That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Very worth watching if very simplified. eg, it implies that the US came up with the one China position, but IIUC, that was the viewpoints of both China and Taiwan at the time (that there was one government of China and they were respectively it), so you could only pick one to recognize.Holman wrote:Rachel Maddow on Trump and China.
anyone else amused it's taking him about 5 to 15 minutes to post a tweet?Skinypupy wrote:Lots of noise about the SNL Tweet, but I haven't seen anything about these:
More than a little terrified about what "reduced regulations" might mean.
Tweeting with tiny fingers is hard!naednek wrote: anyone else amused it's taking him about 5 to 15 minutes to post a tweet?
The House majority leader said a Republican-led Congress would not support the president-elect’s vow to hit companies that move overseas with a hefty tariff on goods sent back to the United States.
And House Speaker Paul D. Ryan hinted strongly that he wouldn’t go along either.
“I don’t want to get into some kind of trade war,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader, said in response to vehement threats by Mr. Trump over the weekend.
Mr. Ryan echoed Mr. McCarthy’s view that an overhaul of the corporate tax code would better keep jobs in the United States than a punitive tariff on companies that send work abroad.
“I think we can get at the goal here, which is keep American businesses American, build things in America and sell them overseas. That can be properly addressed in comprehensive tax reform,” the speaker told a Wisconsin reporter.
Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Taiwan wasn’t a blunder by an inexperienced president-elect unschooled in the niceties of cross-straits diplomacy.
It was a deliberate move — and a brilliant one at that.
The message, as John Bolton correctly put it, was that “the president of the United States [will] talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it’s in the interest of the United States, and nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to.”
And if that message was lost on Beijing, Trump underscored it on Sunday, tweeting: “Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so!” He does not need Beijing’s permission to speak to anyone. No more kowtowing in a Trump administration.
Trump promised during the campaign that he would take a tougher stand with China, and supporting Taiwan has always been part of his get-tough approach to Beijing. As far back as 2011, Trump tweeted: “Why is @BarackObama delaying the sale of F-16 aircraft to Taiwan? Wrong message to send to China. #TimeToGetTough.” Indeed, the very idea that Trump could not speak to Taiwan’s president because it would anger Beijing is precisely the kind of weak-kneed subservience that Trump promised to eliminate as president.
The hypocrisy is rank. When President Obama broke with decades of U.S. policy and extended diplomatic recognition to a murderous dictatorship in Cuba, the foreign-policy establishment swooned. Democrats on Capitol Hill praised Obama for taking action that was “long overdue.” Former President Jimmy Carter raved about how Obama had “shown such wisdom,” while the New York Times gushed that Obama was acting “courageously” and “ushering in a transformational era for millions of Cubans who have suffered as a result of more than 50 years of hostility between the two nations.”
But when Trump broke with decades of U.S. diplomatic practice and had a phone call with the democratically elected leader of Taiwan, he was declared a buffoon. Well, if they didn’t like that phone call, his critics may hate what could come next even more. Trump now has an opportunity to do with Taiwan what Obama did with Cuba — normalize relations.
Beijing would be wise not to overreact to any overtures Trump makes to Taiwan. When China tested President George W. Bush in his first months in office by scrambling fighters and forcing a U.S. EP-3 aircraft to land on the Chinese island of Hainan, its actions backfired. After the incident, Bush approved a $30 billion arms package for Taiwan, announced that Taiwan would be treated as a major non-NATO ally and declared that the United States would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan. His actions not only strengthened U.S. ties with Taiwan but also set the stage for good relations with Beijing throughout his presidency.
China does not want to make the same mistake and overplay its hand with Trump. Trump’s call with Taiwan’s president was a smart, calculated move designed to send a clear message: The days of pushing the United States around are over.
That may horrify official Washington, but it’s the right message to send.
linkFormer Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice in the fight against climate change, and Donald Trump, who at one point called it a hoax, met on Monday in what Gore called a "productive" session.
He would report directly to BaronZarathud wrote:Rip is angling for the "Undersecretary of Post-Cog Rationalizing the Greatness of the Trump Administration - Cyber Division."
Laugh it up, fuzzball.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum ... 1480989202Mr. Dole, in an interview, said the law firm he is affiliated with does work with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S., and that the firm played a role in arranging the phone call. “It’s fair to say that we may have had some influence,” Mr. Dole said.
U.S.-China experts said both Mr. Trump and Beijing appear to be trying to establish boundaries for a new relationship between the countries, which is expected to be more adversarial than that favored by President Barack Obama since 2009.
