Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Simon_Jester]

Hey Simon, I notice you haven't actually answered why is it ok to discuss Trump's foreign policy by comparing to previous presidents, but when I do it, its magically derailment. You are clearly comparing Trump's policy to past presidents, you even state it. Your lack of self awareness would be comedic if it wasn't so pathetic.

Because we're talking about Trump having a specific plan to change things in a specific way, whereas you're talking about something at most tangentially related to Trump. You could have given exactly the same remarks five years ago and just dropped the last two sentences or said 'I hope a generic Republican president wins, because that'll pull the wool off of people's eyes.'

When challenged on this, your first reaction was to say "Its a criticism of mainstream media, or so called establishment media who did not raise a stink with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush junior, Obama when they did it, but only does it when Trump does it." So do I take you at your word, and conclude that your thesis is about the media, not about Trump?

I mean, a generic "America's human rights record has always been nothing more than a propaganda tool to fool people into thinking it's a decent country, and the media boosts this propaganda signal" thread would be fine and all, but trying to turn all other threads that reference the US and human rights into that thread isn't.

That's the difference right there. You're not only saying "Trump is just more openly following the same foreign policy as past presidents," because you'd get laughed out of the thread if you did. You're also taking the opportunity to pull out the soapbox and talk about other favorite issues like "the media sucks and is biased against Trump" and "America in general sucks and Americans shouldn't talk like their country has ever valued human rights."

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the problem with that people sometimes miss the crux of the matter. Jimmy Dore put it nicely, Trump is merely the symptom, not the source of the disease. The source is right in the society that tolerated these actions for so long. When Trump is gone, the same shit will continue (maybe less blatant, maybe even lesser in scale to an extent, even though Bush junior did worse). By targeting Trump like is the source of most of the problems, kind of misses the forest for the trees.

Arguments like this are irritating because, while true, they are also utterly meaningless. It's irrelevant. It's like saying that we can't target the Nazis for criticism, because they were just the symptom of the political, social, and economic climate that arose out of World War I. It's like saying we can't criticize Mike Pence's horrid views on gay rights, because it is just a symptom of the way Christian fundamentalist sentiments became embedded in our culture since the early colonial era, which is itself just a symptom of the ebb and flow of Catholic influence in Europe going back to Rome, which is itself ...

It's possible to acknowledge that Trump's rise is the end result of a lot of complex factors in American culture while also acknowledging the unequivocal fact that he is dramatically changing the way American foreign policy is conducted and tearing down long established norms of political discourse. Stop being a twat.

[K. A. Pital]

Ok, but is that really so? How exactly is the US more insulated than others?

Well because international trade comprises lesser percentage of its GDP.

I see.

But for the purposes of this discussion... It is not the percentage of trade in GDP which matters, but rather the structure of this trade, dependency of localized production on imported goods and the precise trading partners.

A country can be better protected against shocks caused by US tariffs by having 80% of GDP in trade, but, say, if that trade with partners that are not the US. The above is logical, the approach "less trade / GDP - more protected" is incorrect.

I do not necessarily disagree with you either, but I need to take my time to look at the supply chains and trade channels for most involved parties (US, China, EU, India and a few other nations) to make a judgement on that statement.

[Crazedwraith]

Travel Ban upheld by supreme court

US President Donald Trump has hailed a Supreme Court ruling upholding his travel ban which covers people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court reversed the decision in a 5-4 conservative majority ruling.

At a White House meeting to discuss Mr Trump's proposed border wall he lauded the decision as "a tremendous success".

The court's reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.

The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.


Mr Trump said the Supreme Court decision was a "great victory" for the nation and constitution.

"We have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure," the Republican president said in Tuesday's meeting with lawmakers.

"The ruling shows that all the attacks from the media and the Democrat politicians were wrong, and they turned out to be very wrong," he added.

The travel ban, which the Supreme Court allowed to take effect in December, has been widely criticised by refugee and human rights groups.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which said the travel ban was "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority".

He also rejected arguments that the ban discriminated against Muslims.

"The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

Shortly after the Supreme Court released its decision, President Donald Trump shared the news from his Twitter account.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the dissenting opinion, which argues the court failed to uphold the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a 'total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' because the policy now masquerades behind a facade of national-security concerns," Justice Sotomayor wrote.

