This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Where is/can Donald Trump take US (sic)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite ironic for the US to scrap the TPP whilst using our playground to further their pivot to Asia.
In two years the odds are shortening on us sending them an Electricity Bill
 
Quite ironic for the US to scrap the TPP whilst using our playground to further their pivot to Asia.
In two years the odds are shortening on us sending them an Electricity Bill

Ha ha very good.

The worst thing about the TPP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses.

Countries need to be able to pass their own laws without foreign companies sticking their noses in. If the ISDS are in, then we should be out.

http://aftinet.org.au/cms/isds-sue-governments-tpp-2013
 
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.


Ronald Reagan
The most amusing part about that Reagan quote is that 99% of people cannot be anti-Communist by default.
 
Is it possible to be a sore winner?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html

Five million illegal immigrants voted. No proof of course. I guess it's handy to continue to question the system in case he loses the next election.
 
Quite ironic for the US to scrap the TPP whilst using our playground to further their pivot to Asia.
In two years the odds are shortening on us sending them an Electricity Bill

McCain is proposing a bill to spend $US7.9B [?] over five years in the AsiaPacific region to flex some US muscles. Hoping that that'll scare the Chinese away from pretty much only two potential wars of great strategic and economic importance to its own survival and continued development.

Forget about face saving and grand standing stuff, if you're China, why in the world would you back down now that your main adversary is stretched all over the globe, where if they retreat an inch they'll lose an entire country (again).

We're in quite dangerous times where the global power centres has shifted somewhat, and where alliances can change very quickly... and the current global power has as its commander in chief a dodgy salesman who spent the first couple of days yelling at the Media over how bias they are about how many people turn up to his Inauguration.

Then to make it more interesting, he flood his cabinet with stateless businessmen, mad-dog generals and religious nut jobs.

It'd be a miracle if the world get out of his decade without a major war between two major powers.
 
One week into Presidency and President Alternative Facts has
Reinstated torture at CIA black sites
Issued a ban on any US funded organisation talking about abortion or contraception
Started an inquiry into totally bogus claims of voter fraud (so that the system can be re manipulated)
Starts the Mexican wall

I wonder when sufficient people with brains and balls will say "that's it" and pull the plug on this lying megalomaniac
 

You forgot to mention he is pulling out of the UN, stop Muslim immigration and will tear up the fake UN Paris agreement.
 
You forgot to mention he is pulling out of the UN, stop Muslim immigration and will tear up the fake UN Paris agreement.

Stupid, useless UN. Wanting to unite the nations of the world, save the children, rescue refugees, establish human rights, save the planet, stop war crimes (or at least raised the issue quietly).

Who need useless things like that ey noco?

What the world need is a man with tiny hands to grab the world by the...

I guess every Rome has its Nero and Caligula.
 

Sounds like a typical right wing "rule by fear not facts" type to me.
 

Well, the UN ain't what it used to be 70 years ago and the critics in the link below will tell you why.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/07/what-has-the-un-achieved-united-nations

A decade ago, the UN launched its most enduring report into reform. A panel – co-chaired by the prime ministers of Mozambique, Norway and Pakistan, and including the then British chancellor, Gordon Brown – wrote a devastating document. It ticked off criticisms which said the UN was badly failing those it was supposed to help. Its work on development was described as “often fragmented and weak”; its governance was called “inefficient and ineffective”.


The report said the UN’s taste for setting goals at the expense of delivering results failed the poorest and most vulnerable. It also criticised a system of funding for many UN programmes in which officials had to beg for money from governments year after year, making it difficult to plan.

“Cooperation between organisations has been hindered by competition for funding, mission creep and by outdated business practices,” it said. “In some sectors, such as water and energy, more than 20 UN agencies are active and compete for limited resources without a clear collaborative framework. More than 30 UN agencies and programmes have a stake in environmental management.”

The organisation has grown so big that at times it is working against itself. Critics point to large numbers of support staff doing ill-defined jobs. Staff costs account for two-thirds or more of some UN agencies’ outgoings. “Performance management is a joke,” said one official. “Almost everyone gets ‘above average’ in their assessment.”

The UN is so fragmented that each agency has its own IT system.

