Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

126 countries vote to reject a resolution recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Good to see Trump getting a slap in the face. Not that he cares anyway. Only 9 countries supported him. Disappointing to see Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary abstaining. Surprised at Mexico and Canada too.

Billy86

Even Trump's own bosses in Moscow didn't side with him - full vote results.

https://twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/943899455304105984/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-42446027

Full list of those who voted yes: Israel, USA, Guatemala, Honduras, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Togo.

Phonehead

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

126 countries vote to reject a resolution recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Good to see Trump getting a slap in the face. Not that he cares anyway. Only 9 countries supported him. Disappointing to see Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary abstaining. Surprised at Mexico and Canada too.

Canada, Mexico & US are currently negotiating NAFTA, you were never going to see them vote against the US while still in talks on trade (especially with such a volatile person in the White House) Abstaining was pretty much as good as a vote against the US.

Professor Moriarty

Phonehead wrote: »

Canada, Mexico & US are currently negotiating NAFTA, you were never going to see them vote against the US while still in talks on trade (especially with such a volatile person in the White House) Abstaining was pretty much as good as a vote against the US.

Yeah that was my thinking too.

Tell me how

20Cent wrote:

The AMerican ambassador to the UN being as diplomatic as trump is.

Did you see her speech today? Like something from Mean Girls. This is diplomacy at its most infantile.

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote: »

Even Trump's own bosses in Moscow didn't side with him - full vote results.

https://twitter.com/markmackinnon/status/943899455304105984/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-42446027

Full list of those who voted yes: Israel, USA, Guatemala, Honduras, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Togo.

I know zero about four of those countries.

PopePalpatine

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

126 countries vote to reject a resolution recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Good to see Trump getting a slap in the face. Not that he cares anyway. Only 9 countries supported him. Disappointing to see Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary abstaining. Surprised at Mexico and Canada too.

I'm actually surprised that Poland & Hungary abstained, given their governments' moves towards the far-right.

Professor Moriarty

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that Poland & Hungary abstained, given their governments' moves towards the far-right.

I was thinking along the lines of their history with Jews.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I know zero about four of those countries.

Well given you could fit the entire combined population of three of them (Nauru, Marshall Islands, Palau) into Barcelona's Nou Camp stadium with a few hundred tickets left over, and could almost do the same for Micronesia (104k population, 99k capacity) I'm really not surprised. I'd imagine those guys are extremely dependent on US aid and trade, that the US could drop and genuinely never have anyone notice - and we're all aware how pathetically petty and sociopathic Trump is in his behaviours. All of them bar Nauru also use the US dollar as their currency.

Army_of_One

Guatemala, Honduras, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Togo.

Some heavy hitters there..probably all have trump hotels.

Creol1

Comparing this result to the results in the past on votes condemning the US blockade on Cuba, there is a worrying increase in abstentions/No votes. Usually, only the US and Israel voted against the motion, with one or two abstentions such as Micronesia and everyone else voting in favour.

I don't think anyone will lose sleep over how Pacific micro-states voted, but Guatemala, Honduras and Togo are more concerning. The real story is in the huge number of abstentions: these countries would have preferred to support the motion, but abstained out of fear of upsetting the US. It seems unlikely that they just abstained out of indifference, given the importance and prominence of the issue.

One point Haley touched on was the amount of money the US spends on the UN. This is a significant area that needs to be reformed. The US is the largest funder by some distance, which compromises the UN's independence. There needs to be a move towards some kind of fixed fee per member state (perhaps with a discounted rate for micro-states). The UN's core operations are not particularly expensive. I also can never get over how the UN is headquartered in New York. Somewhere such as Geneva would be far more appropriate.

spacecoyote

Army_of_One wrote: »

Some heavy hitters there..probably all have trump hotels.

Cur his team telling him about the enormous win. There are 600+ islands in Micronesia, treat them all individually and there's serious bigly winning going on

For Forks Sake

This is weird and nauseating. Also bare in mind that if Trumpy gets heaved, this is the person who takes charge

https://twitter.com/stevesilberman/status/943558162048622592

Itssoeasy

Even Rex tillerson looks less than comfortable sitting there and I see the wonder kid Jared is still lurking in the background.

