[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #335 Worstelend door het Capitool

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 00:13 schreef Nintex het volgende:
Pence en Trump dromen groot en inspireren veel mensen.

twitter:

taykuy twitterde op donderdag 06-07-2017 om 18:24:57 DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow." reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 00:40 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Rick Perry offered a ‘little economics lesson.’ It didn’t go so well.

twitter:

taykuy twitterde op donderdag 06-07-2017 om 18:24:57 DOE Rick Perry at coal plant:"Here’s a little economics lesson: supply and demand. You put the supply out there and the demand will follow." reageer retweet

quote:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that if the chamber's fledgling Republican Obamacare repeal effort falls short, Congress will have to pass a more limited bill to shore up health insurance markets.

"If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur," McConnell said at a Rotary Club luncheon in Glasgow, Ky., the Associated Press reported. "No action is not an alternative. ... We've got the insurance markets imploding all over the country, including in this state."

A bill to strengthen the insurance markets would presumably need Democratic support to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. McConnell in the past has warned fractious GOP lawmakers that if the Republican-only repeal effort failed, he would be forced to work with top Democrat Chuck Schumer on legislation that conservatives would likely oppose much more than the GOP repeal bill. He repeated that after a White House meeting with the president last week.

The remarks could be aimed at Senate conservatives who argue the bill doesn't repeal enough of the health care law and contend that Republican leaders are turning their back on their eight-year-old campaign pledge to do away with the Affordable Care Act. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have proposed an amendment to allow insurance companies that sell Obamacare plans to also sell non-Obamacare plans, an idea that health care experts say would tank the markets.

Thursday's comments came after McConnell canceled a planned vote before the July Fourth recess on a repeal bill after it became clear it wouldn’t get support from 50 of the 52 Senate Republicans. McConnell and GOP leaders are redrafting their legislation with hopes of passing it before the August recess.

Several Republicans have come out against the Senate plan, including the conservatives. Moderate Republicans oppose it, too, arguing it would harm people with existing coverage or with pre-existing conditions.

Indeed, McConnell's remarks Thursday are a far cry from his own rhetoric. In his contentious 2014 reelection campaign, McConnell repeatedly promised that he and Republicans would repeal Obamacare "root and branch."

After McConnell raised the prospect of working on the insurance markets, his Democratic counterpart said he's ready to start talking.

“It’s encouraging that Sen. McConnell today acknowledged that the issues with the exchanges are fixable, and opened the door to bipartisan solutions to improve our health care system," Schumer said in a statement. "As we’ve said time and time again, Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve the law. At the top of the list should be ensuring cost-sharing payments are permanent, which will protect health care for millions.”

quote:

Op donderdag 6 juli 2017 21:20 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Wat, Mevr Merkel heeft een speech gehouden?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 07:52 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Sinds wanneer is anti-homohuwelijk Merkel de leider van de vrije wereld?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 00:17 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Het begint al met dingen als:
"There are threats but we will defeat them"

Mindset is heel belangrijk. Het eeuwige geleuter over 'crisis' werkt niet. Trump is met sheer force of will president geworden: "I'm going to win, we're going to win", "We're going to win this state!"

Dat is precies wat Churchill / Kennedy ook veelvuldig gebruikte. De boekhouders en bureaucraten zijn leuk, maar je wint er soms letterlijk geen oorlogen mee.

Obama trouwens net zo in zijn eerste campagne: "Yes we can!"

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:07 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Sinds Trump de complete wereld van zich aan het vervreemden is, met uitzondering van de leiders van S-A, Egypte, Polen en de Filipijnen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:17 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Oh. Dus de keuze is enkel tussen Trump en Merkel?