The reform report noted that about one-third of the UN operations in 60 countries had a budget of less than $2m per agency, which meant that they could do little more than afford the cost of running the office.

The report proposed extensive changes to promote greater collaboration and efficiency under a programme called Delivering as One. This included myriad UN agencies in a single country coming under the authority of one official, and working more closely with the governments of those countries, which often had no idea what the UN was doing.




It is hard to believe this has come from the Guardian......Maybe they speaking the truth for once.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Great article Noco. Well balanced. informative eye opening. Certainly makes one think about the need to reform the UN and the difficulties of doing so.

Up to the usual excellent standards of The Guardian. Maybe you should include it on your reading list ?
 

The problem is Bas they often distort the truth by their own admission.
 
Trump has just pi$$ed on Germany , so are we next ?

Something I don't get is the ASX being as high as it is.

With Trump in and his actions thus far you'd have to be an extreme optimist to think that Australia wasn't going to be hit in some way. And yet optimism seems to be exactly what the markets are expressing.

Doesn't make sense to me so I guess I'm missing something.
 


Was listening to some old lecture's Q&A by Chomsky and thought his explanation got more to the core of this right-wing hatred for the UN.

He explained that "the world" see the UN as great, as all that is good and right in the world all the the first two decades after WW2.

The reason "the world" all believe that was that "the world" is mainly the US and its allies, and the world was at war with the Soviets - God-loving Capitalist versus Godless Red Capitalist D)and all that.

With most Third World countries still being colonies and otherwise weak and stateless, "the world" vote and take actions against the Soviets. So the UN was awesome for that purpose.

Then as more and more countries became independent and join the UN, and them not automatically liking their former colonial masters for some reason... the UN became more difficult to unite against the Soviets, more difficult to do as the US like them to. You know, not blindly going into Iraq on flimsy WMD evidence and before that not willy nilly agreeing to the peacekeeping in South Americas and elsewhere.

This then make the UN a bit annoying. Hence, the cut in its funding from rich nations, the media campaign against what it stands for.

That's not to say that the UN and its member states are all good etc. But a big part of its demise and hatred came about because it no longer serves certain powerful interests. Such interests would want to de-legitimise international laws because going with that would often put more than a few leaders in prison for violating international laws.

Hence, when Iraq needs to be liberated and the UN says no, the UN is irrelevant and weak. Who needs hippies telling US what to do.

But when China take over disputed corals and territories... look! They're breaking international law and conventions.
 

My guess is that the Market believes that Trump will throw away environmental regulations, CC stuff, get friendly with Russia to end the sanctions, start a few proxy wars with China... all will lead to more demand in fossil, oil, arms and free trade.

Bad for the world and future generations, good for the bottom line next few quarters though
 

Judging from the individuals Mr. Trump is selecting to lead the government agencies, LuuTzu's guess is likely correct.

Appointees proposed so far -- A Secretary of Energy who wants to dismantle the Department of Energy. A Secretary of State who has announced that the US will go to war with China -- real war, not cold war, not a trade war, not a proxy war -- over the islands. An Attorney General whose record of human rights activities is near-criminal. Supreme Court appointees who are actively opposed to equality. A Secretary of Education who opposes public education. The Director of the Federal Communications Committee who opposes net neutrality. A Secretary of the Treasury whose company he headed was directly responsible for many foreclosures during, and contributing to, the financial crisis of 2008. The list goes on and on.

The consequences are already evident. For example, disregard for the environment has emboldened the State of Wyoming to fine companies that use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels. Insulting Mexico about a wall that will never be built, and would be of no value if built, but that will severely and adversely affect US - Mexico relations.

All headed by an infantile, egotistical, pathological liar. The parallels in history are too scary to list.

Very few have been confirmed to date, but that does not really matter. It is unlikely that better -- meaning more friendly to the world and all its inhabitants and all its creatures -- candidates will be proposed. What we see so far is likely what we will get -- even if these particular individuals are replaced by others.

One of the real tragedies is that the policies and actions of the US will not be contained within the US.

I think LuuTzu is right -- a few quarters that are good for the bottom line. I worry that those few quarters will be followed by a few centuries of dark ages.

Thanks for listening, Howard
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...