He is already itching to nuke em from orbit. It is the only way to be sure after all.malchior wrote:I have to wonder how poking a finger in China's eye for FREEDOM! will work out once North Korea starts acting up again? I'm sure Trump has a well thought out plan there.
And about an equal number of generally middle class long-haul trucker jobs are in jeopardy as well to automation.Jeff V wrote:So, 3.5 million low-paying jobs are about to become obsolete. All of those tax breaks the Great Ompa Loompa is going to give to business ought to help accelerate the process. It's already happening in fast-food; what's he going to do when disrupting foreign trade does nothing to re-employ these people?
Boeing was selected as the manufacturer in January 2015, but it wasn’t much of a competition. Boeing’s 747-8 was the only plane made in the United States that could meet the requirements for the presidential aircraft while also being “consistent with the national public interest,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said in a statement at the time.
She insisted that the Pentagon “will insist upon program affordability through cost-conscious procurement practices.”
Talking to reporters Tuesday morning at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump explained his tweet: “The plane is totally out of control. It’s going to be over $4 billion for Air Force One program, and I think it’s ridiculous. I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money.”
And in a call with reporters, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said that Trump plans to closely examine the Pentagon’s budget and look for areas where he can find savings.
You would assume that this would easily deter other corporate CEOs who might otherwise share concerns regarding Trump policies.Holman wrote:The game we'll be playing for the next four years is "What set off TrumpHulk today?"
In the case of the Boeing tweet, it seems it could be a speech by Boeing's president that was critical of Trump's trade positions. It was hardly a major event, but a few business newspapers have recounted the speech since it was delivered on Friday.
This kind of thing shouldn't be consequential enough to occupy the incoming president's time, but it's known that Trump is very attuned to all coverage that mentions him, particularly business coverage.
We should get used to it.El Guapo wrote:You would assume that this would easily deter other corporate CEOs who might otherwise share concerns regarding Trump policies.Holman wrote:The game we'll be playing for the next four years is "What set off TrumpHulk today?"
In the case of the Boeing tweet, it seems it could be a speech by Boeing's president that was critical of Trump's trade positions. It was hardly a major event, but a few business newspapers have recounted the speech since it was delivered on Friday.
This kind of thing shouldn't be consequential enough to occupy the incoming president's time, but it's known that Trump is very attuned to all coverage that mentions him, particularly business coverage.
Of course, there's no contract yet for the whole program.The entire cost of the program, including development costs, is expected to reach $4 billion, according an analysis by Todd Harrison, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Well, that's a problem for the libel claim, since - at least until we "open up" the libel laws - Trump's attorneys could plausibly argue that that's what he was thinking of (even though Boeing doesn't have a contract for $4 billion, at least not yet).Isgrimnur wrote:Of course, there's no contract yet for the whole program.The entire cost of the program, including development costs, is expected to reach $4 billion, according an analysis by Todd Harrison, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
If it helps this could be malice instead of incompetence.Zarathud wrote:It's almost as of Trump has no idea how expensive it is to develop, build and operate cutting-edge military grade equipment.
And this is going to be Commander-In-Chief.
That's not libel.El Guapo wrote:What's amusing, given Trump's previous statements on the subject, is that Boeing (and its shareholders) probably have a pretty good libel claim against Trump right now, given that the contract is apparently for $140 million.
linkPresident-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday fired one of his transition team’s staff members, Michael G. Flynn, the son of Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, for using Twitter to spread a fake news story about Hillary Clinton that led to an armed confrontation in a pizza restaurant in Washington.
Why not?Grifman wrote:That's not libel.El Guapo wrote:What's amusing, given Trump's previous statements on the subject, is that Boeing (and its shareholders) probably have a pretty good libel claim against Trump right now, given that the contract is apparently for $140 million.
To prove libel you must prove intent to defame.El Guapo wrote:Why not?Grifman wrote:That's not libel.El Guapo wrote:What's amusing, given Trump's previous statements on the subject, is that Boeing (and its shareholders) probably have a pretty good libel claim against Trump right now, given that the contract is apparently for $140 million.
And honestly, what's another lawsuit when you stack it on the pile of over 3,500 he's already had or filed. It's one of his favorite games, that and Scattergories.Kraken wrote:To prove libel you must prove intent to defame.El Guapo wrote:Why not?Grifman wrote:That's not libel.El Guapo wrote:What's amusing, given Trump's previous statements on the subject, is that Boeing (and its shareholders) probably have a pretty good libel claim against Trump right now, given that the contract is apparently for $140 million.