One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
FRUMPFASS treated like a buffoon at G20 and deservay so
Page 1 of 34 next> last>>
Jul 8, 2017 07:24:05   #
Jack2014
 
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.

Rs really know how to elect stupid jerks
Rs really know how to elect stupid jerks...

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 07:41:52   #
Richard Rowland
 
Jack2014 wrote:
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.
Well, our standing in the world has decreased subs... (show quote)


The "New York Times"? Really?

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 07:59:11   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
Jack2014 wrote:
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.
Well, our standing in the world has decreased subs... (show quote)


Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and equipment from the US, when it denigrates the worlds efforts to combat climate change? They wouldn't of course - and China is already set to replace the US as the major supplier of clean energy technology.

Why would anyone conduct trade with a country that penalizes them for doing so, when there are plenty of global markets that offer tariff free trade? They wouldn't of course, and there is NOTHING the US can offer that can't be found elsewhere - at a better price.

That is the fundamental error made by people who do not understand how commodity and manufactured goods trade works, and isolationist policies will do exactly that - isolate America from the very markets they seek to protect. Here's the stark reality: There is nothing unique about American goods, there are no exclusive "must have" items, either in real goods or intellectual property - and no one anywhere HAS to buy from us.

America first policies will ensure an American last result.

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2017 07:59:24   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Richard Rowland wrote:
The "New York Times"? Really?


Jackoff the Jerkoff is an idiot. He could not win a debate against some of my houseplants unless they spotted him 50 IQ points; even then it would be a tossup.
He is a childish, venal troll who is sometimes amusing, sometimes annoying and always contemptible.

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:08:37   #
Jack2014
 
Richard Rowland wrote:
The "New York Times"? Really?


Too bad for you. What's the problem? Your R rags or propaganda source trying to paint a pretty picture of our pissident flop?

Getting closer and closer. GHU against the pagan liars
Getting closer and closer. GHU against the pagan l...

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:19:46   #
bylm1-Bernie
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and equipment from the US, when it denigrates the worlds efforts to combat climate change? They wouldn't of course - and China is already set to replace the US as the major supplier of clean energy technology.

Why would anyone conduct trade with a country that penalizes them for doing so, when there are plenty of global markets that offer tariff free trade? They wouldn't of course, and there is NOTHING the US can offer that can't be found elsewhere - at a better price.

That is the fundamental error made by people who do not understand how commodity and manufactured goods trade works, and isolationist policies will do exactly that - isolate America from the very markets they seek to protect. Here's the stark reality: There is nothing unique about American goods, there are no exclusive "must have" items, either in real goods or intellectual property - and no one anywhere HAS to buy from us.

America first policies will ensure an American last result.
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and e... (show quote)




Anyone who dares to venture outside the liberal world view on so-called "Climate Change" knows that it is a myth and not worth spending millions on. Of course recent findings relative to temperature measurements, not computer models, have shown the world is not warming and hasn't been for 20 years, a fact largely ignored by the liberal media. It's sad that we can't be open about facts instead of making them up and refusing to acknowledge what is going on today.

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:20:23   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Jack2014 wrote:
Too bad for you. What's the problem? Your R rags or propaganda source trying to paint a pretty picture of our pissident flop?


The only flop I see are your own pathetic postings...... Childish, puerile pictures; Grammar that a third grader could best, stupid, brainless trolling that a first grader would find immature.
You are reminiscent of another poster who befouled OPP for a while; an entoproct. (Since I'm certain you have no idea what an entoproct is; it is defined as a creature consisting of a mouth and an asshole, and not much else, especially a working brain.) In your case, the mouth and asshole have evolved to the point of being completely interchangeable, both fulfilling essentially the same function.

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2017 08:24:26   #
Randy131 Loc: Florida
 
Is this the best you can do, a biased and bigotted report from another "Fake News" organization, whose only goal is to destroy President Trump.

I could paper this site with so many articles that show everyone of these points are false, and goes against the best interest of the USA and it's people. The "Paris Accord" is the best example how the USA would get screwed, while Europe and other third world nations will take our money and accomplish nothing, These facts proven by their own calculations of what will be accomplished by those accords, nearly absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, as the USA would pay a hefty price by our economy, jobs, and the billions of dollars we would have to pay out for absolutely no benefit for the USA and it's people.

Take this "hack piece" and smoke it, for that's all that can be done with it, for it's worthless. President Trump is creating thousands of jobs every week, has the economy booming, and trade deals are now falling our way for our benefit because of his stance on trade. President Trump's policies are helping our economy to start to boom, and this article's idiot author wants to reverse what has made our stock markets soar, while the rest of the worlds show poorly.