The dissent also states that "a reasonably observer would conclude that [the ban] was motivated by anti-Muslim animus".

What does this ruling mean?
The travel ban has been in place since December, when the Supreme Court ruled that it could go into full effect, pending legal challenges.

The ban prevents most immigrants, refugees and visa holders from five Muslim-majority countries - Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen - as well as North Korea and Venezuela from entering the US.

But the restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the legal challenge.

The ban allows for waivers on a case-by-case basis, but applicants who cannot afford an attorney to go through the waiver process will likely be unable to immigrate to the US, immigration advocates say.

Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his dissenting opinion that the state department reported that only two waivers were approved out of 6,555 applicants during the first month of the travel ban.

More analysis and reactions at the link.

[The Romulan Republic]

Another disgraceful day for America. In fairness, this is apparently a more moderate, less broad and blatantly bigoted ban than the original one, but this is still a symbolic victory for xenophobia, and one that will hurt innocent people.

In fairness to the court, the Justices are supposed to rule according to their interpretation of the law, not their personal philosophy or morality. But the fact that this was a 4/5 party-line vote is telling- this was not a clear-cut issue to the court. And considering that one of those 5 is Gorsuch, an appointee of a President who may have stolen the election, and who only holds a seat because Republicans in Congress (in my view unconstitutionally) obstructed Obama from carrying out his Constitutional duty of appointing Justices by refusing to hold hearings... well, I've stated before that any 5/4 vote passed with Gorsuch's vote should be regarded as illegitimate, and subject to civil disobedience.

Also:

"The text says nothing about religion."

Fuck you, Roberts. I don't believe a Supreme Court Justice is too stupid to read between the lines. Just because they don't (any longer) openly proclaim the bigotry of their motives doesn't mean that they aren't motivated by bigotry.

[The Romulan Republic]

US Border Control agents harass and interrogate Canadian fishermen in disputed waters, claiming they are searching for illegal immigrants.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-sco ... -1.4732583

The federal government is investigating reports that two Canadian fishing vessels were approached, and crew members questioned, by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Canadian waters in the Gulf of Maine in late June.

According to Global Affairs Canada, the incidents occurred June 24 and 25 around Machias Seal Island and North Rock.

While details are scant, the fishermen are members of the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association. Laurence Cook, the association's chair, wrote on Facebook that the U.S. officials claimed they were "looking for illegal immigrants."

On Wednesday, Cook said further that border officials have stopped at least 10 fishing boats in the past two weeks. CBC News has only been able to confirm two of those instances with Global Affairs, but has requested information about any other investigations as well.

Machias Seal Island is a tiny spot between New Brunswick and Maine that has been the subject of a territorial dispute between Canada and the United States for decades.

Roughly 700 square kilometres of water surround the island in what's called a grey zone. Lobstermen from both sides of the border fish those waters.

There is a clear and very disturbing pattern of manufactured conflicts and escalating hostility with Canada over the past few months. To what ultimate end? Just for the sake of Trump's ego and spite? As a political distraction/scapegoat? To undermine Western alliances at the behest of Big Brother Putin? Or in the worst-case scenario, to ultimately provoke or provide grounds for a military confrontation?

Fascist nations seek external enemies as well as internal ones. If history shows anything, it is that they are a threat to their neighbors. There is no cause for conflict between the US and Canada. Perhaps no two countries are more closely intertwined. Literally millions of Americans live in Canada, or vice versa. Even more have families in both countries. Our economies are interdependent. We have the longest undefended border on the planet. Yet Trump is manufacturing a conflict, making Canada an enemy? Why?

Keep in mind that there is an ongoing dispute over control of valuable, resource-rich arctic waters, in which Canada, the US, and Russia are all major players: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territori ... the_Arctic

Honestly, at this point, I'd be only slightly surprised if Putin and Trump went full Molotov-Ribbentrope on Canada at their upcoming summit.

[Tribble]

Well Canada is a pretty easy target given we only have a nominal military, have no desire for nuclear weapons for deterrence and a good portion our population is pacifistic enough that they would likely just throw in the towel if attacked and welcome their new overlords. Canada has only remained a free and democratic country because the USA permits it.