Erg apart dat liberalen en linksen de religieuze en discriminerende Merkel als leider van de vrije wereld zien. Hoe laag ze zijn gezakt de afgelopen decennia, puur en alleen om het multicultureel fabeltje in stand te houden. Migratiepolitiek lijkt echt de enige criteria te zijn om te bepalen of je "vrij" bent of niet. Al het andere kan in de stront zakken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:17 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Oh. Dus de keuze is enkel tussen Trump en Merkel?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:17 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Erg apart dat liberalen en linksen de religieuze en discriminerende Merkel als leider van de vrije wereld zien. Hoe laag ze zijn gezakt de afgelopen decennia, puur en alleen om het multicultureel fabeltje in stand te houden. Migratiepolitiek lijkt echt de enige criteria te zijn om te bepalen of je "vrij" bent of niet. Al het andere kan in de stront zakken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:17 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Oh. Dus de keuze is enkel tussen Trump en Merkel?


Erg apart dat liberalen en linksen de religieuze en discriminerende Merkel als leider van de vrije wereld zien. Hoe laag ze zijn gezakt de afgelopen decennia, puur en alleen om het multicultureel fabeltje in stand te houden. Migratiepolitiek lijkt echt de enige criteria te zijn om te bepalen of je "vrij" bent of niet. Al het andere kan in de stront zakken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 00:23 schreef Puddington het volgende:

[..]

Nou ja, hij inspireert me wel om nooit zo'n seniele oude zak te worden op die leeftijd, als je dat bedoelt...

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:17 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Oh. Dus de keuze is enkel tussen Trump en Merkel?


Erg apart dat liberalen en linksen de religieuze en discriminerende Merkel als leider van de vrije wereld zien. Hoe laag ze zijn gezakt de afgelopen decennia, puur en alleen om het multicultureel fabeltje in stand te houden. Migratiepolitiek lijkt echt de enige criteria te zijn om te bepalen of je "vrij" bent of niet. Al het andere kan in de stront zakken.

quote:

As far as Trump’s bragging goes, the reality is that Germany and other nations have been increasing defense spending in recent years, but not because of anything Trump has said or done. The growing spending in Europe is a direct result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the destabilizing and menacing policies it has adopted in the past five years, such as its own surge in defense spending; its revamping of conventional forces; its blatant violation of the 1987 INF Treaty by deploying a missile specifically banned by the treaty; its modernization of strategic nuclear forces on land and at sea; its dangerous intentional challenges to NATO operations at sea, on land and in the air; and, of course, its interference in democratic elections in the United States, France and others in Europe. It is this rising Russian threat across the board that led to increases in defense spending, and those increases started well before Trump even became a candidate for president.

The real danger on the horizon is that Trump’s diplomacy of brag and bash is starting to take a toll on U.S. long-term security, as these repeated assaults on allies during these past six months are weakening bonds of friendship and trust that took decades to build in countries like Germany and South Korea.

Trump officials might think disrupting the status quo is a political plus. But this disruption diplomacy has reached dangerous proportions, and it reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge about what makes the United States so powerful and gives that power long-term stability. American global leadership has been so successful these past 70 years because it is based on worldwide alliances that are voluntary, alliances that are more stable than the empires created by the United Kingdom or Rome because they are not based on invasion, colonization or bribery. One of the incalculable advantages the United States now has in power politics is a result of alliances and basing rights that allow U.S. forces to be deployed all over the world—a capability China and Russia can only imagine.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 07:52 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Sinds wanneer is anti-homohuwelijk Merkel de leider van de vrije wereld?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:07 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Sinds Trump de complete wereld van zich aan het vervreemden is, met uitzondering van de leiders van S-A, Egypte, Polen en de Filipijnen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 10:40 schreef Eficaz het volgende:

[..]

Ja, sinds wanneer?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 10:42 schreef Eficaz het volgende:

[..]

En Israël

quote:

The Republican Backlash Against Trump's Vote-Fraud Commission
GOP secretaries of state have pushed back on a request for voter data, and former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff says it could endanger national security.

