President Trump & the USA

[Guest MattP]

His bromance with Macron is almost sickening, like another Bush and Blair job.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

His bromance with Macron is almost sickening, like another Bush and Blair job.

Yeah, I'm not sure what Macron is up to here. He might be trying to play the good cop to the rest of the world's bad cop in order to try to limit the worst excesses of Trump's administration, butt if he is I'm really not sure how well it's working and I don't see why else he'd want to toady up in the way he's doing.

[Guest MattP]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I'm not sure what Macron is up to here. He might be trying to play the good cop to the rest of the world's bad cop in order to try to limit the worst excesses of Trump's administration, butt if he is I'm really not sure how well it's working and I don't see why else he'd want to toady up in the way he's doing.

Well I imagine he's thinking of his country first, good relations with the USA is a wonderful thing to have, but also, maybe he actually finds him good company? Not something you'll read about now of course but if you search the archives there were (and I presume still are) many celebs, politicians etc that met, worked and had dinner etc with him and said he was a nice guy and pleasant to be around.

 

It is fascinating how the BBC, Guardian etc were hugely critical of May when she was cosying up but with Macron is obviously good diplomacy and he's secretly doing us all a favour, laughable tbh.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Well I imagine he's thinking of his country first, good relations with the USA is a wonderful thing to have, but also, maybe he actually finds him good company? Not something you'll read about now of course but if you search the archives there were (and I presume still are) many celebs, politicians etc that met, worked and had dinner etc with him and said he was a nice guy and pleasant to be around.

 

It is fascinating how the BBC, Guardian etc were hugely critical of May when she was cosying up but with Macron is obviously good diplomacy and he's secretly doing us all a favour, laughable tbh.

I honestly don't think Macron is doing us all a favour - he might be trying to but it isn't working IMO, unless there's stuff going on behind the scenes that no one knows about. As a result, I'm not big on the angle being shown on this one either.

 

FWIW I would think that Trump is perhaps better company than some in his administration; I daresay those with power and influence enjoy being around those with like power and influence. I think I've said before that my real issue isn't necessarily with him (for all the times he puts his foot in it on Twitter and all) but those his victory has enabled elsewhere who are perhaps smarter and definitely more malicious in their desire to exert power over those they consider lesser. Pretty much any Repub winner would have had the same result, with the possible exception of Kasich.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly don't think Macron is doing us all a favour - he might be trying to but it isn't working IMO, unless there's stuff going on behind the scenes that no one knows about. As a result, I'm not big on the angle being shown on this one either.

 

FWIW I would think that Trump is perhaps better company than some in his administration; I daresay those with power and influence enjoy being around those with like power and influence. I think I've said before that my real issue isn't necessarily with him (for all the times he puts his foot in it on Twitter and all) but those his victory has enabled elsewhere who are perhaps smarter and definitely more malicious in their desire to exert power over those they consider lesser. Pretty much any Repub winner would have had the same result, with the possible exception of Kasich.

Why not?

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why not?

Is there any evidence that what Macron has said to him etc has had a positive effect on his policy decisions? If there is, that would be good to see.

Edited 25 April 2018 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is there any evidence that what Macron has said to him etc has had a positive effect on his policy decisions? If there is, that would be good to see.

No idea, it's certain he had some dialogue with him before the Syria strikes though which look tempered.

 

I was just a bit bemused you had already taken the position this was doing nobody any good, would have felt the same had he gone to meet Hillary Clinton because there was no evidence it had changed any policy?

[Jattdogg]

Surprise these two didnt give eachother a reach around.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

No idea, it's certain he had some dialogue with him before the Syria strikes though which look tempered.

 

I was just a bit bemused you had already taken the position this was doing nobody any good, would have felt the same had he gone to meet Hillary Clinton because there was no evidence it had changed any policy?

TBH I wasn't the one who brought up their relationship as a negative in the first place, so I'm not quite sure what we're debating here? Is it a good thing or a bad thing or somewhere in between, in your view? (My own take being that hobnobbing with Trump and trying to play good cop is a good idea in principle in order to limit his excesses but I'm not seeing much effect on policy in practice.)

