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

[TooTall]

Considering the length of his friendship with both Trump and China's president, that was probably the best choice he could have ever made.

Maybe it will make up for the Taiwan screw up and he can gloss over Trumps stupid comments whenever they are tweeted or made.

Taiwan was no screw-up.

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.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary had won and the first female ever elected as President of Tiawan had called her to congratulate her for being the first woman elected to the US Presidency? LOL

 

[Tom Horn]

No he can't because the second he won the election, he became president elect, and at that time was considered an official of this country. And, as an official of this country, he has to follow our official policy, not do what he thinks he can.

LMAO! He doesn't have to "follow" shit....we've been selling weapons to Taiwan (Formosa) for years without "recognizing" them....ridiculous appeasement to the PRC...those days are OVER.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Considering the length of his friendship with both Trump and China's president, that was probably the best choice he could have ever made.

Maybe it will make up for the Taiwan screw up and he can gloss over Trumps stupid comments whenever they are tweeted or made.

Taiwan was no screw-up.

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.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary had won and the first female ever elected as President of Tiawan had called her to congratulate her for being the first woman elected to the US Presidency? LOL

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.

 

[TooTall]

And............just like I did with Jr., if Trump does something good, I'm gonna say he did good. If he fucks up, just like I did with Obama, I will say he fucked up.

That's white of ya....

Hey, when Jr. was screwing over our country, I really didn't like the way he was running it. But, just like a blind pig finds a truffle every now and again, when he did good, I said as much.

Trump is a questionable leader, because of his choices for Cabinet. Two of his main points against Hillary during the campaign was that she was too close to Wall St. because of her connection with Goldman Sachs, as well as hammered her for handling classified information in a careless way.

Now? He's got THREE GOLDMAN SACHS BOARD MEMBERS, one of them happens to be the CEO. About as close to Wall St. as you can get, don't ya think? And.........Goldman Sachs people had a large hand in the meltdown of 2008. Not only that, but one of the people he's picked is Gen. Petraeus, a man who was charged, tried and convicted of giving classified information to his mistress.

I did not hear what position General Petraeus has been picked to fill. Please enlighten me. As I understand the mistress that Petraeus information to as a Major in the reserves and had a security clearance. I suspect Petraeus pled guilty because she did not really have the 'need to know.'

 

[SmokeALib]

Considering the length of his friendship with both Trump and China's president, that was probably the best choice he could have ever made.

Maybe it will make up for the Taiwan screw up and he can gloss over Trumps stupid comments whenever they are tweeted or made.

Taiwan was no screw-up.

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.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary had won and the first female ever elected as President of Tiawan had called her to congratulate her for being the first woman elected to the US Presidency? LOL

It would be deplorable.

 

[TooTall]

Considering the length of his friendship with both Trump and China's president, that was probably the best choice he could have ever made.

Maybe it will make up for the Taiwan screw up and he can gloss over Trumps stupid comments whenever they are tweeted or made.

Taiwan was no screw-up.

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.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Hillary had won and the first female ever elected as President of Tiawan had called her to congratulate her for being the first woman elected to the US Presidency? LOL

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.

Trump is the President elect and is still a civilian without a government job.

 

[Tom Horn]

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And............just like I did with Jr., if Trump does something good, I'm gonna say he did good. If he fucks up, just like I did with Obama, I will say he fucked up.

That's white of ya....

Hey, when Jr. was screwing over our country, I really didn't like the way he was running it. But, just like a blind pig finds a truffle every now and again, when he did good, I said as much.

Trump is a questionable leader, because of his choices for Cabinet. Two of his main points against Hillary during the campaign was that she was too close to Wall St. because of her connection with Goldman Sachs, as well as hammered her for handling classified information in a careless way.

Now? He's got THREE GOLDMAN SACHS BOARD MEMBERS, one of them happens to be the CEO. About as close to Wall St. as you can get, don't ya think? And.........Goldman Sachs people had a large hand in the meltdown of 2008. Not only that, but one of the people he's picked is Gen. Petraeus, a man who was charged, tried and convicted of giving classified information to his mistress.

I did not hear what position General Petraeus has been picked to fill. Please enlighten me. As I understand the mistress that Petraeus information to as a Major in the reserves and had a security clearance. I suspect Petraeus pled guilty because she did not really have the 'need to know.'

Google it yourself, he's been considered for a Cabinet position, namely one of which is Sec. of State.

As far as her having a security clearance? If you were in the military and had a clearance, you would know that in order to access classified information you have to have two things, first, a security clearance that is sufficient to view the information in question, and second, you have to have a need to know. I held a Top Secret in the Navy, and even though I wanted to go in places like the nuclear engine room and see some of the really cool stuff, unless I had a reason to be there or know the information, they wouldn't release it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

 

[Tom Horn]

As far as her having a security clearance? If you were in the military and had a clearance, you would know that in order to access classified information you have to have two things, first, a security clearance that is sufficient to view the information in question, and second, you have to have a need to know. I held a Top Secret in the Navy, and even though I wanted to go in places like the nuclear engine room and see some of the really cool stuff, unless I had a reason to be there or know the information, they wouldn't release it.

