U.S President: Donald Trump

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Osem

Whatever's happened to all those huge demonstrations the media were predicting following Trump's victory. You know, all the massive, violent, anti-Trump protests which we were told were in the offing and would rock the Whitehouse. Maybe they've gone the same was as all those ridiculous project fear Brexit predictions...

George Soros is on an 'economy drive'? (no chance!)
The liberal protesters have come to their senses? (extremely doubtful)
The illuminate are on their annual holiday? (Oh, dear; that one won't go down well )
Hillary's actually still in charge, secretly running the shadow government, and word's got out to the protesters?


Other than the above; I'm out!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by passingbat

George Soros is on an 'economy drive'? (no chance!)
The liberal protesters have come to their senses? (extremely doubtful)
The illuminate are on their annual holiday? (Oh, dear; that one won't go down well )
Hillary's actually still in charge, secretly running the shadow government, and word's got out to the protesters?


Other than the above; I'm out!

Ha ha. Re your final point: Trump has junked all those foreign policies that got him elected (build a wall, Nato is obsolete, don't get involved in the Middle East, adopt a two-nation Chinese policy, move embassy to Jerusalem) and is now following the Hillary Clinton playbook. No bad thing.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Whatever's happened to all those huge demonstrations the media were predicting following Trump's victory. You know, all the massive, violent, anti-Trump protests which we were told were in the offing and would rock the Whitehouse. Maybe they've gone the same was as all those ridiculous project fear Brexit predictions...

150 demonstrations across the US today as protestors try to get Trump to disclose his tax return.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39610443

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Ha ha. Trump has junked all those foreign policies that got him elected (build a wall, Nato is obsolete, don't get involved in the Middle East, adopt a two-nation Chinese policy, move embassy to Jerusalem) and is now following the Hillary Clinton playbook. No bad thing.

The wall building has not been abandoned
Trump policy* to move the embassy to Jerusalem has not been abandoned
Trump fully supports Israel; Obama couldn't care less
Sanctuary cities are being dealt with
Illegal Mexican border crossings are down a reportedly 60% since Trump took office (not checked the figures)
US overseas abortion funding has been stopped
He is also cutting funding to abortion in the US http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7683786.html
Bathroom laws are moving from federal to individual state law
As promised, a Supreme court judge has been appointed who believes in traditional moral standards.
I'm not aware that the travel ban and increased vetting has been abandoned; just held up by the politically correct liberals.
He is increasing military spending
* I believe that policy has been around for years, but no one, except Trump, has had any serious interest in making it happen, if possible.


Wow, that really is the Hilary Clinton playbook (not)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by passingbat

The wall building has not been abandoned
Trump policy* to move the embassy to Jerusalem has not been abandoned
Trump fully supports Israel; Obama couldn't care less
Sanctuary cities are being dealt with
Illegal Mexican border crossings are down a reportedly 60% since Trump took office (not checked the figures)
US overseas abortion funding has been stopped
He is also cutting funding to abortion in the US http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7683786.html
Bathroom laws are moving from federal to individual state law
As promised, a Supreme court judge has been appointed who believes in traditional moral standards.
I'm not aware that the travel ban and increased vetting has been abandoned; just held up by the politically correct liberals.
He is increasing military spending
* I believe that policy has been around for years, but no one, except Trump, has had any serious interest in making it happen, if possible.


Wow, that really is the Hilary Clinton playbook (not)

I was talking about foreign policy and in this I am sure you will agree he is closer to the Clinton Playbook than the policies he was elected on. And that's no bad thing.
Once someone ceases seeing the world through the eyes of Fox News or Breitbart, as Trump has done, their policies become a tad more sensible.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I was talking about foreign policy.

When the 'red line' was crossed under Obama, why did he not do the same as Trump? Hilary is effectively an Obama clone.