Republicans officials and officeholders were, for the most part, not pleased about the rise of Donald Trump as their party’s candidate, but they found themselves powerless to stop his winning the nomination and then the presidency.

Since Trump became president, however, Republicans have become some of his most effective antagonists, stymieing a range of efforts. House members defeated a first attempt at repealing Obamacare; a Senate bill to do the same is looking precarious. (Democrats, although unified in opposition, have played no real role.) Congress has pursued an investigation into Russian interference Trump dislikes, and may strengthen sanctions he wants to lift. And now Republicans are posing a serious challenge to Trump’s ballyhooed election-fraud commission.

But first, let’s back up a step. The board has always looked like a cynical ploy. Stung by his failure to win the popular vote, even as the electoral college gave him the presidency, Trump has insisted that there were 3 to 5 million votes cast by ineligible voters during the presidential election. This number seems to be based on wildly speculative figures produced by an activist named Gregg Phillips.

A clique of conservatives has been warning for years that elections are irreparably tainted by vote fraud, but repeated investigations have failed to turn up meaningful numbers of fraudulent votes. Meanwhile, the laws that many states have passed, requiring photo ID to vote, making it harder to register and vote, and other changes, have disproportionately made it harder for minorities as well as student and the elderly—all Democratic constituencies—to vote. Some federal courts have even ruled that disenfranchising minorities is the goal of such laws.

Caught making baseless claims, Trump announced he would impanel a commission to investigate voter fraud. (This is a favorite move for the president: When he was caught making a baseless claim that Barack Obama had surveilled him, he demanded that intelligence agencies and Congress investigate his flight of fancy, then said the truth would only come out once those inquiries were completed.) The de facto leader of the commission is Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and one of the most outspoken and successful proponents of the claim of widespread voter fraud.

At the end of June, Kobach made his first big move, requesting all publicly available voter data from the states, including names, addresses, voting history, party affiliation, felony convictions, and the last four digits of Social Security numbers. That’s in keeping with Kobach’s Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, which has sought to create a database of registered voters across the entire country.

Unsurprisingly, several Democratic state secretaries of state (or their equivalents) immediately rejected the request. More interesting was the response by Republicans officials at the state level. A number of them have also rejected the request either in part or in full, citing taxpayer costs, privacy intrusions, or the fact that they doubt Kobach’s request can do much to stop fraud.

The most colorful response came from Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, a Republican.

“My reply would be: They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great State to launch from,” he said in a statement. “Mississippi residents should celebrate Independence Day and our State’s right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral processes.”

Other officials said that they were not legally permitted to disclose the data the commission requested. Maryland Secretary of State Luis Borunda, a member of the commission, resigned from the group without explanation. Ari Berman, a progressive journalist who covers voting issues closely, found that 45 states had rejected the request in part or in full.

That prompted a sharp statement from Kobach, issued through the White House press office, on Wednesday:
"In all, 36 states have either agreed or are considering participating with the Commission's work to ensure the integrity of the American electoral system. While there are news reports that 44 states have "refused" to provide voter information to the Commission, these reports are patently false, more "fake news". At present, only 14 states and the District of Columbia have refused the Commission's request for publicly available voter information."

Kobach has a point, as far as it goes: Some states have agreed to provide that portion of the information that Kobach requested which is actually publicly available. But then again, that information is already publicly available. North Carolina’s elections board, for example, made clear that it was releasing information because it was legally obligated to do so, and added that everything it was releasing was already available on its website. (In a moment of unintentional humor, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach had to inform election-panel co-chair Kris Kobach that this state would not hand over Social Security numbers.)

Meanwhile, Michael Chertoff, a Republican who served as secretary of homeland security in the Bush administration, wrote in a Washington Post column on Thursday that Kobach’s attempt to gather so much personal information constitutes a grave threat to national security, because such a database would be vulnerable to hacking. The overall effect has been that Republican officials are creating a major obstacle to the Kobach commission putting together the database it sought.

