The Trump Presidency...

D

Deleted 155579

Guest
You see that's typical of you truppits, anyone who disagrees with the orange man-baby is immediately insulted. I can't imagine where you got that idea from.

It's people that obtain their research from Fox News that are the degenerates, not a single one of the Hair Furor lovers has ever posted a single intelligent rebuttal.

I will "Cut & Paste" anything that contradicts what the orange maniac has said or done, if it's debatable or questionable than feel free to debate or question it.
I also implied Trump is a product or symptom of the failings in our democracy. Your solution is to double down and shout louder, maybe that will result in something worse in future.
 
I also implied Trump is a product or symptom of the failings in our democracy. Your solution is to double down and shout louder, maybe that will result in something worse in future.
I doubt that anything I do will affect the politics in the USA.

But here's an article for you to ignore, the relevancy is that it's a Chinese opinion on the trade wars.

During the last seven decades, the US, the most powerful nation in history, went on to refine/perfect the “open door” policy in ways that suited its overall trade/economic interests and strategic considerations, including its immediate military and trade priorities.

The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) following the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations in 1995 is an apogee of that onward march which began almost a century ago. Although the Uruguay Round started during the reign of the Republican administration in 1986, it was concluded by a Democratic president at the official level in December, 1993.

The US control over these so-called multilateral trade institutions is pervasive in almost all aspects. Barring some minor hiccups here and there, Washington ensured a brutal grip on decisions taken at the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.

Little wonder then that before one enters the WTO director general’s office, one has to cross the room of a deputy director general which remained permanently occupied by successive US nominees. Indeed, every small and big decision at the WTO has to be vetted by that deputy director general who is the link between the US embassy in Geneva and the director general’s office, according to several past and present trade envoys.

Against this backdrop of continued influence and control over the WTO by the world’s sole superpower, it appears surreal now to witness the destructive campaign that the Trump administration is engaged in. It threatened last week to withdraw from the WTO unless it behaves well. The main charge against the WTO is that it enabled China to accumulate staggering surpluses running into trillions of dollars.

“The Trump administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy,” the new policy says, insisting that the “overarching purpose of our trade policy—the guiding principle behind all our actions in this key area (global trade)—will be to expand trade in a way that is freer and fairer for all Americans [only]….Every action we take with respect to trade will be designed to increase our economic growth, promote job creation in the US, promote reciprocity with our trading partners, strengthen our manufacturing base and our ability to defend ourselves, and expand our agricultural and services industry exports,” it has argued.

The four major goals to achieve its objectives in global trade, according to the document submitted to the Congress are “(1) defend US National sovereignty over trade policy; (2) strictly enforce US Trade laws; (3) use all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open their markets to US exports of goods and services, and provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of US intellectual property rights; and (4) negotiate new and better trade deals (bilaterally) with countries in key markets around the world.”

How will it all end

It is an undeniable fact that China made dramatic advances since 1978. “China has soared from 10% the size of the US to 60% in 2007, 100% in 2014, and 115% today,” says Allison. “If the current trend continues,” he says, “China’s economy will be full 50% larger than that of the US by 2023… By 2040 it could be nearly three times as large. That would mean a China with triple America’s resources to use in influencing outcomes in international relations,” Allison has pointed.

China has also resorted to some questionable policies for providing market access to foreign companies. It also helped its domestic companies to grow in size, scale, and effectiveness globally. But this is what the US and other industrialized countries did for more than 200 years by stealing technologies and production processes. The destructive role played by Britain in India’s cotton textile industry is well documented.

Thus, a trade war between the ruling but declining US and rising China will continue to persist for years to come in one form or the other. Even as the European Union (EU) and Japan come under Trump’s trade war zone, it remains to be seen whether they will join China when it wants to build a broad ‘coalition of the willing’ countries to fight unilateralism.

Clearly, the weak are the wretched of the earth such as the developing countries, including India and other poor nations.
 
Trump's press conference at the NATO Summit was an incredible piece of 'aren't I wonderful' theatre. His name-checking of US defence contractors as being open for business to allow NATO allies to spend their extra budgetary commitments was a great win for his powerbase of industry and those in manufacturing jobs. Whether the increased commitment survives contact with the reality check of national parliaments and treasuries, apart from Erdogan who doesn't need to bother, will play out over the coming weeks. If it does, nations will be hard-pressed to spend the money in-year, so buying US off-the-shelf (or out of the boneyard) may be the only choice.