That being said, IMO an actual war is extremely unlikely, this is just more pressure by the US to cave to Trumps demands.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well Canada is a pretty easy target given we only have a nominal military, have no desire for nuclear weapons for deterrence and a good portion our population is pacifistic enough that they would likely just throw in the towel if attacked and welcome their new overlords. Canada has only remained a free and democratic country because the USA permits it.

I actually doubt that Canada would easily surrender if it were to happen, because pretty much no nation in history has simply laid down and accepted a military invasion, no matter how outclassed their forces were. Canada has a reputation for being "nicer" than the US, but it also has a military history that a lot of Canadians take pride in. Hell, given how hated Trump is in parts of the US, and how closely intertwined the US and Canada are, I wouldn't even rule out American resistance forces fighting alongside Canada, though that might be too much to hope for. Still, in my opinion, a war between the US and Canada would arguably be more akin to a civil war than a war between nations, in some respects.

But in this hypothetical, the more significant obstacles to America than Canadian resistance would likely be the economic damage inflicted by a conflict with a country who's economy and populace are so intertwined with theirs' (unless that had changed substantially in the interim, which would take considerable time or else likely cause a depression), and the outrage from the rest of the world.

As unlikely as it may seem, I think that if we did get to the point where the US attacked Canada of all countries, that would pretty much be a do or die moment for the rest of the world. A US that had gone that mad would be an expansionist rogue state which would pose an immediate existential threat to every other nation on the planet, since if they could attack Canada of all countries, they might just as easily attack anyone else. An attack on Canada would also trigger NATO Article 5, and obligate NATO (including nuclear-armed Britain and France) to come to our defense. It would very much be a Poland 1939 sort of situation, only worse because it would involve nukes, and Russia and the US would both be on the Axis side. And the choice faced by the rest of the world would effectively be to oppose it and risk nuclear obliteration, or submit and hope that the new fascist world government gets overthrown from within in a few generations.

That being said, IMO an actual war is extremely unlikely, this is just more pressure by the US to cave to Trumps demands.

Perhaps so, and I don't expect tanks to roll over the border tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or even next year, so I apologize if I am overreacting.

But the fact remains that we have a President who openly emulates fascist dictators, who deliberately puts children into concentration camps to punish their parents, who is close to Russia, and has essentially manufactured major tensions with America's closest friend and ally for no real reason, while at the same time basically becoming an extension of Kim Jong Un's propaganda.

We are far past the point of what is "likely" or logical already. At this point, there is pretty much nothing (within what is permitted by the laws of science) that I am prepared to absolutely rule out as a possibility.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, Trump is currently (again) floating the idea of an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against another nation: namely, Venezuela:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ela-report

Excerpt:

Donald Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of invading Venezuela in talks with his top aides at the White House, according to a new report.

Trump brought up the subject of an invasion in public in August last year, saying: "We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary." But the president's musings about the possibility of a US invasion were more extensive and persistent than that public declaration, according to the Associated Press.

The previous day Trump reportedly took his top officials by surprise in an Oval Office meeting, asking why the US could not intervene to remove the government of Nicolas Maduro on the grounds that Venezuela's political and economic unraveling represented a threat to the region.

So tell me, Dickless: why cannot the rest of the world intervene to remove your orange ass on the grounds that America's political and economic unraveling represent a threat to the region (and the whole fucking world)?

Oh right, the nukes.*

In my opinion, if the US were to launch an unprovoked attack on Venezuela, the world will have to meet it with at least an equally severe response as the Russian annexation of Crimea. Meaning: expulsion from the G7 (its not like Trump is acting like a G7 member anyway, so much as trying to destroy it from within), and heavy sanctions and travel bans on high-ranking US officials and Trump-aligned businessmen.

Also, all you people (including some on this forum) who were saying that they wanted Trump to win, because at least he'd be less of a warmonger than Clinton? How's that working out for you?

*For anyone who argues that nuclear weapons are a good thing and promote world peace, this is a big reason why I disagree- because they also have the potential to make a fascist expansionist dictator who acquires them largely immune to consequences, unless we are prepared to burn the world to stop him.

Edit: A particularly creepy quote from Trump, if you're concerned about his attitude towards Mexico and Canada:

"We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbor..."

