I'm reading the NYT article about it.
Mr. Trump’s message drew a mostly stone-faced response from the audience in the General Assembly chamber. But there was one moment of levity, albeit at the president’s expense. When he declared that his administration “has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” the audience broke out into murmurs and laughter."But that's O.K." is Trump's standard phrase when he's acknowledging a statement that he does not like. It's not really okay. It's more: I see that, and I'm not going to take the bait and talk about it now.
Pausing, Mr. Trump said, “I did not expect that reaction.” Then he added, “But that’s O.K.”
पोस्ट्स
१५३ टिप्पण्या:
That was the definition of "truth to power".
The UN is an organization that almost ideally defines "unelected global bureaucracy", consisting mainly of third-world bureaucrats sponging off first-world funding.
The EU is almost that as well, but not quite. Unfortunately the EU unlike the UN is actually important.
Yeah, he's a braggart but he really has accomplished more in 2 years than Obama did in 8. So, screw them.
We're number one. Trump is looking out for America's interests. We aren't the chump any more.
Right now Russia and Syria are killing people right and left in Syria. Iran is a brutal theocracy that spreads terror. China is so anti-democratic that the uncensored internet isn't allowed into the country. We don't care what the most of what rest of the world thinks about us because the United States is a true republic. In America, the people rule. That's how Trump won.
I, too, reject the ideology of globalism and embrace the doctrine of patriotism. Global bureaucracy is the enemy of liberty.
Alas, I am but a powerless, obscure, member of the commentariat.
Well, I gotta say FDR and Truman both got a lot done. So did LBJ actually.
The New York Times readers are supposed to empathize with those "stone faced" audience members; how dare anyone find joy or approve of good news, when Donald Trump is in office? Dignity has no home here.
Well, Trump hasn't gotten more done than FDR did in his last two terms, seeing as we are not fighting WWII. OTOH, he hasn't put American citizens with the wrong color skin into concentration camps.
And he hasn't gotten as much done as Wilson did, seeing as we are not fighting WWI. OTOH, it's not illegal to criticize the government and we're not putting people in jail for speech.
And he hasn't gotten as much done as Lincoln, seeing as we're not fighting a civil war. OTOH, no suspension of Habeas Corpus.
-XC
Well, he's at least right about something.
The UN is a trash fire, and we ought to leave it entirely, frankly, apart from vetoing everything awful in the Security Council.
It continually mystifies me how my Canadian friends and random Progressives all think the UN is The World Government And Super Important.
Trump has managed to get the US to grow at 4%. That's enough to get a lot of the world's economy trending further upward.
THe setting of the speech was designed to show off to watchers that China is not the World Boss.
The speech itself was direct Trump Doctrine. He is not impressed by those always on the fence.Friends are on our side. The professional fence sitters who are demanding our protection and our money are on their own. Which also goes for Rod Rosenstein.
The United Nations, or League of Nations v. 2.0, was created and funded by the U.S., and is a very worthwhile institution - or, it could and should be.
The trouble is that the Democrats insist that it represents some otherworldly supreme power to which we must submit without questioning it. Not so. It is a very worldly political forum that needs to be addressed Lyndon Johnson style - smooching and arm twisting as necessary to "diplomatically" promote one own's country's interests without resorting to armed force.
I have longed for a President to do that, to say that, my entire lifetime.
I wish all of those people that hate Trump would take a minute to reflect why no other president has been willing to do that, and then realize that is why he has so many supporters.
His three marriages do not matter.
His non-religiosity does not matter.
His tariffs do not matter.
His tweets do not matter.
His bombast does not matter.
None of that matters because his supporters view him as a person that is going to go to the United Nations and say "You are not the boss of US." And mean it.
For decades political supporters have used things like marriage stability, church attendance, free-trade policy as proxies for "oh well I guess this person makes sane reasoned decisions so I can support them." Or they says "wow this candidate looks so good in that picutre with their children I feel like this president is going to care for me, maybe more than my spouse does."
And all of those proxies, and all of those sane reasoned decision or emotional heartstrings have created a jumbled mess. The future of America was going to be what California is now. Or Illinois.
Every president has their supporters that think their guy is a great guy. But Trump is actually delivering to his supporters what he said he would do.
Obama offered Hope and Change.
Bush offered compassionate Conservatism
Clinton was the man from Hope
Bush had his 1000 points of light
Trump wanted a wall, new trade deals, and to put America first.
There are still people waiting for their Hope and Change, and for those 1000 points of light as well.
"That was the definition of 'truth to power.'"