Leroy42

"This is not America"

Ah, yes it is! This is exactly what America is. Its just painful for many too see it so blatantly in your face.

A Dub in Glasgo

froog

rossie1977 wrote: »

If corporations were struggling then sure cut the corporate tax but thats not the case. Corporations are thriving, the stock market has been rising steadily since 2009. Companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash, so much they don't know what to do with it anymore.

companies are thriving and their profits aren't going to the US. that's the whole point.

Really Interested

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that Poland & Hungary abstained, given their governments' moves towards the far-right.

Have you read a book on 20th C history?

robinph

Germany even taking part in the vote on an issue regarding Israel is apparently a first, and then for them to vote against the Israeli position.

Schorpio

Reading the Guardian article on the vote (here) and Nikki Haley's comments struck me -

I must also say today: when we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have expectation that we will be respected,” she said. “What’s more, we are being asked to pay for the dubious privileges of being disrespected.”

Haley added: “If our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our investment in other ways … The United States will remember this day.”

I like how they perceive the UN to be similar to their own governance - where money buys pretty much anything. The US needs to get the message loud and clear - democracy isn't about who has the most money. It should be about doing the right thing.

But then again, what else can you expect from a nation which is currently passing wildly unpopular legislation to make the rich richer (Tax, NN etc.).

Leroy42

The disrespected line is particularly galling. It seems to suggest that they think that anyone who disagrees with them is disrespecting them. In effect saying that they are infallible and must be obeyed.

That's all fine and well if they want to go own that route in their won country, as many countries do, but to try and tell all other countries that they should have no opinion is absurd.

Yet, Trump has spend the last number of months telling us he is willing to work with Russia because getting on with them is far better (which I agree). How do the Americans feel they can have any constructive relationship with Russia when they have just told them that unless they agree 100% with them then they take that as disrespect.

That Haley would stand up and give this speech, a supposed democrat and diplomat is staggering. By all means be unhappy about it, but this crossed a line/

To also call money into it also really babyish. It's our ball and we are going home.

B0jangles

Haley's not really speaking to the U.N., she's speaking directly to Trump's much-discussed Base - the Base thinks that a Big Strong Leader does a lot of shouting and posturing, like a gorilla pounding its chest and throwing leaves around, so as Trump's proxy that's just what she's doing.

Tell me how

Schorpio wrote:

I like how they perceive the UN to be similar to their own governance - where money buys pretty much anything. The US needs to get the message loud and clear - democracy isn't about who has the most money. It should be about doing the right thing.

Leroy42 wrote:

That Haley would stand up and give this speech, a supposed democrat and diplomat is staggering. By all means be unhappy about it, but this crossed a line/

It's staggering the similarities evident in both Brexiteers and staunch Trumpists.

When the UK decided to leave the EU, the EU told them "On your bike" (Michael Hesseltines words). I'm glad of the vote in the UN yesterday because they had been warned in advance by Hally and still the vote went as it did.

As for her speech (and the body language in the delivery) Wow.

America will not regain the loss of respect it's currently losing for several years, maybe generations.

Leroy42

B0jangles wrote: »

Haley's not really speaking to the U.N., she's speaking directly to Trump's much-discussed Base - the Base thinks that a Big Strong Leader does a lot of shouting and posturing, like a gorilla pounding its chest and throwing leaves around, so as Trump's proxy that's just what she's doing.

Whilst I agree that their core audience is the base at home, to think that something like this won't be taken on board by the rest of world is naive at best.

It is true (and I agree that a big part of it is that) then it is worrying for everyone that this administration is willing to go this route just to keep ~30% of people at home happy.

