Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Billy86 wrote: »

Colin Kaepernick would have been utterly hilarious to be honest, in terms of reaction. "Funny" in a difference sense though, how the 'silence breakers' that came out against Trump are seen by his fans as sluts, whores and liars.

I hope they didn't give it to all the silence breakers. After all, it is only those talking about DNC members of liberals that are telling the truth.

recedite wrote: »

Two state solutions may not be the "happy ever after" that their proponents would like to believe they are.

Well, Ireland has been doing reasonable well the last 30 years. Once we actually dealt with some of the issues that had been rammed through originally it started to be better for everyone.

And the one state solution is what is currently in place. Palestine is only a state in terms of the UN, in terms of actual statehood it is totally under the control of the Israelis.

The Israelis continue to take land from it. If it were a full state then wouldn't that be an act of war? So in this case the one state solution has already been proven to not be the answer yet you seem to be of the opinion that doubling down will make sense

Billy86

Tell me how wrote: »

He missed out on Time's person of the year.

They gave it to "The silence breakers". Women who spoke out against having been abused.

Probably a reasonable recipient, if not one person.

Colin Kaepernick would have been utterly hilarious to be honest, in terms of reaction. "Funny" in a difference sense though, how the 'silence breakers' that came out against Trump are seen by his fans as sluts, whores and liars.

He missed out on Time's person of the year.

They gave it to "The silence breakers". Women who spoke out against having been abused.

Probably a reasonable recipient, if not one person.

recedite wrote:

Two state solutions may not be the "happy ever after" that their proponents would like to believe they are.

No. Maybe not. But they would likely be better than the alternative. Which is obviously something you do not like to believe.

Tell me how wrote: »

So what's your point?

Two state solutions may not be the "happy ever after" that their proponents would like to believe they are.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Most people accept now that the two state solution for Ireland has not been a great success over the last 100 years. Perhaps it was the least worst option at the time, but that's about the best that can be said about it.

Speak for yourself, but I'd rather Ireland not still be forcibly made a subject of the British Empire with Ireland just a dominion of it.

mcmoustache

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I had my doubts before President Trump came into office but he has shown beyond any reasonable doubt he is a fantastic president and this further cements him as possibly the greatest president of our generation.

You keep popping in here every few weeks to say that he is doing a fantastic job and then you leave without offering a reason why.

In the unlikely event that you actually believe what you are saying, what exactly has been fantastic about this?

By pretty much any measure, he's doing a terrible job.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm sure if people ever came into your house with some baseless claim and then not only took over parts of the house but then took whatever they wanted you would be just fine with it.

Well, first I would attempt to fight them off. But if I lost the fight, I would then attempt to come to some agreement to share the house. That's the phase the Palestinians and Israelis will have to move into next.

recedite wrote:

Most people accept now that the two state solution for Ireland has not been a great success over the last 100 years. Perhaps it was the least worst option at the time, but that's about the best that can be said about it.

So what's your point?

Billy86 wrote: »

Essentially yeah, just keep using military and political force and it'll fall in line. Just like we did with the British, and now we're all a happy family in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irel-- oh, wait.

Most people accept now that the two state solution for Ireland has not been a great success over the last 100 years. Perhaps it was the least worst option at the time, but that's about the best that can be said about it.

recedite wrote: »

I was laughing at RTE's prediction that a region engulfed in violence would be provoked into violence by Trump moving the US embassy from one Israeli city to another.

Actually if the region gets so upset that they abandon all the other wars in order to picket the US embassy, it'll be a Great day for peace in the region

But you have just agreed that the region is such a tinder box that violence is almost part of life, so what are you laughing at. Are RTE wrong, because that is the line you were pushing. That RTE, due to their hatred of Trump, had made up a nonsense claim about potential violence.

Thats a pretty callous attitude. People will more than likely die due to violence and you think its a bit of a laugh.

If Israel got the hell out of land that only 'belongs' to them because of some made up stories in a book maybe none of it would be happening.

I'm sure if people ever came into your house with some baseless claim and then not only took over parts of the house but then took whatever they wanted you would be just fine with it.

BabyCheeses

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I had my doubts before President Trump came into office but he has shown beyond any reasonable doubt he is a fantastic president and this further cements him as possibly the greatest president of our generation.

Greatest president with the lowest approval ratings. Well I look forward to you disappearing for awhile and making the same comment in a week or two.

At least you aren't dumb enough to try and defend him.

