Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

eagle eye

Podge_irl wrote:

What does that list have to do specifically with Merkel?

Why does she need to be put in her place?

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

RobertKK

Trump had time in his press conference to attack the EU, Canada and Trudeau. He brought up dairy products again and general agricultural exports. He fails to recognise that the EU and Canada have higher standards which the US do not have and that is why their products are not allowed, which could be changed if Trump raised standards in the US farming sector.

Beechwoodspark

Deal is being trashed by the experts.

They say NK has made very similar commitments in the early 90s and in 2005 BUT those earlier accords pushed NK much further and with much greater specificity.

Call him what you will-don the con, trump the chump-he has been played by NK.

Christy42

Podge_irl wrote: »

eagle eye wrote: »

It seems to me that he intends to put Merkel in her place which imo would be no bad thing.

What does that list have to do specifically with Merkel?

Why does she need to be put in her place?

eagle eye wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote:

What does that list have to do specifically with Merkel?

Why does she need to be put in her place?

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

She's not but more to the point does this justify kicking off a trade war with the entire EU? And Canada, I mean I am not sure what that one has to do with Merkel.

Indeed does it justify stepping back from an attempt to solve (or mitigate)what will be the greatest crisis of the next 200 years in climate change?

Ripping up one of the few decent international actions in the middle east and increasing civilian deaths seems like an over reaction to not liking one German politician to say the least.

Christy42

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Deal is being trashed by the experts.

They say NK has made very similar commitments in the early 90s and in 2005 BUT those earlier accords pushed NK much further and with much greater specificity.

Call him what you will-don the con, trump the chump-he has been played by NK.

I am less sure. Trump has achieved his objectives for the meeting in my opinion. That these objectives differ from the stated goals is a different matter. Like the war on drugs which Trump wants to rekindle where actually getting rid of drugs was never the goal.

It was a PR stunt which may or may not have some good effects down the road if he is forced to keep to it. Certainly my breath is not held.

weisses

eagle eye wrote: »

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

What does that have to do with Trump getting the nobel peace prize ?? ....

Phonehead

eagle eye wrote: »

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

Have you any appreciation of Ireland under British rule There really is no comparison to the current EU role and Ireland under British rule, like it's not even a comparison.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

And you'd think they were fools for making such points, the same points being made today all over the media.

Where are those points being made?

spacecoyote

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump had time in his press conference to attack the EU, Canada and Trudeau. He brought up dairy products again and general agricultural exports. He fails to recognise that the EU and Canada have higher standards which the US do not have and that is why their products are not allowed, which could be changed if Trump raised standards in the US farming sector.

Not to mention the fact that the AP debunked that claim which shows that the farming sector is one of the only areas of US trade that has a trade surplus (on an anecdotal basis, they may have deficits with individual countries, but as an overall sector they showed about a 17bn surplus last year)

eire4

Phonehead wrote: »

Have you any appreciation of Ireland under British rule There really is no comparison to the current EU role and Ireland under British rule, like it's not even a comparison.

O come on now that little genocide thing in the mid 19th century was no big deal come on now lets not get too over the top I mean Cromwell wasn't all that bad either:)
Seriously talk about taking revisionism to a whole new level making a ridiculous statement like that.

dr.fuzzenstein

everlast75 wrote: »

Well if you admit to not knowing how things are going over in the States, try googling Mueller, indictments, the word "scandals", etc etc and that will tell you all you need to know.

This is a moment of unbelievable honesty by Trump. Tells you all you need to know about him

https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1006473156868091904?s=19

I am genuinely having some kind of a Frank Grimes moment over this.

RobertKK

eagle eye wrote: »

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

The EU is the best deal Ireland will ever get for a small nation. Look at Northern Ireland and how much poorer it is under British rule.
Trump is so wrong when he attacks the EU and supports the complete madness that is Brexit, being a member of the EU is the best deal the UK could ever have and instead 'taking back control' is just a vote to be less relevant in Europe and the world, poorer and backwards looking, anti-foreigner and it is a rejection of Europe.
Merkel made mistakes during her reign, but overall she is a very steady hand for Europe.

