President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Straw men are straw men and you didn't address a thing.

One China Policy.

"The United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."

Next.

Take your straw man and put a match to it.

So the US government authorises sales of military equipment to China is what you are arguing?
Then why were the Chinese angry?

Next.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

The old agreement between the US and China would have materially changed, so the US could take action against what is a China that is becoming a military powerhouse given the expansion their military capabilities are under going.

When 'would' it have changed?

There could be another situation like the Cuban missile crisis, where the world stands at the edge of an abyss of a nuclear war.

And we'll all know which orange billionaire to thank for it.

Yet some make out Trump has caused these heightened tensions between the US and China...

Including the Chinese themselves, who would have thunk it!?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Take your straw man and put a match to it.

So the US government authorises sales of military equipment to China is what you are arguing?
Then why were the Chinese angry?

Next.

More straw men as you keep trying to not talk about the One China policy because it makes your house of cards fall apart on itself entirely. No surprise.

gormdubhgorm

As regards the surprising consequences that were referred to by the OP.

I think the main surprising consequence of Trump elected so far is that is actually giving the electorate what they wanted and he is ticking off his election promises so far. Diving right in.

InTheTrees

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As for the popular vote thing that is like complaining about the rules of the game if you lose it.

Its really not.

Its a reason why he's so unpopular. Its really that simple.

Professor Moriarty

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As regards the surprising consequences that were referred to by the OP.

I think the main surprising consequence of Trump elected so far is that is actually giving the electorate what they wanted and he is ticking off his election promises so far. Diving right in.

Funnily enough, I think the thread should be retitled: President 'The Donald' Trump and Unsurprising Consequences.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

More straw men as you keep trying to not talk about the One China policy because it makes your house of cards fall apart on itself entirely. No surprise.

You talk about straw men so you avoid answering the question.

If the US truly believed in a one China policy, then why sell weapons to Taiwan which China protested against?
Did Obama and previous US presidents sell the weapons to China, or was it to Taiwan with agreement from China.
If not then why does the US constantly undermine and annoy China by playing both China and Taiwan as separate entities?
Is that what the One China policy is?

rgossip30

Hear it on the grapevine Sally Yates has applied for a job at Starbucks .. The Trump show .

You know how the famous hate the press how things get blown up . Trump does too but gives it back man's got balls .

RobertKK wrote: »

You talk about straw men so you avoid answering the question.

If the US truly believed in a one China policy, then why sell weapons to Taiwan which China protested against?
Did Obama and previous US presidents sell the weapons to China, or was it to Taiwan with agreement from China.
If not then why does the US constantly undermine and annoy China by playing both China and Taiwan as separate entities?
Is that what the One China policy is?

The Davos conference China was the star does this adulation mean a shift by the EU .

gormdubhgorm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its really not.

Its a reason why he's so unpopular. Its really that simple.

Alternatively, you can say it is the reason he IS so popular it is that simple which is why he got elected in the first place.

What people don't seem to understand there are vast swathes of America's who like

Christian Conservative Values and Guns etc.

They are so conservative they would make the Dail's most conservative politicians seem like pot smoking hippy liberals in comparison.

They do not see Trump as a bad thing they see Trump as a great thing.

RobertKK

rgossip30 wrote: »

The Davos conference China was the star does this adulation mean a shift by the EU .

I don't know what went on there, but Davos is in beautiful Switzerland.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You talk about straw men so you avoid answering the question.

If the US truly believed in a one China policy, then why sell weapons to Taiwan which China protested against?
Did Obama and previous US presidents sell the weapons to China, or was it to Taiwan with agreement from China.
If not then why does the US constantly undermine and annoy China by playing both China and Taiwan as separate entities?
Is that what the One China policy is?

The largest purchaser of US arms are Saudi Arabia, followed by the UAE, with Iraq also in the top 10... which means by your assessment the US is and has for quite some time been trying to provoke war with Israel, which shows just how absurd your argument is. Beyond that, the US doesn't even sell arms directly to Taiwan anymore, since in 2010 (under guess which president?) it changed policy - for the exact reason of not causing further political tension between them and China. Hence, straw man.