No, that was the declaration of an idiot. We are sovereign within our own country, as is every other nation. We do not have sovereignty over the rest of the world. Restrictions placed on our behavior in the rest of the world has to do with their sovereignty, not ours. We were one of the primary founders of the UN. The UN was formed after WWII to avoid future wars of equal or greater cataclysmic destructiveness. It is a means--imperfect, but all we have--for the world nations to try to work together. We just don't like it when we're reminded that we do not have a natural right to treat the rest of the world as our punk.We like it when we can control decisions, but we dismiss it when we can't. We are the greatest lawless nation in the world.
I'm glad they laughed at him. What a dolt.
America has never had to “surrender...sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.” We are permanent members and have veto power on the security council.
God bless President Donald J Trump... the 2nd coming of Reagan...
Trump said he had done the most for the world in his first 1.7 years. The joke was on them.
That's okay means you aren't going to throw me off my game.
I think we can all agree that a President Hillary Clinton speech at the UN would have been applauded enthusiastically. That shows you right there why she is not President.
The stone faced eye roll might have injured some of the older delegates.
Oh... and Hillary will NEVER be President...
I wonder if Stephen Miller wrote that accomplishment line or if it was an ad lib.
I'm glad they laughed at him. What a dolt.
Says the commenter most laughed at.
That UN building would be a great condo conversion and I know just the guys to do it.
@Cook,
You swing and miss on, perhaps, the biggest existential question of our times. Are we a sovereign country with sovereign interests or a mere member of global community?
"We are sovereign within our own country, as is every other nation. We do not have sovereignty over the rest of the world."
Yes, we don't have sovereignty over the rest of the world. The problem is them trying to impose their sovereignty over us. That is what normal sane people are objecting to.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
America has never had to “surrender...sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.”
No, we just pay for it. And pay. And pay,
One of the saddest forms of deceit is self-deception.
If your country is 21 trillion in debt (and rising), everything else is noise.
Nationalism is a thing of the past, and always has been.
Do I need to put the sarcasm tag on that?
No, we just pay for it. And pay. And pay,
I don't think that was addressed in the speech, actually.
*We are the greatest lawless nation in the world.*
Aw, snap.
Closer to the truth to say we have way too many stupid, unnecessary laws and regulations, pushed onto us by too many unaccountable bureaucratic institutions. Kinda like what happens at the UN>
"Yes, we don't have sovereignty over the rest of the world. The problem is them trying to impose their sovereignty over us."
How?
One funny thing in the Times article is the way they establish how trivial U.N. speeches are. W said this, then Obama said, then Obama said this, then Obama said that, then Trump said this, then Trump said that.
In fairness to Trump, he has another 6 years to accomplish more, and if you believe some on the left, another 20.
How?
Asking for diplomatic license plates, the spongers.
"That's OK". It means you're keeping score and will settle accounts later. The NYT may not understand it but I bet a heap of folks at the UN did. Especially the Third Worlders.
MAGA!!!!! MAGA!!!!! MAGA!!!!! MAGA!!!!!
No major power accepts the authority of the UN over it. None. Trump is the little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
Love him or hate him, and I've traveled the continuum between those two, he is, as public officials go, refreshing.
-sw
The UN is an organization that almost ideally defines "unelected global bureaucracy", consisting mainly of third-world bureaucrats sponging off first-world funding.
Bureaucratic Corruptocrats all, expect for the fascist dictators. It is so okay they aren't okay...
I'm struck at how well Trump uses game theory on these grumps. The longer they wait him out the more they suffer. Doves don't like a hawk...
He's done a lot in a short period of time. Not realizing that is pretty obtuse.
Call me obtuse. That's okay.
MSNBC is having its Global Citizen concert in Central Park this week. Global Citizen is an oxymoron. What idiots.
He was speaking campaign sound-bytes to petite dictators and bureaucratic functionaries. Trump and the laughing UN are both speaking directly to his base of support. This is another home run for Donald.
YW I trust in actuarial tables.
Robert Cook said...
"Yes, we don't have sovereignty over the rest of the world. The problem is them trying to impose their sovereignty over us."
How?
With one word Cook shows us why Trump won and why he will win 45 states in 2020.
Unrepentant Stalinist Cooktard has a sad that the tin pot dictators and shit hole countries of the world are on notice that America has a President who puts America First again.
Why don't you take a nice hot bath with a toaster, it will make you feel better.
(eaglebeak)
Here's an example of an attempt to impose globalist dictates on U.S.: The desire of the International Criminal Court, a globalist excrescence if ever there was one, to start war crimes trials against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
John Bolton said a few weeks back the ICC could shove it, and Trump says the same.
To think that the UN and its pseudopods are not always creeping around looking for ways to screw us is wrong.
I was a reporter at the UN many years ago, and that is the creepiest place in the world (except Michael Avenatti's office, I guess).
How?
This from a guy who never saw a Soviet tank column he didn’t like.
It's just a message that mutual ass-covering politeness is over.
