Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

PopePalpatine

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How oftern Chanting through a loudspeaker ?

Have you ever been on O'Connell Street in the middle of the day? There's usually a Christian fundamentalist on a loudspeaker at that time.

For the record, I do think it was crass for one of those German protesters to chant "Allahu akbar," mainly because AFAIK the average Westerner only knows it as that phrase which jihadists shout before they attack.

dudara

Grayson wrote: »

If you want to support the Trump agenda, that's fine. Worth doing, even. But never lose sight of the degree to which Trumpism corrupts.

This in a nutshell. Being on Trump's team is going to magnify or amplify their behaviours. It will be interesting to see how deep into the abyss they will go with him.

Cheerful Spring

Press Secretary ( China South Seas) just confirmed we will defend the Islands in International wars. Well good luck with that America. China is already there. Trump first war major war will involve China goody.

BabyCheeses

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Press Secretary ( China South Seas) just confirmed we will defend the Islands in International wars. Well good luck with that America. China is already there. Trump first war major war will involve China goody.

How will they defend the islands? Trump will be peaceful remember?

Billy86

Remember how so many Trump fans claimed their only reason was avoiding war with Russia, which they deemed as seemingly 100% definitely imminent, yet tried to laugh off the idea of Trump looking for war with China?

Well here we are in the the fourth day of his presidency and he's already openly flirting with the idea.

RobertKK

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Press Secretary ( China South Seas) just confirmed we will defend the Islands in International wars. Well good luck with that America. China is already there. Trump first war major war will involve China goody.

International waters, not wars.

The question is, can you create and claim new land in international waters with no agreement from anyone?

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

International waters, not wars.

The question is, can you create and claim new land in international waters with no agreement from anyone?

Sure you can. What is anyone else going to do about it?

BabyCheeses

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sure you can. What is anyone else going to do about it?

We may soon find out!

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

International waters, not wars.

The question is, can you create and claim new land in international waters with no agreement from anyone?

Wasn't your - by far - main reason for supporting Trump that he would be isolationist and avoid possible wars?

namloc1980

BabyCheeses wrote: »

How will they defend the islands? Trump will be peaceful remember?

This is what happens when novices and inexperienced people get into positions of power. Rex Tillerson and Sean Spicer (and Trump) know about as much about diplomacy and international politics as an earthworm, yet they are running their mouth and essentially threatening China. Now it could be genius and China may back down but man, it's a risky strategy. Or they're just morons who don't know what they're doing. By the way this is just day 3!

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Wasn't your - by far - main reason for supporting Trump that he would be isolationist and avoid possible wars?

I did not like the emergence of a new cold war, and middle eastern wars which was the alternative.

The US and Russia could actually work together in Syria, and it seems the terrorists that the Obama administration and the west support in Syria is over, as Assad the secularist could be whom Trump sides with, much better than the alternative who wanted no fly zones and conflict with Russia.


The growth of the islands in the Pacific has been talked about for years now and appear to be for military purposes by the Chinese.
It appears the Pentagon wants actions taken.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/tensions-and-territorial-claims-in-the-south-china-sea-the-guardian-briefing
Article from 2015:

The US has protested that the work is illegal and destabilising and for months the Pentagon has been pushing the White House to take a firmer stance.

HellSquirrel

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Press Secretary ( China South Seas) just confirmed we will defend the Islands in International wars. Well good luck with that America. China is already there. Trump first war major war will involve China goody.

I'm going to do something painful; defend Trump's people on this. Thing is, China is pushing it regarding international waters and controlling access to the South China Sea. Militarising islands that they have no right to under the general agreement of international waters is not on. China are doing just that.

RobertKK wrote: »

International waters, not wars.

The question is, can you create and claim new land in international waters with no agreement from anyone?

I reckon if you can -create- it, you can probably do whatever you like with it (but other countries probably wouldn't agree!). But you can't claim new land in international waters with no agreement without ruffling feathers. It's considered warlike (if your ally starts fortifying neutral territory near you, you're probably going to be worried, it suggests they reckon there'll be a reason to have it fortified when they're ready).