I want President Trump's policies, not Angella Merkel's, or Emmanuel Macron's policies, which are bringing down both Germany's and France's economies, as their invited invasion by Middle East immigrants are also destroying their society.
Going to be interesting to see who wins Germany's next election, for the German people have had it with Merkel, and her attacking our Presiddnt is not going to help her.

Which countries in Europe have the best performing economies, the ones who don't belong to the 'European Union', like Poland for example, and now Great Britain's economy is also getting much better. I wonder why that is? Could it be all the people who was mentioned in this article, that runs the European economy, are clueless?

The USA's economy is also growing by leaps and bounds, thanks to President Trump. President Trump's performance on this trip has outshown any and all of Obama's foreign trips, as also did President Trump's first foreign trip, to the Middle East.

Funny how these "Fake News" organizations can't even be trusted to tell the truth about anything that President Trump achieves success in, as this article is just another example of that. If this is the best you can do, you should give up your hatred for President Trump, for all of the USA would be much worse off now had Hillary Clinton won the election.



Jack2014 wrote:
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.
Well, our standing in the world has decreased subs... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:27:29   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
The left sure knows how to riot; without knowing who the real enemies are. The Bilderberg Group and the likes of Soros.
Are they demonstrating against the world banking shysters?
Have they ever gone after The Federal Reserve, and its European counterparts?
Or the World Bank, IMF, etc?
The demonstrators have a reason to demonstrate; but they are always off target.
They are ignorant stooges.
Some are paid stooges.
As for MAN MADE Climate Change; What a farce. Another major globalist Pick Pocketing attempt of the Elites.
The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism
https://youtu.be/eTmNWY0ZPfM





Jack2014 wrote:
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.
Well, our standing in the world has decreased subs... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:36:48   #
cbpat1
 
Jack, you have swallowed the liberal bait, hook, line and sinker. You have all the buzzwords and phrases down. You, like most liberals, talk out your ass instead of using your mind to come to reasonable conclusions. 99% of what you said is just plain wrong or made up. Trump was not made out to be a bafoon in Germany by other world leaders, in fact, most of them were tripping over each other to be seen with him. If your concerned about what Angela Merkel had to say about our president, your the only one. She has done irreparable harm to her country with her immigration policies and will be thrown out of office in the next election in a landslide. Trump is correct about trade also, the USA has been getting screwed for years, just like NATO, where all of a sudden other countries are starting to ponie up the 2% they promised. Keep on knocking this president and you and all your Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren kool aid drinkers will be wondering why you lost another election. Then who will you blame, the Russians again? Besides that you can't spell worth a crap!

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:37:28   #
Randy131 Loc: Florida
 
Yeah, that has been proven by the policies of the last 8 years, when at the biginning of those years the USA was first in trade, but the deals that Obama and the Democrats made has started us down the ladder of trade at an accelerated pace. It's time to reverse Obama's trend of incompetency and malfeasance in making agreements, and allow someone who knows how to make deals, and wants the best for the USA and it's people, apply his methods and policies to accomplish what is best for the USA and it's people for a change, and that is President Trump, and why the American people elected him as President.

Just what you have said here is exactly what was said about President Trump when he first won the Republican nomination, and was accented again the night he won the Presidency, and history has shown the truth about those prognostications, just the opposite has occurred. What President Trump has done with the the US economy just in the short time he's been President, is fantastic and nothing short of a miracle, and I for one want it to continue in the direction President Trump has moved it, not just for me, but for the benefit of the USA and all it's people.

It's time to get behind our President, and help him "Make America Great Again", instead of spewing hatred against him, and trying to bring him down because he beat the criminally flawed candidate of the Democrats, the woman who is hated more than any other woman in the USA, other than Nancy Pelosi, who is the most hated woman in the USA.



lpnmajor wrote:
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and equipment from the US, when it denigrates the worlds efforts to combat climate change? They wouldn't of course - and China is already set to replace the US as the major supplier of clean energy technology.

Why would anyone conduct trade with a country that penalizes them for doing so, when there are plenty of global markets that offer tariff free trade? They wouldn't of course, and there is NOTHING the US can offer that can't be found elsewhere - at a better price.

That is the fundamental error made by people who do not understand how commodity and manufactured goods trade works, and isolationist policies will do exactly that - isolate America from the very markets they seek to protect. Here's the stark reality: There is nothing unique about American goods, there are no exclusive "must have" items, either in real goods or intellectual property - and no one anywhere HAS to buy from us.

