Former President Donald Trump's United States of America

[kEiThZ]

And my point is - any claims that running a presidential level summit is about "making peace with NK" is posturing BS at best, enabling and legitimizing at worst.

AoD

What's amazing is that people think that these are issues that can simply be flipped with a phone call. Just look at this discussion, we're talking here about Trump making peace with Kim, with no mention of South Korea or Japan and scarcely any mention of China.

The status quo has held up to this point as North Korea has been fundamentally weaker than the south- would it change if North Korea uses its nuclear program as leverage?

They use their nukes and rockets for leverage today. Everytime they need aid, they fire a few rockets into the Sea of Japan and do a few nuke tests and inevitably everyone caves and gives them aid. It's a pattern across several American Presidents now. Will not change.

Do you think they'll use their fleet primarily for posturing- that the North Korean generals are more interested in internal affairs and staying in power?

Yes. The North Korean elites who run the country don't give a damn about ideology. They get their cut and Chinese protection. And in the bargain provide a buffer state for China.

 

[kEiThZ]

the President whom started wars in seven countries,

Ah yes. That convenient argument where Republicans get to argue that Obama was war mongering and yet somehow weak on security too. It's like people who complain about Obama ramping up drone strikes. I always ask them a simple question. You tell us how you would deal with terrorists taking up in safe havens.

Obama's was plenty transparent about his foreign policy. And several times discussed how there were no good options other than intervention. To cast that as some kind of war mongering is sheer ignorance. Go through the seven wars in that article and you tell me what you would have done. Genuinely interested in how you think several of these conflicts should have been handled.

My only criticism of Obama's foreign policy was that it was not aggressive enough. And like Bush, he vastly underestimated Putin and threw Ukraine under the bus. All this talk about Libya giving up nukes. By far the worst precedent for what happens when you give up nukes is Ukraine. They gave up their nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, only to have one of the guarantor states (Russia) invade them. Obama not intervening aggressively to defend Ukraine, as the other major guarantor was extremely disappointing.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ah yes. That convenient argument where Republicans get to argue that Obama was war mongering and yet somehow weak on security too. It's like people who complain about Obama ramping up drone strikes. I always ask them a simple question. You tell us how you would deal with terrorists taking up in safe havens.

Obama's was plenty transparent about his foreign policy. And several times discussed how there were no good options other than intervention. To cast that as some kind of war mongering is sheer ignorance. Go through the seven wars in that article and you tell me what you would have done. Genuinely interested in how you think several of these conflicts should have been handled.

My only criticism of Obama's foreign policy was that it was not aggressive enough. And like Bush, he vastly underestimated Putin and threw Ukraine under the bus. All this talk about Libya giving up nukes. By far the worst precedent for what happens when you give up nukes is Ukraine. They gave up their nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, only to have one of the guarantor states (Russia) invade them. Obama not intervening aggressively to defend Ukraine, as the other major guarantor was extremely disappointing.

Nevermind that - just look at the Trump's current entanglement in Iran and the whole Saudi-MBS/Iran/Qatar/Yemen situation. Peace prize, you say?

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Nevermind that - just look at the Trump's current entanglement in Iran and the whole Saudi-MBS/Iran/Qatar/Yemen situation. Peace prize, you say?

AoD

I once visited a US government building where Saddam Hussein's golden AK-47 was framed in the lobby. I hope the day comes when the bonesaw is similarly presented.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I once visited a US government building where Saddam Hussein's golden AK-47 was framed in the lobby. I hope the day comes when the bonesaw is similarly presented.

They should put it in the White House or State Department as a reminder of what happens when US policy -nay, leadership fails - instead of war trophy.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

In respect of foreign policy re warring regions; the United States has a litany of failures and a couple of very large achievements.

The latter is the post WWII handling of Europe and Japan.

They intervened for two generations in trade, infrastructure investment, institution-building, they let locals do most of the detail and front-line stuff while setting up an over-arching framework that promoted prosperity and aligned areas broadly with American thinking/interests based on shared prosperity.

Subsequently US adventurism was based almost solely on short-term military intervention, and then leaving a power-vacuum behind.

Or, alternatively, maintaining power for a time, in Iraq/Afghanistan, but almost entirely based on use-of-force, rather than shared prosperity.

There is a compelling argument for non-interference.

But if one is going to invade on the pretense of spreading one's values and ideas and making a long-term play for a more peaceful world..........

That will take enormous time and money, and it means lifting the locals out of poverty such that they understand their interests are now aligned w/yours.

Don't do that........and the whole exercise was a waste, of blood and treasure.

 

[jje1000]

Uhh, so Epstein is dead, and it seems like no one really believes the official line of reasoning.

 

[TheKingEast]

To be honest, I expected this to happen. There were just too many high ranking people that he had dirt on.

 

[W. K. Lis]

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education

From link.

A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017. The equivalent of over 6.5% of global GDP of that year, it also represented a half-trillion dollar increase since 2015 when China ($1.4 trillion), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion) were the largest subsidizers.

Despite nations worldwide committing to a reduction in carbon emissions and implementing renewable energy through the Paris Agreement, the IMF’s findings expose how fossil fuels continue to receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding. The report explains that fossil fuels account for 85% of all global subsidies and that they remain largely attached to domestic policy. Had nations reduced subsidies in a way to create efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015, the International Monetary Fund believes that it “would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.”

The study includes the negative externalities caused by fossil fuels that society has to pay for, not reflected in their actual costs. In addition to direct transfers of government money to fossil fuel companies, this includes the indirect costs of pollution, such as healthcare costs and climate change adaptation. By including these numbers, the true cost of fossil fuel use to society is reflected.

