taking safe practices into consideration.  Repealing the legislation means a greater number of questionable practices will be deemed permissible than before.  Complexity and authorship aside, this is a dangerous change in ethos.

Also, don't pretend for a second that the puppetmasters behind this deregulation aren't banksters:

The president had praise for Jamie Dimon, whose bank, JPMorgan Chase, was often a target of regulatory actions by the Obama administration.
“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Mr. Trump said.

The meeting underscored the degree to which the architects of Mr. Trump’s economic strategy are now some of the people he denounced in his campaign, which ended with a commercial that described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The advertisement flashed an image of the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has become a virtual feeder for top Trump administration officials. Steven Mnuchin, his nominee for Treasury secretary; Gary Cohn, the chairman of his national economic council; and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, all had worked at Goldman.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html

Quite literally, the lunatics are taking over the asylum.  The banksters call the shots now.  Yet you cry that banksters wrote the legislation, so getting rid of it must be great.  Even though it's banksters getting rid of it?  Yeah, sounds logical.  

[criptix]

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash?  Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks?  You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins.  Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man.  If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.
.....

Assuming that a large and complex piece of legislation written by bankers for bankers has any relation at all to the bolded above is really not logical.  Think about it.  How many bankers went to jail?  Why?

America's inability to prosecute bankers isn't in question.  We know that's never going to change regardless of what regulatory measures are or aren't in place.  Although to answer your question, some argue it's around 35, but Dodd-Frank probably wasn't pertinent to all of them.  Sure, if more punitive measures had been involved in drafting that legislation, more banksters would be locked up.  And some critics did complain that the law didn't go far enough in that regard.  But how the immoral activities are punished isn't the question here.  It's how you define which activities are permissible and which aren't permissible to begin with.  That emphasis will now shift because the focus is now on keeping the money flowing at all costs, whereas before it was keeping the money flowing while taking safe practices into consideration.  Repealing the legislation means a greater number of questionable practices will be deemed permissible than before.  Complexity and authorship aside, this is a dangerous change in ethos.

Also, don't pretend for a second that the puppetmasters behind this deregulation aren't banksters:

The president had praise for Jamie Dimon, whose bank, JPMorgan Chase, was often a target of regulatory actions by the Obama administration.
“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Mr. Trump said.

The meeting underscored the degree to which the architects of Mr. Trump’s economic strategy are now some of the people he denounced in his campaign, which ended with a commercial that described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The advertisement flashed an image of the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has become a virtual feeder for top Trump administration officials. Steven Mnuchin, his nominee for Treasury secretary; Gary Cohn, the chairman of his national economic council; and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, all had worked at Goldman.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html

Quite literally, the lunatics are taking over the asylum.  The banksters call the shots now.  Yet you cry that banksters wrote the legislation, so getting rid of it must be great.  Even though it's banksters getting rid of it?  Yeah, sounds logical.  

This is prime example of cognitive bias.
Unable to see the wood for the trees.

[Spendulus]

You don't buy that there were unsound and unsafe banking practices that led to the 2008 crash?  Or you don't buy that the law curbs some of those risks?  You're defending a move which is clearly profitable for bankers and increases the risk of casino-style banking and the threat of future bailouts/bailins.  Incontrovertibly, not having to pay for the mistakes of the finance sector is in the benefit of the little man.  If you have any dealings in fiat, it's in your benefit not to pay for those mistakes either.

I'm not saying Dodd-Frank was perfect, by any means, but opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending, reckless derivatives speculation, corruption and general instability is dumb.
.....

Assuming that a large and complex piece of legislation written by bankers for bankers has any relation at all to the bolded above is really not logical.  Think about it.  How many bankers went to jail?  Why?

America's inability to prosecute bankers isn't in question.  We know that's never going to change regardless of what regulatory measures are or aren't in place.  Although to answer your question, some argue it's around 35, but Dodd-Frank probably wasn't pertinent to all of them.  Sure, if more punitive measures had been involved in drafting that legislation, more banksters would be locked up.  And some critics did complain that the law didn't go far enough in that regard.  But how the immoral activities are punished isn't the question here.  It's how you define which activities are permissible and which aren't permissible to begin with.  That emphasis will now shift because the focus is now on keeping the money flowing at all costs, whereas before it was keeping the money flowing while taking safe practices into consideration.  Repealing the legislation means a greater number of questionable practices will be deemed permissible than before.  Complexity and authorship aside, this is a dangerous change in ethos.

Also, don't pretend for a second that the puppetmasters behind this deregulation aren't banksters:

The president had praise for Jamie Dimon, whose bank, JPMorgan Chase, was often a target of regulatory actions by the Obama administration.
“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Mr. Trump said.

The meeting underscored the degree to which the architects of Mr. Trump’s economic strategy are now some of the people he denounced in his campaign, which ended with a commercial that described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The advertisement flashed an image of the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has become a virtual feeder for top Trump administration officials. Steven Mnuchin, his nominee for Treasury secretary; Gary Cohn, the chairman of his national economic council; and Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, all had worked at Goldman.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html

Quite literally, the lunatics are taking over the asylum.  The banksters call the shots now.  Yet you cry that banksters wrote the legislation, so getting rid of it must be great.  Even though it's banksters getting rid of it?  Yeah, sounds logical.  

You are making things up.  I'm not crying. 

I'm suggesting that your advocacy of the goodness of Dodd-Frank if not without any factual basis, is too strong to be credible.

[Sithara007]

Now name one other specific aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.

If Merkel was a little bit less authoritarian, then the United Kingdom would have been still a part of the European Union. The Brexit happened solely as a result of Merkel's romance with Erdogan.

[DooMAD]

Now name one other specific aspect of Merkel's leadership that is destroying Europe.

If Merkel was a little bit less authoritarian, then the United Kingdom would have been still a part of the European Union. The Brexit happened solely as a result of Merkel's romance with Erdogan.

I love how you think freedom of movement is authoritarian.  It's adorable.  Telling people where they can and can't go is authoritarian.  You are the authoritarian, only you're too blinded by your hate to see it.

As someone who lives in the UK, I can assure you that Brexit only happened because the tabloids and the politicians constantly scapegoat foreign people and the public are gullible enough to buy it.  Parties like UKIP carried on where the BNP and EDL left off.  They somehow managed to legitimise casual racism and discrimination.  People have become increasingly isolationist and xenophobic.  Brexit wouldn't have happened if Britain hadn't become an island primarily populated by easily misled bigots.  I'm ashamed that I get lumped in with the rest of the populace by association.

Still, the fascists will do what they always do.  Take it too far.  Then people will remember how dangerous you are.  Then all you "alt-right" goons will be marginalised for another few decades.  Enjoy your time in the sun.  It won't last.  

I'm suggesting that your advocacy of the goodness of Dodd-Frank if not without any factual basis, is too strong to be credible.

I'm suggesting that your advocacy of the goodness of Trump if not without any factual basis, is too strong to be credible.

I guess we'll let history be the judge.