[Elheru Aran]

To be frank it'd be REALLY hard to justify a war with Canada. Border skirmishes due to manufactured reasons of "illegal immigration", maybe, but honestly? Pretty much most Americans are quite aware that our northern neighbor is no particular threat to anybody bigger than a Golden Retriever. They MIGHT buy Trump's line about economics and tariffs and shit, but to be quite frank most people don't care that much about economics that don't directly impact them. The illegal-immigration pretext is about the only thing that might fly, and the vast majority of people who actually care about that are focusing mainly on the Southern border thanks to his rhetoric about building the wall. Nobody particularly expects a flood of Canadians coming across the border, after all.

Venezuela is a little more concerning.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, if Trump does go the fascist expansionist route, I'd expect it to go Venezuela, Mexico, maybe some other Latin American countries, and only then Canada. Not that that's much comfort.

I'm starting to wonder if at some point a North American Mutual Defense Pact or something might not be the worst idea.

[Tribble]

There's no need to invade Canada as the USA can cripple us economically without firing a single shot via tariffs. Yes that would hurt the USA a lot too, but nowhere near as much as it would hurt us. In an economic war Canada loses... fortunately Trump seems to be trying to take on the whole world sans Russia and North Korea, which may give us more options.

What I can see happening is that the US just turn us into... well, more of a client state that we already are. And maybe prop up the Canadian alt-right parties.

Turns out the opponents of NAFTA may have been right all along- focusing so much on our trade with the US put us at the mercy of the whims of the US president of the day.

[The Romulan Republic]

There's no need to invade Canada as the USA can cripple us economically without firing a single shot via tariffs. Yes that would hurt the USA a lot too, but nowhere near as much as it would hurt us. In an economic war Canada loses... fortunately Trump seems to be trying to take on the whole world sans Russia and North Korea, which may give us more options.

Yeah.

What I can see happening is that the US just turn us into... well, more of a client state that we already are. And maybe prop up the Canadian alt-right parties.

Oh, absolutely. And Russia too. I'd be shocked if the Kremlin isn't already cultivating Alt. Reich candidates here to replace Trudeau.

Turns out the opponents of NAFTA may have been right all along- focusing so much on our trade with the US put us at the mercy of the whims of the US president of the day.

Possibly, though again, that interconnectedness does cut both ways- serious conflict with Canada WILL seriously hurt the US too.

A part of me is actually morbidly curious as to what would happen if Trudeau had the balls to send a destroyer down to those disputed waters and detain the next US Border Control boat that tries to intercept Canadian fishermen. Probably nothing good.

[Ralin]

*For anyone who argues that nuclear weapons are a good thing and promote world peace, this is a big reason why I disagree- because they also have the potential to make a fascist expansionist dictator who acquires them largely immune to consequences, unless we are prepared to burn the world to stop him.

Guy, you do realize that if every nuke in the world vanished and it became impossible to make more the US would still have a much stronger military than everyone else (much less everyone else in North America), right? Like, the effect it would have on America's ability to wage war with impunity would be way less than the impact on other formerly or would-be nuke-having countries' ability to defend themselves.

Possibly, though again, that interconnectedness does cut both ways- serious conflict with Canada WILL seriously hurt the US too.

For practical purposes it doesn't cut both ways because Trump doesn't really give a shit and even if he did he would just declare that any harm his policies were causing to the US was fake news.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Or blame it on Soros/the Deep State/Hillary/Obama/etc.

[Ralin]

In retrospect I probably shouldn't be amazed by how much you can accomplish with a moderate fortune and the ability to shit your pants on live television, look directly at the camera, say "I did not shit my pants" with absolute conviction and proceed as if nothing happened. But I am.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

In retrospect I probably shouldn't be amazed by how much you can accomplish with a moderate fortune and the ability to shit your pants on live television, look directly at the camera, say "I did not shit my pants" with absolute conviction and proceed as if nothing happened. But I am.

What's more tragic are the ordinary people watching him foul himself, then ignore the stench and insist he did not foul himself.

A tale as old as Hans Christian Anderson, I'm afraid.

[The Romulan Republic]

*For anyone who argues that nuclear weapons are a good thing and promote world peace, this is a big reason why I disagree- because they also have the potential to make a fascist expansionist dictator who acquires them largely immune to consequences, unless we are prepared to burn the world to stop him.