So, that said, Tillerson's comments (insofar as I've seen them, I think I only read round two, which were politer than round one) were justified. He didn't go after China, he said that "we're going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country" which is the right, and even the duty, of any country to do. The binding laws of international waters, which benefits every country in the world either directly or indirectly, are as vital to world security as the concept of mutual annihilation is regarding nuclear weapons.

So I'm entirely with Tillerson there.

It doesn't fit with isolationism and it's really a very poor idea to be prodding China in other ways while this delicate situation is going on, but I think we can get behind "isolationism" meaning "unless it's really fcuking necessary". Ironically, one of the ways he could have worked against the potential of an armed blockade in the SC Sea was to stay in the TPP agreement, which would have had a passage along eleven of the countries of the Pacific Rim. And once that had filtered through, the fault of the last administration, Trump could have approached China on a fresh footing as a potential pro-China US president. If he didn't keep insulting China at every given opportunity. >.>

BabyCheeses

namloc1980 wrote: »

This is what happens when novices and inexperienced people get into positions of power. Rex Tillerson and Sean Spicer (and Trump) know about as much about diplomacy and international politics as an earthworm, yet they are running their mouth and essentially threatening China. Now it could be genius and China may back down but man, it's a risky strategy. Or they're just morons who don't know what they're doing. By the way this is just day 3!

Maybe if they keep good relations with the Chinese they can negotiate a way out of the situation.... ooops.

Maybe China should take a chunk of Ukraine instead, then Trump would be ok with it.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not like the emergence of a new cold war, and middle eastern wars which was the alternative.

Your posting history says otherwise.

June 2016 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99919114&postcount=700
I do watch CNN a lot for the coverage on the US elections, they say Trump appears far more isolationist on foreign policy which is closer to Bernie Sanders position than Clinton's, who they say is rather hawkish when it comes to the getting involved.

September 2016 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1477
Trump has been described as being isolationist, he said he is against regime change via use of military and prefers sanctions.
Clinton despite all her disasters still supports regime change using the military.

October 2016 - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101283959&postcount=2891
Hillary says the US will put "Ring China with missile defence" if North Korea missile and nuclear program progresses.
...
She was telling Goldman Sachs a lot of stuff. Wikileaks asks if Hillary was giving them classified information.

Which reminds me of one of your other big reasons for supporting Trump, that you didn't want Wall Street involvement and privilege. How did that work out?


Now I know you're not a bad guy Robert, but you've been sold a complete and utter con, as people have been pointing out to Trump supporters for over a year now. Trump played a hell of a lot of voters and onlookers abroad for complete and utter fools, the same way he has played investors and contractors for fools for decades, and the sooner they come to realise and face up to that, the better.

Due soon from Kellyanne Conway Publications.....

MightyMandarin

dudara wrote: »

To be fair, I suspect that a lot of Trump's picks will be rather OK acting on their own. Many of them are long term professionals.

The problems so far seem to arise when they're pandering to him or managing him or attempting to limit his damage

They were picked because they're damn good at what they do -his team, not his cabinet picks, anyway. Conway is a master propagandist, Spicer is really good at deflecting from the point and making Trump look like the victim.

One thing I just wish Jim Acosta would've said to Spicer at that conference after he went on his 'poor us, the press and everyone is making life difficult' monologue, would be 'Welcome to washington, indeed politics. The exact same thing happened the last 8 years, in fact you guys did the same ****in thing to Obama'. But nah, he let him come off as the victim, which the base will just eat up.

HellSquirrel

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/arts/television/katie-rich-snl-suspended-barron-trump-tweet.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Following on from having condemned the SNL writer for tweeting about Barron Trump, this was well-handled though. Soon as it caught their attention, it was deleted and she was suspended (her name was even removed from the credits) and there was an honestly contrite apology. No bluster, no lying, no deflecting, no calling other people liars for pointing it out, no "I'm sorry if you were offended".

Zubeneschamali

MightyMandarin wrote: »

he let him come off as the victim, which the base will just eat up.