Alternatively, you can increase defence spending by giving the troops a pay rise!
it's almost as if he has no conception of the possibility that Yoorp might have it's own home grown, and quite capable defence industry...
 
D

Deleted 155579

Guest
Do you even Haiku, bro?
No to Haiku, it was the pertinent points in the article which demonstrated the usual media attempt to link lots of different random dots, to suggest something worse. If the media had something, they would not approach it in a roundabout fashion.

On contribution, I give opinion because the facts in many cases, are often not clear enough to rely on. Trump may well turn out to be the worst US President in history, but nobody can tell and events will shape his presidency and the judgement will come later.
 
Billy Braggart strikes again.

The boast
Donald Trump has backed down over threats to pull the US out of Nato after other leaders agreed to increase defence spending “like they never have before”.

The US president described himself as a “very stable genius” for securing agreements for extra cash after years of the burden falling on America.

Speaking in Brussels, he told reporters: “Yesterday, I let them know I was extremely unhappy with what was happening and they have substantially upped their commitment.”

Nato was now “much stronger than it was two days ago”, he said.

“I believe in Nato,” he added.

The reality
But French president Emmanuel Macron denied there had been an agreement to boost spending over 2%.

Mr Macron said: “There is a communique that was published yesterday. It’s very detailed.”

He added: “It confirms the goal of 2% by 2024. That’s all.”

He also denied reports that Mr Trump had threatened to withdraw the United States from Nato.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-
Despite Trump claim of ‘substantial’ spending boost, Canada is not announcing new money for NATO
By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News
In reality, the two per cent target was agreed on by members in 2014 as an aspirational target meant to reverse a trend of declining defence spending.

The goal is for members to strive to spend two per cent of the GDP on defence by 2024.

It is not a requirement and despite the extra money already announced for the Canadian military, Canada will not hit the two per cent target by 2024.

Given the additional money is set to roll out over the next decade, it will only increase the military’s budget to roughly 1.4 per cent of GDP
 
Last edited:

Pob02

LE
Book Reviewer
Trump is a leader an individual who does what he believes is best for his country and people his own interest and not what is best for his country and people his/her mates at Davos. How terribly selfish of him.
.
I have very kindly fixed this for you.
 
I doubt that anything I do will affect the politics in the USA.

But here's an article for you to ignore, the relevancy is that it's a Chinese opinion on the trade wars.

During the last seven decades, the US, the most powerful nation in history, went on to refine/perfect the “open door” policy in ways that suited its overall trade/economic interests and strategic considerations, including its immediate military and trade priorities.

The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) following the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations in 1995 is an apogee of that onward march which began almost a century ago. Although the Uruguay Round started during the reign of the Republican administration in 1986, it was concluded by a Democratic president at the official level in December, 1993.

The US control over these so-called multilateral trade institutions is pervasive in almost all aspects. Barring some minor hiccups here and there, Washington ensured a brutal grip on decisions taken at the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.

Little wonder then that before one enters the WTO director general’s office, one has to cross the room of a deputy director general which remained permanently occupied by successive US nominees. Indeed, every small and big decision at the WTO has to be vetted by that deputy director general who is the link between the US embassy in Geneva and the director general’s office, according to several past and present trade envoys.

Against this backdrop of continued influence and control over the WTO by the world’s sole superpower, it appears surreal now to witness the destructive campaign that the Trump administration is engaged in. It threatened last week to withdraw from the WTO unless it behaves well. The main charge against the WTO is that it enabled China to accumulate staggering surpluses running into trillions of dollars.

“The Trump administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy,” the new policy says, insisting that the “overarching purpose of our trade policy—the guiding principle behind all our actions in this key area (global trade)—will be to expand trade in a way that is freer and fairer for all Americans [only]….Every action we take with respect to trade will be designed to increase our economic growth, promote job creation in the US, promote reciprocity with our trading partners, strengthen our manufacturing base and our ability to defend ourselves, and expand our agricultural and services industry exports,” it has argued.

The four major goals to achieve its objectives in global trade, according to the document submitted to the Congress are “(1) defend US National sovereignty over trade policy; (2) strictly enforce US Trade laws; (3) use all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open their markets to US exports of goods and services, and provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of US intellectual property rights; and (4) negotiate new and better trade deals (bilaterally) with countries in key markets around the world.”

