Trump picks a good one.......

[Onyx]

Taking a phone call from the president of Taiwan, and acknowledging her as such publicly is a screw up because it goes against the "One China" policy that was put into place by Reagan.

The one china policy was invented by the PRC and ROC, not Ronald Reagan.

 

[Tom Horn]

Doesn't matter. I had a Top Secret clearance, was on the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program), that loaded "special weapons" onboard the FA18, and was STILL told that I couldn't tour the engine room on the carrier. Why? Because I didn't have a need to know since I was aviation and not a nuke.

He was convicted because she didn't have a need to know. Dress it up any way you want to but Petraeus still did something illegal.

He lost his job and she wasn't charged....and then there's your queen Hillary.

Wait a minute...you were a munitions loader and had a "top secret" clearance...for what?

Never said I was an AO. I said that I was a member of the PRP program, which was the people that loaded what they called "special weapons" at the time onboard the aircraft. "Special weapons" is the designation we used for nuclear bombs. And yeah, to work with nuclear weapons or crawl around in the cockpit, you had to have a clearance to do that. Why did they make me a PRP team member? Because I had 3.9 evals and a Top Security clearance already when I showed up to the command because I was a Personnelman, and responsible for all the command's message traffic.

F-18s don't carry nukes and now you're also a cryptographer?

 

[Spare_change]

She's been SOS before, and knows how to handle a phone call like that. First thing is, you don't take it officially, second, you don't refer to her as president in a tweet, because the US has a one China policy that doesn't officially recognize the government of Taiwan.

USED to have a "one China policy"....PRC bombers were bluff-circling Taiwan when she made that call. They got the message from Trump not to fuck with Taiwan, and he ain't bluffing.

Changing our foreign policy with another country isn't done by circling bombers, it's done by Congress.

Actually, that's not true .... Congress doesn't set foreign policy. It CAN influence it (by the power of the purse in the House - or treaty review by the Senate), but the final determination of policy lies with the executive branch.

No wonder you're confused.

Actually, I'm not. Here ya go..................

Law
Main articles: Treaty and Treaty Clause
In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

• Executive agreements
  • Congressional-executive agreements are made by the president and Congress. A majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is signed by the president. The constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are unconstitutional.[12]
  • Sole executive agreements are made by the president alone.
• Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The president makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

International law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties. In most nations, treaty laws supersede domestic law. So if there is a conflict between a treaty obligation and a domestic law, then the treaty usually prevails.[citation needed]

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterwards. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if this is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including the 1900 Supreme Court decision in Paquete Habana, a late 1950s decision in Reid v. Covert, and a lower court ruling in 1986 in Garcia-Mir v. Meese. Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised this power.[citation needed]

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, because of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.

International agreements
The United States has ratified and participates in many other multilateral treaties, including arms control treaties (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements.

Further information: List of United States treaties

Foreign policy of the United States - Wikipedia

It takes both the president and Congress, or if the president negotiates a treaty it has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

See how much smarter you are now. See what doing a little research does for you? If you had done that before you misspoke, you wouldn't be embarrassed, would you?

 

[TooTall]

Doesn't matter. I had a Top Secret clearance, was on the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program), that loaded "special weapons" onboard the FA18, and was STILL told that I couldn't tour the engine room on the carrier. Why? Because I didn't have a need to know since I was aviation and not a nuke.

He was convicted because she didn't have a need to know. Dress it up any way you want to but Petraeus still did something illegal.

He lost his job and she wasn't charged....and then there's your queen Hillary.

Wait a minute...you were a munitions loader and had a "top secret" clearance...for what?

Never said I was an AO. I said that I was a member of the PRP program, which was the people that loaded what they called "special weapons" at the time onboard the aircraft. "Special weapons" is the designation we used for nuclear bombs. And yeah, to work with nuclear weapons or crawl around in the cockpit, you had to have a clearance to do that. Why did they make me a PRP team member? Because I had 3.9 evals and a Top Security clearance already when I showed up to the command because I was a Personnelman, and responsible for all the command's message traffic.

F-18s don't carry nukes and now you're also a cryptographer?

I hate to take up for ABikerSailor, but the F-18C/D was capable of carrying nukes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Doesn't matter. I had a Top Secret clearance, was on the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program), that loaded "special weapons" onboard the FA18, and was STILL told that I couldn't tour the engine room on the carrier. Why? Because I didn't have a need to know since I was aviation and not a nuke.

He was convicted because she didn't have a need to know. Dress it up any way you want to but Petraeus still did something illegal.

He lost his job and she wasn't charged....and then there's your queen Hillary.

Wait a minute...you were a munitions loader and had a "top secret" clearance...for what?

Never said I was an AO. I said that I was a member of the PRP program, which was the people that loaded what they called "special weapons" at the time onboard the aircraft. "Special weapons" is the designation we used for nuclear bombs. And yeah, to work with nuclear weapons or crawl around in the cockpit, you had to have a clearance to do that. Why did they make me a PRP team member? Because I had 3.9 evals and a Top Security clearance already when I showed up to the command because I was a Personnelman, and responsible for all the command's message traffic.

F-18s don't carry nukes and now you're also a cryptographer?

Yeah...........FA18's DO carry nukes when required. We had practice loads about once a month when we were deployed. And how in the hell did you come up with CT from what I posted about being in PRP for a collateral duty and telling you I was a PN?

 

[Tom Horn]

Okay sure, there is a small tactical nuke our entire inventory of strike-fighters can deploy with about the same power as 155 artillery shrooms.

Deployed tactical nuclear weapons are now restricted to various modifications to the B-61 gravity, or free-fall, bomb. US aircraft capable of delivering this weapon are the A-4, A-6, A-7, AV-8B, F-4, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-111, and presumably the F-117 stealth fighter. NATO aircraft so capable are the F-4, F-100, F-104, and the Tornado.

United States Nuclear Forces | atomicarchive.com