Guy, you do realize that if every nuke in the world vanished and it became impossible to make more the US would still have a much stronger military than everyone else (much less everyone else in North America), right? Like, the effect it would have on America's ability to wage war with impunity would be way less than the impact on other formerly or would-be nuke-having countries' ability to defend themselves.

At least if America (or Russia) had no nuclear weapons, it would allow for the possibility of military resistance to a hypothetical expansionist fascist regime without it be tantamount to global genocide.

Anyway, as Russia has shown, you don't need to invade countries with troops to conquer the world. You can turn their own political systems against them and achieve the same ends (toppling the government and installing a friendly proxy dictator).

For practical purposes it doesn't cut both ways because Trump doesn't really give a shit and even if he did he would just declare that any harm his policies were causing to the US was fake news.

I'm not talking about the effect it would have on Trump, but on America's physical capacity to wage war*, and on the level of support such a conflict would have from the American people.

*You do realize that a significant amount of US military hardware is manufactured in Canada, or using materials from Canada?

[Tiriol]

Currently the Great Orange One is going about in the UK, throwing wrenches in the whole Brexit process by saying that soft Brexit would mean no trade deals for the UK from the US, that Theresa May didn’t listen to his advice and that Boris Johnson would be better Prime Minister. It’s too bad Her Majesty is bound to uphold her government’s stance, because I’d like her to publicly call out Trump on trying to interfere in UK’s own internal affairs.

We shall see if this finally shakes off the delusion that the UK has any special relationship with the US. The only way there can be one right now is that the Brits basically turn themselves into satellite state or have some really juicy stuff on Trump and thr US government which to use as leverage (”Don’t give us a mutual benefits deal and we’ll reveal every single CIA operative and paid informant you have working inside allied governments, and that Trump’s impotent wanker”).

[Crazedwraith]

In so far as the brexit process can actually have any more of a wrench thrown into it.

It seems to have blown over with the usual cries of 'fake news'.

[The Romulan Republic]

Currently the Great Orange One is going about in the UK, throwing wrenches in the whole Brexit process by saying that soft Brexit would mean no trade deals for the UK from the US, that Theresa May didn’t listen to his advice and that Boris Johnson would be better Prime Minister. It’s too bad Her Majesty is bound to uphold her government’s stance, because I’d like her to publicly call out Trump on trying to interfere in UK’s own internal affairs.

We shall see if this finally shakes off the delusion that the UK has any special relationship with the US. The only way there can be one right now is that the Brits basically turn themselves into satellite state or have some really juicy stuff on Trump and thr US government which to use as leverage (”Don’t give us a mutual benefits deal and we’ll reveal every single CIA operative and paid informant you have working inside allied governments, and that Trump’s impotent wanker”).

In other words, he is essentially ordering Britain: become a fascist state which serves Russian interests, or we'll destroy your economy.

Britain should show his demands no more respect than they did Hitler's.

[Tribble]

So ya, this happened:

Trump calls European Union a 'foe' – ahead of Russia and China

A day before his summit in Helsinki with Vladmir Putin, Donald Trump identified the European Union as a “foe” – ahead of Russia and China.
Trump was speaking to CBS News at his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, in an interview recorded on Saturday and scheduled for full broadcast on Monday. Asked “who is your biggest foe globally right now”, he said: “Well I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now you wouldn’t think of the European Union but they’re a foe.”

Earlier on Sunday, British prime minister Theresa May said Trump advised her this week to “sue” the EU, as she pursues a Brexit deal.
“Russia,” Trump told CBS, “is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn’t mean they are bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitive.”

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, used a loaded term to answer Trump on Twitter, writing: “America and the EU are best friends. Whoever says we are foes is spreading fake news.”

On CBS, in response to the suggestion that “a lot of people might be surprised to hear you list the EU as a foe before China and Russia”, Trump said: “No I look at them all, look, EU is very difficult … but in a trade sense, they’ve really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in Nato and they weren’t paying their bills and, you know, as an example a big problem with Germany.”
The president then repeated his complaint, made at the Nato summit in Brussels, about a gas pipeline between Germany and Russia.
“You’re supposed to be fighting for someone,” he said, “and then that someone gives billions of dollars to the one you’re, you know, guarding against. I think it’s ridiculous so I let that be known also this time.”