 

Regarding if Hillary (or most other Dem candidates) was there instead, I think that it's pretty moot as a.) The world as a whole would likely be getting along better in terms of relationships and policy with such an administration so such behaviour from Macron wouldn't be necessary anyway; interests would already be aligned and b.) We'll never get to know beyond the theoretical because the Dems ran a historically shit campaign.

 

[Guest MattP]

22 hours ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I wasn't the one who brought up their relationship as a negative in the first place, so I'm not quite sure what we're debating here? Is it a good thing or a bad thing or somewhere in between, in your view? (My own take being that hobnobbing with Trump and trying to play good cop is a good idea in principle in order to limit his excesses but I'm not seeing much effect on policy in practice.)

 

Regarding if Hillary (or most other Dem candidates) was there instead, I think that it's pretty moot as a.) The world as a whole would likely be getting along better in terms of relationships and policy with such an administration so such behaviour from Macron wouldn't be necessary anyway; interests would already be aligned and b.) We'll never get to know beyond the theoretical because the Dems ran a historically shit campaign.

I think good relations between leaders of liberal democratic Western nations is always I good thing, I think turning your back on someone because you don't like the policy/party would be childish and ridiculous. Even if Bernie Sanders won I'd want our PM talking to him and building a bond, I wouldn't throw my toys out the pram because I think he'd be a disaster, the long term is far more important than the short-term.

 

Regarding the bolded bit, I think that's a pretty incredible assertion giving had that happened we'd now be bombing Syrian airfields and be well involved in direct conflict with Russia and playing a huge part in the Syrian Civil War -  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-calls-for-u-s-to-bomb-syrian-air-fields-idUSKBN179058

 

You might have had the support of the French, but you wouldn't have got those strikes through our parliament and can you imagine the UN response to it given what we saw just to a few mild drops on chemical weapons factories.

 

Again I think you looking at this through the prism of hating Trump and not looking at what Clinton was actually proposing.

[Wymsey]

[Guest MattP]

Get a few quid on Nikki Haley to win the next Repubican nomination, currently 25/1, very possible and she even polls pretty sensational numbers among Democrat voters..

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/nikki-haley-approval-rating/index.html

 

It would also be worth it just to see the look on the face of Hillary if the US elected a non-white woman to office.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I think good relations between leaders of liberal democratic Western nations is always I good thing, I think turning your back on someone because you don't like the policy/party would be childish and ridiculous. Even if Bernie Sanders won I'd want our PM talking to him and building a bond, I wouldn't throw my toys out the pram because I think he'd be a disaster, the long term is far more important than the short-term.

 

Regarding the bolded bit, I think that's a pretty incredible assertion giving had that happened we'd now be bombing Syrian airfields and be well involved in direct conflict with Russia and playing a huge part in the Syrian Civil War -  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-calls-for-u-s-to-bomb-syrian-air-fields-idUSKBN179058

 

You might have had the support of the French, but you wouldn't have got those strikes through our parliament and can you imagine the UN response to it given what we saw just to a few mild drops on chemical weapons factories.

 

Again I think you looking at this through the prism of hating Trump and not looking at what Clinton was actually proposing.

Again though, this is all speculative. You might be right, but were never going to know.

 

Having good relations between countries is always nice but for me the key mark of a true friend is when they can sit down with you and tell you honestly and kindly that they think you're screwing up. I would hope that the UK and the US, at least, have that kind of bond.

 

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Get a few quid on Nikki Haley to win the next Repubican nomination, currently 25/1, very possible and she even polls pretty sensational numbers among Democrat voters..

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/nikki-haley-approval-rating/index.html

 

It would also be worth it just to see the look on the face of Hillary if the US elected a non-white woman to office.

Haley has grown on me of late tbh, at the start she seemed to just be another foreign policy hawk sent to extol American exceptionalism and treat the international community with typical contempt, but she's shown of late she has more of a mind of her own than that.

[Claridge]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

I think good relations between leaders of liberal democratic Western nations is always I good thing, I think turning your back on someone because you don't like the policy/party would be childish and ridiculous. Even if Bernie Sanders won I'd want our PM talking to him and building a bond, I wouldn't throw my toys out the pram because I think he'd be a disaster, the long term is far more important than the short-term.