And that is why I am particularly disgusted at Haley. You can 'accept' (its the wrong word by I can't think of the one I'm trying for) from Trump but she is a diplomat, surrounded by seasoned diplomats, in the most diplomatic building in the world and she gives a speech like that!

mrcheez

Beasty wrote: »

The payroll taxes I am referring to are those suffered by the employee (tax, PRSI, USC) and that suffered by the employer (PRSI). They all to some extent rise in line with salaries, and employers will continue to pay the going rate, whatever that may be. They are unlikely to consider employers social security contributions when determining what to pay people - that ultimately becomes a matter of supply and demand and any legislative intervention (such as the minimum wage)

Ultimately though these taxes are quite stable in what they deliver to a government and the wider economy. Corporate taxes are much more volatile, and influenced by wider economic conditions, those specific to the industry in question, and decisions taken typically at board level as to the economic footprint a company may leave within a particular jurisdiction

Basically companies have more control over where they make their profits and pay their taxes. Individuals on the other hand are more likely to pay whatever tax is due and certainly less inclined to relocate primarily for tax reasons (and I know there are notable exceptions, but they tend to be very high wealth individuals)

Hi Beasty, check your PMs please

Forum related questions but not getting any response from you via PM , cheers

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

That Haley would stand up and give this speech, a supposed democrat and diplomat is staggering. By all means be unhappy about it, but this crossed a line.

She's actually a life-long Republican, Romney even considered picking her as VP candidate in 2012. Just pointing it out because I had previously got an impression somehow that she was a Democrat/ex-Democrat previously.

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The disrespected line is particularly galling. It seems to suggest that they think that anyone who disagrees with them is disrespecting them. In effect saying that they are infallible and must be obeyed.

It's how he works though. Loyalty above everything. If you're disloyal, you get fired and disowned. It's why he's such a monumentally awful businessman - he only employs "yes" men and then just bullies problems until they go away, or throws money at problems until they accede.

We have no reason to expect that it's ever going to get any better while he's in charge. Isolationism will be the name of the game because the rest of the world can't be bullied or fired.

Which is what makes Trump probably the greatest threat to world peace since the cold war. He will attempt to use military force if the rest of the world "disobeys" him for long enough. He is that petty.

There are no "checks and balances" in the US system that will kick in at the last minute. They are a fantasy, sold to placate the US voter. But we all need to realise this and expect the worst rather than just pointing and laughing and hoping for the best.

oscarBravo

Billy86 wrote: »

She's actually a life-long Republican...

I read it as small-d-democrat: someone who believes in democracy; as opposed to big-D-Democrat: a party affiliation.

American party names are annoying.

Leroy42

Billy86 wrote: »

She's actually a life-long Republican, Romney even considered picking her as VP candidate in 2012. Just pointing it out because I had previously got an impression somehow that she was a Democrat/ex-Democrat previously.

I meant democrat in terms of belief in one voter etc. But I see the confusion I created.

demfad

seamus wrote: »

It's how he works though. Loyalty above everything. If you're disloyal, you get fired and disowned. It's why he's such a monumentally awful businessman - he only employs "yes" men and then just bullies problems until they go away, or throws money at problems until they accede.

We have no reason to expect that it's ever going to get any better while he's in charge. Isolationism will be the name of the game because the rest of the world can't be bullied or fired.

Which is what makes Trump probably the greatest threat to world peace since the cold war. He will attempt to use military force if the rest of the world "disobeys" him for long enough. He is that petty.

There are no "checks and balances" in the US system that will kick in at the last minute. They are a fantasy, sold to placate the US voter. But we all need to realise this and expect the worst rather than just pointing and laughing and hoping for the best.

Absolutely. There is one thing worse than Trump firing Mueller and that is Trump firing Mueller with no consequences.

Last year we saw Lindsay Graham demand investigations into Trump: Now he is the one who is attacking the investigators and ridiculing their findings. Nikki Haley also seemed to stand on her won feet till recently. Who will stand up to him?

Autocratic regimes command this type of loyalty by threats and blackmail usually. We know this was Trumps way of operating for decades.

I'm going to say it, others have recently: Trump is a FULL RUSSIAN ASSET.

The RNC server was hacked (as was Grahams email and hundreds of others), US powergrids and nuclear facilities have been hacked by Russia (dozens of reports). Latter is significant for pacifying civil servants. Trump can also threaten nuclear actions. Many Republicans are compromised by contagion from the Trump investigation or dodgy donations (from Russian oligarchs).

We can clearly see the Russian State help and support Trump now through propaganda and other measures.

Do we really think that Russia would not help Trump with dirt etc on politicians to keep the GOP (the party that can impeach him) in line?