[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Scaff]

I was going to ignore the whole Taiwan stuff but this got me.
How does answering a phone call and accepting a congratulations destroy 37 years of anything? Is there a law or something?
I bet Obama talked to the president of Taiwan a number of times.

You will have no problem providing evidence of that then.

Tell you what I will make it even more open than that, any US President (elect or sitting) in discussion with any Presented of Taiwan since 1979.

Think about it for a second. The country is in turmoil from race wars, we are as split as we were during the civil war and we are in between leaders. Right now would be the perfect time to take us to war, the country falling apart cause the news told them it is. Nothing more.

And I got accused of swallowing the kool aid!

 

[Joey D]

You will have no problem providing evidence of that then.

Tell you what I will make it even more open than that, any US President (elect or sitting) in discussion with any Presented of Taiwan since 1979.

Back in 2015, Obama agreed to sell the Taiwan armed forces something like $2 billion in used American military stuff. I'm sure there were conversation that were held between the two leaders regarding that.

And it's not that a president has not spoken with Taiwan since 1979, it's that no president (or president-elect) has publicly spoken to them.

Even if they didn't speak, it's not like the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

 

[ryzno]

And I got accused of swallowing the kool aid!

I'm not going to bother to try to find anything. You don't know what Obama does or any of the last sitting presidents, just like me.

We know what they want us to know, I'm sure you'll find an argument for this too.

Oh and looking over from the mighty UK might shade your view. I'm not talking about police shootings, I posted a number of incidents of race violence. Remember my post of the black guy found hung from a tree while the KKK was protesting BLM at a local park?(something every "main-stream" media source ignored except for our local paper and it got the quickest FBI review I have ever seen in my life and swept under the rug, they "figured it out" quicker than Hillary's emails...) And I watched a video on FB live two days before the media or our mayor made a comment.
No kool-aid sir, all I have to do is look out my door. And the protestors blocking major roads and trowing stuff at white people and beating them live on FB was a figment of my imagination. Got it.
America ain't the peaches and cream y'all think it is, but we are doing better than most of the world.

Edit and my comment about being split like during the Civil War was in reference to the election.

 

[Tornado]

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/26/world/us-would-defend-taiwan-bush-says.html

 

[Scaff]

Back in 2015, Obama agreed to sell the Taiwan armed forces something like $2 billion in used American military stuff. I'm sure there were conversation that were held between the two leaders regarding that.

And it's not that a president has not spoken with Taiwan since 1979, it's that no president (or president-elect) has publicly spoken to them.

Even if they didn't speak, it's not like the US hasn't had diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Yes the US did agree to sell arms to Taiwan (not that the full deal was completed), however we have no idea if Obama spoke to the Taiwanese President, as publicly it's never happened or ever been acknowledged.

Which is exactly the point, Trump acknowledging it happened is a break in US foreign policy that has existed since 1979.

Its his 'call to cuba' moment before he's even in office.

I'm not going to bother to try to find anything. You don't know what Obama does or any of the last sitting presidents, just like me.

We know what they want us to know, I'm sure you'll find an argument for this too.

Oh and looking over from the mighty UK might shade your view. I'm not talking about police shootings, I posted a number of incidents of race violence. Remember my post of the black guy found hung from a tree while the KKK was protesting BLM at a local park?(something every "main-stream" media source ignored except for our local paper and it got the quickest FBI review I have ever seen in my life and swept under the rug, they "figured it out" quicker than Hillary's emails...) And I watched a video on FB live two days before the media or our mayor made a comment.
No kool-aid sir, all I have to do is look out my door. And the protestors blocking major roads and trowing stuff at white people and beating them live on FB was a figment of my imagination. Got it.
America ain't the peaches and cream y'all think it is, but we are doing better than most of the world.

So I can't be bothered combined with you have no idea what you are talking about because 'anecdote'.

OK.

I have family and friends in the US who I speak to on a weekly basis (LA and Alabama), oddly they don't seem to see it quite the same way, even the Trump voters from Mobile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/26/world/us-would-defend-taiwan-bush-says.html

As just about every US President has agreed with since 1979.