Trump suggested Germany was “waving a white flag” to Russia. Among senior Democrats, concern remains that he may do just that when he meets Putin three days after 12 Russians were indicted over the theft of data from Democratic bodies ahead of the 2016 election.

Trump told CBS he “hadn’t thought” about asking Putin to extradite the 12 intelligence officials but added: “But I certainly, I’ll be asking about it.”
It is highly unlikely the Russians will ever be sent to the US. Putin has said Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller – 13 other individuals and three entities were named in February – will “never” be extradited.

Speaking to ABC’s This Week, national security adviser John Bolton said: “The United States does not have an extradition process with Russia so it’s pretty hard to imagine how that would happen.”

It would be “pretty silly to demand something that [Trump] can’t get legally”, Bolton said, because “to demand something that isn’t going to happen puts the president in a weak position”.

Trump was briefed on the indictments ahead of their announcement on Friday. Mueller is investigating election interference and links between Trump aides and Moscow. Four former Trump campaign figures, including his first national security adviser and a campaign manager, have been indicted. Trump denies collusion and has repeatedly called the Mueller investigation a “rigged witch hunt”.
Speaking to CBS, he repeated a claim made in tweets from Scotland on Saturday – that his predecessor did not do enough in response to Russian interference.

“But again,” Trump said, “this was during the Obama administration. They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration.”
Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, has said Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell “dramatically watered down” a statement on Russian interference issued before the election. Senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes called McConnell’s actions “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic”. After the election, Obama imposed sanctions.

Trump said: “And I heard that they were trying, or people were trying, to hack into the RNC too. The Republican National Committee. But we had much better defenses. I’ve been told that by a number of people. We had much better defenses, so they couldn’t.
“I think the DNC [Democratic National Committee] should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked. They had bad defenses and they were able to be hacked.”

US intelligence chiefs have said the Trump administration is not doing enough to counter continuing Russian activity. On Saturday, homeland security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told a gathering of state secretaries of state there were no signs Russia was targeting the 2018 midterms at the “scale and scope” of two years ago.
Advertisement

After the indictments were announced, Democrats called for the cancellation of the Helsinki summit, hugely controversial already given Trump’s plan to meet Putin with only translators present.

Mark Warner, ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday he was “stunned that this president will not call out Putin’s bad behaviour” and worried that Putin would “take advantage of this president” and extract significant concessions.

Trump defended his decision. “I think it’s a good thing to meet,” he said. “…I believe that having a meeting with Chairman Kim [Jong-un of North Korea] was a good thing. I think having meetings with the president of China [Xi Jinping] was a very good thing … so having meetings with Russia, China, North Korea, I believe in it. Nothing bad is going to come out of it, and maybe some good will come out.”

But Trump and Bolton both sought to lower any expectations of serious results in Helsinki. The president told CBS he was “not going with high expectations”. Bolton told ABC the White House was “not looking for concrete deliverables”.
He added: “It’s very important that the president has a one-on-one conversation with President Putin, and that’s how this is going to start off.”

read:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ndictments


So, Trump now officially views the EU as being worse than Russia or China. While he claims it's over trade we all know the real reason: they are foes of the USA because they are democracies which generally respect the rule of law, two things which he despises the most.

Anyone surprised?

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump sold democracy and America's allies out to Putin.

No, no one (who's been paying attention and isn't a die-hard Trumper) is surprised.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump sold democracy and America's allies out to Putin.

No, no one (who's been paying attention and isn't a die-hard Trumper) is surprised.

And of course Putin is going to deny all knowledge of such a conspiracy. Because no way was Trump going to back the US intel agencies versus the Russians who put him in the White House.

[Raj Ahten]

After the Helsinki fiasco I wonder if anyone in the Intel community will offer their resignation seeing as Trump told the world he believes Putin more than them. I don't see how you could keep working for the executive after that if you had any integrity. Even more ridiculous after the indictment of the 12 Russian agents which is a higher public bar than classified Intel reports. To anyone who says Trump isn't in Putin's pocket after his deference at the post summit press conference