"But that's O.K." is Trump's standard phrase when he's acknowledging a statement that he does not like. It's not really okay. It's more: I see that, and I'm not going to take the bait and talk about it now.
Trump won't take the bait because he really doesn't give a shit what these people think of his opinions. It's high time we had a President who cares enough about America to put her first even if it means offending the globalists. And I suspect there are many in other nations who were not present for the speech, who silently cheer him on and wish they had a leader willing to speak out.
Blogger JohnAnnArbor said...
He's done a lot in a short period of time. Not realizing that is pretty obtuse.
9/25/18, 12:00 PM
Blogger readering said...
Call me obtuse. That's okay.
No, not obtuse. You just don't want done what he is doing.
Closing borders.
Restoring trade balance.
Cutting taxes to get the economy going.
Canceling regulations that tie down business.
You're a lawyer for god's sake ! Lawyers live for that stuff !
When he declared that his administration “has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country,” the audience broke out into murmurs and laughter.
Please list the administrations that have accomplished more.
Washington’s accomplishments happened mostly before his administration. Same with most of the early presidents.
Teddy R got some things done people will remember.
Jackson.
Lincoln of course.
Wilson is a blight on history and one of the worst presidents ever. His were the opposite of accomplishments. It would not be a stretch to say he helped cause WWII.
Same with FDR. We are still paying for his fuckups.
In the end Trump is quite right. He qualified the statement.
The problem all of the NYT readers and globalists in general have with the statement is Trump is fighting for Americans against the enemies of freedom.
They have a disgusting view of what an accomplishment is.
"This from a guy who never saw a Soviet tank column he didn’t like."
Making up shit doesn't answer the question.
Please list the administrations that have accomplished more.
Polk.
Hayes
Donald Trump Jr. is going to be dead in 20 years, readering?
"The problem all of the NYT readers and globalists in general have with the statement is Trump is fighting for Americans against the enemies of freedom."
He's stating that America will continue to use the rest of the world as its punk, to be stripped of resources and subject to our violence if they don't submit.
Jefferson
The aspirations of globalism may be noble on the surface, but they're a fools dream in the near term and may not ever be reasonable even in the longer term.
As a species we're a long way from being able to have a world government that wouldn't be an absolute corrupt nightmare and/or a straight up tyranny. This is because humanity is a mess of conflicting desires, greed, and competition for resources. Across the world community there's far too many wildly different value systems that are completely at odds with one another. There's far too many deeply held tribale hatreds, resentments, religious doctorines that demand subservience from particular groups and casts, rampant racism, and historical grievances that may be impassable and unredressable.
So I'm glad that Trump is making clear in no uncertain terms what America's interests are.
To explain my reaction to this post I diligently tried to apply the ALTHOUSE Rule:... "I said if I had to say — and I don't — right then — for example if I had to..."
Aha! I've done that and now feel entitled to say: Oddly enough, my conclusion is NOT that of Althouse herselfism. I conclude Trump's "that's OK" is NOT simply a refusal to "take bait", it's a huge scoff directed at the UN 'audience'. It says "Hey, the jokes on you, assholes - you just proved the point of my headline - "America is free from your unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. Get friggin used to it!"
He says we will never surrender our sovereignty. And I believe that Trump himself would not do that. Yet his predecessors have done exactly that for a 100 years. Wilson's intentionally involving us in a European war when his 1916 campaign said he would not do that. His attempt to place us into the League of Nations was blunted by an Americanist-minded Senate only incensed the US-based globalists to assert even more persuasive efforts (the CFR was formed in 1921) to prep the world for another war to demonstrate to the world at large that only global government could save us. FDR did his part; like Wilson he campaigned that "your boys won't be fighting abroad" while planning just the opposite. Once in the UN the sovereignty surrender began in earnest. Continues to this day.
Cleveland
Trump was born, bred, and forged in the fires of New York City.
It is hilarious that the Left actually believes it is politically bad to be mocked by the members of the UN. Simply hilarious.
I won't read the NYT.
We need to tend our own gardens. Help our neighbors help themselves. And make the Earth bloom.
Eisenhower
Hillary would have entrenched the enemies of freedom in power and continued the Obama administration policy of spying on political opponents which her campaign participated in in 2016. We would be well on the way to being a police state with the most corrupt politician in our history as president.
We were one election away from our country turning into a socialist democracy. We are now back on track as a Republic.
Taking down that cabal is on the same level of historical importantance as taking away the Democrats slaves or defeating the national socialists in WWII.
And Trump is doing it without a war which is also incredible.
