Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 21,906
November and then the inauguration is in Jan/Feb I believe
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Presidential Race 2016
- Thread starter balotelli's back pocket
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Trump has the luxury of appealing to common sense when assessing things like Syria’s five-year conflict.
You needn’t know anything about the Sunni-Shiite divide or about the Alawite government or the Baathists or about Assad’s connections to the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah’s army to understand that America’s attempts to bring about regime change in the Mid-East have gone horribly awry and that fighting Assad while also fighting the people that are fighting Assad makes absolutely no sense.
The New York Times sat down with the GOP frontrunner to discuss foreign policy. Here’s the exchange
SANGER: One more along the lines of your ISIS strategy. You’ve seen the current strategy, which is, you’ve seen Secretary Kerry trying to seek a political accord between President Assad and the rebel forces, with Assad eventually leaving. And then the hope is to turn all those forces, including Russia and Iran, against ISIS. Is that the right way to do it? Do you have an alternative approach?
TRUMP: Well, I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that.
SANGER: So how would your strategy differ from what he’s doing right now?
TRUMP: Well I can only tell you – I can’t tell you, because his strategy, it’s open and it would seem to be fighting ISIS but he’s fighting it in such a limited capacity. I’ve been saying, take the oil. I’ve been saying it for years. Take the oil. They still haven’t taken the oil. They still haven’t taken it. And they hardly hit the oil. They hardly make a dent in the oil.
SANGER: The oil that ISIS is pumping.
TRUMP: Yes, the oil that ISIS is pumping, where they’re getting tremendous amounts of revenue. I’ve said, hit the banking channels. You know, they have very sophisticated banking channels, which I understand, but I don’t think a lot of people do understand. You know, they’re taking in tremendous amounts of money from banking channels. That, you know, many people in countries that you think are our allies, are giving ISIS tremendous amounts of money and it’s going through very dark banking channels. And we should have stopped those banking channels long ago and I think we’ve done nothing to stop them, and that money is massive. Massive. It’s a massive amount of money. So it’s not only from oil, David, it’s from also the bank, the bank. It’s through banks. And very sophisticated channels. They call them the dark channels. Very sophisticated channels. And money is coming in from people that we think are our allies
You needn’t know anything about the Sunni-Shiite divide or about the Alawite government or the Baathists or about Assad’s connections to the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah’s army to understand that America’s attempts to bring about regime change in the Mid-East have gone horribly awry and that fighting Assad while also fighting the people that are fighting Assad makes absolutely no sense.
The New York Times sat down with the GOP frontrunner to discuss foreign policy. Here’s the exchange
SANGER: One more along the lines of your ISIS strategy. You’ve seen the current strategy, which is, you’ve seen Secretary Kerry trying to seek a political accord between President Assad and the rebel forces, with Assad eventually leaving. And then the hope is to turn all those forces, including Russia and Iran, against ISIS. Is that the right way to do it? Do you have an alternative approach?
TRUMP: Well, I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that.
SANGER: So how would your strategy differ from what he’s doing right now?
TRUMP: Well I can only tell you – I can’t tell you, because his strategy, it’s open and it would seem to be fighting ISIS but he’s fighting it in such a limited capacity. I’ve been saying, take the oil. I’ve been saying it for years. Take the oil. They still haven’t taken the oil. They still haven’t taken it. And they hardly hit the oil. They hardly make a dent in the oil.
SANGER: The oil that ISIS is pumping.
TRUMP: Yes, the oil that ISIS is pumping, where they’re getting tremendous amounts of revenue. I’ve said, hit the banking channels. You know, they have very sophisticated banking channels, which I understand, but I don’t think a lot of people do understand. You know, they’re taking in tremendous amounts of money from banking channels. That, you know, many people in countries that you think are our allies, are giving ISIS tremendous amounts of money and it’s going through very dark banking channels. And we should have stopped those banking channels long ago and I think we’ve done nothing to stop them, and that money is massive. Massive. It’s a massive amount of money. So it’s not only from oil, David, it’s from also the bank, the bank. It’s through banks. And very sophisticated channels. They call them the dark channels. Very sophisticated channels. And money is coming in from people that we think are our allies
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Trump has the luxury of appealing to common sense when assessing things like Syria’s five-year conflict.
You needn’t know anything about the Sunni-Shiite divide or about the Alawite government or the Baathists or about Assad’s connections to the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah’s army to understand that America’s attempts to bring about regime change in the Mid-East have gone horribly awry and that fighting Assad while also fighting the people that are fighting Assad makes absolutely no sense.
The New York Times sat down with the GOP frontrunner to discuss foreign policy. Here’s the exchange
SANGER: One more along the lines of your ISIS strategy. You’ve seen the current strategy, which is, you’ve seen Secretary Kerry trying to seek a political accord between President Assad and the rebel forces, with Assad eventually leaving. And then the hope is to turn all those forces, including Russia and Iran, against ISIS. Is that the right way to do it? Do you have an alternative approach?
TRUMP: Well, I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that.
SANGER: So how would your strategy differ from what he’s doing right now?
TRUMP: Well I can only tell you – I can’t tell you, because his strategy, it’s open and it would seem to be fighting ISIS but he’s fighting it in such a limited capacity. I’ve been saying, take the oil. I’ve been saying it for years. Take the oil. They still haven’t taken the oil. They still haven’t taken it. And they hardly hit the oil. They hardly make a dent in the oil.
SANGER: The oil that ISIS is pumping.
TRUMP: Yes, the oil that ISIS is pumping, where they’re getting tremendous amounts of revenue. I’ve said, hit the banking channels. You know, they have very sophisticated banking channels, which I understand, but I don’t think a lot of people do understand. You know, they’re taking in tremendous amounts of money from banking channels. That, you know, many people in countries that you think are our allies, are giving ISIS tremendous amounts of money and it’s going through very dark banking channels. And we should have stopped those banking channels long ago and I think we’ve done nothing to stop them, and that money is massive. Massive. It’s a massive amount of money. So it’s not only from oil, David, it’s from also the bank, the bank. It’s through banks. And very sophisticated channels. They call them the dark channels. Very sophisticated channels. And money is coming in from people that we think are our allies
As ever an American who see's the Middle East solely through the prism of oil and money when its way way more complicated than that. He also has to understand that whilst at the time he was saying "take the oil" he fails to understand the effect that would have had on oil prices particularly in oil consuming America. I doubt any American President who doubled the cost of gas would ever be thought a success. As there is a glut of oil at the moment some might say now is the chance to seize the initiative but I suspect this indicates the simplistic view of the world Donald J Trump has. If he wins he will probably find that you just can't speak to and about people in matters of International diplomacy like you can on a prime time US reality TV series.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Just watching a telephone interview with Trump on Fox news.... they just asked him why he donated to Hilary's last two presidential campaigns?? Hmmm - I thought they were on his side ?
Tried to explain it away by basically pointing out that he's a businessman so you donate to who ever you think it will benefit you to donate to....
so institutionalised corruption is the norm then?
He's now calling China saying they are ripping the states off and that they built China by buying all their goods. Doesn't he realise that China own most of the US debt???? Piss them off and they could close the states down overnight.
Tried to explain it away by basically pointing out that he's a businessman so you donate to who ever you think it will benefit you to donate to....
so institutionalised corruption is the norm then?
He's now calling China saying they are ripping the states off and that they built China by buying all their goods. Doesn't he realise that China own most of the US debt???? Piss them off and they could close the states down overnight.
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
He probably doesnt. He's in the position now of being able to say whatever he likes, as the 'political outsider' alternative. He can be as gobby and controversial as he likes. But when he actually gets the nomination to be the candidate, I understand that they get briefed on actual politics, and real state goings- on including the state of the economy and foreign policy. Hopefully he will then shit at the prospect that he actually knows nothing, is making everything worse with his rhetoric, and doesnt have the intellect or nous or diplomatic support to be able to remotely affect itJust watching a telephone interview with Trump on Fox news.... they just asked him why he donated to Hilary's last two presidential campaigns?? Hmmm - I thought they were on his side ?
Tried to explain it away by basically pointing out that he's a businessman so you donate to who ever you think it will benefit you to donate to....
so institutionalised corruption is the norm then?
He's now calling China saying they are ripping the states off and that they built China by buying all their goods. Doesn't he realise that China own most of the US debt???? Piss them off and they could close the states down overnight.
Just watching a telephone interview with Trump on Fox news.... they just asked him why he donated to Hilary's last two presidential campaigns?? Hmmm - I thought they were on his side ?
Tried to explain it away by basically pointing out that he's a businessman so you donate to who ever you think it will benefit you to donate to....
so institutionalised corruption is the norm then?
He's now calling China saying they are ripping the states off and that they built China by buying all their goods. Doesn't he realise that China own most of the US debt???? Piss them off and they could close the states down overnight.
