Jump to content

US House of Representatives introduces bill to leave UN


Wahrheit

Recommended Posts

  On 1/25/2017 at 1:57 PM, White said:

No, it's really not, seeing that Sanders praised him in a press release for wholesale gutting it. If you wanna bash trump on the TPP, call out your man too. 

 

If you're gonna keep making false allegations full of innuendo, could you just not post in general? You even ignored the part where I said that it would be bad to pull out of the UN since we would no longer have a seat at the table

 

But since I need to spell it out, if we completely pulled out, the UN would operate much like they always have, except now America would not be able to defend Israel like we've traditionally done. There's no benefits from a complete pull out, and it would just embolden the other 4 perma members

Sanders is not "my man." I have policy principles, not politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 2:12 PM, Zaiduck said:

Gentlemen lets keep it civil please.

 

Two things:

 

1. You can be anti-globalist and be on the left or the right. Agreeing or disagreeing with pulling out of the TPP has little to nothing to do with party lines. Furthermore, Sanders and trump likely oppose it for differing reasons, as there are several ways in which it was detrimental. You should really consider what the terms progressive, left, and right actually mean before you start using them to identify blocs.

 

2. There's no way to "partially" pull out of the united nations. You either participate as a part of the security council or you don't. The very notion that anyone would even consider leaving is nonsensical and ill advised for numerous reasons, foremost of which being the deligitimization of the organization as a whole without US. Presence. Its a terrible precident to set and the fact that the bill exists is either farcical (did i spell that right?) or frightening. Either way, bad across the board.

For the record Zai, they've both expressed similar reasons why they dislike it. I cannot read either of their minds, but based on the public positions put forward, it seems such that they disagree with it due to similar reasons. Pretty sure the President even said the one area he agrees with Bernie on is the lack of fair trade

 

There is a way to partially pull out; deny funds till the UN reverse the Israel resolution. Regardless of your feelings on Israel, the current Admin and a good portion of America feel upsetting by it and want to hold the UN accountable to protecting our friend and ally 

  On 1/25/2017 at 2:30 PM, Zaiduck said:

He is. You're just not seeing it.

 

Political inclination/opinions on policy =/= party/politician support.

You misunderstand, it's very likely Bernie and Trump disliked TPP for the same reason. If Wahr is willing to call out Trump, and likewise disagrees with Bernie on the matter, then I see no issue with regards to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 2:46 PM, White said:

I asked, didn't tell. The answer is "yes"

 

It's not difficult

 

Its difficult to have a discussion with someone who's more focused on pushing an agenda than they are having discourse on a topic. Is what he was trying to say in not quite so blunt terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 3:00 PM, Zaiduck said:

Its difficult to have a discussion with someone who's more focused on pushing an agenda than they are having discourse on a topic. Is what he was trying to say in not quite so blunt terms.

No Zai, he dodged and weaved. There's been a steady retreat. From similar, to not so similar, to funk this I'm out.

 

But I agree, it is rather difficult to have a discussion when engaging in snarky innuendos is the accepted discourse. There's no agenda I was pushing other than maybe asking for fair treatment. Sadly he was unable to give it. That's not too much to ask for. Y'all are welcome to call me out if I make snarky innuendos as well :)

 

Be blunt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 3:14 PM, White said:

No Zai, he dodged and weaved. There's been a steady retreat. From similar, to not so similar, to f*** this I'm out.

 

But I agree, it is rather difficult to have a discussion when engaging in snarky innuendos is the accepted discourse. There's no agenda I was pushing other than maybe asking for fair treatment. Sadly he was unable to give it. That's not too much to ask for. Y'all are welcome to call me out if I make snarky innuendos as well :)

 

Be blunt

You probably don't want me to be blunt. And being blunt and antagonistic in a discussion thread does nothing but make Dad cri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 3:17 PM, Zaiduck said:

You probably don't want me to be blunt. And being blunt and antagonistic in a discussion thread does nothing but make Dad cri.

And you don't want to slander my president with innuendos unless you actually have evidence to back it up. I'm not gonna take that sheet from y'all anymore.

 

Anyway, back to topic, this is a typical market strategy. They likely want to engage from a position of strength. So House pull-out will help push senate to "moderate" and go for a funding cut. That being signed in, will then push the UN to reverse it's position on Israel. Think long run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/25/2017 at 2:32 PM, White said:

For the record Zai, they've both expressed similar reasons why they dislike it. I cannot read either of their minds, but based on the public positions put forward, it seems such that they disagree with it due to similar reasons. Pretty sure the President even said the one area he agrees with Bernie on is the lack of fair trade

 

There is a way to partially pull out; deny funds till the UN reverse the Israel resolution. Regardless of your feelings on Israel, the current Admin and a good portion of America feel upsetting by it and want to hold the UN accountable to protecting our friend and ally 

You misunderstand, it's very likely Bernie and Trump disliked TPP for the same reason. If Wahr is willing to call out Trump, and likewise disagrees with Bernie on the matter, then I see no issue with regards to that

 

Stay on topic please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/26/2017 at 5:16 AM, Wahrheit said:

 

So this essentially means that the US government has come out and admitted it doesn't give a sheet about global peace (as ineffective as the UN is). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/26/2017 at 5:16 AM, Wahrheit said:

Are you just confirming you didn't read?

 

Funding will be taken away from any organisation that is "controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism" or is behind the persecution of marginalised groups or systematic violation of human rights.

 

I already said that the senate had passed a bill to cut funding, which Trump will porbs sign. What isn't happening is a pull out. Try again. Also, remember the fake executive orders yesterday about Black sites. How about you wait till an EO is actually signed before being a smug ass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/26/2017 at 2:32 PM, White said:

Are you just confirming you didn't read?

 

Funding will be taken away from any organisation that is "controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism" or is behind the persecution of marginalised groups or systematic violation of human rights.

 

I already said that the senate had passed a bill to cut funding, which Trump will porbs sign. What isn't happening is a pull out. Try again. Also, remember the fake executive orders yesterday about Black sites. How about you wait till an EO is actually signed before being a smug ass

  Quote

 

The order has singled out peacekeeping, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Population Fund. The UNPFA targets violence against women, fights to keeps childbirth and abortion, where it is legal, safe, and was a key presence in safeguarding women in Haiti following Hurricane Matthew.

 
The order demands decreasing US funding towards international organisations by at least 40 per cent. Mr Trump has included the International Criminal Court here, yet the US currently pays nothing to the ICC.
 
If this order is signed, it would essentially decimate a global peacekeeping operation which is present in 16 countries.

 

It's a substantial move towards eventually leaving, and has substantially negative global impact either way. Trump is dead-set on making the world a worse place.

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/26/2017 at 2:40 PM, Wahrheit said:

It's a substantial move towards eventually leaving, and has substantially negative global impact either way. Trump is dead-set on making the world a worse place.

There's no substance in that, it's all speculation, and he hasn't even signed the damn order yet

 

>moving towards

>eventually leaving

 

President Trump may do something, which eventually might move towards a direction that Wahr dislikes....wow, the world is a terrible place. Have you considered that not everyone in the world has the same ideals as you? Some of us don't like funking Israel and protecting abortion 

 

C'mon your desperation to fling some sheet and Trump and hope it sticks is becoming so overbearing lol

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...