Now compare that to the naked, public aggression of Trump on Twitter and whenever he gets the chance speaking publicly when it comes to China. We're talking about the guy who literally said the Chinese invented global warming as propaganda to hurt the US (probably reckons the Greeks invented gayness, too) and has on numerous occasions gone on out and out rants about them to the point China's own military is now openly recognising that war with the US may become a reality with Trump around. This really isn't a debatable matter in any way, shape or form.

What happened to the RobertKK that just wanted to be safe, and only wanted Trump to win to avoid possible (apparently otherwise inevitable) wars? Where did he go?

You can get back to me at your own leisure with the name of the last US president to recognise Taiwan sovereign leadership before Trump. Or will the straw men abound again?

BuilderPlumber

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Alternatively, you can say it is the reason he IS so popular it is that simple which is why he got elected in the first place.

What people don't seem to understand there are vast swathes of America's who like

Christian Conservative Values and Guns etc.

They are so conservative they would make the Dail's most conservative politicians seem like pot smoking hippy liberals in comparison.

They do not see Trump as a bad thing they see Trump as a great thing.

One thing that needs to be noted is Donald Trump himself is not a conservative. He has gotten into bed with conservative hardliners most notably the abnoxious Steve Bannon. Trump is all about reinventing himself and sooner or later, Trump will have to dump these idiots like Bannon. The problem then is: will these guys step aside or try something to derail the whole US government? Bannon is capable of anything IMO and is the most dangerous man in government anywhere in the world at the moment.

BuilderPlumber

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Funnily enough, I think the thread should be retitled: President 'The Donald' Trump and Unsurprising Consequences.

Trump at present is going along with his ultra hardline advisers. That will change sometime soon and Bannon and co will become Trump's major enemies when Trump has to abide by the will of the people. Trump gets elected but guys like Bannon are unelected dictators. That is the main problem here. For the moment, Trump has done things that are unsurprising but also unrealistic in the long term. Trump will sooner or later have to dump useless fodder like Bannon but Bannon is a very dangerous enemy to make. The only way Trump can get rid of him is perhaps buying him off with billions. Otherwise, Trump's life or America's democracy is under threat from a Bannon coup.

MightyMandarin

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Alternatively, you can say it is the reason he IS so popular it is that simple which is why he got elected in the first place.

What people don't seem to understand there are vast swathes of America's who like

Christian Conservative Values and Guns etc.

They are so conservative they would make the Dail's most conservative politicians seem like pot smoking hippy liberals in comparison.

They do not see Trump as a bad thing they see Trump as a great thing.

It has nothing to do with Evangelicals or people who love the 2nd Amendment. You've just simplified an incredibly complicated topic.

Trump does not have a popular mandate in the country. Fact. That doesn't mean he's illegitimate (although I see him as illegitimate given the clear interference by Russia and traitors at the highest level of the US Govt.), as he won through the electoral system which has been around since the beginning. Fair enough.

However, as much as he or his supporters might dislike it, you cannot ever ignore the fact that he does not have the popular support of his people. It has nothing to do with left or right or up or down, it's the way the people voted; and people are dead right to keep discussing it.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It has nothing to do with Evangelicals or people who love the 2nd Amendment. You've just simplified an incredibly complicated topic.

Trump does not have a popular mandate in the country. Fact. That doesn't mean he's illegitimate (although I see him as illegitimate given the clear interference by Russia and traitors at the highest level of the US Govt.), as he won through the electoral system which has been around since the beginning. Fair enough.

However, as much as he or his supporters might dislike it, you cannot ever ignore the fact that he does not have the popular support of his people. It has nothing to do with left or right or up or down, it's the way the people voted; and people are dead right to keep discussing it.