America first policies will ensure an American last result.
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and e... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2017 08:44:14   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
lpnmajor wrote:
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and equipment from the US, when it denigrates the worlds efforts to combat climate change? They wouldn't of course - and China is already set to replace the US as the major supplier of clean energy technology.

Why would anyone conduct trade with a country that penalizes them for doing so, when there are plenty of global markets that offer tariff free trade? They wouldn't of course, and there is NOTHING the US can offer that can't be found elsewhere - at a better price.

That is the fundamental error made by people who do not understand how commodity and manufactured goods trade works, and isolationist policies will do exactly that - isolate America from the very markets they seek to protect. Here's the stark reality: There is nothing unique about American goods, there are no exclusive "must have" items, either in real goods or intellectual property - and no one anywhere HAS to buy from us.

America first policies will ensure an American last result.
Why would anyone buy wind turbine technology and e... (show quote)


"That is the fundamental error made by people who do not understand how commodity and manufactured goods trade works, and isolationist policies will do exactly that - isolate America from the very markets they seek to protect. Here's the stark reality: There is nothing unique about American goods, there are no exclusive "must have" items, either in real goods or intellectual property -
****** and no one anywhere HAS to buy from us." - lpnmajor *******

Major; Are you deaf and dumb?
Can America buy American, if something is produced here?
You never heard the great sucking sound NAFTA WTO, etc created?
Pat Buchanan tried to warn us, but he was ignored.
The internationalists got their way; and here we are by design.

*Council on Foreign Relations CFR & Trilateral Commission TC Background & Quotes*

“Actions at the multinational level will be needed, if the process of international relocation of industries is to be accelerated in an organized fashion…….”
TC Report #23, 1982

“An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal attack" – Richard Gardner ,
Ambassador to Italy - quoted in (CFR)Foreign Affairs, April, 1974

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:49:01   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Today's lesson fort hose interested:
The Council on Foreign Relations and the New World Order
By Charles Overbeck (PSCPirhana) Matrix Editor
The Council on Foreign Relations, housed in the Harold Pratt House on East 68th Street in New York City, was founded in 1921. In 1922, it began publishing a journal called Foreign Affairs. According to Foreign Affairs' web page (http://www.foreignaffairs.org), the CFR was founded when "...several of the American participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private American Citizens to become familiar with the increasing international responsibilities and obligations of the United States."
The first question that comes to mind is, who gave these people the authority to decide the responsibilities and obligations of the United States, if that power was not granted to them by the Constitution. Furthermore, the CFR's web page doesn't publicize the fact that it was originally conceived as part of a much larger network of power.
According to the CFR's Handbook of 1936, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, "to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs."
The Handbook goes on to say, "At a meeting on June 5, 1919, the planners decided it would be best to have separate organizations cooperating with each other. Consequently, they organized the Council on Foreign Relations, with headquarters in New York, and a sister organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London, also known as the Chatham House Study Group, to advise the British Government. A subsidiary organization, the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up to deal exclusively with Far Eastern Affairs. Other organizations were set up in Paris and Hamburg..."
The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.
Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.
In reality, CFR members are very tightly affiliated with the U.S. government. Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.
________________________________________
The CFR's Shroud of Secretcy
On its web page, the CFR boasts that its magazine, Foreign Affairs, "is acclaimed for its analysis of recent international developments and for its forecasts of emerging trends." It's not much of a challenge to do so, though, when you play a part in determining what those emerging trends will be.
This point is underscored a paragraph later on their web page: "Perhaps best known for the history-making "X" article by George Kennan, that defined Cold War containment policy, a recent Foreign Affairs article by Harvard's Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?" has already helped define the post-Cold War debate."
So are they predicting trends or creating them? The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has earnestly reflected on the matter.
The CFR fancies itself to represent a diverse range cultural and political interests, but its members are predominantly wealthy males, and their policies reflect their elitist biases.
The CFR attempts to maintain the charade of diversity via its Non-Attribution Rule, which allows members to engage in "a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas" without fear of having any of their statements attributed in public. The flip side of this, obviously, is a dark cloud of secrecy which envelopes the CFR's activities.
CFR meetings are usually held in secret and are restricted to members and very select guests. All members are free to express themselves at meetings unrestrained, because the Non-Attribution Rule guarantees that "others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will," according to the Council on Foreign Relations' 1992 Annual Report.
The report goes on to forbid any meeting participant "to publish a speaker's statement in attributed form in any newspaper; to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker's platform, or in a classroom; or to go beyond a memo of limited circulation."
The end result is that the only information the public has on the CFR is the information they release for public consumption, which should send up red flags for anyone who understands the immense effect that CFR directives have on America's foreign policy. The public knows what the CFR wants the public to know about the CFR, and nothing more.
There is one hole in the fog of secrecy, however: a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, written by an "insider" named Dr. Carroll Quigley, mentor of Bill Clinton.
________________________________________
Tragedy and Hope: The Global Elite
Dr. Quigley knew a lot about the behind-the-scenes work of global power because he was a part of that power network for most of his life. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley states:
"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversions to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
The "Hope" in the title of Quigley's book represents the thousand-year reign of a collectivist one-world society which will be created when the "network" achieves its goal of world government. Quigley believed that the "network" is so powerful at this point that resistance by the common people is futile. Hence, those who resist the schemes of the globalist planners represent the "Tragedy." By Dr. Quigley's logic, there is no point in struggling against the noose around our necks, because resistance will merely guarantee strangulation.
Dr. Quigley identified the "network" as the "international bankers," men who were "different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with questions of government debts...; they were almost exclusively devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in political life. These bankers came to be called international bankers, and, more particularly, were known as merchant bankers in England, private bankers in France, and investment bankers in the United States."
The core of control, according to Dr. Quigley, resides in the financial dynasties of Europe and America who exercise political control through international financial combines. The primary tactic of control is lending money at high interest to governments and monarchs during times of crisis. An example of this is the current national debt in the U.S., which is at five trillion dollars right now. Every penny of it is owed to the Federal Reserve, a corporation comprised of thirteen private banks.
According to Dr. Quigley, the Council on Foreign Relations is one of several front organizations set up by the network's inner circle to advance its schemes. The ultimate goal: a New World Order.
________________________________________
continued

