Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

An article from that idiot Andrew Bolt. Is it really worth reading?

He is already a known liar. No its not just me, its the Australian courts when he was sued for hate speech, it was pointed out he would have won if his claims were true, irregardless of whether its hateful. He is a fucking liar.

*************************************************
cosmicalstorm doesn't seem to understand that allies aren't yes men. You give and take. Australia has jumped upon America's military (mis)adventures without much asking. Yet the US can't even take some refugees MORE than what we can take when they have a much larger population. But then the US couldn't even back us over East Timor. Finally Indonesia caved over that one, no help to Clinton (who was POTUS at that time).

Now I don't particularly like Turnbull, but a deal's a deal and allies help each other. Fortunately for Trump, Australia can't push back, and the conservatives in Australia won't, because they like sucking America's cock. At least the ALP isn't afraid of criticising allies when they think they fucked up. Other countries though, might be willing to push back, cough Russia, cough China, cough cough.

To fuckwitted empty-skulled shitlords like comicalstorm, might makes right and the US has no allies, just minion nations who exist to do our bidding.

[Flagg]

You're not supposed to SAY these things out loud as a freaking staff member of the White House. For fucks sake.

According the article he didn't. He said long before coming a staff member of the White House.

I just hope the picture looks different when you actually have the responsibility.

That's why this is so bad. Because either Trump knew and agreed/didn't care, or the vetting process was worse than Palins or nonexistent.

[mr friendly guy]

From what I remember reading, such a trade war could cause China's growth to go down by roughly 3 percentage points and the US to go into recession.

In my experience many supposedly well-informed people seem to believe that if the Chinese economy doesn't double in size at least twice a decade the entire country will turn into a flaming train wreck of human misery and the worst aspects of the 1930s, the Cultural Revolution and Somalia will be reenacted or something stupid like that.

Whatcha wanna bet that Trump is either one of those people or ends up listening to one of them and concludes that China wouldn't dare challenge him once he starts putting the screws on them?

Oh you mean the Economist magazine? Ok that was a bit hyperbole, but these are the guys a decade or so ago said China was running out of steam at a predicted 7% growth. Which was quite funny because that's higher than Japan's growth during the 80s where pundits thought Japan would surpass the US, and no one thought Japan was running out of steam at somewhat lower growth than 7%. It seems that China is held to a higher standard in all things economic.

[Civil War Man]

Yeah, I think insulting the Australian government, who themselves are shitheads, is not the appropriate thing to focus on.

For me, it doesn't even really have anything to do with Australia, though it does take a special kind of stupid for an American President to cause a diplomatic incident with Australia. But even if every single Australian official were a flawless saint, being a jackass to them over the phone and then hanging up on them pales in comparison to pointless saber rattling and blustering about how he's going to do a modern day reboot of Blackjack Pershing's Pancho Villa Expedition.

[SCRawl]

Patroklos and Flagg, and everyone else for that matter, there is no purpose to these content-free flame-posts. Stop doing them.

I will barrel the worthless posts. Let there be no more after this.

[mr friendly guy]

Speaking of Trump starting wars, I read in the letters to my local paper that Obama was too easy on China and Russia, and that embolden them and Trump would be tougher. Well this is the same guy who said China could keep the drone after China took an American drone? Hmm, are these guys on another planet. But it will get better. For example using that logic, if Trump doesn't invade Mexico to get the "bad hombres" it will just embolden China and Russia.

[Flagg]

Speaking of Trump starting wars, I read in the letters to my local paper that Obama was too easy on China and Russia, and that embolden them and Trump would be tougher. Well this is the same guy who said China could keep the drone after China took an American drone? Hmm, are these guys on another planet. But it will get better. For example using that logic, if Trump doesn't invade Mexico to get the "bad hombres" it will just embolden China and Russia.

The guy didn't even know Russia had invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. I'm not sure he even knows where Mexico is.

[Simon_Jester]

To fuckwitted empty-skulled shitlords like comicalstorm, might makes right and the US has no allies, just minion nations who exist to do our bidding.

The odd thing is, cosmicalstorm doesn't even live in the US. He lives in Sweden.

A clear case of... Stockholm Syndrome.

[Flagg]

To fuckwitted empty-skulled shitlords like comicalstorm, might makes right and the US has no allies, just minion nations who exist to do our bidding.

The odd thing is, cosmicalstorm doesn't even live in the US. He lives in Sweden.

A clear case of... Stockholm Syndrome.

I'm so going to murder you. With laughter.

[mr friendly guy]

To fuckwitted empty-skulled shitlords like comicalstorm, might makes right and the US has no allies, just minion nations who exist to do our bidding.

The odd thing is, cosmicalstorm doesn't even live in the US. He lives in Sweden.

A clear case of... Stockholm Syndrome.

I don't really like to do +1 posts, but damn that is funny.

[Ralin]

It seems that China is held to a higher standard in all things economic.

I suppose you could say they've learned from their mistake with Japan?

[The Romulan Republic]

If he actually did invade Mexico, would the US actually win?

In a conventional conflict, the US will beat any other single nation on Earth, realistically.

Weather its worth the cost, particularly given America's poor history when it comes to handling insurgencies/occupations post-WWII, is another matter, of course.

Edit: Although a major war where the US has had a physical border with the enemy and our own soil can be easily attacked has not occurred in living memory.

A war where the primary ethnic/national group on the opposing side is also a major ethnic/national group in our own country hasn't happened since, I guess, the Civil War.

Yeah, this would be an utter clusterfuck, so hopefully Trump is just shooting his mouth off.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This thread is for Trump's foreign policy related madness. All such topics go in here.