That shouldn’t pose much of a danger to electoral integrity, though. If there were actually millions of ineligible voters casting ballots, it would have been detected before. A painstaking 2007 Department of Justice search failed to turn it up, as have other investigations. (Philip Bump illustrated the physical implausibility of these claims in October, too.) In-person voter fraud is extremely rare, yet voter-ID laws and databases like Interstate Crosscheck continue to focus on rooting it out. But simply matching names tends to turn up false positives. That’s something Kobach encountered in Kansas: After he dramatically announced that there were nearly 2,000 dead voters on state rolls, newspapers starting finding the alleged dead voters alive and well. Similar names often produce false positive results for fraudulent or duplicative registrations.

Yet that’s precisely what Kobach intended to do with the information he collected for the panel, as Jessica Huseman confirmed: The idea is to run the names collected against federal databases to try to find improper registrations. That would likely produce a raft of false positives; some would be successfully challenged, but other eligible voters might see their registrations erroneously thrown out. Given the history of voter-ID laws and Kobach’s results with previous databases, the cynics can be forgiven for suspecting that was the goal all along.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 08:19 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
De scheidslijn ligt denk ik eerder tussen gek en gezond van verstand, niet per se langs ideologische lijnen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 11:13 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Wir schaffen das behoort dan in de categorie gek-krankzinnig.

Gekke Merkel.

quote:

The Racial and Religious Paranoia of Trump's Warsaw Speech
When the president says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people.

In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to “the West” and five times to “our civilization.” His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too.

The West is not a geographic term. Poland is further east than Morocco. France is further east than Haiti. Australia is further east than Egypt. Yet Poland, France, and Australia are all considered part of “The West.” Morocco, Haiti, and Egypt are not.

The West is not an ideological or economic term either. India is the world’s largest democracy. Japan is among its most economically advanced nations. No one considers them part of the West.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics. Is Latin America Western? Maybe. Most of its people are Christian, but by U.S. standards, they’re not clearly white. Are Albania and Bosnia Western? Maybe. By American standards, their people are white. But they are also mostly Muslim.

Steve Bannon, who along with Stephen Miller has shaped much of Trump’s civilizational thinking, has been explicit about this. In a 2014 speech, he celebrated “the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam” and “our forefathers” who “bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.”

During the Cold War, when the contest between Soviet and American power divided Europe along geographic lines, American presidents sometimes contrasted the democratic “West” with the communist “East.” But when the Cold War ended, they largely stopped associating America with “the West.” Every president from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama emphasized the portability of America’s political and economic principles. The whole point was that democracy and capitalism were not uniquely “Western.” They were not the property of any particular religion or race but the universal aspiration of humankind.

To grasp how different that rhetoric was from Trump’s, look at how the last Republican President, George W. Bush, spoke when he visited Poland. In his first presidential visit, in 2001, Bush never referred to “the West.” He did tell Poles that “We share a civilization.” But in the next sentence he insisted that “Its values are universal.” Because they are, he declared, “our trans-Atlantic community must have priorities beyond the consolidation of European peace. We must bring peace and health to Africa. … We must work toward a world that trades in freedom … a world of cooperation to enhance prosperity, protect the environment, and lift the quality of life for all.”

In 2003, Bush returned, and in his main speech didn’t use the terms “West” or “civilization” at all. After celebrating Poland’s achievements, he said America and Europe “must help men and women around the world to build lives of purpose and dignity” so they don’t turn to terrorism. He boasted that America was increasing its funding to fight global poverty and AIDS because “we add to our security by helping to spread freedom and alleviate suffering.” And he said “America and Europe must work closely to develop and apply new technologies that will improve our air and water quality, and protect the health of the world’s people.”