Back in the 60's when I was a devout leftist, there were many older leftists involved in our organizations who believed heartily in a one-world government and believed that the UN should be sovereign over individual nations. They claimed it was the only sure way to 'peace'. Looking back, I think they may have been Communists and they were using our youthful outrage about Vietnam for their purposes. David Horowitz, who was also a leftist then, and whom I met on several occasions, wrote of this after shedding the revolutionary mindset and, to me, a one-world government is scarier than the prospect of nuclear war.
"We are permanent members and have veto power on the security council."
Others have veto power, at least in principle, over our actions. We subjected ourselves to the Charter.
Of course, the sacrifice of sovereignty was willing and deliberate.
Progs would dearly love to hamstring the U.S. some more. Good to take preventive rhetorical action.
Henry said...
Polk.
You think that is an effective argument.
I would be embarrassed to be that dumb.
“I did not expect that reaction."
There's something endearing about people with zero self-awareness.
Cookie asserts: He's stating that America will continue to use the rest of the world as its punk, to be stripped of resources and subject to our violence if they don't submit.
America has enriched other countries far more than it has stripped them of their resources.
Achilles. You don't know Polk.
Where is Obama, Henry?
I, myself, am a member of the Van Buren Boys.
"We are sovereign within our own country, as is every other nation"
Many other nations are not quite sovereign within their own nations.
There is quite an argument going on in Europe, precisely about that.
Can Poland be Polish, or Hungary Hungarian - or Italy Italian?
And elsewhere too.
The power of the NGO and the multilateral organization, not to mention powerful neighbors, is not trivial.
As for the US, much of it is under extreme cultural and policy threat from both multilateral organizations as well as their very powerful domestic US allies.
And for that matter it is many of these US allies of multilateral organizations, the imperial Americans, that the Trumpian populists oppose. This reality is not well told outside the US.
"He's stating that America will continue to use the rest of the world as its punk, to be stripped of resources and subject to our violence if they don't submit."
"Stripping of resources" implies a near-180-degree understanding of Trumpian trade policy.
Robert Cook said...
[That was the definition of 'truth to power.]
No, that was the declaration of an idiot. We are sovereign within our own country, as is every other nation.
The idiot here is Robert Cook. Nobody much cares about the UN effect on foreign policy. People reject its positions and efforts force the US to abide by their preferences. Robert's relies on strategic ignorance to ask "how" but here's an example of the NYT referencing their positions on immigration:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html
This took ten seconds to find.
Americans who use the UN or other foreign bodies to justify their preferences are of course worse than the UN. But the UN does this on on immigration, healthcare, the welfare state, environmentalism, freedom, and pretty much every subject. They work in concert trying to lock the US into treaties creating "law" they don't have sufficient popular support to pass legitimately. The UN, other foreign bodies, and their American allies all do this for the same reason: they understand it will artificially limit American growth. American success is bad for leftism because it shows what is possible with less central control. This difference more than anything else caused the fall of the Soviets. The differences in success became so great the explanations offered were literally incredible leading to popular opposition to central control. Without the counterpoint of the US to show what is possible leftists worldwide would continue to claim the solution to central planning failure everywhere is more central planning.
But Cook's absurd assertions this doesn't happen demonstrates he simply denies facts he wishes weren't true.
Robert Cook said...
"The problem all of the NYT readers and globalists in general have with the statement is Trump is fighting for Americans against the enemies of freedom."
He's stating that America will continue to use the rest of the world as its punk, to be stripped of resources and subject to our violence if they don't submit.
Cook wants the United States to be more like the rest of the world rather than the rest of the world being more like the United States.
Because he is an enemy of freedom.
Our country has lifted billions out of poverty. The only force with a more positive effect on human history is Protestant Christianity.
As opposed to Cook’s ideology which is responsible for over 100 million state sponsored murders.
The UN could have mitigated or prevented the trail of tears, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, and other elements of left-wing anti-nativism, if they cared.
They don’t have to like it; they just have to learn to live with it.
@ Michael K:
I took "call me obtuse, that's OK" as a Shawshank Redemption allusion. But I could be wrong.
it is many of these US allies of multilateral organizations, the imperial Americans, that the Trumpian populists oppose. This reality is not well told outside the US
The progress of anti-nativism has united Americans, Swedish, Austrians, Italians, Russians, Syrians, etc. in common cause. Immigration that does not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before Planned Parenthood.
"Cook wants the United States to be more like the rest of the world rather than the rest of the world being more like the United States."
To be fair, in many areas the US would certainly be improved by being more like the rest of the world.
In general the US system of privatized bureaucracy (through its legal system, privatised mandates and regulations, and quasi-government systems) is exceptionally expensive, risky and stifling. This is often missed in simplistic surveys. The Euros generally do bureaucracy better.
The US educational system is ridiculously expensive, overburdened, as in so many other areas, by stifling bureaucracies, legal risks and negative incentives.
US medical care is likewise an absurd monster. If the US would, or could, get its service delivery costs down to those of the best foreign systems, there would be next to nothing to fight about in terms of who pays for what. You love stabbing each other in the heart, fighting over stupid things.
"He's stating that America will continue to use the rest of the world as its punk, to be stripped of resources and subject to our violence if they don't submit."
Lulz
"...here's an example of the NYT referencing their positions on immigration:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html"
What do you think you have proved with this? That the UN is forcing us to abide by foreign dictates? The UN Human Rights office simply points out correctly that snatching children away from their parents is criminal under international law. Is the UN marshaling force against us to prevent our continuing this despicable practice? No, they simply "urge" us to stop. As I say, we simply don't like being called out on our shit, as no bully does.
It is a means--imperfect, but all we have--for the world nations to try to work together.
"All we have"? Nonsense. Nations work together all the time without recourse to the UN.
The UN fails on your own terms - it's powerless in stopping the U.S. from violating other nations' sovereignty. And it's happy to involve itself in a lot of the disastrous U.S.-promoted bullshit that so incenses you, so why the pious attitude toward it? What is it with lefties seeing this collection of impotent, self-serving bureaucrats and grifters as the holy peace-maintaining institution of their adolescent mock-UN convention memories?
Gosh, it seems like it was just the early 2000's when globalism was the Left's folk demon of choice, accused of exploiting and destroying Third World economies and just generally being a tool of multinational corporations. Then the same corporations harnessed the Left to their purposes and, strangely, the progs now consider globalism a great good. I wish they'd make up their minds.
"Racial abuse, discrimination and the “bad version of nationalism” that promotes exclusion and hatred are on the rise, and the media may need to be regulated to help curtail the problem, European Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová warned today.
Oh yeah. I want the international community to help Americans attain freedom and justice.
LOL!
Polk. He set himself 4 major goals. Then he went about systematically achieving them.
Once he was done, he didn't run again, went home, and died.
Historical irony alert: One of Polk's goals was lowering tariffs.
Plus ça change alert: Polk's term was defined, in large part, by a border war with Mexico.
This isn't to say Trump hasn't accomplished some stuff. But James K. ordered the US Army to occupy Mexico City. He could have repealed Obamacare. Just saying.
The fact Trump's speech pisses off all the right people tells me all I need to know.
Amen Jim.
"Oh yeah. I want the international community to help Americans attain freedom and justice.
LOL!"
Well...someone needs to help us get it!
"But that's O.K."
The Donald abides.
Cookie to Francisco D: "Oh yeah. I want the international community to help Americans attain freedom and justice.
LOL!"
Well...someone needs to help us get it!
I'd like to think you're just being flippant and evasive, but, sadly, you probably do think the likes of Věra Jourová is qualified to instruct us backward 'muricans on "freedom" and "justice".
I, myself, am a member of the Van Buren Boys.
The Wizard of Kinderhook.
I would say Obama's administration was pretty much a disaster, in my opinion. Kind of like the W administration, but with more secrecy and less excuse.
So many great comments here, especially those responding to Cook. Kudos, everyone (except the idiots). Reading the comments here and on other blogs helps keep me sane, since CNN is blaring nonstop in my office breakroom.
This was a speech for the ages, but mainly because of where Trump spoke it. He's used similar rhetoric before (Poland, for example). But he gave this speech from the middle of the lion's den. I cannot express how much I love this man. I'm more hopeful now for this country than I have ever been in my lifetime (despite the left-wing caterwauling). To hear anyone confront the evils of socialism so directly is music to my ears.
I read an article once from a U.N. staff member, who wrote that many smaller nations send people to the UN to get them out of their country, i.e. troublemakers and thieves, corrupt politicians, etc. Sending these people to the U.N. gave them a veneer of respectability and kept them busy while preventing them from doing actual harm to their home countries. FWIW
"But he gave this speech from the middle of the lion's den."
Don't you realize we are the biggest lion in the lion's den, and have always been? It's not courageous for the head lion to be roaring at the subordinate lions. It's self-serving posturing.
buwaya said...
"Cook wants the United States to be more like the rest of the world rather than the rest of the world being more like the United States."
To be fair, in many areas the US would certainly be improved by being more like the rest of the world.
You named 3 institutions infested by the left: local bureaucracy, education and health care as things that we could improve by being more like the rest of the world.
You are 180 degrees wrong.
These institutions are more like the rest of the world. The left has succeeded in bringing them down to the historical norm.
What you describe is the absence of freedom which is what defines most of world history.
We need to make education, health care, and local bureaucracy more like the US.
The lion in action.
Robert Cook said...
"But he gave this speech from the middle of the lion's den."
Don't you realize we are the biggest lion in the lion's den, and have always been? It's not courageous for the head lion to be roaring at the subordinate lions. It's self-serving posturing.
