When Trump returns to the U.S., he'll no doubt say how well liked he was overseas

[OldLady]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

LOL I suggest you look up the words pompous and fatuous, for they aptly describe you and your remarks .

I suggest he look up flagulence as well.

flatulence
Irony.

 

[Norman]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

They absolutely loved Trump, didn't they?

How is the left going to spin this, when they campaigned for so long that this man was a huge xenophobe? Watching him dance with the muslims and gather the highest award they can conceive of points out to yet a other busted lie.

Next, they will probably defeat ISIS together.

 

[IResist]

Trump thinks he's liked overseas. He's being played by people who stroke his ego.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

LOL I suggest you look up the words pompous and fatuous, for they aptly describe you and your remarks .

I suggest he look up flagulence as well.

flatulence
Irony.

How so?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

The attempts to spin already started.

Wilbur Ross surprised there were no protests in Saudi ArabiaWilbur Ross surprised there were no protests in Saudi Arabia

I guess. I don't care much about or for the "spin." I'm interested in what Trump will say upon his return. I'd like to be wrong about the prediction in my OP for my being wrong would suggest Trump is on his way toward being a "grown-up" POTUS instead of a "pre-teen" one.

Agree with him or not, I don't want a childish ass POTUS. I want a POTUS that's smarter, more thoughtful, deep thinking, accurate, emotionally not "thirsty," and mature in their self presentation.

 

[Meathead]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

I don't know about liked, but it's certainly been a while since a POTUS has been respected, probably since Bush I.

 

[blackhawk]

It might just be me but I can't recall any President coming back from an overseas tour and saying boy everyone really hated me or was against me.

 

[OldLady]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

LOL I suggest you look up the words pompous and fatuous, for they aptly describe you and your remarks .

I suggest he look up flagulence as well.

flatulence
Irony.

How so?

Screwing up trying to use a big word to insult someone who uses big words is kinda the opposite of what you aimed at. More like insulting yourself.
Flagulence ain't a word.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies. NATO is a first line of defense in so many ways. I was very concerned when Trump was making noise that it was no longer relevant. They'll pay what they can pay. Trump has every right to bring up that other NATO members are not pitching in the expected amount. If that boosts contributions, I've got no problem with it. I don't think NATO will be destroyed because of an outstanding bill. There is more important stuff at stake, imo.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies.

I too wouldn't first think about economic factors upon hearing/seeing the acronym, "NATO." That said, wars and battles do have economic consequences, as do arms buildups. The U.S. and its NATO allies now, as during the Reagan years, have the ability to spend Russia into disaster, and that's without question an economic battle.

The issue is that right now the U.S. has a dolt as a POTUS and it's more likely he'd spend the U.S. and its allies into ruin rather than the other way round. That fool probably doesn't realize that you can't force a nation into economic collapse via an arms race unless there actually is a "race." Looking at U.S. military spending which outstrips that of the next seven most "spendy" nations combined, it appears there's nobody else who's "entered the race," and our Nitwit in Chief, rather than optimizing the money we spend, wants to spend even more on the military.

There again we have an example of his ineptitude and just how little executive management skill he brings to table. Every billion dollar corporation in the U.S. used the 1990s and early 2000s to transform their business processes and operations so they can be performed more efficiently with fewer resources. Then they set about integrating their operations globally. The DoD sort of did that, but mostly they just closed bases and told workers they would have to do more work. More importantly and more ineffectively, they treated doing so not as business transformation but rather as IT improvement. Add to that the fact that they only began with very high level scoping and planning for it in 2011, which means they still have not finished. [1]

Note:

1. As a point of comparison, I was the lead partner on an IT-driven merger integration for a Japanese manufacturer with operations in 130+ countries. That took five years for the first phase of "baseline go lives" and another three for "step ups" and to replace country-specific process workarounds with fully integrated enhancements and cut-outs.

 

[OldLady]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies. NATO is a first line of defense in so many ways. I was very concerned when Trump was making noise that it was no longer relevant. They'll pay what they can pay. Trump has every right to bring up that other NATO members are not pitching in the expected amount. If that boosts contributions, I've got no problem with it. I don't think NATO will be destroyed because of an outstanding bill. There is more important stuff at stake, imo.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies.

I too wouldn't first think about economic factors upon hearing/seeing the acronym, "NATO." That said, wars and battles do have economic consequences, as do arms buildups. The U.S. and its NATO allies now, as during the Reagan years, have the ability to spend Russia into disaster, and that's without question an economic battle.

The issue is that right now the U.S. has a dolt as a POTUS and it's more likely he'd spend the U.S. and its allies into ruin rather than the other way round. That fool probably doesn't realize that you can't force a nation into economic collapse via an arms race unless there actually is a "race." Looking at U.S. military spending which outstrips that of the next seven most "spendy" nations combined, it appears there's nobody else who's "entered the race," and our Nitwit in Chief, rather than optimizing the money we spend, wants to spend even more on the military.