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 08:50:29   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Part 2:
CFR and the New World Order:

According to State Department Publication 2349, submitted by secretary of State and CFR member Edward Stettinius, a committee on "post-war problems" was set up before the end of 1939 at the suggestion of the CFR. In other words, two years before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the CFR was planning how to order the world after the war ended.
In 1946, the Rockefeller Foundation spent almost $140,000 to produce a history of how the United States entered World War II. This history was intended to counter "revisionist" historians who argued that the U.S. was "tricked" into the war by the Roosevelt Administration. The Rockefeller family has always taken a lead role in the CFR.
In the 1960s, while American men and women were dying in the jungles of Vietnam and while the military/industrial complex was sucking trillions of dollars out of American taxpayers' wallets, the Rockefeller dynasty was financing Vietnamese oil refineries and aluminum plants. If there had ever been a formal declaration of war, the Rockefellers could be tried for treason. Instead, they reaped dividends.
These are just a few of the abuses of power which demonstrate the results of the power elite's manipulations of our destiny as a society. If you've ever wondered why you don't hear about this network of power, just take a look at the CFR's membership roster (posted online in ParaScope). Many of the chief executives and newspeople at CBS, NBC/RCA, ABC, the Public Broadcast Service, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and many other key media outlets are CFR members.
Even if these members of the media's elite had the inclination to report on what they saw and heard at CFR meetings, they are prevented from doing so by the Non-Attribution Rule. To put this in perspective: many of the people who are trusted to provide information about national and world politics are deliberately withholding crucial information from the public because of membership in a secretive globalist organization.
This organization has taken it upon itself to participate in the manufacturing of a new vision for humanity, and dissidence will not be tolerated. If you believe the words of Carroll Quigley, all resistance is futile and doomed to failure. If you believe the rhetoric of internationalists in our own government, the current "trend towards isolationism" will result in a loss of American hegemony in the New World Order, leaving the United States a wrecked Third World wasteland.
World government can come in time, piece by piece, arrived at through the full participation and consensus of the human beings who will be affected by the negotiations. But the idea of the world's elite determining what path that the common herd should follow is repulsive to the human spirit. The story of the CFR goes far deeper than this brief report, and is interlocked with several other international power groups.
International power orgs depend on the masses remaining ignorant for their plans to come to fruition. It's up to you to do your own research and draw your own conclusion. But remember: there's a hell of a lot more to the story than Dan Rather will ever tell you. Educate yourself, or remain a passive consumer. The choice is entirely yours.
________________________________________
Sources
Council on Foreign Relations/Foreign Affairs web pages:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
http://www.psi.com/ChapterOne/foreignaffairs/
The Council on Foreign Relations. Annual Report, 1991/92. New York: Pratt House, 1992.
Shoup, Laurence H. and Minter, William. "Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy." New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977.
Quigley, Dr. Carroll. "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time."
Korten, David C. "When Corporations Rule the World." Kumarian Press, Inc. and Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. (co-publishers), 1995.
Kah, Gary H. "En Route to Global Occupation." Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1991.
Ross, Robert Gaylon Sr. Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Skull & Bones Society. San Marcos, Texas: Ross International Enterprises, 1995.
Bloom, Howard L. "The New World Order and the Insiders."
________________________________________
Memorable CFR member Quotes
Often times, the best way to expose something is to quote it. Nothing so succinctly expresses the goals and directives of the globalist conspiracy quite like a few good quotes from some of their more prominent CFR members. We'll start it off with a quote from the Chief Counsel to Congress' Reece Committee, which investigated the CFR during the 1950s:
"The Council on Foreign Relations, another member of the international complex, financed by the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, overwhelmingly propagandizes the globalist concept. This organization became virtually an agency of the government when World War II broke out. The Rockefeller Foundation had started and financed certain studies known as The War and Peace Studies, manned largely by associates of the Council; the State Department, in due course, took these Studies over, retaining the major personnel which the Council on Foreign Relations had supplied." --Rene A. Wormser, Chief Counsel to the Reece Committee
"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." --Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR member, college mentor of President Clinton, author of "Tragedy and Hope"
"... the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." --Dr. Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope," 1966
"I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known." --Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
"As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley." --President Clinton, in his acceptance speech for the Democratic Party's nomination for president, 16 July 1992
"In the economic-technological field, some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." --Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member and founding member of the Trilateral Commission, and National Security Advisor to five presidents
"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." --Zbigniew Brzezinski
"[There must be] some dilution of sovereignty, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power ... the establishment of a common money, might be vested in a body created by and responsible to the principal trading and investing people. This would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money." --John Foster Dulles, CFR founder, former Secretary of State, 1939
"There must be a thoroughgoing reform of the world monetary system ... For its part, I can assure you, the United States will continue to rise to its world responsibilities, joining with other nations to create and participate in a modern world economic order." --President Richard Nixon, CFR member, 1972
Council on Foreign Relations Membership
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20041010101432/http://www.mega.nu/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.html
Subscribe to apfn-1


Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Reply
Jul 8, 2017 09:06:08   #
S. Maturin
 
Jack2014 wrote:
Well, our standing in the world has decreased substantially due to his moronic actions

The New York Times on Apple News.
Download the NYTimes app. Your only source for daily breaking news.
HAMBURG, Germany — For years the United States was the dominant force and set the agenda at the annual gathering of the leaders of the world’s largest economies.
But on Friday, when President Trump met with 19 other leaders at the Group of 20 conference, he found the United States isolated on everything from trade to climate change, and faced with the prospect of the group’s issuing a statement on Saturday that lays bare how the United States stands alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the host of the meeting, opened it by acknowledging the differences between the United States and the rest of the countries. While “compromise can only be found if we accommodate each other’s views,” she said, “we can also say, we differ.”
Ms. Merkel also pointed out that most of the countries supported the Paris accord on climate change, while Mr. Trump has abandoned it. “It will be very interesting to see how we formulate the communiqué tomorrow and make clear that, of course, there are different opinions in this area because the United States of America regrettably” wants to withdraw from the pact, she said.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish his isolation. For him, the critical moment of Friday was his long meeting with the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, which seemed to mark the reset in relations that Mr. Trump has been desiring for some time. It also provided Mr. Putin the respect and importance he has long demanded as a global partner to Washington.
Where previous American leaders saw their power as a benevolent force, and were intent on spreading prosperity through open markets and multilateral cooperation, Mr. Trump has portrayed himself as a nationalist, a unilateralist and a protectionist, eager to save American jobs.
What recent events have underscored, though — and especially at the G-20 — is that no nation is today large or powerful enough to impose rules on everyone else. In advancing his views, Mr. Trump has alienated allies and made the United States seem like its own private island.
Nowhere was Mr. Trump’s isolation more evident than on the issue of trade.
Mr. Trump thinks the United States has been unfairly disadvantaged by sweeping free-trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He believes the steel industry in particular has been savaged by globalization.
Within days, he could impose restrictions and new tariffs on steel imports. Doing so would be a provocative move that could affect trade with more than a dozen major countries even while lifting the spirits of his most ardent supporters.
The tariffs could very well provoke a global trade war.
European officials here reacted astringently, threatening to retaliate. “We will respond with countermeasures if need be, hoping that this is not actually necessary,” the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said on Friday. “We are prepared to take up arms if need be.”
Targets could include American whiskey imports. “I don’t want to tell you in detail what we’re doing,” Mr. Juncker said. “But what I would like to tell you is that within a few days — we won’t need two months for that — we could react with countermeasures.”
The Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, warned that new protectionist trade measures could bring “contagion” that would slow the growth of the world economy. “We cannot waste this moment of recovery, giving signals of protectionism or of incorrect trade behavior,” he said.
But as Mr. Trump contemplates protectionism, Europe and Japan reached a landmark free trade agreement this week. Mexico and China, two of the United States’ largest trading partners, have been mulling their own deal. The world is moving ahead regardless.
Is a United Europe Important? 13 U.S. Presidents Think So.
Mr. Trump and his economic team have been delaying the decision on steel in recent weeks because of disagreement among his advisers.