Seriously Andrew your trying to imply Trump is following the clinton foreign policy line which was just an extension of the obama line which Trump has clearly not followed so far nor looks like doing anytime soon. Obama and his disinterest is why we have the situation with North Korea and it's why Russia has taken more aggressive steps then it was before Obama and lets not mention the total mess he created in Syria. Obama was a foreign policy disaster and clinton would have managed to be worse given her attitude that baiting Russia was a good idea, the further Trump stays away from their line the better for all of us.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Seriously Andrew your trying to imply Trump is following the clinton foreign policy line which was just an extension of the obama line which Trump has clearly not followed so far nor looks like doing anytime soon. Obama and his disinterest is why we have the situation with North Korea and it's why Russia has taken more aggressive steps then it was before Obama and lets not mention the total mess he created in Syria. Obama was a foreign policy disaster and clinton would have managed to be worse given her attitude that baiting Russia was a good idea, the further Trump stays away from their line the better for all of us.

Before the campaign Clinton wanted to have interventions in Syria and Trump didn't. He said it would help start WW3 and provoke Russia. He also criticised Obama over even attempting to intervene in Syria.

Trump, against Clinton's thinking, wanted to label China a currency manipulator. He didn't do that either.

He's certainly moving closer to the traditional American foreign policy for which he should be commended imo.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Before the campaign Clinton wanted to have interventions in Syria and Trump didn't. He said it would help start WW3 and provoke Russia. He also criticised Obama over even attempting to intervene in Syria.

Trump, against Clinton's thinking, wanted to label China a currency manipulator. He didn't do that either.

He's certainly moving closer to the traditional American foreign policy for which he should be commended imo.

As always, you put it better than I can and yes, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Clinton was only interested in provoking Russia if something wasn't going to do that she wasn't interested and obama did lots of talking and very little action assad called his bluff and nothing happened. Trump is not an extension of their foreign policy line at all and his relationship with putin makes it harder for Russia to play the victim removing some of their advantage that they had before.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Clinton was only interested in provoking Russia if something wasn't going to do that she wasn't interested and obama did lots of talking and very little action assad called his bluff and nothing happened. Trump is not an extension of their foreign policy line at all and his relationship with putin makes it harder for Russia to play the victim removing some of their advantage that they had before.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/0...opped-in-2016/

To determine how many U.S. bombs were dropped on each Iraq and Syria, we looked at the percentage of total U.S. OIR airstrikes conducted in each country. They were nearly evenly split, with 49.8 percent (or 2,941 airstrikes) carried out in Iraq, and 50.2 percent (or 2,963 airstrikes) in Syria. Therefore, the number of bombs dropped were also nearly the same in the two countries (12,095 in Iraq; 12,192 in Syria). Last year, the United States conducted approximately 67 percent of airstrikes in Iraq in 2016, and 96 percent of those in Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...u-need-to-know

There have been almost 3,000 airstrikes against Isis targets in Syria since a US-led campaign began in September 2014. More than 95% of these have been conducted by the United States.

3,000 airstrikes in Syria in 2016, and the same amount in 2015, seems to be a bit more than "very little action"...

Originally Posted by Hugh

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/0...opped-in-2016/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...u-need-to-know

3,000 airstrikes in Syria in 2016, and the same amount in 2015, seems to be a bit more than "very little action"...

But still did nothing when Assad gassed his own people first time round, despite drawing a red line. So 'very little action' is a accurate description.

Originally Posted by Mick

But still did nothing when Assad gassed his own people first time round, despite drawing a red line. So 'very little action' is a accurate description.

And we go round in circles again, as he believed he needed Congressional support, and wasn't going to get it, but you disagree....

He had been president for a while and didn't know the system but the guy whose been in the job less then six months knew the system, whose the crap president again?.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

He had been president for a while and didn't know the system but the guy whose been in the job less then six months knew the system, whose the crap president again?.

Or.....

One wanted to follow the agreed process when there was uncertainty and difference of opinion, and the other doesn't give a crap what others think...

[1andrew1]

Interesting article here about it.

That campaign was delayed when Obama decided to put it to a vote in Congress. It was thrown out altogether when Russia — Assad's ally — offered to dispose of Assad's chemical-weapons arsenal if the US refrained from launching airstrikes.
That fateful delay, as it turns out, was the result of a one-on-one meeting Obama had with McDonough as the two strolled around the White House grounds during their daily afternoon "wrap."

http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-ob...16-1?r=US&IR=T