There again we have an example of his ineptitude and just how little executive management skill he brings to table. Every billion dollar corporation in the U.S. used the 1990s and early 2000s to transform their business processes and operations so they can be performed more efficiently with fewer resources. Then they set about integrating their operations globally. The DoD sort of did that, but mostly they just closed bases and told workers they would have to do more work. More importantly and more ineffectively, they treated doing so not as business transformation but rather as IT improvement. Add to that the fact that they only began with very high level scoping and planning for it in 2011, which means they still have not finished. [1]

Note:

1. As a point of comparison, I was the lead partner on an IT-driven merger integration for a Japanese manufacturer with operations in 130+ countries. That took five years for the first phase of "baseline go lives" and another three for "step ups" and to replace country-specific process workarounds with fully integrated enhancements and cut-outs.

Didn't all the countries agree to 2% funding of NATO or its military input to NATO, or however it is contributed? Maybe they shouldn't have agreed if they didn't want to devote that much to the cause. Maybe they will discuss that if Trump presses it further.
If that seems an unreasonable amount or would cause an "arms race," I agree it should be looked at again. But maybe we shouldn't be pitching in that much either.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Screwing up trying to use a big word to insult someone who uses big words is kinda the opposite of what you aimed at. More like insulting yourself.
Flagulence ain't a word.

Yes, well, such is the ignominy to which cretins bourne of the black-hole of coma-inducing dullness consign themselves.

I don't know what it is about folks who take issue with other folks' correctly using the words and language they were tasked with learning over the course of high school and college. I'm not going to be chagrined for having done so; thus if someone thinks they might shame me into altering my vernacular, they'll eventually discern how futile is their effort to do so.

"Flagulence," eh. How droll. Someone's having written that to insult me is precious, indeed, "Mastercard" priceless. I mean, really. One cannot pay people to be so stultifying.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies. NATO is a first line of defense in so many ways. I was very concerned when Trump was making noise that it was no longer relevant. They'll pay what they can pay. Trump has every right to bring up that other NATO members are not pitching in the expected amount. If that boosts contributions, I've got no problem with it. I don't think NATO will be destroyed because of an outstanding bill. There is more important stuff at stake, imo.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies.

I too wouldn't first think about economic factors upon hearing/seeing the acronym, "NATO." That said, wars and battles do have economic consequences, as do arms buildups. The U.S. and its NATO allies now, as during the Reagan years, have the ability to spend Russia into disaster, and that's without question an economic battle.

The issue is that right now the U.S. has a dolt as a POTUS and it's more likely he'd spend the U.S. and its allies into ruin rather than the other way round. That fool probably doesn't realize that you can't force a nation into economic collapse via an arms race unless there actually is a "race." Looking at U.S. military spending which outstrips that of the next seven most "spendy" nations combined, it appears there's nobody else who's "entered the race," and our Nitwit in Chief, rather than optimizing the money we spend, wants to spend even more on the military.

There again we have an example of his ineptitude and just how little executive management skill he brings to table. Every billion dollar corporation in the U.S. used the 1990s and early 2000s to transform their business processes and operations so they can be performed more efficiently with fewer resources. Then they set about integrating their operations globally. The DoD sort of did that, but mostly they just closed bases and told workers they would have to do more work. More importantly and more ineffectively, they treated doing so not as business transformation but rather as IT improvement. Add to that the fact that they only began with very high level scoping and planning for it in 2011, which means they still have not finished. [1]

Note:

1. As a point of comparison, I was the lead partner on an IT-driven merger integration for a Japanese manufacturer with operations in 130+ countries. That took five years for the first phase of "baseline go lives" and another three for "step ups" and to replace country-specific process workarounds with fully integrated enhancements and cut-outs.

Didn't all the countries agree to 2% funding of NATO or its military input to NATO, or however it is contributed? Maybe they shouldn't have agreed if they didn't want to devote that much to the cause. Maybe they will discuss that if Trump presses it further.
If that seems an unreasonable amount or would cause an "arms race," I agree it should be looked at again. But maybe we shouldn't be pitching in that much either.

Didn't all the countries agree to 2% funding of NATO or its military input to NATO, or however it is contributed? Maybe they shouldn't have agreed if they didn't want to devote that much to the cause.

I believe they did. Truly they didn't have to. Russia would be happy to annex them for free and entirely at its own expense. Many NATO countries have lived under Russian occupation before; I'm sure they can figure out how to do so again.

I don't think the U.S. would be too keen on their switching sides, but, hey, perhaps that wouldn't bother Trump at all. I don't think anyone's asked him that question and I'm sure he's not considered the implications of such a change.