What Did President Trump Do Now?

Chula Vista · 07-10-2017, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Further solidifying that other countries no longer look to the US as the "leader of the free world".

This is being promoted by almost everyone right now. So sad. I'm truly upset about it.

Re: Russia - Putin laid a trap and Trump walked right into it. He got played like a violin.

Quote:

On paper, Vladimir Putin should not have had the upper hand going into the meeting.

To start with, Russia has been living with sanctions put in place more than three years ago because of their annexation of Crimea.

And most Americans, save a few people including the President of the United States, are confident that Putin led the Russian intervention into the American election and into many other elections around the world.

President Obama booted out nearly three dozen spies in December and closed two compounds, and there are many, from both parties, calling for an additional round of sanctions on Russia.

We should have had some leverage. So what happened?

To start with, the Russians are skilled public manipulators.

They know how to stage-manage and how to set the expectations for global events. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is a smooth operator who knows how to charm cameras and international audiences. He is visible at international events and followed by a gaggle of adoring state-run media. He also rarely shies away from answering questions, holding press conferences, or reading out meetings. He has been on the international scene as foreign minister for 13 years, and as the UN ambassador for 10 years before that, and it shows.

Putin may have less of a warm diplomatic bedside manner, but he understands the art of presentation and how to set a trap.

And set a trap is exactly what he just did.

The Russians telegraphed in advance of the meeting that their agenda was to 1) publicly mend the relationship, 2) gain a better understanding of US policy, and 3) discuss joint concerns over terrorism. They scored on all three.

Their previewing kept expectations low and made clear that there simply would not be enough time to talk about Ukraine.

And how did the United States preview the meeting and set the table for the most important diplomatic engagement this summer?

Just yesterday, President Donald Trump questioned the validity of American intelligence on foreign soil and then questioned whether other countries or actors were involved in the hacking.

But before that, H.R. McMaster, the President's national security adviser, previewed the meeting with President Putin by saying there was "no specific agenda -- it's really going to be whatever the President wants to talk about."

The problem is that the expectation-setting and previewing of important diplomatic meetings does more than just fill wire reports and cable air time. It sends the message about what the United States expects to accomplish, how prepared we are for the engagement and also puts the difficult topics on the table that are the core purpose of these meetings.

Immediately following the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared on television making clear that President Trump had repeatedly raised Russian meddling in the meeting. That sounded like a positive development until he said President Trump has decided to focus on "how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point."

This statement was quickly followed by Foreign Minister Lavrov appearing on television to say that President Putin had denied involvement, Trump said reports of meddling were exaggerated and he accepted Putin's denials.

Leading American intelligence agencies, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and many members of his own administration are confident that the Russians intervened in the American election last year. But a simple assurance from President Putin overrides that.

You don't get a lot of shots at pressure in diplomacy. And after you've let your adversary off the hook, you certainly don't get to apply that pressure again. As far as the Russians are concerned, the public case is closed.

~~Queen of England~~ · 07-10-2017, 02:30 PM

At this point I'm willing to bet money that we go to war with N Korea before the end of Trump's first term.

Any takers?

Chula Vista · 07-10-2017, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen of England

At this point I'm willing to bet money that we go to war with N Korea before the end of Trump's first term.

Any takers?

I'm too afraid to bet.

One thing I don't quite get: All the military officials say an offensive military strike would be very bad. Pyongyang, which is where all of the serious infrastuture is located, and the only province that has electricity 24/7, is only 1,200 square miles.

Hiroshima is 350 square miles and that bomb was dropped over half a century ago.

So why would sneaking over and bombing the **** out of the basic skeleton of the country be "very bad"? Does it send a bad signal to any other country? Could NK actually recover? Would any sane person on the planet want them to?

Ever read about these places? Bad, bad, regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea

~~Cuthbert~~ · 07-10-2017, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen of England

At this point I'm willing to bet money that we go to war with N Korea before the end of Trump's first term.

Any takers?

You think it will happen that quickly?

djchameleon · 07-10-2017, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man like Monkey

You think it will happen that quickly?

It won't he keeps feeding into the fear tactics from Fox News and other pundits.

Anteater · 07-10-2017, 04:47 PM

Putin's response was expected. The idea of a cybersecurity council is interesting if it gives us some measure of leverage in the future U.S. - Russo cyberwar though. The alternative, of course, is that Russia will just do whatever they want during the next election cycle (theoretically).

Mexico might end up paying for the wall if Trump can showcase the fully fleshed out "solar panel" blueprint which he allegedly is a big fan of. The amount of electricity it would generate could very well cover the costs plus make both countries additional money.

Lastly, the Comey story is getting more and more interesting. Especially since it looks like he's violated his own agency's rules in regards to at least four of the memos he "took" with him after being fired.

Comey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material.

The Batlord · 07-10-2017, 04:52 PM

Anteater thinks Mexico is going to build the wall. lulz. was not even expecting the lulz

Anteater · 07-10-2017, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Anteater thinks Mexico is going to build the wall. lulz. was not even expecting the lulz

Do you know anything about the solar wall plans that have been proposed? It's a sound strategy.

**Janszoon** · 07-10-2017, 05:03 PM

Shouldn't Trump be proposing a coal powered wall?

Anteater · 07-10-2017, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Shouldn't Trump be proposing a coal powered wall?

Lulz. He may be skeptical of climate change, but he sees a green wall apparently...

Bloomberg News - Trump Says ‘Solar Wall’ on Mexican Border Would Pay for Itself

07-10-2017, 05:03 PM	#5669 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	Shouldn't Trump be proposing a coal powered wall? __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

07-10-2017, 02:30 PM	#5662 (permalink)
~~Queen of England~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2017 Posts: 5	At this point I'm willing to bet money that we go to war with N Korea before the end of Trump's first term. Any takers?