 

Regarding the bolded bit, I think that's a pretty incredible assertion giving had that happened we'd now be bombing Syrian airfields and be well involved in direct conflict with Russia and playing a huge part in the Syrian Civil War -  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-calls-for-u-s-to-bomb-syrian-air-fields-idUSKBN179058

 

You might have had the support of the French, but you wouldn't have got those strikes through our parliament and can you imagine the UN response to it given what we saw just to a few mild drops on chemical weapons factories.

 

Again I think you looking at this through the prism of hating Trump and not looking at what Clinton was actually proposing.

A bit of a loose cannon but it seems to me that Trumps doing a decent job on the economy and Korea.

Easy to slag him off as he says stupid things,but his actions seem to be working in some respects.

 

[breadandcheese]

4 minutes ago, Claridge said:

A bit of a loose cannon but it seems to me that Trumps doing a decent job on the economy and Korea.

Easy to slag him off as he says stupid things,but his actions seem to be working in some respects.

 

I do worry about Trump's economic policy.  He's embarking on a loosening of fiscal policy at the top of an economic cycle.  To my mind, that's stupidity.

 

Internationally, he has surpassed expectations and the signs on Korea are encouraging.

Edited 26 April 2018 by breadandcheese

[Claridge]

12 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I do worry about Trump's economic policy.  He's embarking on a loosening of fiscal policy at the top of an economic cycle.  To my mind, that's stupidity.

 

Internationally, he has surpassed expectations and the signs on Korea are encouraging.

Yes,it may be boom and bust again,but if it can be channelled towards the rust belt states,then he will be doing what he promised(well some of the more normal stuff)

[Mike Oxlong]

 

[Alf Bentley]

On 4/26/2018 at 11:44, MattP said:

Get a few quid on Nikki Haley to win the next Repubican nomination, currently 25/1, very possible and she even polls pretty sensational numbers among Democrat voters..

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/nikki-haley-approval-rating/index.html

 

It would also be worth it just to see the look on the face of Hillary if the US elected a non-white woman to office.

 

I must be getting dimmer with age as I didn't realise she was non-white until I read this and checked Wiki - from an American Sikh family with Indian parents.

 

Likewise, I didn't realise Meghan Markle was of mixed race until the media made a big deal of it.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I must be getting dimmer with age as I didn't realise she was non-white until I read this and checked Wiki - from an American Sikh family with Indian parents.

 

Likewise, I didn't realise Meghan Markle was of mixed race until the media made a big deal of it.

 

Yes ?

[Sampson]

Someone's going to have to explain the rationale behind the planned protests on Trump's visit here to me?

 

Protesting your own nation's leaders peacefully - absolutely. But what are protesters hoping to actually achieved by protesting another nation's leader - especially a democratically elected one.

 

Dialogue between leaders and diplomats is never a bad thing and I'd hope we'd happily welcome dialogue with any leader no matter how abhorrent and I'd happily see any world leader come for a diplomatic visit to the UK even if they murdered 100million of their own people.

 

But I can't imagine any leader is going to change because of protests by the UK people. All I can see it doing is making them not want to come back for dialogue with us in the future - sour any diplomatic ties between us or in a very unlikely extreme cause them to boycott us or even cause them to put forward Economic sanctions.

 

If any pressure is going to come for change from protests it needs to come from it's own people in it's own streets shutting down its own Economy. And for any protest to have any impact against Trump it needs to come from the American people not us. Protests in the UK will likely be entirely pointless and if they are to have any effect it seems much more likely to me to be a detrimental one than a positive one.

 

So can someone please explain to me what these planned protests are trying to achieve? Because I really really don't get it.

[Vacamion]

5 hours ago, Sampson said:

Someone's going to have to explain the rationale behind the planned protests on Trump's visit here to me?

 

Protesting your own nation's leaders peacefully - absolutely. But what are protesters hoping to actually achieved by protesting another nation's leader - especially a democratically elected one.

 

Dialogue between leaders and diplomats is never a bad thing and I'd hope we'd happily welcome dialogue with any leader no matter how abhorrent and I'd happily see any world leader come for a diplomatic visit to the UK even if they murdered 100million of their own people.

 

But I can't imagine any leader is going to change because of protests by the UK people. All I can see it doing is making them not want to come back for dialogue with us in the future - sour any diplomatic ties between us or in a very unlikely extreme cause them to boycott us or even cause them to put forward Economic sanctions.