For weeks, trade lawyers, industry leaders and members of Congress have been anxiously awaiting a recommendation on the matter from the Department of Commerce. They view Mr. Trump’s decision as a moment that will illuminate whether he is ready to make good on his campaign promises to protect flagging American industries with tariffs.
Among those most on edge are economists, many of whom have been uneasy about Mr. Trump’s unorthodox views on trade because they have seen the damage from such actions before.
The United States imported 30.1 million metric tons of steel last year, making it the world’s largest steel importer, according to the International Trade Administration. Canada, Brazil and South Korea are the three biggest exporters to the United States, followed by Mexico and Turkey. China, the target of much anti-globalization rhetoric, is not such a major factor, at least not in steel.
Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, worries that retaliation from China and Europe to any steel tariffs would be particularly painful for American exporters and could lead to job cuts when Mr. Trump is trying to bolster employment and labor force participation.
While the steel industry, which Mr. Trump promised to revive, could benefit, other industries like construction and housing would probably suffer. Many of the workers in these industries and the consumers who buy their goods are likely to be the types of moderate-income voters who backed Mr. Trump.
“It will hurt the people it’s designed to help through higher prices,” Mr. Strain said. “Ultimately the economy will lose.”
On Friday, Cecilia Malmstrom, the European trade commissioner, warned the Trump administration that new tariffs would face a challenge in the World Trade Organization. A similar challenge led to a rollback of tariffs imposed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
“If global trade rules are not upheld, the E.U. will retaliate, but I cannot say now exactly how and when,” Ms. Malmstrom said. “We understand that the U.S. has concerns about overcapacity in China but we don’t think this is the right way to go, as you cannot fight protectionism with protectionism,” she added.
But Mr. Trump has even contemplated pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization itself.
On climate, too, the United States — just a year ago a leading voice in favor of global action to reduce carbon emissions — is on its own path.
Negotiators haggled late into Friday night over language declaring that 19 of the G-20 members consider the Paris accord “irreversible,” an effort to cast the United States as an outlier for jettisoning the pact while glossing over friction about the decision.
But American officials were pressing language saying the United States would work with other nations to help them gain access to and use fossil fuels “more cleanly and efficiently.” This suggestion met with stiff resistance from President Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mr. Trump did little to paper over the disagreement, although his staff made sure that he did not have to listen to much criticism on climate change. His meeting with Mr. Putin was scheduled to begin just 15 minutes after the start of a G-20 working session on “Sustainable Growth, Climate, and Energy,” so he left after making a brief statement on the matter.
Alan Rappeport contributed reporting from Washington, Peter S. Goodman from London, and James Kanter from Brussels.
RELATED COVERAGE
Trump Questions Putin on Election Meddling at Eagerly Awaited Encounter July 7, 2017
Trump Presses Putin on Russian Meddling in U.S. Election July 7, 2017
Merkel Knows She Has to Deal With Trump. The Question Is How. July 6, 2017
For Russia, Trump-Putin Meeting Is a Sure Winner July 6, 2017
Trump Aides’ Biggest Worry About Europe Trip: Meeting With Putin July 5, 2017
Angela Merkel Sets Collision Course With Trump Ahead of G-20 June 29, 2017
Get the full New York Times experience
.
Well, our standing in the world has decreased subs... (show quote)


OBAMA WEARS LIPSTICK and MOOSHELLE'S UNDIES!!

Reply
Page 1 of 34 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.