Bush’s vision echoed Francis Fukuyama’s. America and Europe may have been further along the road to prosperity, liberty, capitalism, and peace than other parts of the world, but all countries could follow their path. And the more each did, the more America and Europe would benefit. In deeply Catholic Poland, Bush sprinkled his speeches with religious references, but they were about Christianity as a universal creed, a moral imperative that knew no civilizational bounds. By contrast, when Trump warned Poles about forces “from the south or the east, that threaten … to erase the bonds of culture, faith, and tradition,” he was talking not about Christianity but about Christendom: a particular religious civilization that must protect itself from outsiders.

In his 2003 speech, Bush referred to democracy 13 times. Trump mentioned it once. And for good reason. Ideologically, what links the current American and Polish governments is not their commitment to democracy—both are increasingly authoritarian. It is their hostility to Muslim immigration. The European Union is suing Poland’s government for refusing to accept refugees. Among Trump’s biggest applause lines in Warsaw was, “While we will always welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any kind.” Given that Trump had linked “our values” to America and Poland’s “tradition,” “faith,” “culture,” and “identity,” it wasn’t hard to imagine whom that leaves out.

When Bush spoke in Poland, America’s leaders still mostly discussed globalization as a process by which America improved the rest of the world. Trump generally discusses globalization—the movement of both goods and people—as a process by which the rest of the world cheats, weakens, and threatens America. In his two speeches in Poland combined, Bush used variations of the word “defend” five times. Trump used them 21 times in a single speech.

The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” On its face, that’s absurd. Jihadist terrorists can kill people in the West, but unlike Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, they cannot topple even the weakest European government. Jihadists control no great armies. Their ideologies have limited appeal even among the Muslims they target with their propaganda. ISIS has all but lost Mosul and could lose Raqqa later this year.

Trump’s sentence only makes sense as a statement of racial and religious paranoia. The “south” and “east” only threaten the West’s “survival” if you see non-white, non-Christian immigrants as invaders. They only threaten the West’s “survival” if by “West” you mean white, Christian hegemony. A direct line connects Trump’s assault on Barack Obama’s citizenship to his speech in Poland. In Trump and Bannon’s view, America is at its core Western: meaning white and Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian). The implication is that anyone in the United States who is not white and Christian may not truly be American but rather than an imposter and a threat.

Poland is largely ethnically homogeneous. So when a Polish president says that being Western is the essence of the nation’s identity, he’s mostly defining Poland in opposition to the nations to its east and south. America is racially, ethnically, and religious diverse. So when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people. He’s not speaking as the president of the entire United States. He’s speaking as the head of a tribe.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 11:13 schreef Elzies het volgende:

[..]

Wir schaffen das behoort dan in de categorie gek-krankzinnig.

Gekke Merkel.

quote:

What Can China Do About North Korea?
President Trump says Beijing isn’t doing enough, but it’s difficult to measure the country’s actual influence.

President Trump meets with the leaders of South Korea and Japan Thursday evening to discuss the North Korean crisis. Absent from their dinner is Chinese President Xi Jinping, who Trump has said is key to resolving the impasse over Pyongyang’s nuclear-weapons and missile programs. His absence is reportedly intended to put pressure on Beijing over its perceived inaction on North Korea.

Trump has made China’s role a centerpiece of his North Korea policy. Even before his inauguration, he said Beijing has “been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. … but won’t help with North Korea,” which he has described as “a real threat to the world.” But after meeting Xi at Mar-a-Lago in April, Trump said the Chinese president had convinced him that “it’s not so easy.” Then this week, after North Korea tested what it said was an intercontinental ballistic missile that experts say could reach Alaska, Trump tweeted:
"Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter. So much for China working with us - but we had to give it a try!"

Whether or not that figure is reliable, China has more influence on the North Korean leadership than any other nation does. But is that influence is enough to persuade Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, to stop testing missiles and nuclear devices?