How will it all end

It is an undeniable fact that China made dramatic advances since 1978. “China has soared from 10% the size of the US to 60% in 2007, 100% in 2014, and 115% today,” says Allison. “If the current trend continues,” he says, “China’s economy will be full 50% larger than that of the US by 2023… By 2040 it could be nearly three times as large. That would mean a China with triple America’s resources to use in influencing outcomes in international relations,” Allison has pointed.

China has also resorted to some questionable policies for providing market access to foreign companies. It also helped its domestic companies to grow in size, scale, and effectiveness globally. But this is what the US and other industrialized countries did for more than 200 years by stealing technologies and production processes. The destructive role played by Britain in India’s cotton textile industry is well documented.

Thus, a trade war between the ruling but declining US and rising China will continue to persist for years to come in one form or the other. Even as the European Union (EU) and Japan come under Trump’s trade war zone, it remains to be seen whether they will join China when it wants to build a broad ‘coalition of the willing’ countries to fight unilateralism.

Clearly, the weak are the wretched of the earth such as the developing countries, including India and other poor nations.
If the UK government was smart, it'd start cosying up to China with an eye on the future, if only to hedge our bets.

There's a slight problem with that though - TMPM.
 
Looking after the family, just like any good criminal enterprise.

'DONALD Trump’s trade war has begun, and many US companies are scrambling to adjust to his new tariffs on Chinese-made goods.

'But one person whose business will not be affected is his daughter Ivanka Trump. Clothing and shoes were spared from the firing line, rendering the President’s eldest daughter immune to the sweeping transition.

'Her fashion line distributes women’s clothes, shoes, handbags and jewellery that are currently or previously were produced in a number of Asian countries including China.'

How did Ivanka get out of Trump’s trade war?
 
And the relevance is?
You know, since Hilary DIDN'T get elected?
Although the one thing you can say for her was that she certainly wasn't a shill for Vlad. They hate each other.

Even if that stupid story about Uranium One was cobbled together by the Useful Idiots of Breitbart and InfoWars to imply that she was,when any fule kno she was busy running a paedophile slave ring out of a pizza parlour.
The relevance is that politicians of all colours are up to their necks in corruption in America. They make our lot putting duck houses and moat clearing on expenses look like amateurs. I was extremely surprised to see the extent of political corruption in America.

The Clintons have been mired in corruption since Bill was governor of Arkansas. From selling Presidential pardons to taking a slice of foreign aid deals signed by Hilary when she was Secretary of State, the Clintons even had their charitable foundation pay the $3 million cost of Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Who the hell spends 3 million on a wedding?

The Republicans appear to be no better. I believe John McCain admits to $4 million per year in consultancy, speaking and other fees received from arms manufacturers. McCain is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He gets to decide in large part where America's $600 billion defence budget is spent. Can you imagine our Secretary of State for Defence being paid millions by BAe?
 
I just watched Trump’s impromptu press conference.

Full of sh1te.

Claims America coughs up 90% of the NATO budget. Rubbish.

It spends 67% of the total military expenditure of all NATO countries bundled together. And one could hardly argue that the total US military expenditure is focussed on NATO (e.g South Korea is nothing to do with NATO).

If by “NATO budget” he means the internal costs of running it as an organisation then he is at least four times adrift as it contributes 22% to this.

Source: Funding NATO
 
it's almost as if he has no conception of the possibility that Yoorp might have it's own home grown, and quite capable defence industry...
You see that's typical of you truppits, anyone who disagrees with the orange man-baby is immediately insulted. I can't imagine where you got that idea from.

It's people that obtain their research from Fox News that are the degenerates, not a single one of the Hair Furor lovers has ever posted a single intelligent rebuttal.

I will "Cut & Paste" anything that contradicts what the orange maniac has said or done, if it's debatable or questionable than feel free to debate or question it.

Hey I have not yet begun to slag you guys off! Fox News is however a source that can be used just like any other, granted I prefer to read my news honestly from multiple different sources. The morning show chick is pretty hot though.

In all seriousness I think people have forgotten that free speech works both ways, and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Even if it you don't agree with it. Sadly in this day and age most people can not handle heated discourse with folks that have different world views.
 

Top