Historically illiterate.
It is a necessary condition for a socialist.
Robert Cook said...
"Oh yeah. I want the international community to help Americans attain freedom and justice.
LOL!"
Well...someone needs to help us get it!
Maduro, Mugabe, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Clinton, Obama et. al are all ready to help Cook out here.
The left has succeeded in bringing them down to the historical norm.
Health care is more at an ahistorical norm. Upwards.
Don't you realize we are the biggest lion in the lion's den, and have always been?
You hate America, Cookie.
We get it already.
"You hate America, Cookie.
We get it already."
No. You don't get it at all. I hate America's betrayal of its purported principles, its violation of its own and international laws, (and simple human decency), it's brutality and corruption. I don't suggest other countries do not have similar or identical problems, but I was born and live here.
In a representative republic, the shape and direction of the government is controlled by the people, (unless they surrender their sovereignty over their power, or it is usurped from them...both of which are true here). As such, the role of a citizen is not to be a blind or servile cheerleader for whatever our government does, but to criticize it when it goes wrong, to urge it back on track. At this point, we're so off track there's no hope of getting it back on track. One can only vent.
"Don't you realize we are the biggest lion in the lion's den, and have always been? "
In the lions den, there are many American lions.
Some American lions are more liony than others.
Which American interests are the big lions, and which are the small ones?
And which ones does Trump represent?
"You hate America, Cookie.
We get it already."
There is more than one America.
And it will never be one America again.
Cook hates one or more of these Americas.
And I think the rest of you hate the others.
"These institutions are more like the rest of the world."
No they aren't, these are areas where the US stands out, in a bad way, and with hard data.
These areas are bureaucratic everywhere, the US no less so than anyone else on earth, but the US instance simply works exceptionally badly.
(eaglebeak)
Startled to hear that Cook was born here.
Figured him for a disgruntled Brit, living here but annoyed with the natives for being so crude. Sort of the way Charles Dickens complained about Americans after one of his lucrative tours here.
"He began to find them overbearing, boastful, vulgar, uncivil, insensitive and above all acquisitive," writes Professor Jerome Meckier in his book Dickens: An Innocent Abroad.
He found our democracy too democratic, our republic too republican.
"At this point, we're so off track there's no hope of getting it back on track."
And you think the way to get us "back on track" (if it were possible) is some form of socialism?
Insert confused emoji here.
Strawmen are his Achilles heel
Everybody, except the Saudis and the Dalai Lama, wear blue suits with white shirts and red ties.
@buwaya - I do not hate the other Americas when they mind their own business. I bitterly resent being conscripted into their madness.
Achilles said...
These institutions are more like the rest of the world. The left has succeeded in bringing them down to the historical norm.
This is not accurate. The US and other countries have different levels of effectiveness driven by differing circumstances other than their being more generically left wing. In particular our courts have (or believe they have) final authority on just about everything. To take one example we end up with courts -lobbied by activist groups - deciding under what circumstances students may be removed from class. We have public policy lawyers who do nothing but this which can be understood as EPA style lawfare ongoing for decades. This legalistic/ political framework takes judgement and responsibility away from the local managers. The result is a system which both leaves dangerous/disruptive kids in class and suspends other kids for innocuous bullshit.
In the end we spend more money and get worse performance because of this. The inherent antagonism which makes American unions dysfunctional when they work better in other cultures does the same thing to our government. We are uniquely bad in the developed world at government.
This morning the Iranian leader claimed on a CNN interview that the U.S. leaving the Iran Agreement was illegal. Why? Because it was U.N. approved.
This was exactly the plan of the globalist Obama. Since the Senate would never have passed such an agreement, Obama hoped to tie future presidents' hands using the U.N.
Ef that.
Robert Cook said...
"...here's an example of the NYT referencing their positions on immigration:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html"
What do you think you have proved with this? That the UN is forcing us to abide by foreign dictates? The UN Human Rights office simply points out correctly that snatching children away from their parents is criminal under international law.
I proved the UN does try to control our laws which you previously denied but are now admitting is obvious and unremarkable. You made the original claim because you want to believe people are opposed to the UN for reasons consistent with your hobbyhorse and had to deny it could be for different reasons. This is obviously false.
What does "international law" mean when we have sovereignty? There is no law in the US that we did not enact. This is what sovereignty means
The U.S. has more than a quarter of the world's yearly economy happening inside her.
Will we tie ourselves down with the ropes made by the world's Lilliputian economies?
Hard pass.
Hear the lion roar!
How very democratic. Represent the People and our unPlanned Posterity.
Well...someone needs to help us get it!
It’s actually the other way around. Other countries ought to be following our lead. It’s sad that you don’t see this.
Cook asked how the rest of the world tries to impose itself on the United States and then mentions "international law" without any sense of irony.