MadYaker

And anyway, the EU is run by a parliament with elected officials from every nation. Its not a dictatorship, obviously soe nations have more sway than others but saying that you'd rather be ruled by the british is totally ridiculous.

Apparently this is the 4th time since the 90s that NK have agreed to denuclearise. This whole thing makes me uneasy. Kim is getting exactly what he wanted and I don't see the rest of the world (or the poor people of NK) getting much in return. I know its early days still but I can't help but think that if that mountain hadn't collapsed on their weapons site we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't think Trump deserves much credit yet. It just so happens that this situation came to a head during his presidency. I've no doubt that he would have just kicked the can down the road like every other US president did if that were an option for him. Based on his performace at the G7 I have pretty much zero faith in his ability to get anything out of this.

vetinari

I think the whole summit was just a PR exercise for both sides.
We're in a new world diplomacy wise.
Trump has shown that the US might renege on anything it signs.

In such an environment, the content of the deal becomes irrelevant.
Instead it's all about the PR that can be gained from the summit itself.

amandstu

vetinari wrote: »

I think the whole summit was just a PR exercise for both sides.
We're in a new world diplomacy wise.
Trump has shown that the US might renege on anything it signs.

In such an environment, the content of the deal becomes irrelevant.
Instead it's all about the PR that can be gained from the summit itself.

Also (and reasonably) kicking the can down the road.

One of the Republicans was saying (before the "summit") that ,as a result of this summit there would be either peace or war.That was not the case as both sides played for time (as well as the percentages)

But yes the spin on either side is grotesque but hardly unexpected.

I am not convinced that NK even needed nuclear weapons to be impervious to attack. They have their own people hostage and can inflict enormous damage on the South with conventional weapons and the leaders may feel they have a bolthole in China.

Even before they acquired the nuclear capability is was considered too risky to carry out a preemptive attack (of course the Scrotus promised that they would never get nuclear weapons "Trust me ,it won't happen" wasn't that his rallying cry?)

Danzy

eagle eye wrote: »

She is trying to control Europe which I don't like.

I'd much prefer to be back under British rule than under her thumb.

Merkel would be no pleasure but going back under the foot of a State that viewed us as lower than animals is not the alternative.

EdgeCase

She can try all she likes, but she doesn't control Europe and any notion that she does is becoming less and less realistic all the time.

Ireland's been doing a lot of diplomacy behind the scenes in terms of forging ahead with cooperation with a lot of the smaller, progress, more like minded members who don't want to end up with a big, heavy, German approach.

Even in Germany, Merkel's only holding a coalition government together very tenuously.

What would worry me more actually would be Macron attempting to drive an agenda that sought to apply French inflexibly across the EU, with the notion that it would somehow fix France's economic woes that have been built on a whole load of unrealistic expectations about what the state can do / spend, but again, I think that's unrealistic as he really doesn't have a lot of ability to drive that.

The EU's a lot more diverse than it was back in the day when it was all just a Franco-German alliance and some others. It's actually something that is taking the Germans and French a lot of getting used to, as they're not in a position where they'll always get their way anymore.

Also, the Euro is going to have to start reflecting the reality of what the Eurozone is and that reality includes Italy, Greece and Spain on one extreme and Germany and Finland at the other and the likes of Ireland, Netherlands, Finland and so on somewhere at various locations between those two.

It is not, and never has been just like the old Deutsch Mark, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, including for Germany. You're staring to see the ECB break away from a lot of those initial rigid policies and increasingly chart its own course as it gets more comfortable as genuine central bank.

The EU is one big compromise, always was and always will be. The UK media tends to paint a different picture and not a very realistic one that's all based around big powers trying to take it over. That just isn't how it works and it's specifically designed to ensure that isn't how it works too.

My view of it is that Europe's a big messy system that tries to find consensus positions all the time. So, you'll get slow decision making, arguments, stand offs, show downs and all of those things. That doesn't mean it's not working. It is what it is ... It's not and will never be a neatly arranged, fairly homogeneous federal state like the US, and that's not a bad thing.