And yet not one would state that Taiwan is an independent country, acknowledge it as one, publicly speak to its leader or even state the President of Taiwan is even it's leader.

Well until Trump did.

Now if that's not a change in policy I have no idea what one is.

 

[ryzno]

Well there you go! Thanks Joey D and Tornado. Cheers y'all!

 

[Tornado]

As just about every US President has agreed with since 1979.

China certainly didn't seem to think it was business as usual at the time. John Kerry certainly didn't seem to think it was business as usual at the time.

 

[Scaff]

Well there you go! Thanks Joey D and Tornado. Cheers y'all!

Sorry but I didn't see a single mention of a US President publicly speaking to the head of state of Taiwan, acknowledging it as an independent country or even mentioning the head of state by name or position?

I've never disputed the Taiwanese defence policy or the US sale of arms to them?

What I've been discussing is the change in policy regarding the acknowledgement by Trump of Taiwan as having a President and by virtue of having one being an independent state.

China certainly didn't seem to think it was business as usual at the time. John Kerry certainly didn't seem to think it was business as usual at the time.

I didn't say it was business as usual, I said that every US President has supported the defence of Taiwan from China.

What Bush added was to what degree this would take (and even that was still non specific).

Bush didn't acknowledge Taiwan as an independent country, acknowledge it's President or anything even close. The wording was deliberately formed to ensure that, as confirmed by the then SoS.

I'm not even sure that the State department was even aware Trump had spoken to the President of Taiwan, let alone that he was going to tweet about it.

 

[Tornado]

You're trying way too hard

 

[Scaff]

You're trying way too hard

Not really.

It's rather easy to prove me wrong.

A single US President since '79 acknowledging Taiwan as an independent country or having spoken to the President of Taiwan being publicly acknowledged.

 

[Tornado]

Not really.

Yes really. This is the third time to me alone that you've said that the vague statement you wrote originally isn't really what you meant and that it should be taken to mean something else more specific tyat conveniently bolsters your point, to say nothing of the tit for tat you did with Johnnypenso on the previous page that you ended with a veiled threat. Either say what you mean to begin with or don't expect too many people to keep responding to you; because at this point I already don't see much point to it.

 

[ryzno]

So I can't be bothered combined with you have no idea what you are talking about because 'anecdote'.

OK.

I have no idea what I'm talking about when I watched it live from a friends, friends, live stream at the protest!! What the hell?! Piedmont park is a few miles from where I stay dude and the main freeways they blocked during rush hour grid locked the whole dang city. I had to search like hell just to find a link for here, so I didn't think I was trippin' and y'all wouldn't say I'm lying!

I'm sorry but I'm done talking to you, I don't know why you don't accept any of my comments. I guess I'm not on y'alls level in the world.
------------------------------------------

Sorry but I didn't see a single mention of a US President publicly speaking to the head of state of Taiwan, acknowledging it as an independent country or even mentioning the head of state by name or position?

Wait what! Seriously! And that's not what you said.

You will have no problem providing evidence of that then.

Tell you what I will make it even more open than that, any US President (elect or sitting) in discussion with any Presented of Taiwan since 1979.

Trump didn't publicly speak to him. He spoke to him in private. He sent a Tweet saying he talked to him and didn't say much else and they are a country...

Tornado gave you a perfect example. Bush talked to the president of Taiwan and the NYTimes made it public back in 2001.

A single US President since '79 acknowledging Taiwan as an independent country or having spoken to the President of Taiwan being publicly acknowledged.

Again, that's not what you said.

Edit: All I said is I bet Obama talked to the president of Taiwan. And I believe you keep coming at me cause I dare to say anything about Obama.

 

[Scaff]

Yes really. This is the third time to me alone that you've said that the vague statement you wrote originally isn't really what you meant and that it should be taken to mean something else more specific tyat conveniently bolsters your point, to say nothing of the tit for tat you did with Johnnypenso on the previous page that you ended with a veiled threat. Either say what you mean to begin with or don't expect too many people to keep responding to you; because at this point I already don't see much point to it.

My point was and always has been consistent on this.