She's a bottle-cap Colonel in military intelligence and was no security threat...PERIOD.

 

[TooTall]

And............just like I did with Jr., if Trump does something good, I'm gonna say he did good. If he fucks up, just like I did with Obama, I will say he fucked up.

That's white of ya....

Hey, when Jr. was screwing over our country, I really didn't like the way he was running it. But, just like a blind pig finds a truffle every now and again, when he did good, I said as much.

Trump is a questionable leader, because of his choices for Cabinet. Two of his main points against Hillary during the campaign was that she was too close to Wall St. because of her connection with Goldman Sachs, as well as hammered her for handling classified information in a careless way.

Now? He's got THREE GOLDMAN SACHS BOARD MEMBERS, one of them happens to be the CEO. About as close to Wall St. as you can get, don't ya think? And.........Goldman Sachs people had a large hand in the meltdown of 2008. Not only that, but one of the people he's picked is Gen. Petraeus, a man who was charged, tried and convicted of giving classified information to his mistress.

I did not hear what position General Petraeus has been picked to fill. Please enlighten me. As I understand the mistress that Petraeus information to as a Major in the reserves and had a security clearance. I suspect Petraeus pled guilty because she did not really have the 'need to know.'

Google it yourself, he's been considered for a Cabinet position, namely one of which is Sec. of State.

As far as her having a security clearance? If you were in the military and had a clearance, you would know that in order to access classified information you have to have two things, first, a security clearance that is sufficient to view the information in question, and second, you have to have a need to know. I held a Top Secret in the Navy, and even though I wanted to go in places like the nuclear engine room and see some of the really cool stuff, unless I had a reason to be there or know the information, they wouldn't release it.

I had a Top Secret clearance in the Air Force and I already specified the 'need to know' policy.

 

[Tom Horn]

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! you can't top this idiocy.^^^^^

 

[TooTall]

And............just like I did with Jr., if Trump does something good, I'm gonna say he did good. If he fucks up, just like I did with Obama, I will say he fucked up.

That's white of ya....

Hey, when Jr. was screwing over our country, I really didn't like the way he was running it. But, just like a blind pig finds a truffle every now and again, when he did good, I said as much.

Trump is a questionable leader, because of his choices for Cabinet. Two of his main points against Hillary during the campaign was that she was too close to Wall St. because of her connection with Goldman Sachs, as well as hammered her for handling classified information in a careless way.

Now? He's got THREE GOLDMAN SACHS BOARD MEMBERS, one of them happens to be the CEO. About as close to Wall St. as you can get, don't ya think? And.........Goldman Sachs people had a large hand in the meltdown of 2008. Not only that, but one of the people he's picked is Gen. Petraeus, a man who was charged, tried and convicted of giving classified information to his mistress.

I did not hear what position General Petraeus has been picked to fill. Please enlighten me. As I understand the mistress that Petraeus information to as a Major in the reserves and had a security clearance. I suspect Petraeus pled guilty because she did not really have the 'need to know.'

Google it yourself, he's been considered for a Cabinet position, namely one of which is Sec. of State.

As far as her having a security clearance? If you were in the military and had a clearance, you would know that in order to access classified information you have to have two things, first, a security clearance that is sufficient to view the information in question, and second, you have to have a need to know. I held a Top Secret in the Navy, and even though I wanted to go in places like the nuclear engine room and see some of the really cool stuff, unless I had a reason to be there or know the information, they wouldn't release it.

"Not only that, but one of the people he's picked is Gen. Petraeus,"

You said he had been picked, not considered.

 

[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.

 

[Spare_change]

Considering the length of his friendship with both Trump and China's president, that was probably the best choice he could have ever made.

Maybe it will make up for the Taiwan screw up and he can gloss over Trumps stupid comments whenever they are tweeted or made.

Taiwan was no screw-up.

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.

Trump is not even in office yet. He can take as many phone calls from as many foreign leaders as he can stomach.

No he can't because the second he won the election, he became president elect, and at that time was considered an official of this country. And, as an official of this country, he has to follow our official policy, not do what he thinks he can.

There's a rumor --- yet unproven --- that he also has gas.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As far as her having a security clearance? If you were in the military and had a clearance, you would know that in order to access classified information you have to have two things, first, a security clearance that is sufficient to view the information in question, and second, you have to have a need to know. I held a Top Secret in the Navy, and even though I wanted to go in places like the nuclear engine room and see some of the really cool stuff, unless I had a reason to be there or know the information, they wouldn't release it.

She's a bottle-cap Colonel in military intelligence and was no security threat...PERIOD.

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.

 

[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?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Tom Horn]

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.

We have no treaty with China....did Barry get Senate approval for his treaty with Iran? Give it up.