Those Russian allegations are only claims and have no veracity accept those who are willing to believe the intelligence agencies.:D If Russia is the culprit bring on an investigation plenty of Republicans are itchy for an investigation.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

The largest purchaser of US arms are Saudi Arabia, followed by the UAE, with Iraq also in the top 10... which means by your assessment the US is and has for quite some time been trying to provoke war with Israel, which shows just how absurd your argument is. Beyond that, the US doesn't even sell arms directly to Taiwan anymore, since in 2010 (under guess which president?) it changed policy - for the exact reason of not causing further political tension between them and China. Hence, straw man.

Now compare that to the naked, public aggression of Trump on Twitter and whenever he gets the chance speaking publicly when it comes to China. We're talking about the guy who literally said the Chinese invented global warming as propaganda to hurt the US (probably reckons the Greeks invented gayness, too) and has on numerous occasions gone on out and out rants about them to the point China's own military is now openly recognising that war with the US may become a reality with Trump around. This really isn't a debatable matter in any way, shape or form.

What happened to the RobertKK that just wanted to be safe, and only wanted Trump to win to avoid possible (apparently otherwise inevitable) wars? Where did he go?

You can get back to me at your own leisure with the name of the last US president to recognise Taiwan sovereign leadership before Trump. Or will the straw men abound again?

You still did not answer the question and then you talk about straw men...

Ford and the early part of the Carter presidency recognised Taiwan before they engaged China and had to set up their twin policy by supporting Taiwan while publicly saying they support the One China policy.

Billy86

MightyMandarin wrote: »

(although I see him as illegitimate given the clear interference by Russia and traitors at the highest level of the US Govt.)

Yep, it's pretty telling that the CIA, NSA, Justice Department, FCC, and if I am correct, every intelligence agency in the US - including 'Trumpland' in the FBI - are investigating it, while more of the infamous dossier's details seem to be coming strangely true.

An interesting one recently was 19.5% of the Rosneft oil company being sold to unknown groups in very shady circumstances at a value of over $10bn, ran through a whole bunch of shell companies, when the Steele Dossier had said Putin would offer Trump 19% of Rosneft if he won the election and lifted sanctions on Russia. And bizarrely enough, within a few days Rosneft's chief of staff mysteriously died of a heart attack while supposedly alone in the back seat of a company car (the driver said he found him there). All of this just a few days after three Russian FSB agents were reported (by Russian news sources such as Kommersant) to have been arrested for treason related to giving information to enemies - just weeks before the release of the Steele Dossier.

Best left to the intelligence agencies to investigate but it's all very interesting, and could certainly answer the question some have asked of why Trump is trying to push through so many things as quickly as he possibly can.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Those Russian allegations are only claims and have no veracity accept those who are willing to believe the intelligence agencies.:D If Russia is the culprit bring on an investigation plenty of Republicans are itchy for an investigation.

Believe what you want to believe, but I look at the evidence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-ask-pentagon-to-explain-russian-payment-to-flynn/2017/02/01/de5e5f0e-e816-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.724271d6bfdd
Look at what happened just today with Michael Flynn being investigated for accepting money from Russia.

“It is extremely concerning that General Flynn chose to accept payment for appearing at a gala hosted by the propaganda arm of the Russian government, which attacked the United States in an effort to undermine our election,” the members wrote in the letter sent today .

Trump and his team are a bunch of traitors out to earn a quick buck with Russian oil money.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Yep, it's pretty telling that the CIA, NSA, Justice Department, FCC, and if I am correct, every intelligence agency in the US - including 'Trumpland' in the FBI - are investigating it, while more of the infamous dossier's details seem to be coming strangely true.

An interesting one recently was 19.5% of the Rosneft oil company being sold to unknown groups in very shady circumstances at a value of over $10bn, ran through a whole bunch of shell companies, when the Steele Dossier had said Putin would offer Trump 19% of Rosneft if he won the election and lifted sanctions on Russia. And bizarrely enough, within a few days Rosneft's chief of staff mysteriously died of a heart attack while supposedly alone in the back seat of a company car (the driver said he found him there). All of this just a few days after three Russian FSB agents were reported (by Russian news sources such as Kommersant) to have been arrested for treason related to giving information to enemies - just weeks before the release of the Steele Dossier.