Imagine my surprise.
That UN building would be a great condo conversion and I know just the guys to do it.
The presence of the UN in NYC is a big gift from DC to NYC every year. How much do Diplomats spend on Housing, Food, etc.? Of course the NYTimes likes the UN.
readering says:
Call me obtuse. That's okay.
(shrug). I'm wondering what the angle is here, but okay. You're obtuse.
Wait -- I know what you're thinking. You're a-thinking my comment-a is a-cute.
"Don't you realize we are the biggest lion in the lion's den"
Yes. And thank God because I don't trust those other self-interested (and international law is always, always, informed by self-interest) fuckers one tiny little bit.
"I hate America's betrayal of its purported principles, its violation of its own and international laws, (and simple human decency), it's brutality and corruption. I don't suggest other countries do not have similar or identical problems, but I was born and live here."
Whatever you identify, rightly or wrongly, as the justification for this statement, when has it been different in your lifetime? In your father's lifetime? Since the Spanish-American War? Since Perry sailed into Edo Bay? You're talking about an America that never existed even in the imagination of it's most idealistic founders, Bob. So, not America at all. Nor anywhere else.
Good God, Bob. You're a Christian mystic.
Angle-dyne scoffs: "All we have"? Nonsense. Nations work together all the time without recourse to the UN.
Yes. It's called 'trade'.
"Since the Spanish-American War?"
I'm still unhappy about that. One of my great-great grandpa's fortress guns is still in Fort Mason.
If you lot had any decency you'd give me the poor wreck for my patio.
(eaglebeak)
Right across the street from the UN HQ is Trump World Tower, at 845 United Nations Plaza. If you google images of the Trump World Tower and the UN building, you can see amusing shots showing Trump towering over UN.
I loved Trump's speech.
It was a more refined way to tell the UN to stuff it. YOU ain't the boss of us. Butt out of our business. EFF off.
Have a nice day......
:-D
"Whatever you identify, rightly or wrongly, as the justification for this statement, when has it been different in your lifetime? In your father's lifetime? Since the Spanish-American War? Since Perry sailed into Edo Bay? You're talking about an America that never existed even in the imagination of it's most idealistic founders, Bob. So, not America at all. Nor anywhere else."
Does that mean we just accept the corrupt reality? Or do we continue to criticize where America has gone wrong, in hopes of correcting the problems? We will never achieve perfection, but we should always strive for it, just to make a millimeter's progress toward it. Many problems that once existed in this country have been eradicated due to the efforts of American citizens who have fought and created movements to remedy social ills in their times. These ills are not remedied spontaneously through the good will of government, but through pressure placed on the government by the people.
He spoke of cutting funding for the UN because it is a corrupt kleptocracy.
Laugh, clowns, laugh.
"I proved the UN does try to control our laws which you previously denied but are now admitting is obvious and unremarkable."
You proved no such thing. They simply urged us to stop violating international law. They cannot control our laws, and neither did they try to in this instance.
(eaglebeak)
We will never achieve perfection, but we should always strive for it...
The problem, Robert Cook, is that we don't agree on what it is.
If he had gotten a standing O from the UN putzes, he’d have lost me forever.
"What does 'international law' mean when we have sovereignty? There is no law in the US that we did not enact. This is what sovereignty means."
When we enter into treaty agreements with other nations, they become the law of the land as per the Constitution. When we violate those treaties, we are violating the law. (I'm speaking generally here, and I do not claim to know without researching whether we are party to any treaty that covers the treatment of children. At the very least, our snatching away of children from the parents is cruel, despicable, and shameful.)When we attack another country without an imminent self-defense basis or without UN Security Council, we violate the law, as we are signatories to the UN Charter, which prohibits unapproved, non-self-defense use of military force, (and even prohibits threatening force to compel compliance by other nations). Thus, per the Constitution, this prohibition is legally the law of the land.
"The problem, Robert Cook, is that we don't agree on what (perfection) is."
That is why there are always going to be disagreements. That is democracy.
Robert Cook said...
"I proved the UN does try to control our laws which you previously denied but are now admitting is obvious and unremarkable."
You proved no such thing. They simply urged us to stop violating international law. They cannot control our laws, and neither did they try to in this instance.
Robert Cook again proves he doesn't understand basic English when doing so contradicts his cherished beliefs. Criticism is an attempt to create change. Also note the recurring contradiction in asserting we need to follow "international law" while complaining about others' sovereignty. Cook's always worried about out interferences with others but he always has an excuse when they interfere with us.
Ordonez Gun
The wrecked gun (sabotaged by the Spanish Army upon the surrender of Manila)
My great great grandpa commanded the artillery of Fort Santiago (about fifty or so pieces in several batteries) until his retirement in 1895.