Trump has repeatedly said that lobbyists & special interests should have no part in US politics, he played the game as it existed because that what everyone in big business does, Trump he was in business and need to get things done, why would he tell either side REP or DEM to do one? Of course he greased politicians and their backers in both parties including Hillary. The very reason every TV network & Establishment figures are gunning for Trump is this threat to their income streams, the closing down of influence via lobbyists and special interests, its all about money. Bernie's coverage will become more hostile as the campaign goes on if he continues to beat Hillary and closes the gap because like Trump he has no time for special interests, lobbyists and big donations.
On China the seller has little power and China is the seller having exploited the US for years, no different than here in the UK. Trade imbalance is in China's favour and quite simply Trump will demand a level fair playing field or impose tariffs on Chinese imports. A sensible plan to bring jobs back to the US, why are i phones made in China? How does this benefit the US and US workers? How would China go about shutting down the US and why would it as there is no benefit in closing down their biggest export market?
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Trump has repeatedly said that lobbyists & special interests should have no part in US politics, he played the game as it existed because that what everyone in big business does, Trump he was in business and need to get things done, why would he tell either side REP or DEM to do one? Of course he greased politicians and their backers in both parties including Hillary. The very reason every TV network & Establishment figures are gunning for Trump is this threat to their income streams, the closing down of influence via lobbyists and special interests, its all about money. Bernie's coverage will become more hostile as the campaign goes on if he continues to beat Hillary and closes the gap because like Trump he has no time for special interests, lobbyists and big donations.
On China the seller has little power and China is the seller having exploited the US for years, no different than here in the UK. Trade imbalance is in China's favour and quite simply Trump will demand a level fair playing field or impose tariffs on Chinese imports. A sensible plan to bring jobs back to the US, why are i phones made in China? How does this benefit the US and US workers? How would China go about shutting down the US and why would it as there is no benefit in closing down their biggest export market?
But how does Donald J react when China says " fine - can we have our money and interest back then please? Now. " China has America by the fucking knackers its been buying up US debt exactly for a situation like this - the buyer tries to shoot the seller down - the seller sells elsewhere and just takes the buyer down. As a buyer you can only win as a cash buyer. The US is so in debt to Chinese institutions the Chinese can shut the place down overnight. The threat of that will be more than enough.
EalingBlue2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 5,571
Can they?But how does Donald J react when China says " fine - can we have our money and interest back then please? Now. " China has America by the fucking knackers its been buying up US debt exactly for a situation like this - the buyer tries to shoot the seller down - the seller sells elsewhere and just takes the buyer down. As a buyer you can only win as a cash buyer. The US is so in debt to Chinese institutions the Chinese can shut the place down overnight. The threat of that will be more than enough.
If the US refuses to pay who does China go to to enforce it? Who actually has who by the balls? I think In this situation it is actually far more even and arguably China has the most to lose as it is ultimately the Chinese banks and government that has this "asset" to lose. Yes the Dollar would be trashed and the US and global market would too, international banking and trade would die, but quite possibly a conflict like this would hurt Europe and Asia more than the US as ultimately it is one of the most self sufficient capable countries on earth. I'm not saying this to big up Donald a US default to China would make 2008 look like a kids tea party but I am not sure China has as much power as you say as ultimately there is no court or anything you can take the US too and if international trade gets trashed they can survive better than anyone. It's Armageddon but one that would be worse for everyone else so not a bluff hat can be called
Last edited:
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Can they?
If the US refuses to pay who does China go to to enforce it? Who actually has who by the balls? I think In this situation it is actually far more even and arguably China has the most to lose as it is ultimately the Chinese banks and government that has this "asset" to lose. Yes the Dollar would be trashed and the US and global market would but quite possibly a conflict like this would hurt Europe and Asia more than the US. I'm not saying this to big up Donald a US default to China would make 2008 look like a kids tea party but I am not sure China has as much power as you say
Of course they can.
1/ defaulting.... remember how we were warned that to do that as a country was unacceptable on world markets? Remember how we entered years of austerity to avoid that and how Greece and Eire did the same?
2/ If the US decided it wouldn't pay and the dollar was trashed would the dollar remain the international currency of trade? All major commodities like oil are traded in dollars - the Chinese would love to step in with the Yuan as the new international currency of trade and usurp the US.
3/ The US would run out of financial friend PDQ as a result
- Status
- Not open for further replies.