Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,891 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

had Hillary been elected, and they won't go away with the next POTUS.  

 

 

 

And there we have it, the H bomb, and I'm fairly sure your entire motivation for being on this thread.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Chocky said:

 

And there we have it, the H bomb, and I'm fairly sure your entire motivation for being on this thread.

 

Personalities change but national interests don't.   Trump's tone and style are different, but his policies not so much.  

 

Ĺook at most countries which are stable and democratic.  If there is a change in ruling party, you might notice cosmetic changes, but a surprising amount of continuity in foreign policy.  

 

Differences in personalities are mostly exploited to influence domestic politics.  

 

Relax. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, balticus said:

Personalities change but national interests don't.   Trump's tone and style are different, but his policies not so much.  

 

Can you name one of his policies?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chocky said:

 

Can you name one of his policies?

 

Typed earlier:

 

NS2, NATO contributions, Huawei, Iran, and obsolete trade arrangements without corresponding security arrangements would have been issues had Hillary been elected, and they won't go away with the next POTUS.  

 

They are issues between the US and Germany and would be no matter who is POTUS.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL, none of those are policies, they are right-wing talking points inspired either by stuff that came off 4Chan and filtered down to Fox News, out or by his childlike need to flip the table on anything that was related to Obama. Every single one of his 'policies' are idiotic and have nothing to do with reality. Btw, if you think I'm being facetious about the Obama thing, watch O roasting Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondent's dinner  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA

Trump the old racist couldn't handle getting owned by the black guy.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chocky said:

ROFL, none of those are policies, they are right-wing talking points

 

Discussed at forums like the Munich Security Conference.

6 minutes ago, Chocky said:

 Btw, if you think I'm being facetious about the Obama thing, watch O roasting Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondent's dinner.

 

Do you think this drives foreign policy?   🙄

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, balticus said:

NS2, NATO contributions, Huawei, Iran, and obsolete trade arrangements without corresponding security arrangements

 

You seem to be claiming that these would have been ongoing major issues for Hillary had she won, as well as her successor. Trump made them appear like geopolitical handgrenades because his only motivation for highlighting them was for the reasons I mentioned above. They ARE issues, but Trump's 'new' trade deal was nothing but NAFTA 1.1, and the Iran agreement was undersigned by every major western power with ZERO evidence that Iran had breached the agreement by the time Trump got into office.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chocky said:

 

You seem to be claiming that these would have been ongoing major issues for Hillary had she won, as well as her successor. Trump made them appear like geopolitical handgrenades because his only motivation for highlighting them was for the reasons I mentioned above. They ARE issues, but Trump's 'new' trade deal was nothing but NAFTA 1.1, and the Iran agreement was undersigned by every major western power with ZERO evidence that Iran had breached the agreement by the time Trump got into office.

 

The Iran agreement was never passed by the US Senate, nor was the Paris Agreement.  

 

NAFTA is a different topic.   Europe will not get trade preferences when exporting to the US because it is no longer crucial to do this to counter the Soviets + Warsaw Pact.   30 years after the fact, the trade agreements set up to underpin security will no longer be supported.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, balticus said:

 

The Iran agreement was never passed by the US Senate, nor was the Paris Agreement.

 

 

Haha, you're funny, you really expect that the idiot Republicans, with the likes of Sen. Tom Cotton sending letters directly to the Mullahs stating that no deal of Obama's would ever be agreed to by his party, and therefore undermining duly elected President Obama's authority, and sub-human turtle man Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader were EVER going to agree to those?? As a stranger on the internet, I will be charitable and assume you are just misinformed rather than being true to form as a typically venal right-winger.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chocky said:

 

and therefore undermining duly elected President Obama's authority

 

Therein lies your misunderstanding.    The POTUS is a weak executive and the system is designed that way.    If the Pres controls the House and Senate, he can still be blocked by a Federal court.   You might remember that Trump's ban of people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries was struck down by some Circuit Court somewhere.    Presidential authority isn't worth that much and if you don't get all the approvals, a successor can overturn or terminate an open initiative.

 

You might remember that after WWI, the US did not join the League of Nations as the President at the time couldn't get it through the Senate.   

 

That is a funny thing about Obama (though not atypical for a politician).   He put a lot of effort into the Iran deal (not so much into the Paris accord), but he did not try to make deals to get the Iran deal through the Senate.   Everyone has their price and he wasn't willing to make concessions or offer incentives to push it through.   FWIW, i totally see the logic of AN Iran deal, but see the flaws of one which was negotiated.    For example, Iran was not asked to pull back its operations/support in Lebanon, Syria or Yemen.   There were a few open loopholes.  

 

Don't put too much meaning into right or left wing, because as i have stated, my main argument is that in foreign policy, countries have a fairly fixed trajectory, and the party and personality of the POTUS does not really matter.  

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the reason he invented his Space Force. Neurosyphilis now at Level 4 and counting.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump started the Handshake Wars, Macron gets in the death blow:

5d64d41222a88_fark_nl04tf2pp7xpflav0miax

 

Cucked by a Frenchman - Trump's supporters must be so proud.

 

Full video on the Twatters:

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All 4 FISA were illegal. Oh dear...

 

McCabe in hot water but may crawl out as all Swamp creatures do...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now