Chinese experts have long maintained that the West overstates their country’s influence over North Korea, especially in the Kim Jog Un era. They acknowledge that China has economic leverage over Pyongyang, but at the same time point out that China is boxed in because its ultimate goal is a stable North Korea—and because any international pressure could lead to instability on the Korean Peninsula, Beijing is reluctant to take forceful action.

“It is difficult to estimate China’s influence over Pyongyang,” Lu Chao, director of the Border Study Institute at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank, told NK News in an interview in 2015. He said that in the era of Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un’s father, “the two countries followed the practice of notifying each other on serious issues. But the ties are going through a relative low point, and there seems to be no such practice now.” In an interview in May with the Globe and Mail, Luo reiterated those comments: “Frankly speaking, we are right now at the lowest point in the relationship between China and North Korea.”

Americans who have dealt with Chinese diplomats on North Korea empathize, but say there’s no question China still wields enormous influence on the leadership in Pyongyang.

“I think it’s a fair statement that China is experiencing a significantly different dynamic with Kim Jong Un than with his predecessor, which should be extremely concerning to all of us, and which I think is legitimately concerning to Beijing as well,” said David Pressman, a former U.S. ambassador to the UN for special political affairs during the Obama administration. “I think there was a time when there was more predictability in the relationship between China and North Korea and the leadership of both countries.”

But Pressman, who is now partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, added while China has the “ability to influence” North Korea’s calculus on its weapons programs, “we’re not even seeing a significant effort from Beijing to attempt to do that.” He noted that in early 2016, China was willing to adopt strong sanctions against North Korea at the UN, but “proved systematically prepared to look for excuses to not implement and not force the measures, including the measures that they’ve supported, being implemented.”

Indeed, at the time the UN imposed sanctions—which, among other things, prohibited North Korea’s sale of coal—China insisted on an exemption that permitted Pyongyang to export coal to facilitate the livelihoods of individual North Koreans.

“What the Chinese then proceeded to do with the livelihood exemption was funnel enormous amounts of coal trade under the guise of this exemption,” Pressman said. “So they were prepared to support the political message of banning the export of coal, but they weren’t prepared to deliver in practical terms that would actually make the North Korean regime feel some financial pain. And for sanctions to work, obviously that has to happen.”

The Chinese continued to exploit this loophole until February of this year when Beijing announced that it was halting coal imports from the North—though it continues to import, in small amounts, other commodities from North Korea.

“Unless North Korea starts a war against China or some other country, China will not cut off all trade,” Shi Yinhong, an international relations specialist at People’s University in Beijing, told the Associated Press. “Some [economic] activities are not for making money but for political concerns, so the people in Pyongyang will want to listen to us sometimes when we talk.”

But Trump has argued the stakes in North Korea are too high for diplomacy as usual. The president, in remarks Thursday in Warsaw, said the U.S. would take “pretty severe” steps to retaliate against the North’s latest missile test. It’s that possibility—an unstable nation with a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the U.S.—that most concerns U.S. officials, and indeed the nations surrounding North Korea.

“I think Kim Jong Un is dangerous enough and certainly has the instruments of lethality in his possession that threaten international peace and security,” Pressman said, “such that … no one is going to be comfortable with this man continuing to possess and threaten the world with nuclear weapons.”

Zhang Tuosheng, director at the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies, said it’s not in China’s interests for North Korea to become a de facto nuclear state. “It will ... be a disaster for China,” he said Thursday at a panel discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. He said the goal of international diplomacy should be, first, to freeze North Korea's nuclear program and, ultimately, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

"We should strive for the best," he said. "We should prepare for the worst."

Zhu Feng, a professor of international relations at Nanjing University, who also spoke at the CSIS panel, was less sanguine about the prospect of persuading Pyongyang to renounce its nuclear program. He said nuclear weapons were the only way for Kim "to magnify how magnificent he is" to the North Korean people.

quote:

Donald Trump 'has trouble finding hotel room at G20 summit'
There is no Trump hotel in the city

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 13:40 schreef tcr het volgende:

[..]

http://www.independent.co(...)etings-a7827166.html

Lastig een hotel boeken, zeker voor iemand die hotels in zijn portfolie heeft...

quote:

So I really like exposing indepedent articles for the political pieces of crap they are. They are lazy journalism with half quotes pretending to be realy journalism.