Best left to the intelligence agencies to investigate but it's all very interesting, and could certainly answer the question some have asked of why Trump is trying to push through so many things as quickly as he possibly can.

or the conspiracy theory forum.

Rightwing

Intelligence agencies have a big credibility problem. They told us S Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and duly proceeded to open the can of worms that the world is still dealing with today (not to mention the hundreds of thoudands of innocent lives lost).

Trump has a legitimate mandate, many thought he wouldn't have the courage to carry it out, but it appears he is defying them just one more time.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I will never get tired of correcting this poster's nonsense...

As you point out, the job is to advise the President on matters of law - the main matter of law is the Constitution that the US AG will advise on; so it is by very definition their job to ensure the law (in this case Constitutional law) is upheld..

Did the ex-acting-AG issue a report to the President advising him on which aspects of his executive order were lawful and which were not? Or did she just decline saying she was "not persuaded" of its merits.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Lawyers in the US and in Ireland are expressly prohibited by their respective associations and by law from misleading the court with regard to factual guilt.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with this matter.
Can lawyers defend a client even when they privately think the client is probably guilty?

Supposing a lawyer advises a client to pursue a certain course of action, but the client respectfully declines, and decides to continue on their original course.
Is it not incumbent on the lawyer at that point to either resign in a huff, or else to carry on defending the client as best they can?
If they choose neither of these options, but expect to sit there getting paid anyway, then the client should fire them.
A dog in the manger is no use to anybody.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You still did not answer the question and then you talk about straw men...

Ford and the early part of the Carter presidency recognised Taiwan before they engaged China and had to set up their twin policy by supporting Taiwan while publicly saying they support the One China policy.

The One China policy was signed -BY- the Carter administration in their final year in office, meaning it didn't even exist during most of their term, and you openly admit that no president in the 37 years of it's existence no president has done nearly what Trump has in his first two weeks in office (indeed before he even took office) to poke at it. At the time I thought his Taiwanese president phone call was just one huge gaffe, yet with each passing week it looks a more and more calculated 'error' on his part.

So you've conceded that no other president has broken the One China Pact that Trump couldn't race to prod quickly enough, and then doubled down on. Which was my first point.

You've conceded that Trump's stance on trade and currency re China is incredibly antagonistic and a reversal of what we were seeing before. Which was my second point.

And you concede that Trump is frequently going on public rants in speeches and on Twitter about China, China, China, which is doing huge damage to relationships between the two, even going into complete conspiracy theory lunacy like claiming they "invented global warming as a hoax to harm the US".

Your Donald clearly seems to want a war, the Chinese very much have their backs up about it already, not even two weeks in, and you don't seem to mind in the least.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

or the conspiracy theory forum.

Like I said, best to leave the intelligence agencies to investigate it.

But surely this should be of MASSIVE interest to you given your frequent claims of a certain high profile married American political couples' supposed involvement in murder conspiracies, no? Has something changed again to make you completely do a 180 on this? How odd that is, and how unexpected too! :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote:

Your Donald clearly seems to want a war, the Chinese very much have their backs up about it already, not even two weeks in, and you don't seem to mind in the least.

But China's President is more open-minded and less reactive than POTUS. Who'd have thunk it?

recedite

The important thing to realise about the One China policy is that both Taiwan and mainland China agree on it, therefore there is no issue with the US agreeing to it. All agree that there is only one boss of all China.

The only problem is deciding who that boss is.
But all have agreed not to go too deeply into that. Problem solved then, sort of.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

The important thing to realise about the One China policy is that both Taiwan and mainland China agree on it, therefore there is no issue with the US agreeing to it. All agree that there is only one boss of all China.

The only problem is deciding who that boss is.
But all have agreed not to go too deeply into that. Problem solved then, sort of.