A year after his passing his ancient charges were destroyed and captured. I will accept this one as reparations.
(I'm speaking generally here, and I do not claim to know without researching whether we are party to any treaty that covers the treatment of children.
Cook admits his comments are irrelevant.
When we enter into treaty agreements with other nations, they become the law of the land as per the Constitution.
Treaties govern relationships between countries, they may not replace the legislative process.
"These ills are not remedied spontaneously through the good will of government, but through pressure placed on the government by the people."
Now that is a radically un-prog thing to write. You may be expelled from your local CPUSA chapter.
I'm kidding, of course. I know you're not a Commie.
Cookie reminds us: Many problems that once existed in this country have been eradicated due to the efforts of American citizens who have fought and created movements to remedy social ills in their times. These ills are not remedied spontaneously through the good will of government, but through pressure placed on the government by the people.
Which is precisely why many work to overturn Roe V. Wade.
America has never had to “surrender...sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy.” We are permanent members and have veto power on the security council.
The International Criminal Court would most definitely represent a surrender of sovereignty, assuming we were willing to take part.
Many problems that once existed in this country have been eradicated due to the efforts of American citizens who have fought and created movements to remedy social ills in their times. These ills are not remedied spontaneously through the good will of government, but through pressure placed on the government by the people.
And many ills were created the same way. Prohibition, for instance.
"Treaties govern relationships between countries, they may not replace the legislative process."
Yes, they do. If the President signs a treaty agreement, as per the constitution, it becomes the law of the land. But, treaties, as you point out, govern relationships between counties, hence, there is such a thing as laws governing international relations, i.e., international law.
"Robert Cook again proves he doesn't understand basic English when doing so contradicts his cherished beliefs. Criticism is an attempt to create change. Also note the recurring contradiction in asserting we need to follow "international law" while complaining about others' sovereignty. Cook's always worried about out interferences with others but he always has an excuse when they interfere with us."
Well, I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of other nations trying to interfere with our behavior, beyond just, uh, criticizing us. We do not hesitate to criticize other others, (often for sins of which we are equally guilty). Are we "interfering" with their sovereignty when we criticize them? No. We are, however, when we invade them, bomb them, visit hells of violence and destruction on them.
"And many ills were created the same way. Prohibition, for instance."
Yes, of course. Prohibition is still with us, and still creating terrible problems for us...the prohibition on drugs, which created the criminal problems associated with drugs, just as prohibition created the crime waves and gangs that brought us Al Capone and his ilk.
"I loved Trump's speech."
I hated it. One of us is a fool.
“The doctrine of Patriotism” is an intensely idiotic statement.
We do not hesitate to criticize other others, (often for sins of which we are equally guilty). Are we "interfering" with their sovereignty when we criticize them? No.
Yes as everyone recognizes when they tell us to mind our own business. Another way to say "criticism" is "telling others what to do". Maybe if you rework the words it will avoid your block. But probably not since your tactic is simply to pretend not to understand anything you can't refute.
But, treaties, as you point out, govern relationships between counties,
How we choose to deal with illegal aliens is not a relationship between countries and thus is not appropriate for a treaty, nor does a treaty exist in which we agree to the limitations you describe as "law". So despite your offering this as a basis it does not support your position. Reiterating it after this has been proven is an admission your assertion cannot be supported.
(eaglebeak)
Robert Cook said:
...If the President signs a treaty agreement, as per the constitution, it becomes the law of the land....
You missed a step, Robert, as per the Constitution.
The Senate has to ratify what the President signed. Otherwise, no treaty.
For example, Obama never presented his BS deal with Iran to Congress because he knew it would never be ratified.
Although Woodrow Wilson was one of the chief creators of the League of Nations, the U.S. never joined it, because there was such great opposition in Congress (on grounds of national sovereignty).
Here's the relevant bit of the Constitution:
The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).
Yes, of course. Prohibition is still with us, and still creating terrible problems for us.
Everything the fucking Progressives do, whether the original ones or the modern ones, damages our republic. Repeal the remaining three Progressive amendments.
At the very least, our snatching away of children from the parents is cruel, despicable, and shameful.)
How do you feel about children being sold or rented out to total strangers to help them get into the United States illegally?
"How do you feel about children being sold or rented out to total strangers to help them get into the United States illegally?"
If that's happening, that's also cruel, despicable, and shameful.
"Everything the fucking Progressives do, whether the original ones or the modern ones, damages our republic. Repeal the remaining three Progressive amendments."
What makes you think drug prohibition stems from "the Progressives?" (Who are the "progressives?" Why capitalize "progressives?")
Obviously, you grew up on super-hero comic books and STAR WARS, as you seem to believe there are white-garbed heroes, pure and true, and black-garbed villains, satanically evil, never the two shall join forces.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा