Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections

1 | ... | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | ... | 2321

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1712716 30-Jan-2017 12:50

gzt:
Fred99:

Oh dear - I don't like the way Bill E is having partisan pressure put on him to "make a statement". Listening to National Radio now.
IMO it would be futile having our PM slagging Trump, which would make no difference at all to the Trump administration, but also probably poison our chance to do something meaningful through an appropriate forum when an opportunity arises. And if "what Bill E should do" becomes an issue argued on partisan lines, then Trump(ism) will start infiltrating NZ politics.
They (critics of Bill E) should back off - it's a serious global crisis short of war, cross-party support of whatever NZ takes as an "official position" will be needed.

So hypothetically, if a National Party government was in power 2003 and had sent invasion troops to Iraq as Mr Key advocated at that time, you would have advised all other NZ political parties to support that decision?

And back to reality, you would also have advised the Government of New Zealand to not make this statement both upholding the long standing relationship between New Zealand and the United States and also criticising the United States as the United States was about to begin an illegal and undeclared war in Iraq?

No and no. It's not the time for our PM to be "slagging Trump" as it would be futile (or worse) - that's what I said.

Peter Dunnes letter was an embarassment (IMO).

I'm confident that Trump will act so awfully on foreign policy, that there would be bipartisan support from within NZ condemning his actions. Thta's much better than a sh*t fight in NZ.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1712718 30-Jan-2017 12:51

Paul1977:
So Trump's ordering the Pentagon to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS? I thought Donald Trump had a plan, and that Donald Trump was the only one who knew how to defeat ISIS?

Maybe it's more like a plan to take 'their' oil. That would be consistent with what Trump is saying:

In one example: 'It's not stealing, we're reimbursing ourselves'

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1712724 30-Jan-2017 12:56

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

Oh dear - I don't like the way Bill E is having partisan pressure put on him to "make a statement". Listening to National Radio now.
IMO it would be futile having our PM slagging Trump, which would make no difference at all to the Trump administration, but also probably poison our chance to do something meaningful through an appropriate forum when an opportunity arises. And if "what Bill E should do" becomes an issue argued on partisan lines, then Trump(ism) will start infiltrating NZ politics.
They (critics of Bill E) should back off - it's a serious global crisis short of war, cross-party support of whatever NZ takes as an "official position" will be needed.

"it's a serious global crisis short of war," hmm I think that is stretching it a bit. It is an internal US matter that needs to be managed in line with our current foreign policy by the Minister and Department concerned. NZ should not be meddling with US internal matters in the same way we do not expect the US to meddle with our internal matters. If it becomes an external matter then the appropriate forum is the United Nations and the Security Council but that need is not even in sight yet.

Hmmm- I think that's naive.

The UN is apparently firmly in the gunsights of President Bannon Trump.

The new US ambassador to the UN has stated that she's "collecting names" of those opposing US interests, and on the same day, the Wall Street journal received a copy of a draft executive order which cuts funding for programs like UNICEF and global peacekeeping by 40%.

Naive???? Okay I will play. Who are the protagonists in this potential war and how would it be prosecuted?

As for funding issues, nations around the world review and adjust their international funding based on their needs and resources, it's not new.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1712726 30-Jan-2017 12:58

Fred99:

Oh dear - I don't like the way Bill E is having partisan pressure put on him to "make a statement". Listening to National Radio now.
IMO it would be futile having our PM slagging Trump, which would make no difference at all to the Trump administration, but also probably poison our chance to do something meaningful through an appropriate forum when an opportunity arises. And if "what Bill E should do" becomes an issue argued on partisan lines, then Trump(ism) will start infiltrating NZ politics.
They (critics of Bill E) should back off - it's a serious global crisis short of war, cross-party support of whatever NZ takes as an "official position" will be needed.

I'd forgotten Bill English was PM. Since JK resigned, it is as if we have no PM...!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1712727 30-Jan-2017 12:59

Geektastic:

I'd forgotten Bill English was PM. Since JK resigned, it is as if we have no PM...!

That's a good thing

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1712729 30-Jan-2017 13:01

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

Fred99:

Oh dear - I don't like the way Bill E is having partisan pressure put on him to "make a statement". Listening to National Radio now.
IMO it would be futile having our PM slagging Trump, which would make no difference at all to the Trump administration, but also probably poison our chance to do something meaningful through an appropriate forum when an opportunity arises. And if "what Bill E should do" becomes an issue argued on partisan lines, then Trump(ism) will start infiltrating NZ politics.
They (critics of Bill E) should back off - it's a serious global crisis short of war, cross-party support of whatever NZ takes as an "official position" will be needed.

"it's a serious global crisis short of war," hmm I think that is stretching it a bit. It is an internal US matter that needs to be managed in line with our current foreign policy by the Minister and Department concerned. NZ should not be meddling with US internal matters in the same way we do not expect the US to meddle with our internal matters. If it becomes an external matter then the appropriate forum is the United Nations and the Security Council but that need is not even in sight yet.