His base have already shown they would eat up anything Trump drops and pretend to like it.

peasant

Time for another Keith Olbermann methinks

Hank Scorpio

Sign of the agenda in this thread when people are posting Keith Olbermann videos and meme images while nothing has been mentioned about Trump withdrawing from the TPP.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/23/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-bernie-sanders-john-mccain



And nothing mentioned about his talks to renegotiate nafta

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/823508989229023233

c montgomery

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sign of the agenda in this thread when people are posting Keith Olbermann videos and meme images while nothing has been mentioned about Trump withdrawing from the TPP.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/23/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-bernie-sanders-john-mccain



And nothing mentioned about his talks to renegotiate nafta

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/823508989229023233

Very interesting, thanks for posting.
So Bernie supports trump policy.

PopePalpatine

In fairness to Trump, the TPP would have allowed for much stricter IP/copyright laws that would have weakened protections for ordinary consumers. Companies could use ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) to sue countries if they felt their revenue was threatened by their government's actions or lack thereof. And then there's the whole issue of the TPP being negotiated in secret...

HellSquirrel

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In fairness to Trump, the TPP would have allowed for much stricter IP/copyright laws that would have weakened protections for ordinary consumers. Companies could use ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) to sue countries if they felt their revenue was threatened by their government's actions or lack thereof. And then there's the whole issue of the TPP being negotiated in secret...

We're talking about the same Trans Pacific Partnership here or have I seriously misunderstood something along the way?

You know, I rather think I have utterly confused two different topics along here. More reading required..

Firefox11

dudara wrote: »

To be fair, I suspect that a lot of Trump's picks will be rather OK acting on their own. Many of them are long term professionals.

The problems so far seem to arise when they're pandering to him or managing him or attempting to limit his damage

There was a clip on the bbc of him caught kissing that kellyann conway one ...ooh something goin on there!!

dudara

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sign of the agenda in this thread when people are posting Keith Olbermann videos and meme images while nothing has been mentioned about Trump withdrawing from the TPP.

And what's your opinion on the withdrawal? Just dropping in a news clip isn't telling me what you think

PopePalpatine

HellSquirrel wrote: »

We're talking about the same Trans Pacific Partnership here or have I seriously misunderstood something along the way?

You know, I rather think I have utterly confused two different topics along here. More reading required..

Yep, we're talking about the same TPP.

dav3

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sign of the agenda in this thread when people are posting Keith Olbermann videos and meme images while nothing has been mentioned about Trump withdrawing from the TPP.


And nothing mentioned about his talks to renegotiate nafta

What is the agenda? I didn't get the memo.

Irish people aren't arsed about the TPP or NAFTA.

Can we discuss the Mexico City Policy or has that already been covered?

Billy86

c montgomery wrote: »

Very interesting, thanks for posting.
So Bernie supports trump policy.

Bernie's own policy was isolationist and against the TPP which is one thing, I do not however remember him advocating war with China over the SC Sea, which I get the feeling Trump fans are now going to spend the next few days doing anything and everything they can to divert against talking about.

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Sign of the agenda in this thread when people are posting Keith Olbermann videos and meme images while nothing has been mentioned about Trump withdrawing from the TPP.

Pots and kettles.

Whatever happened to those satanists you were on about after the first press conference?

HellSquirrel

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, we're talking about the same TPP.

America seems to have a thing about sticking in irrelevant clauses to protect their own moral causes. Both that and the Mexico City Provision seem rather needless. I'd be interested to know where exactly the pressure was coming from to put in such harsh requirements in terms of copyright law.

Apart from that aspect, I'd be cautiously in favour of the TPP. I do agree the intellectual properties aspect is a bit nuts, unless there's a very good explanation for it.

However..I can't rid myself of the nagging feeling that Trump doesn't particularly understand what it's about either and is really ending it -because Obama did it-. He was Against It on the campaign trail (and never said anything concrete about it that I heard - saying it's **** doesn't count unless you can explain why it is ****), so he had to keep going with it.

Anyone else getting that feeling with the things he's signing?