 

If any pressure is going to come for change from protests it needs to come from it's own people in it's own streets shutting down its own Economy. And for any protest to have any impact against Trump it needs to come from the American people not us. Protests in the UK will likely be entirely pointless and if they are to have any effect it seems much more likely to me to be a detrimental one than a positive one.

 

So can someone please explain to me what these planned protests are trying to achieve? Because I really really don't get it.

 

Why protest? 

 

Hmmmmm, that's a toughie.

 

Why protest against a racist, misogynistic, climate change denier, and self confessed sexual harasser, accused by multiple women of sexual assault, whose policies threaten the long established international order and global trade, and who sees "both sides" when neo Nazis are parading, retweets Britain First's racist lies and whose rhetoric enables and emboldens prejudice and hatred?

 

Why protest in London against the man who picked a fight with the Mayor, who piled on with the Alt Right after terror attacks to suggest, incorrectly, and presumably for reasons of prejudice, that London was under siege Andi constant danger.

 

Why protest up here in Scotland against the educationally subnormal golf course owner and reality show host, who called some wind farms off the coast of Scotland "worse than Pan Am 103" (the Lockerbie disaster)?

 

Maybe it's because if you silently allow him to visit and enjoy himself here, you are going along with what he stands for and has stood for.

 

Maybe it's that people want him to know that some of his words and actions are wrong and have consequences.

 

Maybe it's that you feel sick to your stomach when your Prime Minister, desperate for his favours because of our post Brexit isolation, let's him hold her hand.

 

As such, I'll stand with anyone protesting against his visit.

 

Screw him.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Why protest? 

 

Hmmmmm, that's a toughie.

 

Why protest against a racist, misogynistic, climate change denier, and self confessed sexual harasser, accused by multiple women of sexual assault, whose policies threaten the long established international order and global trade, and who sees "both sides" when neo Nazis are parading, retweets Britain First's racist lies and whose rhetoric enables and emboldens prejudice and hatred?

 

Why protest in London against the man who picked a fight with the Mayor, who piled on with the Alt Right after terror attacks to suggest, incorrectly, and presumably for reasons of prejudice, that London was under siege Andi constant danger.

 

Why protest up here in Scotland against the educationally subnormal golf course owner and reality show host, who called some wind farms off the coast of Scotland "worse than Pan Am 103" (the Lockerbie disaster)?

 

Maybe it's because if you silently allow him to visit and enjoy himself here, you are going along with what he stands for and has stood for.

 

Maybe it's that people want him to know that some of his words and actions are wrong and have consequences.

 

Maybe it's that you feel sick to your stomach when your Prime Minister, desperate for his favours because of our post Brexit isolation, let's him hold her hand.

 

As such, I'll stand with anyone protesting against his visit.

 

Screw him.

 

 

[breadandcheese]

Is it protesting or virtue signalling?

[Claridge]

6 hours ago, Sampson said:

Someone's going to have to explain the rationale behind the planned protests on Trump's visit here to me?

 

Protesting your own nation's leaders peacefully - absolutely. But what are protesters hoping to actually achieved by protesting another nation's leader - especially a democratically elected one.

 

Dialogue between leaders and diplomats is never a bad thing and I'd hope we'd happily welcome dialogue with any leader no matter how abhorrent and I'd happily see any world leader come for a diplomatic visit to the UK even if they murdered 100million of their own people.

 

But I can't imagine any leader is going to change because of protests by the UK people. All I can see it doing is making them not want to come back for dialogue with us in the future - sour any diplomatic ties between us or in a very unlikely extreme cause them to boycott us or even cause them to put forward Economic sanctions.

 

If any pressure is going to come for change from protests it needs to come from it's own people in it's own streets shutting down its own Economy. And for any protest to have any impact against Trump it needs to come from the American people not us. Protests in the UK will likely be entirely pointless and if they are to have any effect it seems much more likely to me to be a detrimental one than a positive one.

 

So can someone please explain to me what these planned protests are trying to achieve? Because I really really don't get it.

Because they have nothing better to do.

[Vacamion]

14 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Is it protesting or virtue signalling?

 

Don’t care what you or the world think about protesters. Just want him to know that stuff he says and does is wrong, and people won’t stand for it.