That publicly acknowledging the President of Taiwan is a change in US policy (which it objectively is) and that I personally find that a potentially concerning change (which is a subjective view I hold).

No thinly veiled threat threat exists at all, and should you think one has been given then feel free to report it. The staff are subject to the same AUP as everyone else and if I were to abuse that then I should be subject to the same penalties as any other member.

What I will not do however is take advice on what or how I should post.

I have no idea what I'm talking about when I watched it live from a friends, friends, live stream at the protest!! What the hell?! Piedmont park is a few miles from where I stay dude and the main freeways they blocked during rush hour grid locked the whole dang city. I had to search like hell just to find a link for here, so I didn't think I was trippin' and y'all wouldn't say I'm lying!

I'm sorry but I'm done talking to you, I don't know why you don't accept any of my comments. I guess I'm not on y'alls level in the world.
------------------------------------------

Wait what! Seriously! And that's not what you said.


Trump didn't publicly speak to him. He spoke to him in private. He sent a Tweet saying he talked to him and didn't say much else and they are a country...

Tornado gave you a perfect example. Bush talked to the president of Taiwan and the NYTimes made it public back in 2001.

Again, that's not what you said.

Bush did not speak to the President of Taiwan and that article doesn't say that he did.

Making the private discussion public us the exact key point, any private discussion that remains private may as well not happened as we will never prove it happened.

And no I don't consider what you have seen as representative of an entire country, in the exact same way my experiences are not representative of the entire UK or my family in Alabama's are representative of the whole US.

 

[ryzno]

Bush did not speak to the President of Taiwan

Do you know that for a fact? Do you have any proof?

And no I don't consider what you have seen as representative of an entire country, in the exact same way my experiences are not representative of the entire UK or my family in Alabama's are representative of the whole US.

Ok, tell that to the rest of the US cities who get shut down for the night in what seems like monthly to weekly protests riots. That's really helping things./s
No disrespect but Alabama doesn't have a city in national news all the time, I'm sure Montgomary has had some protests recently. GA does and Atlanta represents and follows a lot of other similar sized major cities/capitals.

 

[Joey D]

My point was and always has been consistent on this.

That publicly acknowledging the President of Taiwan is a change in US policy (which it objectively is) and that I personally find that a potentially concerning change (which is a subjective view I hold).

Let me make sure I have this straight, a phone call between a man with currently zero power and Taiwan is a "concerning policy change" when the US has been unofficially dealing with Taiwan for decades, including the sale of arms and the promise of protection? Forgive me, but I just can't understand how anyone can conceive the phone call that took place between Trump and Tsai is a threat to anything other than maybe a long distance bill.

If China was going to retaliate against the US over us dealing with Taiwan, they would have done so a long time ago and certain they would have done so when we agreed to sell them military grade weapons...which could be used directly against China itself.

===

As for the topic of a race war in the US, it's very much a thing. All one has to do is look at the Black Lives Matter protests/riots and the killing of police officers in cold blood because of the color of their skin. I have no idea what kind of coverage it gets outside the US, but locally it gets a ton of coverage.

 

[Tornado]

Let me make sure I have this straight, a phone call between a man with currently zero power and Taiwan is a "concerning policy change" when the US has been unofficially dealing with Taiwan for decades, including the sale of arms and the promise of protection?

Well, a person without any power throwing a tantrum about a play was potentially a threat to the first amendment.

 

[Sanji Himura]

This is fun. Apparently Chris Wallace, who is a liberal himself, is tired of Jill Stien's BS about the recounts.

 

[ryzno]

This is fun. Apparently Chris Wallace, who is a liberal himself, is tired of Jill Stien's BS about the recounts.

I love how she dodged the, "How many votes did you get?" question.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is fun. Apparently Chris Wallace, who is a liberal himself, is tired of Jill Stien's BS about the recounts.

I believe it, since Stewart has said at length that he is one of he few Fox correspondents that he likes.

 

[polysmut]

This is fun. Apparently Chris Wallace, who is a liberal himself, is tired of Jill Stien's BS about the recounts.