Trump vs the EU on trade is going to be 'entertaining' though as the EU functions completely the opposite way to the US presidency under Trump. The 'Federation' vs the old school, single voice, "l'etat c'est moi" wannabe authoritarian populist. It could end up being a bit like trying to punch a cloud from Trump's perspective.

eagle eye

I'm if the opinion that the world needed a Trump like world leader. A guy who doesn't give a hoot about political correctness, a guy who can just have a huff and tell you to f off at any time.

It seems right now that he is doing some good work while confusing others but not conforming on issues that most consider very important. While those isdues, for the most part, are important they are not urgent.
I think Trump's agenda is to put the USA back on top as the big brother, a position they seemed to have lost even before Obama became President.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm if the opinion that the world needed a Trump like world leader. A guy who doesn't give a hoot about political correctness, a guy who can just have a huff and tell you to f off at any time.

It seems right now that he is doing some good work while confusing others but not conforming on issues that most consider very important. While those isdues, for the most part, are important they are not urgent.
I think Trump's agenda is to put the USA back on top as the big brother, a position they seemed to have lost even before Obama became President.

Because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

looksee

Even if Trump, by luck, a miracle or even design, managed to perform some useful service to the world or the US he would still be a despicable, lying, untrustworthy, self absorbed egotist. Getting lucky occasionally, or bullying your way to an apparent result on something, does not make a person a good leader.

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

Goodbye.

looksee

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/white-house-singapore-summit-video/index.html

Can't help thinking the voice-over is a bit ambiguous! The quality on the other hand is dire, if very Trumpian.

everlast75

Pence has confirmed military exercises will continue in Korea already! So much for the deal being done.

Trump's speciality seems to be pulling out... (apart from that one suspected NDA)

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm if the opinion that the world needed a Trump like world leader. A guy who doesn't give a hoot about political correctness, a guy who can just have a huff and tell you to f off at any time.

It seems right now that he is doing some good work while confusing others but not conforming on issues that most consider very important. While those isdues, for the most part, are important they are not urgent.
I think Trump's agenda is to put the USA back on top as the big brother, a position they seemed to have lost even before Obama became President.

Sure, it's not like there haven't been world leaders with a bullish, 'my way or the highway' approach, but Trump isn't bullish ala a Thatcher, he's petty and impatient. Evidence repeatedly demonstrates the man simply doesn't WANT to learn, and is plain ignorant of his own constitution or laws. This isn't local politics, or CEOs we're talking about here but global diplomacy - throwing a huff because it's plain Trump just wants to be king/chairman isn't a breath of fresh air, it's a dangerous approach to running a country where mistakes will cost livelihoods.

Christy42

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm if the opinion that the world needed a Trump like world leader. A guy who doesn't give a hoot about political correctness, a guy who can just have a huff and tell you to f off at any time.

It seems right now that he is doing some good work while confusing others but not conforming on issues that most consider very important. While those isdues, for the most part, are important they are not urgent.
I think Trump's agenda is to put the USA back on top as the big brother, a position they seemed to have lost even before Obama became President.

Buzzwords again with little solid fact.

To begin with no one offended by grown man kneeling is against political correctness (or is that offended by the media " Their so mean"). He simply wishes to change what is considered politically correct. Insulting Trump not OK, insulting Mexicans OK. I am sick of this bull calling Trump anti PC. He just insults people who his supporters want to insult while leaving their own particular sacred cows alone.

You want someone who tells people to f off then just get a random teenager.

You would also be hard pressed to explain why climate change is not urgent. Or indeed the trade war due to start in a few weeks is it?

eagle eye

You see this shows hate and bias. It's like you make your mind up on something and will never change.

I've always wanted the Democrats in power in the US and all my favourite US Presidents are/were Democrats.

It doesn't mean that I won't give everyone a chance though. I'm not a person that was ever a fan of Donald Trump but I respect the fact that he identified that the middle classes had become despondent and were unlikely to vote in the numbers they have in the past. I respect that he managed to appeal to the hicks and less intelligent Americans enough to get them out to vote for him.
I said long before anybody was even a candidate that the Republicans would beat Hillary Clinton as she is one of those people who becomes less likeable the more exposure she gets.

I've been appalled by the treatment that Donald Trump has received since he became President. I personally believe that there should be more respect for the Office than is currently being shown by the media and numerous celebrities.

It doesn't seem to matter if he does a good thing, you are still going to read how it was somebody else who did it, or it was just lucky that things fell that way. A lot of people have become completely irrational.

I posted a few times in one of the earlier threads about Trump and because I wasn't following the hate line my posts were attacked as if I was a supporter of the man even though there was part of some of my posts that were critical of the man.

I realise the man can be grating to listen to, I understand that it's easy to dislike him too. Hate is a horrible thing though and the amount of it that I've seen in the Trump threads is astonishing to me.

I am of the opinion that he is an intelligent man who plays the stupid card to set people up. Anytime he gets very serious you see a different side to him. He has been threatening North Korea, then courting them, then walking away and now it looks like he has achieved something that nobody expected would ever happen. It remains to seen if they actually hold up to their end of the bargain but if they do and/or until they don't the man deserves credit from everybody.

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

I've been appalled by the treatment that Donald Trump has received since he became President. I personally believe that there should be more respect for the Office than is currently being shown by the media and numerous celebrities.

So you say you feel appalled about the treatment of Donald Trump, yet what of all the horrible, appalling, disrespectful things Trump himself has said? It's not enough to just sniff about being 'anti PC', like it's a blank cheque to demonstrate a total lack of empathy.

It's well and good talking about respecting the office - it sounds lofty and gives a nice sense of being above all the mudslinging - but how do you square that with a man who - to a LOT of folks - demeans the dignity of the office in his outspoken views , or indeed his rank ignorance of the Constitution he's meant to uphold? As I posted earlier, he can't even stop himself breaking the law by merely ripping up the very papers that cross his desk. Or after whatever school shooting and just proposed taking peoples' guns and figuring out the law later? 2 isolated cases among many that show Trump neither knows, nor cares to know, the basic rules he has to abide by

I don't mean to plough any line of 'he started it', but the moment he stood in the public eye and started imitating disabled journalists, spoke of women 'bleeding out of their whatever', suggested Ted Cruz's father had links with the JFK assassination, was caught talking about grabbing women by the p*ssy etc. etc. etc. he legitimised personal attacks by dint of him ensuring everyone - and it really has been EVERYONE - got slammed by him.

Podge_irl

eagle eye wrote: »

He has been threatening North Korea, then courting them, then walking away and now it looks like he has achieved something that nobody expected would ever happen. It remains to seen if they actually hold up to their end of the bargain but if they do and/or until they don't the man deserves credit from everybody.

But this is the thing. He has achieved literally nothing - NK reaffirmed a commitment they already made a couple months ago. It is far less than multiple other agreements they made in the past 30 years.

I can get on board with the concept that the status quo wasn't working and a different approach might. But if someone is going to take an essentially meaningless joint statement and declare it as a phenomenal feat of diplomacy then they deserve to be ridiculed. If he had an ounce of humility and was able to portray this as a small step in a long and difficult journey then maybe he would get a modicum of credit. But it is difficult to listen to the absurdities spewing out of his mouth and from his surrogates and not feel a strong urge to set the record straight.

Hurrache

everlast75 wrote: »

Pence has confirmed military exercises will continue in Korea already! So much for the deal being done.

Trump's speciality seems to be pulling out... (apart from that one suspected NDA)

There seems to be confusion as to what he said or didn't say. I think he was asked if he actually said that and he denied it.

Pelvis

looksee wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/white-house-singapore-summit-video/index.html

Can't help thinking the voice-over is a bit ambiguous! The quality on the other hand is dire, if very Trumpian.

This is unbelievable. What must the NK delegation have thought when they gathered around an iPad to watch this?