It benefits both sides not to talk about Taiwan.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

The One China policy was signed -BY- the Carter administration in their final year in office, meaning it didn't even exist during most of their term, and you openly admit that no president in the 37 years of it's existence no president has done nearly what Trump has in his first two weeks in office (indeed before he even took office) to poke at it. At the time I thought his Taiwanese president phone call was just one huge gaffe, yet with each passing week it looks a more and more calculated 'error' on his part.

So you've conceded that no other president has broken the One China Pact that Trump couldn't race to prod quickly enough, and then doubled down on. Which was my first point.

You've conceded that Trump's stance on trade and currency re China is incredibly antagonistic and a reversal of what we were seeing before. Which was my second point.

And you concede that Trump is frequently going on public rants in speeches and on Twitter about China, China, China, which is doing huge damage to relationships between the two, even going into complete conspiracy theory lunacy like claiming they "invented global warming as a hoax to harm the US".

Your Donald clearly seems to want a war, the Chinese very much have their backs up about it already, not even two weeks in, and you don't seem to mind in the least.

You still ignore how China were angered under the Obama administration when the US like previous presidents sold Taiwan defensive military equipment.
You rather avoid answering the question, and then you tell me what I have conceded when I conceded nothing.

Can you show me your posts during the Obama administration where you spoke out about the rising tensions between China and the US over tensions in the Pacific, since you are concerned now about the relationship as if there had not already being rising tensions.
A 30 second search should find them for me :P

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Like I said, best to leave the intelligence agencies to investigate it.

But surely this should be of MASSIVE interest to you given your frequent claims of a certain high profile married American political couples' supposed involvement in murder conspiracies, no? Has something changed again to make you completely do a 180 on this? How odd that is, and how unexpected too! :pac:

That is why I posted it, I saw the hypocrisy as people then said conspiracy and no one wanted to talk about it, so i dropped it.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

You still ignore how China were angered under the Obama administration when the US like previous presidents sold Taiwan defensive military equipment.
You rather avoid answering the question, and then you tell me what I have conceded when I conceded nothing.

Can you show me your posts during the Obama administration where you spoke out about the rising tensions between China and the US over tensions in the Pacific, since you are concerned now about the relationship as if there had not already being rising tensions.
A 30 second search should find them for me :P

You were unable to answer any of them despite me repeatedly putting them to you, that is conceding I'm afraid. If you want to claim Trump has not been making a lot of noise to cause friction with China in speeches and on Twitter (or that Obama did), have at it. If you want to argue Trump is just continuing Obama's policy on trade and currency, err... have at it. And if you want to claim Obama recognised Taiwanese leaders as heads of state... yeah, have at that too.

Seriously though, you should go and look up the Six Assurances. You don't seem to be aware of their existence. And none of the six of them have a thing to do with the points I brought up about Trump that you, again, are free to defend rather than continue to concede, if you ever wish to.

As for old posts, I didn't post on the politics forums back then - I'm sure your failed search notified you of that. But then, you'll also notice I'm not arguing against Trump potentially selling arms to Taiwan, or allowing the commercial sale of them either. Which brings me back to what I've been saying:

straw man
noun
1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

You were unable to answer any of them despite me repeatedly putting them to you, that is conceding I'm afraid. If you want to claim Trump has not been making a lot of noise to cause friction with China in speeches and on Twitter (or that Obama did), have at it. If you want to argue Trump is just continuing Obama's policy on trade and currency, err... have at it. And if you want to claim Obama recognised Taiwanese leaders as heads of state... yeah, have at that too.

Seriously though, you should go and look up the Six Assurances. You don't seem to be aware of their existence. And none of the six of them have a thing to do with the points I brought up about Trump that you, again, are free to defend rather than continue to concede, if you ever wish to.

As for old posts, I didn't post on the politics forums back then - I'm sure your failed search notified you of that. But then, you'll also notice I'm not arguing against Trump potentially selling arms to Taiwan, or allowing the commercial sale of them either. Which brings me back to what I've been saying:

straw man
noun
1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Take your straw man and burn.

Do you accept there were already tensions between the US and China before any Trump?

Yes or no?

Are you saying you did not post on the politics forum during Obama's reign?