RustyNut

MadYaker wrote: »

So because the region is already unstable provoking more instability is fine?

I wonder is this just another deflection, albeit a rather extreme one. Is there a smoking gun about to surface on the Russian issue?

Water John

O'Bama's 2 state solution did not happen because Israel did not want it and decided to sit out the O'Bama Presidency and wait for a more cooperative one, from their POV.

StringerBell

recedite wrote: »

What peace talks?
Obama liked to talk about a two state solution in which Palestinians and Israaelis would live happily ever after as good neighbours, sharing one city as two capitals. Maybe a bit like Berlin, divided by a wall or something. Its not realistic.

Trump is firmly on the Israeli side. At the same time, he also has the Saudis onside, which is a good trick to pull.
Yet again he is fulfilling a clearly signalled election promise. People may find it shocking that a politician would keep an election promise, but The Donald is no ordinary politician and he has been keeping election promises all along.
Now is the perfect time to move the embassy, with Israel strong and the neighbours busy making war on each other.

Some day there will be a single country there and Jerusalem will be the undisputed capital. As with Lebanon, all the people will eventually bury the hatchet and cobble together some sort of agreement in the interests of peace and prosperity.

To be fair, you have no idea what you are talking about so I am not gonna waste my time here ok?

If you want go do some research and come back to me. I don't mind either way.

Billy86

MadYaker wrote: »

So because the region is already unstable provoking more instability is fine?

Essentially yeah, just keep using military and political force and it'll fall in line. Just like we did with the British, and now we're all a happy family in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irel-- oh, wait.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well you did because RTE had the balls to claim that in a violent region, as you yourself have acknowledged, a significant change in the current situation to aid one side over the other could provoke violence.

Exactly what is it that you were complaining about?

I was laughing at RTE's prediction that a region engulfed in violence would be provoked into violence by Trump moving the US embassy from one Israeli city to another.

Actually if the region gets so upset that they abandon all the other wars in order to picket the US embassy, it'll be a Great day for peace in the region

MadYaker

recedite wrote: »

Perhaps you are unaware that nearly every country in the region is already at war?
In the last week or so the ex president of Yemen was assasinated after trying to change sides in one war, and the PM of Lebanon was mysteriously detained in Saudi for some kind of re-education. The Israelis have bombed Syria, which has also been bombing itself. The Yemenis are starving and Quatar is under another blockade, but fortunately the Quataris are so rich they can fly in enough caviar to keep themselves going.

The only stable country is Jordan, and the king there has already signalled his displeasure at the embassy move with a yawn. He is a guy that survives by never getting involved.

The Palestinians living in Jerusalem are already under Israeli lockdown.

So who exactly is going to get upset over this?

So because the region is already unstable provoking more instability is fine?

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

StringerBell wrote: »

Na, not this time. A departure from the usual policy of whatever he did lets undo that.

Its clear enough I think that his foreign policy is once again not as a result of any long term strategy, more to pander to domestic interests.

What's the worst that can happen from his point of view anyway? Some violence or attacks, anger? Nothing that will affect him directly negatively. Its akin to taunting someone until they punch you, then pointing at that as evidence they are violent and justify pre conceived ideas already held about them.

This is exactly the reason . Like everything he does , it's all about him with scant regard to the implications elsewhere.

This was another of his campaign promises to his Conservative Christian base who tend to be Pro-Israel (the whole "Judaeo-Christian values" thing).

This is about shoring up his base in the face of the recent domestic pressures around the Mueller probe and his general failure to deliver anything substantive to his base (notwithstanding the Tax bill , which isn't really for his base - It's for his and the GOP's big-money backers).

He has little to no interest in what this does for other people , only what it does for him. Like always, which is what makes him so dangerous on the world stage.

StringerBell wrote: »

It completely removes any credibility the US has in peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

What peace talks?
Obama liked to talk about a two state solution in which Palestinians and Israaelis would live happily ever after as good neighbours, sharing one city as two capitals. Maybe a bit like Berlin, divided by a wall or something. Its not realistic.

Trump is firmly on the Israeli side. At the same time, he also has the Saudis onside, which is a good trick to pull.
Yet again he is fulfilling a clearly signalled election promise. People may find it shocking that a politician would keep an election promise, but The Donald is no ordinary politician and he has been keeping election promises all along.
Now is the perfect time to move the embassy, with Israel strong and the neighbours busy making war on each other.

Some day there will be a single country there and Jerusalem will be the undisputed capital. As with Lebanon, all the people will eventually bury the hatchet and cobble together some sort of agreement in the interests of peace and prosperity.

StringerBell

It completely removes any credibility the US has in peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel don't need the US to be on its side militarily anymore, they are basically a superpower of that region. They are in no danger of being crushed by the Palestinians, they are the strongest country in the region.

What they actually need is for the US to have some credibility as the mediator, or intermediary between themselves and the Palestinians.

This move kills that, Jerusalem has always been that final carrot to deal with in negotiations. There is a way to have it so both sides can come out with a "win" as it is of such vital importance to them. This removes that as being a possibility now. Short term thinking as always, this Israeli government and US President are on a par with each other.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the thinking behind moving the embassy? I can seen the potential downsides but can't see what the upside is.

Any ideas?

The signficance is that the US is effectively accepting and endorsing Israel's decision to annex East Jerusalem and declare the city (East + West) to be the capital of Israel (which they did uniltaterally in 1980, but which few countries have recognised).

Most embassies to Israel have always been located in Tel Aviv, which is the country's financial centre and was intitially the centre of government. When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, the few embassies which had been located in (West) Jerusalem relocated to Tel Aviv, to avoid giving the impression that their countries endorsed the annexation. Since then all foreign embassies to Israel have been located in Tel Aviv; the US will be the first to break ranks by moving to Jerusalem.

recedite wrote: »

Perhaps you are unaware that nearly every country in the region is already at war?
In the last week or so the ex president of Yemen was assasinated after trying to change sides in one war, and the PM of Lebanon was mysteriously detained in Saudi for some kind of re-education. The Israelis have bombed Syria, which has also been bombing itself. The Yemenis are starving and Quatar is under another blockade, but fortunately the Quataris are so rich they can fly in enough caviar to keep themselves going.

The only stable country is Jordan, and the king there has already signalled his displeasure at the embassy move with a yawn. He is a guy that survives by never getting involved.

The Palestinians living in Jerusalem are already under Israeli lockdown.

So who exactly is going to get upset over this?

Well you did because RTE had the balls to claim that in a violent region, as you yourself have acknowledged, a significant change in the current situation to aid one side over the other could provoke violence.

Exactly what is it that you were complaining about?

StringerBell

robinph wrote: »

Because it's the opposite of what Obama did.

Na, not this time. A departure from the usual policy of whatever he did lets undo that.

Its clear enough I think that his foreign policy is once again not as a result of any long term strategy, more to pander to domestic interests.

What's the worst that can happen from his point of view anyway? Some violence or attacks, anger? Nothing that will affect him directly negatively. Its akin to taunting someone until they punch you, then pointing at that as evidence they are violent and justify pre conceived ideas already held about them.

recedite wrote:

Perhaps you are unaware that nearly every country in the region is already at war? In the last week or so the ex president of Yemen was assasinated after trying to change sides in one war, and the PM of Lebanon was mysteriously detained in Saudi for some kind of re-education. The Israelis have bombed Syria, which has also been bombing itself. The Yemenis are starving and Quatar is under another blockade, but fortunately the Quataris are so rich they can fly in enough caviar to keep themselves going.

The only stable country is Jordan, and the king there has already signalled his displeasure at the embassy move with a yawn. He is a guy that survives by never getting involved.

The Palestinians living in Jerusalem are already under Israeli lockdown.

You're not wrong about the fragility of the region. But why throw petrol in a fire. There will be no stabilizing effect of this move.

recedite wrote:

So who exactly is going to get upset over this?

Everyone who recognizes good leadership over buffoonery.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you had any understanding of the region you would understand that there are many things that could provoke violence. It is a powder keg over there and people spend a lot of time walking on eggshells to avoid setting something off unintentionally.

Perhaps you are unaware that nearly every country in the region is already at war?
In the last week or so the ex president of Yemen was assasinated after trying to change sides in one war, and the PM of Lebanon was mysteriously detained in Saudi for some kind of re-education. The Israelis have bombed Syria, which has also been bombing itself. The Yemenis are starving and Quatar is under another blockade, but fortunately the Quataris are so rich they can fly in enough caviar to keep themselves going.

The only stable country is Jordan, and the king there has already signalled his displeasure at the embassy move with a yawn. He is a guy that survives by never getting involved.

The Palestinians living in Jerusalem are already under Israeli lockdown.

So who exactly is going to get upset over this?