back to article Trump’s new ZTE tweet trumps old ZTE tweets that trumped his first ZTE tweet

On Friday, United States president Donald Trump Tweeted that ZTE will be allowed to sell into America again, subject to board changes, security controls, and a fine. May 9, 2018: ZTE closed down In more stable policy circles, the Chinese vendor was on the outs because of national security fears, and in the face of an American …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Toddler

    With a toddler length attention span. See, new shiny rattle and some sweets. Come over here now and stop throwing toys out of the pram. And he does.

    The only ones which will be getting a good deal in the end game will be the Chinese. As a natural result of long game vs toys out of the pram.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Toddler

      The problem is if his actions mask personal interests - i.e. trying to get foreign investors to keep Trump Inc. afloat blackmailing them... he believes the presidency is just another business of his family.

      He doesn't care what the Chinese get, as long as he sees an advantage for his own businesses.

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Toddler

        Expect to see a huuge jump in the number of new international golf courses being built after his presidency. Yemen is probably the biggest sand trap he knows of.

        China has the space and beautiful countryside for some outstanding golf courses and of course the caddies will be cheap.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Toddler

          I read news he wanted to play on one of his gold courses in Britain during his travel next Summer, and he wanted to play against a golf champion - basically, turning it into and ad for one of his business (maybe "his property" is shared among several investors and he has only a quote).

          That's another conflict on interests, and shows how he mixes the presidency and his businesses.

          The only good knew it looks no big golf name wants to play with him because it would be bad PR for them - and guess one of the rules is to let him win so he can boast about it.

          1. Warm Braw Silver badge

            Re: Toddler

            If only our government would take a leaf out of the US playbook, those assets - like golf courses - belonging to the principals in a regime threatening our economic security would already be emargoed or forfeit by the time he arrives. I don't think any other president has been so vulnerable to such action - and why we aren't exploiting it, I can't work out.

            1. Walter Bishop Silver badge
              Terminator

              Re: Toddler

              @Warm Braw: "those assets - like golf courses - belonging to the principals in a regime threatening our economic security would already be emargoed or forfeit by the time he arrives"

              At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay..

              1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

                Re: Toddler

                "At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay.."

                So no downsides at all!

              2. John Lilburne Silver badge

                Re: Toddler

                "At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay."

                Is there a down side to that?

        2. PhilipN Silver badge

          "beautiful countryside" and "outstanding golf courses"

          With the greatest respect to golfers I would prefer that "beautiful countryside" stay that way.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Toddler

          Within days of the ZTE announcement, it became public that China had stepped in to fund some Trump-labelled developments in Indonesia and that his equally grifting daughter had a batch of trademarks approved in China.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Toddler

      The major mistake is, of course, for a president to involve himself directly in the matter. His job is to represent the country and to set policy directives and negotiate with the legislature.

      But I think that we have to see how this plays with the Trump Chumps who will see it as hardball negotiations leading to a concession by the Chinese and a huuge fine. That the deal was most heavily lobbied for by ZTE's US partners and suppliers doesn't matter to them; neither does the loss of face in Asia by these childish, short-term tactics which lead inevitably to things like the Mnuchin fudge on trade with China, and the dance that King Jong Eun is leading him on: some kind of fudge on the sanctions is bound to come.

      Trump's overriding aim, and we shouldn't make the mistake of treating him as a complete idiot again, is to shore up votes in the mid-terms so that he can continue dismantling government and push for legislature that is subdordinate to the executive. As things stand presently I think he has a 50/50 chance of realising Trumpland – the land of golf courses, no minimum wage and no welfare.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Toddler

        Firstly, i'd just like to qualify the following by stating that i'm British and have no particular interest in American politics.

        Trump's overriding aim, and we shouldn't make the mistake of treating him as a complete idiot again

        The thing is, that's been done already. The media has concentrated on representing him as a complete idiot since he got in. This sort of attack strategy works by reducing the perceived reputation of the target. That only works as an attack strategy if you have a public reputation that's above zero to start with.

        Ok, so the media has ensured that Trump has a perceived reputation of zero. How can you reduce the reputation of somebody with a perceived reputation of zero?! You can't. It's impossible, it therefore can't and won't work and attack strategies against him at this point via the media are dead before arrival. Therefore, he will "win" this particular little game by simply appearing less stupid than the media make him out to be at his chosen point. One might observe that this does not appear particually difficult to do, and what that chosen point is likely to be.

        I would put money that when the elections come Mr Trump is going to start liberally pointing things like how much more money people likely to vote for him have in their pockets, about things like rather selective reporting on issues like this (let's be honest, at least part of the sanctions/relaxations of sanctions on China have been to force China to pressure North Korea and to reward them for having tightened the screws on North Korea) and screaming loudly about the press being biased against him by not pointing these things out. By the time that people start picking his statements apart, he'll have taken advantage of the media's goldfish memory to move onto the next topic.

        I said a few months into his term that I think it's more likely than not that he's going to get a second term. I might be wrong, and would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong, but FFS people? The entire world appears to have stopped thinking and acting rationally and is just reacting to him. That in itself is another well known strategy that almost always results in losing.

    3. Restraint

      Re: Toddler

      MCC (a government-owned company specializing in metals production) cut a $500 Million dollar loan to a Trump property called LIDO just before the ZTE backflip.

      It was all just a shake-down.

    4. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Toddler

      @AC and other 'Trump Hate' posters

      Reading down the comments, it might as well be a George Soros sponsored media blitz campaign, and a set of "me too" bots. It's all "pandering to the perception" with respect to Trump, again, and totally getting it WRONG.

      As far as I can tell, Trump's strategy is all 'Art of the Deal'. The desired result is a win-win. Making ZTE/China LOSE so you can JUST PUNISH them (and 'win') isn't the way it works, at least not if you want to SUCCEED later down the road. "Win/Lose" is what you get in a boxing match. "Win/Win" is what you do in an honest and successful business. I think it's a refreshing change.

      And Trump voters are _NOT_ worse off. Unemployment rates at record LOWS, especially for women and minorities, and the economy is growing FASTER than it _EVER_ did under OBAKA.

      You anti-Trump'ers just don't want to admit the good news is happening. So you bury the good news with a bunch of Anti-Trump FUD, pander to the perception, and say "me to" to one another like all of the FUD is "accepted fact" (when it's not). (this is a typical misinformation trick, by the way, and if I looked I'd probably find things like it listed in Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals")

      (howler monkey downvotes expected in response, yeah)

      1. Paul 195

        Re: Toddler

        @bombastic bob

        Why HAVE you written your COMMENT in SUCH a S H O U T Y way?

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Toddler

          because it's what I do, punctuation and capitalization for *EMPHASIS*.

      2. Sir Loin Of Beef

        Re: Toddler

        There is no good news with this fucking moron.

        1. Alphebatical

          Re: Toddler

          > fucking moron.

          This is pretty much his favorite form of "3D chess": shout like a loon and act like an idiot and nobody will look at the board.

  2. 45RPM Silver badge

    I don’t have a problem with people who voted Trump. I can see that they might honestly have believed that Hillary represented a bigger threat to them - the Trump campaign beguiled them with a rush of endorphins and a boat full of lies. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

    Having witnessed the chaos that Trump is causing now, though, his total lack of respect for the law, or for people who aren’t rich, white, male and kissing his arse, I have a huge problem with those who continue to support Trump and who’d vote for him a second time.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

      But not without consequences.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

        @Voyna i Mor

        For the most part, Trump’s voters are suffering the consequences. Increased living costs. Poorer healthcare. A poorer quality environment. Lack of disaster relief.

        The same applies here. Those who voted for Brexit have suffered from the drop in the value of the pound and will suffer as jobs are lost overseas, and as prices increase etc.

        The great pity is that those who didn’t vote for Trump, and those who voted to remain, will have to suffer the consequences too. But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

          What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?

          1. 45RPM Silver badge

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            Ah yes, AC, you’ve put your finger exactly on the nub of the Brexit vote. Namely that it wasn’t democratic. The terms of the referendum weren’t followed, and the people are being denied any say in whether to proceed or not once the terms have been decided. And that’s before we get into the sticky issues of cheating and meddling.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              The terms of the referendum weren’t followed, and the people are being denied any say in whether to proceed or not once the terms have been decided. And that’s before we get into the sticky issues of cheating and meddling.

              ... and absolute disinformation on so many fronts that the result should have been declared illegal before voting even begun..

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Trollface

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            "What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?"

            At this point I wish they would, I know you've been brainwashed by all the little echo chambers saying that the results 'would be different next time'.

            But honestly the amount of salt after a second loss would be delicious!

            1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
              Mushroom

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              I know you've been brainwashed by all the little echo chambers saying that the results 'would be different next time'.

              But honestly the amount of salt after a second loss would be delicious!

              The really odd thing is that the second referendum wanted by remainers is being denied to them by brexiteers.

              One would have thought brexiteers would leap at the chance to prove themselves right, to rub salt in the wounds, to make remainers cry more snowflake tears. Brexiteers say the vote will be more for leaving than it was last time around. And yet they won't allow that vote to happen. Absolutely bizarre.

              One might well conclude they are still lying and bullshitting and they know full well they would lose.

              Bring it on!

              1. veti Silver badge

                Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                Lots of people say they'd like to see a second referendum on Brexit. But when you start asking them what, specifically, the question should be, that consensus starts to break down.

                Should it be a vote on the "final deal" negotiated between the UK and EU? A vote on remaining in the customs union? A rerun of the original vote? Those are all different things with different implications, and there's no sign of a pollable majority in favour of any one of them.

                And think, assuming you could rerun the original vote, and assuming it went the way you want it to (which, itself, is a belief that's not supportable by reputable polling) - what do you think would happen then? Do you think the now-just-under-50% who won first time would quietly fade away, chastened, and learn to listen to their betters? You think the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the rest of the Leave press would see the error of their ways?

                The fuck they would. You saw the bitterness that followed the "don't split" result in Scotland - imagine that amplified tenfold.

                And in case you hadn't noticed, the rest of Europe is not doing a very good job of playing happy families right now. There are already openly-Eurosceptic parties in power in Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy (Italy! - for the gods' sake, a founder member of both the EEC and the Eurozone!). France's FN hasn't gone anywhere, they'll be back. And negotiations on the next EU budget, which will be about 6% short because of Britain's withdrawal, are still at an early stage - things are going to get a lot more fraught between now and 2020.

                For the record, I thought the referendum was a stupid thing to do, and I was blown sideways by the result. I was, and am, appalled by it. But in retrospect, I think it's far from the worst thing that could have happened. Right now I think it's odds on that the EU is doomed within a generation, thanks to the ill-conceived political compromises that were used to build it - and the even-more-ill-conceived idea of simultaneously trying to expand and deepen it, while still keeping "democratic accountability" firmly at the national level - and the UK may well do better in the end by getting out now before the whole thing collapses.

                1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                  And think, assuming you could rerun the original vote... what do you think would happen then? Do you think the now-just-under-50% who won first time would quietly fade away, chastened, and learn to listen to their betters? You think the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and the rest of the Leave press would see the error of their ways?

                  The same is true of those who don't want to leave.

                  We polarised the country 50-50, then made that divide irreconcilable through all the hatred which followed that. Farage declared it a victory for "decent people", inferring remainers were not. It got worse with the labelling of those against leaving as traitors, saboteurs and enemies of the people. It was topped-off by Katie Hopkins, Paul Golding and friends declaring war on liberals, multiculturalism and everything standing in the way of their taking back control.

                  Brexit has fucked Britain over and there's no easy way back. It's what brexiteers intended.

              2. Stu Mac

                Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

                They don't want any further delay or prevarication.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

              Don't come crying when energy prices rise so high that your parents can't afford to heat your bedroom any more.

          3. Walter Bishop Silver badge

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            >> But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative, and it gives society a chance not to make the same mistake twice!

            > What - you mean we're going to get to vote on Brexit again?

            And we'll keep on voting until we get it right.

          4. tfb Silver badge

            Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

            We'll get to vote on brentry when enough old people have died I presume. Well, some of us will: I expect it won't be in my lifetime.

        2. LDS Silver badge

          "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

          Yes, but the biggest flaw in democracy is it can kill itself. Look at Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Venezuela (and in some ways US as well). Next in line: Italy.

          1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
            IT Angle

            Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

            Yes how dare the population of your listed countries vote for a leader/party that will give them what they wanted..... although Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line...

            But from my point of view (and remember I'm from the 1980's... the good old days of baggie snatcher and 4 million unemployed), any government can be got rid of by democracy, democracy only dies when you get a group of people who say "We know better than the plebs and the plebs will vote the way we tell them to".... rather like the way Venezuela has already gone.......

            1. Alistair Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line...

              Hmmmm. This does *NOT* strike me as a unique situation.... I suspect there are a couple of other spots where this might have happened.

            2. Stork Bronze badge

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              I would like to remind you that democracy, as opposed to dictatorship of the majority, includes protection of minorities as well as checks and balances and rule of law - it is that in particular that has been dismantled in Turkey, and arguably to some degree in Poland and Hungary.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                @Stork

                I'm curious how does a democracy protect a minority? Isn't democracy by definition the will of the majority covered by another house and a judiciary who when push comes to shove have to enact the will of the people.

                1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

                  Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                  Isn't democracy by definition the will of the majority

                  Sort of depends on your definition of majority and the electoral system. In general, there is no single majority for all issues but successive coalitions for different ones. Well-organised minorities can and often do achieve outsize influence in coalition. This can be a long the stable lines of traditional European governments but also effectively blackmail as is the case in Israel and to a lesser degree in the UK (Democratic Unionists) and Denmark (Danish Peoples Party).

                  First past the post systems favour binary opposites and, hence, often riding roughshod over other minorities but they also tend to have the advantage of clear choices, even if long-term the to-ing and fro-ing tends to be inefficient. You can see this to some extent in the current US regime with Trump rolling back regulation from Bush and Obama where possible but also largely failing to fill important positions with capable candidates (new Dutch and German ambassadors embarassing examples of his placemen).

                2. Stork Bronze badge

                  Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                  @AC (how to protect minorities)

                  It is normally done by separation of powers, constitutions that are difficult to change (and are used) and so on. But fundamentally it requires winners of elections to accept that they can loose next time - this is something it is hard to legislate about. Has worked reasonably most of the time since WWII in most of the western world.

                  Taking your definition to the extreme, a slight majority can decide that the major opposition party is illegal and its supporters are to be denied any civil rights as they are traitors to the true cause - sounds familiar? (Hint - look at how NSDAP gained majority in the German parliament)

              2. Sloppy Crapmonster

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                Democracy is literally dictatorship of the majority. Here in the democratic republic of the USA, we have seen -- twice!, in the last 20 years -- the majority of ballots cast for the candidate that loses. Just because the American system worked against you (and me!) doesn't mean it doesn't work.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              "although Venezuela is a little different because the government had already banned the leading opposition candidate from standing along with any media that doesn't follow the government line" I suspect some Corbynistas have a similar thing in mind for the UK.

            4. tfb Silver badge

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              It's not the case that any government can be got rid of by democracy. It's completely possible for a democracy to vote, democratically, for an end to democracy, usually in the form of a government one of whose stated policies is to end democracy.

              There is a famous example.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Brexit...

            Here we go again....

            There are going to be people that disagree with you, us or them. It's life.

            There are going to be people that vote for things you don't want and also things you do.

            There are people that don't want democracy, they are the ones you need to watch because while we all disagree and divide they are probably just waiting for the opportunity to take our democracy (probably for our own good). What's that? I'm paranoid? Need a tin foil hat? Feel free to believe that but I suggest you read some history books before forming that particular opinion.

            Democracy isn't perfect but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives.

            The alternatives also never end well because we as a species can't be trusted to rule fairly on our own. If I had my way I would make it mandatory for all politicians to pass a philosophy degree amongst other things at the very least.

          3. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

            Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

            "Yes, but the biggest flaw in democracy is it can kill itself."

            Athenian "democracy" (actually male military-franchise large oligarchy) did precisely that. People had a tendency to vote for aristocrats who were good at rhetoric, like Johnson Alcibiades. That's why Plato wanted a benevolent dictatorship; so people like him could run things. But his benevolent dictatorship would have turned nasty the moment a problem arose not soluble by a discussion between aristocrats.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

              "benevolent dictatorship" Rather lioke the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork.

              1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

                Re: "But that’s democracy for you - it’s flawed, but better than any alternative"

                ""benevolent dictatorship" Rather lioke the Patrician in Ankh-Morpork."

                <spoiler>One of the most interesting long term threads in the Pratchett opus, and the kind of thing that justifies his knighthood, is the evolution of the thinking of Havelock Vetinari. He originally gets the job because the current holder is insane. Vetinari then gradually moves to introduce proper civil law, and often starts out suspicious of new ideas like the Press only to accept them as he sees how they can become part of a functioning political system. He sees the virtues of multiculturalism as a way to grow the city, and create alliances, of a non-political police force, and then of public-private partnerships. One of his big moments is when he shows off to Margoletta that the ordinary citizens of Ankh-Morpork have got the idea of public spirit. Goldsmith's teacher got the reaction that "and still they gazed and still the wonder grew/that one small head could carry all he knew." