Serious Topics Political and Economic Discussion Forums.. Javascript must be enabled to use this site.
Password ReminderLoginRegister  
Topics
Register
Login
Archives

President Obama

What now for America and The World?

Note that various articles on the housing markets of the UK, USA and Australia are recorded at House Price Crash Discussion Forums
Please register or login to post.
View Topic
Search text   Date  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  

PosterMessage
little c
 16 Oct '17  00:27 : 0 recs

Good morning to everyone reading 'Serious Topics', 'The Third' and all other social media online today. I trust that all is well with all of you today. The London 'Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment that the loser of last year’s US election is too quick to blame others.

"Hillary Clinton has fared better as an author than as a presidential candidate. Her first memoir, in 2003, sold more than half a million copies in its first week. Her latest book, on last year’s election campaign, sold 300,000 copies in a week and helped Mrs Clinton to fill a 2,000-seat venue at The Times and The Sunday Times Cheltenham Literary Festival yesterday. Its title purports to promise a straightforward description: What Happened. Add a question mark, and it becomes a question that the author has still not satisfactorily answered.

What happened when America went to the polls last year will be debated by political science PhDs for generations. Many will tell a complex story of overheated rhetoric, Russian shenanigans, tight electoral margins and an… "
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 16 Oct '17  00:27 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 16 Oct '17  00:27

Hillary Rodham Clinton?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 10 Oct '17  05:45 : 0 recs

Only for lack of alternatives!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 09 Oct '17  00:38 : 0 recs

Can President Trump win a second term as President of the United States of America (USA)?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 08 Oct '17  16:27 : 0 recs

Quite so!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 08 Oct '17  15:13 : 0 recs

What about defence spending?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 08 Oct '17  15:04 : 0 recs

America cannot pay for the rest of the world, Slightly Optimistic. What America can usefully do, however, is to provide by currency by which we pay for the rest of the world!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 08 Oct '17  12:29 : 0 recs

Audit American debt!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 06 Oct '17  15:34 : 0 recs

You, too, Barack?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 06 Oct '17  05:08 : 0 recs

Trump won!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 26 Sep '17  05:25 : 1 rec

Yes!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 26 Sep '17  02:36 : 1 rec

Big C will trump Trump, of course!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 20 Sep '17  01:57 : 1 rec

Good morning to everyone reading 'Serious Topics'. I trust that all is well with all of you today. The London 'Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment on engagement is good.

"There were gasps from the audience, one ambassador said, when President Trump used his first speech to the UN general assembly to warn that he would “totally destroy North Korea” if it continued to threaten America with nuclear weapons. Mr Trump would have expected nothing less. He came to the UN on Monday to chide it gently for bureaucratic excess, but mainly to praise its ideals and its new secretary-general, António Guterres. He returned yesterday with a rhetorical blunderbuss and two obvious goals: to persuade the international community that there is such a thing as a Trump foreign policy doctrine, and to put Pyongyang on notice, in the unlikely event that the message had not already got through, that more brinkmanship could lead to its destruction ..."


'The Times' thunders that behind the bluster, President Trump’s message is that he is ready to work with the UN. About time, too, Thoughtful? What do you think?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 19 Sep '17  21:03 : 1 rec : edited 2 times : last edit 19 Sep '17  21:04

Good evening to everyone reading 'The Third' today! I trust that all is well with all of you! 'The Guardian' leads tomorrow with some editorial comment arguing that Donald Trump is all bluster and belligerence at the United Nations.

"Whatever its difficulties, the United Nations must surely be cherished. Founded in 1945 under US leadership after the defeat of Nazism and imperial Japan, the UN remains the central pillar of the global order. At its core has stood the ambition that peace, international security and human rights would be better protected than they were by the 1930s League of Nations (whose founding treaty the US Senate refused to ratify). The UN is the only existing forum where the representatives of all nation states can be brought together to try to address crises and common challenges.

Donald Trump’s first address to the organisation’s annual general assembly was anticipated with dread by many – and rightly so. This US president is after all the first in history to have made heaping scorn on the UN something of a pastime. His views on the subject have ranged from crude hostility to abject ignorance. The speech he delivered was scripted – not the ramblings of a maverick whose taste for rash tweets and cheep provocations have become an almost daily routine. It was deeply worrying all the same. Unlike his eloquent predecessor, President Trump trades in crass belligerence. His speech will be remembered for its ominous language.

On North Korea he mocked its young leader Kim Jong-un, saying that “rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime”. He threatened that “if [the US] is forced to defend itself and its allies, it will have no other choice but to destroy North Korea”. Iran, he said, was “a corrupt dictatorship” whose “chief export is violence, bloodshed and chaos”. Trump called the 2015 nuclear deal “the worse transaction ever” – a sign perhaps he may be getting ready to pull out of it, or ensuring Iran is provoked enough to do so itself. What the White House could have done is appeal to the Iranian people directly, offering a “new beginning” in the relationship between the two nations. But the US president has not displayed the slightest interest in fundamental democratic values.

His speech carried enough of a whiff of “regime change” to make Tehran think hard over nuclear compliance. As last week’s UN security council vote on sanctioning North Korea has shown, there is an international consensus on the dangers presented by Pyongyang’s behaviour. But on Iran, President Trump risks finding himself in stark isolation, with European allies already making clear they want to preserve the 2015 agreement, not tear it up. The US president no doubt speaks to his base as much as he does to an international audience. But the nationalist ideology he espouses was yet again made clear, not least with the emphasis he put on “strong, sovereign, independent nations”, rather than on the body of universal values that the UN is meant to uphold.

President Trump wants the UN to put pressure on North Korea and Iran, but he’s brought little clarity as to the wider strategy he contemplates. Threats and grandstanding are just bluster, not policy. Crises require a deftness the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate. He wants allies to back him, but seems oblivious that his lack of personal credibility is an obstacle to international cooperation. An “America First” approach runs counter to the UN’s multilateralism. His credo could be summed up by his claim that nations acting in their own self-interest create a more stable world. The question is what rules would states operate under? Not the UN’s, Trump’s response appeared to suggest. The president may want to speak of “principled realism”, but he is a reckless and dangerous leader, sitting, alas, in a most powerful position."


'The Guardian' concludes that the US president is wrong to think that nations acting in their own self-interest would on their own create a more stable world. Countries need to work together under rules to which they agree to adhere, Porn'.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 19 Sep '17  21:01 : 0 recs

Good evening to everyone reading 'Serious Topics' today! I trust that all is well with all of you! 'The Guardian' leads tomorrow with some editorial comment arguing that Donald Trump is all bluster and belligerence at the United Nations.

"Whatever its difficulties, the United Nations must surely be cherished. Founded in 1945 under US leadership after the defeat of Nazism and imperial Japan, the UN remains the central pillar of the global order. At its core has stood the ambition that peace, international security and human rights would be better protected than they were by the 1930s League of Nations (whose founding treaty the US Senate refused to ratify). The UN is the only existing forum where the representatives of all nation states can be brought together to try to address crises and common challenges.

Donald Trump’s first address to the organisation’s annual general assembly was anticipated with dread by many – and rightly so. This US president is after all the first in history to have made heaping scorn on the UN something of a pastime. His views on the subject have ranged from crude hostility to abject ignorance. The speech he delivered was scripted – not the ramblings of a maverick whose taste for rash tweets and cheep provocations have become an almost daily routine. It was deeply worrying all the same. Unlike his eloquent predecessor, President Trump trades in crass belligerence. His speech will be remembered for its ominous language.

On North Korea he mocked its young leader Kim Jong-un, saying that “rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime”. He threatened that “if [the US] is forced to defend itself and its allies, it will have no other choice but to destroy North Korea”. Iran, he said, was “a corrupt dictatorship” whose “chief export is violence, bloodshed and chaos”. Trump called the 2015 nuclear deal “the worse transaction ever” – a sign perhaps he may be getting ready to pull out of it, or ensuring Iran is provoked enough to do so itself. What the White House could have done is appeal to the Iranian people directly, offering a “new beginning” in the relationship between the two nations. But the US president has not displayed the slightest interest in fundamental democratic values.

His speech carried enough of a whiff of “regime change” to make Tehran think hard over nuclear compliance. As last week’s UN security council vote on sanctioning North Korea has shown, there is an international consensus on the dangers presented by Pyongyang’s behaviour. But on Iran, President Trump risks finding himself in stark isolation, with European allies already making clear they want to preserve the 2015 agreement, not tear it up. The US president no doubt speaks to his base as much as he does to an international audience. But the nationalist ideology he espouses was yet again made clear, not least with the emphasis he put on “strong, sovereign, independent nations”, rather than on the body of universal values that the UN is meant to uphold.

President Trump wants the UN to put pressure on North Korea and Iran, but he’s brought little clarity as to the wider strategy he contemplates. Threats and grandstanding are just bluster, not policy. Crises require a deftness the Trump administration has failed to demonstrate. He wants allies to back him, but seems oblivious that his lack of personal credibility is an obstacle to international cooperation. An “America First” approach runs counter to the UN’s multilateralism. His credo could be summed up by his claim that nations acting in their own self-interest create a more stable world. The question is what rules would states operate under? Not the UN’s, Trump’s response appeared to suggest. The president may want to speak of “principled realism”, but he is a reckless and dangerous leader, sitting, alas, in a most powerful position."


'The Guardian' concludes that the US president is wrong to think that nations acting in their own self-interest would on their own create a more stable world. Countries need to work together under rules to which they agree to adhere, Uncle Henry.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 18 Sep '17  16:24 : 0 recs

Less than nothing!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Thoughtful
 18 Sep '17  15:35 : 1 rec

We don't comprehend ?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 18 Sep '17  15:20 : 0 recs

No one understands, Thoughtful.
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Thoughtful
 18 Sep '17  08:59 : 1 rec

I don't understand little c ?

Meanwhile Hillary's book must be making a fortune ?

Her lecture is around £40 quid for an hour with a copy of the book included , sold out now !

Bill Clintons lecture some 15 yrs ago at Hay on Wye was £250 quid ?
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
little c
 17 Sep '17  14:14 : 2 recs

What inanities, Thoughtful!
 You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  
Showing posts 1 to 20 of 4518
 


© Copyright 2017