Which part is the BS?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Which part is the BS?

Mainly her reasoning about why the recounts were necessary to begin with. In 6 days, the results would need to be certified for the Electoral College votes to count. Stein's game is to hand the election over to Hillary by tying up enough electoral college votes to where neither candidate would reach 270 when the Electoral College votes are officially counted, and would have to then be turned over to the House to decide the President and Vice President. However, her plan failed since Pennsylvania and Michigan told her to **** off, and Wisconsin is being sued by the Republican Party of the state to stop their recount efforts, despite doing the recount by machine.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

a man with currently zero power

a person without any power

I'm not understanding the significance in highlighting this bit; I don't see how the difference between president-elect and president-actual affects @Scaff 's concerns over Trump's rhetoric.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm not understanding the significance in highlighting this bit; I don't see how the difference between president-elect and president-actual affects @Scaff 's concerns over Trump's rhetoric.

Because as of now Trump can't do anything to enact his policies. Once he gets sworn in on Jan. 20th, however, then the ball game changes.

 

[Northstar]

I'm not understanding the significance in highlighting this bit; I don't see how the difference between president-elect and president-actual affects @Scaff 's concerns over Trump's rhetoric.

It's not unheard of for a politician to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

 

[polysmut]

Mainly her reasoning about why the recounts were necessary to begin with. In 6 days, the results would need to be certified for the Electoral College votes to count. Stein's game is to hand the election over to Hillary by tying up enough electoral college votes to where neither candidate would reach 270 when the Electoral College votes are officially counted, and would have to then be turned over to the House to decide the President and Vice President. However, her plan failed since Pennsylvania and Michigan told her to **** off, and Wisconsin is being sued by the Republican Party of the state to stop their recount efforts, despite doing the recount by machine.

She cites other reasons though? She says that the voting machines are untrustworthy. Is that worth checking out even if her true motivations do differ from her explanation? Regardless of the candidates & the results.

 

[Scaff]

Do you know that for a fact? Do you have any proof?

Interesting that you removed the second part of that sentence when you quoted me, given that you said.

"Tornado gave you a perfect example. Bush talked to the president of Taiwan and the NYTimes made it public back in 2001."

Given that the linked article says no such thing at all.

So either you didn't read it and assumed that what it said or you did read it and decided that the truth wasn't worth bothering with.

Now that's aside from the fact that you don't prove a negative (see Russell's Teapot for why such a demand makes no sense).

Ok, tell that to the rest of the US cities who get shut down for the night in what seems like monthly to weekly protests riots. That's really helping things./s
No disrespect but Alabama doesn't have a city in national news all the time, I'm sure Montgomary has had some protests recently. GA does and Atlanta represents and follows a lot of other similar sized major cities/capitals.

I don't believe I've said these things are not occurring, but as divided as the country was during the civil war?

However I'm sure you will find plenty of reasons why me points are not worth consideration, so I hope Trump works out for you (and that is genuine) and leave you to your desired echo chamber.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not understanding the significance in highlighting this bit; I don't see how the difference between president-elect and president-actual affects @Scaff 's concerns over Trump's rhetoric.

There is no rhetoric in being huffed about Trump speaking openly about talking to Taiwan. But when the outgoing admin actually wants to arm the supposed unrecognized nation, and only goes on to not recognize them because China says to with U.N. backing...suddenly that contradiction is okay?

One should be far more concerning to the world, and it surely isn't an orange guy taking congrats and returning congrats.

 

[Sanji Himura]

She cites other reasons though? She says that the voting machines are untrustworthy. Is that worth checking out even if her true motivations do differ from her explanation? Regardless of the candidates & the results.

Here is where a major hole in her story forms. She claims that the voting machines were hacked by the Russians, despite there being no evidence of the machines ever connecting to the internet once they were certified.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Well, a person without any power throwing a tantrum about a play was potentially a threat to the first amendment.

That's not nearly as bad as a person with no power, not telling the media he was going out to eat. Which showed potential closed transparency between media and their fundamental first amendment rights.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

It's not unheard of for a politician to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

Hold on, SAY WHAT?!