I went back to the buzzfeed article they quoted (they always quote buzzfeed) and then found the previous article in german. This was the article buzzfeed was quoting. Were literally playing telephone here

https://www.welt.de/polit(...)eim-G-20-Gipfel.html

Now if you read the article. Remember this is what Buzzfeed and the Independent are basing there 'incompetent administration' hit pieces on. Youll see it just says they dont know where trump is staying; having no direct source but only asking around hotels. This article was also published more than a week ago. Its very likely the info is out of date or could have changed. Idk why this is continuously allowed to be a reliable source. This is so easy to debunk and the journalism standard of the independent is so lazy. They always take half quotes and spin them into trump hit pieces.

Edit: Im all for good journalism but seriously guys, look at the quote the indepdent has and go back and reread the original article. Always do this with them, there are so many inconsistencies with their work. I was able to prove the same thing with the syrian gas thing a week ago. Theu are lazy journalist who shouldnt be supported.

Edit 2: im surprised how well this is being received. In other news and political boards I cannot critize articles like this without being called some alex jones conspiracy theorist. Its relatively nice

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:17 schreef Barbusse het volgende:
Trump: 'Everyone' at G-20 talking about Podesta not giving server to authorities Euh...wat?

twitter:

ABC twitterde op vrijdag 07-07-2017 om 14:11:42 Video shows Pres. Trump, Russian Pres. Putin shaking hands at G-20 summit ahead of their high-stakes meeting today.… https://t.co/9P8t9ONFPe reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:22 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Die gast spoort niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:23 schreef Nintex het volgende:

twitter:

ABC twitterde op vrijdag 07-07-2017 om 14:11:42 Video shows Pres. Trump, Russian Pres. Putin shaking hands at G-20 summit ahead of their high-stakes meeting today.… https://t.co/9P8t9ONFPe reageer retweet

Juncker duikt als een zielepoot ineen als Trump langszij komt om Putin een hand te geven.

[ afbeelding ]

Juncker ziet er al weer aardig bezopen uit

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:26 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

Waarom deed hij de stoere, mannelijke handdruk waar je normaal gesproken zo'n fan van bent eigenlijk niet?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:29 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

Nu je het zegt dat zie ik hem steeds minder vaak doen de laatste tijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:33 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:

[..]

Oh, de roeihanddruk?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:36 schreef Ludachrist het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

Deze totaal normale manier van handenschudden, inderdaad.

Bij Putin geeft hij gewoon een handje en een kneepje in de onderarm waarna hij hem even over zijn rug wrijft. Vandaar dat ik benieuwd was wat een lichaamstaalexpert als Nintex daarover te zeggen had.

twitter:

FoxNews twitterde op vrijdag 07-07-2017 om 13:53:14 Video shows the first handshake between @POTUS and President Vladimir Putin. https://t.co/RxrhvIu0y9 (Credit:... https://t.co/fel6DRMaIk reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:43 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Blijft verbazingwekkend hoe relevant veel mensen iets knulligs als handen schudden achten.
Internationale deals zijn geen handjeklap tussen wereldleiders.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:43 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Blijft verbazingwekkend hoe relevant veel mensen iets knulligs als handen schudden achten.
Internationale deals zijn geen handjeklap tussen wereldleiders.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 14:43 schreef Monolith het volgende:
Blijft verbazingwekkend hoe relevant veel mensen iets knulligs als handen schudden achten.
Internationale deals zijn geen handjeklap tussen wereldleiders.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 juli 2017 15:21 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wat hebben Vietnam en de Koude Oorlog met als een wezenloze handjes schudden te maken?