Following The Trend

Nations worldwide have continued to support the natural gas and petroleum industries. This is evident by the energy policies of the United States and Australia, who have continued to rely heavily on fossil fuels. Meanwhile the world’s largest subsidizer of fossil fuels, China has actively looked to follow efficient fossil fuel guidelines and continues to spend record-amounts on fossil fuels.

As the prices associated with fossil-fuel power generation continue to increase and become harder for utility companies to justify, the price of renewable energy has also plummeted. Along with the IMF report, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released its own study looking into how the renewable energy industry has grown over a similar time period. The cost of onshore wind power generation has dropped 23% since 2010, while solar electricity saw a decrease of 73%.

With renewable energy production becoming cheaper and fossil fuels following the opposite trend, it has left many industry experts asking why subsidies for the latter have increased. The IMF’s study identifies more than just direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industries but also the costs on society, public health and climate change that are caused by the coal, petroleum and natural gas sectors.

The combination of the fossil fuel industry’s investment within its sector and the high profit margins have led many companies to protect their subsidies. The fossil fuel lobby has actively worked in many countries to protect their subsidies and avoid the imposition of carbon taxes. Doing so protects their profits.

Fossil Fuel Inefficiency

Whilst cheaper renewable energy creates more competition in the energy markets, it also decreases the cost-effectiveness of fossil fuel subsidies. Simon Buckle, the head of climate change, biodiversity and water division at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development explains: “Subsidies tend to stay in the system and they can become very costly as the cost of new technologies falls. Cost reductions like this were not envisageable even 10 years ago. They have transformed the situation and many renewables are now cost competitive in different locations with coal.”

Buckle’s analysis of the inefficiency of fossil fuel subsidies is illustrated best by the United States’ own expenditure: the $649 billion the US spent on these subsidies in 2015 is more than the country’s defense budget and 10 times the federal spending for education . When read in conjunction with a recent study showing that up to 80% of the United States could in principle be powered by renewables, the amount spent on fossil fuel subsidies seems even more indefensible.

IMF leader Christine Lagarde has noted that the investments made into fossil fuels could be better spent elsewhere, and could have far reaching positive impacts: “There would be more public spending available to build hospitals, to build roads, to build schools and to support education and health for the people. We believe that removing fossil fuel subsidies is the right way to go.”

Although some nations are taking steps to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and cutting back on investment within those industries, others are not. Domestic policies are largely responsible for the continued support for the fossil fuel industries. Yet, with the continued drop in the costs of renewable energy, private entities are taking over and ensuring that the clean energy transition continues despite the unwavering support the fossil fuel industry receives from both governments and businesses.

Renewable energy is set to overtake fossil fuels as the energy source of the future, with or without the subsidies paid out for coal, petroleum and natural gas. Fossil fuel advocates have long made the case that removing direct and indirect subsidies would be damaging to the global economy - but the IMF clearly disagrees.

 

[Johnny Au]

 

[W. K. Lis]

Papers please...

They're US citizens. And they're carrying their passports to prove it

See link.

It wasn't because they were planning to take a trip abroad.

Instead, the 42-year-old legal assistant in Tucson, Arizona, says she felt her children needed passports to protect themselves while going about their daily lives in the United States.

"I feel uncomfortable and I feel insecure because I have an accent," said Duran, a naturalized US citizen who was born in Mexico.

She says all three of her children live in Arizona and were born in the United States, but she's still scared that if they get pulled over one day, authorities won't believe her and she'll need to prove it.

"With the new administration, that fear is bigger than it used to be before," she said. "I try to explain to my kids, that they have all the rights of citizens, even if they don't have blue eyes, that they're judging them for their color and they have the rights to be here."...

 

[BurlOak]

Trump succeeded in making "the squad" the face of the Democrats and now they are viewed as ultra left wing.
This is quite disgusting by Rashida Tlaib. After getting acceptance to go - she changed her mind. She used her ailing 90 year old grandmother for political purposes. It just reinforces the extremism of the Democrats.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1162276293838114816

 

[doady]

Trump succeeded in making "the squad" the face of the Democrats and now they are viewed as ultra left wing.
This is quite disgusting by Rashida Tlaib. After getting acceptance to go - she changed her mind. She used her ailing 90 year old grandmother for political purposes. It just reinforces the extremism of the Democrats.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1162276293838114816

People are just getting pushed to the extremes because of the Fake News Media giving them a false picture of USA. The Fake News Media has NEVER been more Dishonest or Corrupt than it is right now. There has never been a time like this in American History. Very exciting but also, very sad! Fake News is the absolute Enemy of the People and our Country itself! The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for Trump and his re-election. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick! Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years. News coverage has got to start being fair, balanced and unbiased, or these terrible problems will only get worse!

 

[W. K. Lis]

People are just getting pushed to the extremes because of the Fake News Media giving them a false picture of USA. The Fake News Media has NEVER been more Dishonest or Corrupt than it is right now. There has never been a time like this in American History. Very exciting but also, very sad! Fake News is the absolute Enemy of the People and our Country itself! The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for Trump and his re-election. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick! Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years. News coverage has got to start being fair, balanced and unbiased, or these terrible problems will only get worse!

Most news media in Canada are small-c conservative.

 

[Admiral Beez]

People are just getting pushed to the extremes because of the Fake News Media giving them a false picture of USA. The Fake News Media has NEVER been more Dishonest or Corrupt than it is right now. There has never been a time like this in American History. Very exciting but also, very sad! Fake News is the absolute Enemy of the People and our Country itself! The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for Trump and his re-election. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick! Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years. News coverage has got to start being fair, balanced and unbiased, or these terrible problems will only get worse!

You thieving wanker. You just put together a bunch of plagiarist BS from Reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trump/comments/b2ws5u

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/comments/cqwk9n

Don't you have any original thoughts in your f#cking thick head?