Jump to content

Trump foreign policy


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Perhaps that's why Jared & Lighthizer have been at the tip of the negotiations to ensure that it isn't simply a money dump.

 

In any event, you can't expect instant results, but if you offer the carrot and stick of investing in Central America and force them to change laws which allow those business investments to thrive, then you start chipping away at the problem.  That is far more effective than trying to police a 5,000 mile borderline.

I'm still of the opinion that the catalyst of change really has to come from the people of the country. We spilt our blood and paid the dues to form this country. We earned it. They'll never get better than what they now have if they don't earn it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm still of the opinion that the catalyst of change really has to come from the people of the country. We spilt our blood and paid the dues to form this country. We earned it. They'll never get better than what they now have if they don't earn it themselves.

 

The Central American countries have been in a perpetual civil war for the last 2 generations and you think more bloodshed is the cure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Perhaps that's why Jared & Lighthizer have been at the tip of the negotiations to ensure that it isn't simply a money dump.

 

In any event, you can't expect instant results, but if you offer the carrot and stick of investing in Central America and force them to change laws which allow those business investments to thrive, then you start chipping away at the problem.  That is far more effective than trying to police a 5,000 mile borderline.

 

Mexico and Central America have missed giant economic opportunities.  Those countries have low cost labor and the largest marketplace in their backyard (the U.S.) and while some manufacturing and exports have resulted, they could have been like China in terms of growing a manufacturing economy.  In addition they are full of natural resources yet haven't capitalized on that to the extent they could.  These are cultures of corrupt leadership which is very hard to change.  To your point though, we should be working better with them. 

Edited by keepthefaith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Mexico and Central America have missed giant economic opportunities.  Those countries have low cost labor and the largest marketplace in their backyard (the U.S.) and while some manufacturing and exports have resulted, they could have been like China in terms of growing a manufacturing economy.  In addition they are full of natural resources yet haven't capitalized on that to the extent they could.  These are cultures of corrupt leadership which is very hard to change.  To your point though, we should be working better with them. 

 

You're preaching to the choir.  The corruption is almost codified into national laws.   There was hope that NAFTA would provide a spark in Mexico to liberalize their markets, but it was very slow because they still put big guards around foreign ownership.  The ultimate promise never came fast, but has trickled in over the various administrations.

 

who knows, maybe AMLO will be the catalyst to break up the family business cartels, but hopefully he will open up the country for more investment and not renationalize. So far, he's been talking the right tune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McGee Return TD said:

 


So many in Congress arrive with little or no money, and walk out 20 years later multimillionaires on a salary of (now) $174K a year. Exactly how do they do it? <_<

Cabinet members are chosen for connections; political and corporate. Should they be? Some would argue nope, others would say "of course, those connections are valuable".  Would someone serve in a Cabinet if not for the "benefits"? Should someone serve in a cabinet if they are serving for "benefits" and taking advantage of government connections? 

Anyhooooo this trip was cancelled. As in it did not take place. So, she was wrong to not have the meeting? I am confused here. If it didn't happen, why is it a story? If she has no affiliation or stake in the family's company, why is this an issue? The argument could be made that she is in an ideal situation to "rescue" the US shipping industry knowing what she does about the Chinese shipping industry. 

Anything can be painted as nefarious, regardless of how innocent it really is. Ms. Chao could end up being evil personified, or the savior of the US shipping industry. Or, this could be another NYT hit-job. Only time will tell. 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


So many in Congress arrive with little or no money, and walk out 20 years later multimillionaires on a salary of (now) $174K a year. Exactly how do they do it? <_<

Cabinet members are chosen for connections; political and corporate. Should they be? Some would argue nope, others would say "of course, those connections are valuable".  Would someone serve in a Cabinet if not for the "benefits"? Should someone serve in a cabinet if they are serving for "benefits" and taking advantage of government connections? 

Anyhooooo this trip was cancelled. As in it did not take place. So, she was wrong to not have the meeting? I am confused here. If it didn't happen, why is it a story? If she has no affiliation or stake in the family's company, was is this an issue? The argument could be made that she is in an ideal situation to "rescue" the US shipping industry knowing what she does about the Chinese shipping industry. 

Anything can be painted as nefarious, regardless of how innocent it really is. Ms. Chao could end up being evil personified, or the savior of the US shipping industry. Or, this could be another NYT hit-job. Only time will tell. 

Math. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2019 at 12:01 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Could go in the media thread too -- but considering this is hitting right as he's going to London... 

"I didn't know that she was nasty."  That seems to me that he called her nasty.  What am I missing?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

"I didn't know that she was nasty."  That seems to me that he called her nasty.  What am I missing?

 

He didn't know she would say nasty things about people. IOW she was nasty to him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

He didn't know she would say nasty things about people. IOW she was nasty to him. 

 

 

Funny how the left suddenly has no concept of how the English language works whenever Trump says something they can pull out of context.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

He didn't know she would say nasty things about people. IOW she was nasty to him. 

 

The report is still accurate.  The Trump official war room can say his statement was taken out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

Funny how the left suddenly has no concept of how the English language works whenever Trump says something they can pull out of context.

 

Oh come on man. Taking things out of context shows no political stripe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2019 at 5:15 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

oh my lord DR,  please tell me you are not trusting one scintilla of anything in this "report." "

 

Listen to this again and then ask

 

In a shocking report from whom?????

 

Kerrys deep ties are known..wtf does that mean..thet he has spent countless hours in negotiations with them? I guess Trump's deep ties to North Korea are known.

 

The same act Flynn was spied upon...umm dude plead guilty..he was not spied upon.

 

they were photographed" and then show some picture of Kerry from like 8 years ago. 

 

This is just such a joke, honestly, anyone who buys this ar face value scares the hell out of me as someone you say you despise..a non-thnking partisan hack who can only see one side of an argument.

 

That is the jokiest of joke "reporting" i have ever seen

 

 

6 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Funny how the left suddenly has no concept of how the English language works whenever Trump says something they can pull out of context.

what did they pull out of context? Please give context and full explanation then. More just locker room talk I guess? 

 

I mean who cares, but to say its pulled out of context is just not accurate...its on freaking tape.

Edited by plenzmd1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get what the fascination with Megan Markle is.  Yeah she's kinda hot, but there's plenty of hot women out there


Princess Sparkles? Gee why ever wouldn't someone be simply fascinated with her? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...