Hmmm- I think that's naive.

The UN is apparently firmly in the gunsights of President Bannon Trump.

The new US ambassador to the UN has stated that she's "collecting names" of those opposing US interests, and on the same day, the Wall Street journal received a copy of a draft executive order which cuts funding for programs like UNICEF and global peacekeeping by 40%.

Naive???? Okay I will play. Who are the protagonists in this potential war and how would it be prosecuted?

As for funding issues, nations around the world review and adjust their international funding based on their needs and resources, it's not new.

What potential war? Saying "short of war" is not a prediction.

If you think that's what I meant - as you apparently do from the comments above - then you're wrong.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1712731 30-Jan-2017 13:02

Murray McCully has spoken out. Admittedly, not in a very direct way.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1712733 30-Jan-2017 13:04

Fred99:

What potential war? Saying "short of war" is not a prediction.

If you think that's what I meant - as you apparently do from the comments above - then you're wrong.

You told me I was naive as I did not believe that it is a global crisis short of war which must mean you believe that there is a possibility of war?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1712736 30-Jan-2017 13:08

Geektastic:

I'd forgotten Bill English was PM. Since JK resigned, it is as if we have no PM...!

JK probably wakes in cold sweats - after dreaming he still is PM.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1712739 30-Jan-2017 13:12

MikeB4:

Fred99:

What potential war? Saying "short of war" is not a prediction.

If you think that's what I meant - as you apparently do from the comments above - then you're wrong.

You told me I was naive as I did not believe that it is a global crisis short of war which must mean you believe that there is a possibility of war?

Can we either restart or forget about it. By "global crisis short of war" I mean it is a global crisis (but not - thus "short of" - war). I do think that Trump is causing serious global issues - and it's a crisis.

As for (a new) war, then sure, I believe there's a possibility, What, where, or when - I do not know.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1712760 30-Jan-2017 13:44

I do not believe Mr trump will go out of his way to start a war. His life long motivation has been the accumulation of wealth. The business interests he has would be seriously curtailed by war, I cannot be certain but I believe he is not invested heavily in the defence industries. I do however believe that the would not

back away from a war if US interests were attacked.

As for the crisis, if you mean the refugee crisis that was present way before he became President, whilst I don't fully agree with his methods and rhetoric I do see some sense in placing a 90day stop on proceeding to allow the USA and his administration to put in place policy and processes. The current administration in Washington

does not want to repeat the chaos that Europe has endured for the last few years with no control as to who has or will cross borders.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1712762 30-Jan-2017 13:48

tdgeek:
Murray McCully has spoken out. Admittedly, not in a very direct way.

Wishy washy political speak

I wonder if the Republicans can get rid of him? It looks like there is growing opposition from some high profile names such a Mccain against this. If it is for the public good and stability of the world? It is interesting how divided the US is becoming and I wonder if we will see states wanting to divide off as their own country.

I was thinking about what this all reminded me of, and it reminds me of the movie, Invasion if the body snatchers' and simliar movies, with how divided people are and their reasoning. Especially as any negativity and criticism is seen as being a big no no, and it is something that shouldn't be discussed.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#1712763 30-Jan-2017 13:50

MikeB4:
I do not believe Mr trump will go out of his way to start a war. His life long motivation has been the accumulation of wealth. The business interests he has would be seriously curtailed by war, I cannot be certain but I believe he is not invested heavily in the defence industries. I do however believe that the would not

back away from a war if US interests were attacked.

As for the crisis, if you mean the refugee crisis that was present way before he became President, whilst I don't fully agree with his methods and rhetoric I do see some sense in placing a 90day stop on proceeding to allow the USA and his administration to put in place policy and processes. The current administration in Washington

does not want to repeat the chaos that Europe has endured for the last few years with no control as to who has or will cross borders.

I don't think many of these leaders have gone out to start wars. It is about power and ego, oil etc. War is just a byproduct, if things aren't done properly.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1712765 30-Jan-2017 14:00

MikeB4:

As for the crisis, if you mean the refugee crisis that was present way before he became President, whilst I don't fully agree with his methods and rhetoric I do see some sense in placing a 90day stop on proceeding to allow the USA and his administration to put in place policy and processes. The current administration in Washington

That - and the entry restrictions to the USA.

It's wildly disproportionate to the real threat, endangers innocent people, excludes nations who have shown to be real threats, excludes nations in which the POTUS has commercial interests, probably endangers the lives of US civilians and service people abroad, will be used as fuel for propaganda by the very same extremists he's trying to counter, and reinforces prejudices which already exist against ethnic/religious minorities within the USA.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1712767 30-Jan-2017 14:04

mattwnz:

I don't think many of these leaders have gone out to start wars. It is about power and ego, oil etc. War is just a byproduct, if things aren't done properly.

Exactly. The danger Trump poses is not that he would want to start a war, but that he would set in motion a chain of events that would suck him into one because he is too vain and ham-fisted to diffuse things in time.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268 | 269 | ... | 2321