And it seems I am unable to sticky threads (maybe only supermods can do that?).

[Simon_Jester]

This is a mix of foreign and domestic policy issues, so I'm going to cross-post it on both threads in hopes of getting a unified discussion rolling:

[K. A. Pital]

Stickied. Term of sticking will be until this loses relevance... that is, when Trump goes.

Thanks much for all the merging, Aly!

[FaxModem1]

Some much needed humor:

[Simon_Jester]

...I really, really like that one. I hope they do more like it.

[Gandalf]

...I really, really like that one. I hope they do more like it.

I wager they will. The next four/eight years are going to be a goldmine for good comedians, especially women and minorities.

It might be one of the few upsides of the whole Trump experiment.

[FaxModem1]

Parliament will not invite Trump if he visits the UK. The Independent

Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker John Bercow says
MPs break into spontaneous applause as Speaker says he will not permit the President to address Westminster Hall

Jon Stone Political Correspondent @joncstone 8 hours ago1390 comments

Donald Trump is set to visit the UK later this year
POPULAR VIDEOS

Donald Trump will not be welcome to address Parliament on his state visit to the UK because of its opposition to racism and to sexism, the Speaker of the House of Commons has said in a major snub to the American President.

In a dramatic intervention, John Bercow, the Speaker, said he was “strongly opposed” to Mr Trump speaking in the Commons as he stressed that being invited to address Parliament was “not an automatic right” but “an earned honour”.

“Before the imposition of the migrant ban I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall," Mr Bercow told MPs.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.”

Parts of the Commons erupted into rare spontaneous applause in support of Mr Bercow’s statement.

The intervention will cause headaches in Downing Street, where Theresa May has bent over backwards to rekindle the so-called special relationship with the US.

Veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner, speaking after Mr Bercow’s statement said: “Further to that point of order: two words: well done.”

Theresa May repeatedly refuses to condemn Donald Trump immigration ban
The Speaker said: “We value our relationship with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker.

“However, as far as this place is concerned I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”

Theresa May invited Mr Trump to make a state visit to the UK on her recent trip to the United States. She said he would fly to Britain before the end of the year.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and others have said that the visit should be cancelled until Mr Trump rescinds his “Muslim ban” on travellers from some countries.

Whether the controversial president would address Parliament has been a particular source of contention. Foreign leaders on state visits sometimes address Westminster Hall, which lies in the House of Commons, or Royal Gallery in the House of Lords.

Mr Trump’s visit is fast emerging as a political minefield. His team are reportedly hoping avoid any meeting with Prince Charles, whose environmental campaigning might put him at odds with the president.

bercow.png
Speaker John Bercow in the House of Commons (House of Commons)
Mr Bercow said he was one of the three “keyholders” to Westminster Hall and also said he would not permit an invitation to the Royal Gallery in the House of Commons to be made in his name.

He admitted that he would “perhaps have a strong a say in that matter” but said that “customarily an invitation to a visiting leader to deliver an address there would be issued in the names of the two speakers”.

“I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery,” he concluded.

The Speaker’s intervention is a particularly stunning development because the post is politically neutral. Mr Bercow was previously a Conservative MP before he was elected to the role; following convention he then gave up any party affiliation.

Nearly two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump's state visit to be cancelled in just days after it was announced. MPs are to debate the issue in Westminster Hall.

[Simon_Jester]

I always find it reassuring on some level when the British display decency and positive applications of nerve.

[SpottedKitty]

"Parts of the Commons" applauded... guess which parts? The large crowd sitting on the Opposition side. The sparse collection of the usual suspects on the Government side just sat there like tailors' dummies as usual, arms and legs crossed. Wonder if there'll be any reaction?

It's 3AM. Do you know where your tweeter is...?

[Zaune]

I always find it reassuring on some level when the British display decency and positive applications of nerve.

Don't expect it to last.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't, I just like it when it happens.

[Dragon Angel]

Visitors to the US may need to surrender social media passwords to pass verification.

People who want to visit the United States could be asked to hand over their social-media passwords to officials as part of enhanced security checks, the country's top domestic security chief said.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress on Tuesday the measure was one of several being considered to vet refugees and visa applicants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

"We want to get on their social media, with passwords: What do you do, what do you say?" he told the House Homeland Security Committee. "If they don't want to cooperate then you don't come in."

His comments came the same day judges heard arguments over President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily barring entry to most refugees and travelers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen.

Kelly, a Trump appointee, stressed that asking for people's passwords was just one of "the things that we're thinking about" and that none of the suggestions were concrete.

Under the existing vetting process, according to Kelly, officials "don't have a lot to work with," relying on the applicant's documentation and asking them questions about their background.

He said this was even more problematic when dealing with so-called "failed states" such as Syria or Somalia, where infrastructure and record-keeping has been degraded by conflict.

"When someone says, 'I'm from this town and this was my occupation,' [officials] essentially have to take the word of the individual," he said. "I frankly don't think that's enough, certainly President Trump doesn't think that's enough. So we've got to maybe add some additional layers."

As well as asking people for their passwords, Kelly said he was looking at trying to obtain people's financial records.

"We can follow the money, so to speak. How are you living, who's sending you money?" he said. "It applies under certain circumstances, to individuals who may be involved in on the payroll of terrorist organizations."

Obtaining visitors' passwords was considered by top officials at the Department of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, but the policy was never adopted, according to an internal department memo obtained by MSNBC in 2015.

[Lost Soal]

A single refugee goes through more vetting than pretty much every member of the cabinet combined yet they act like all they do is sign their names then walk into the country.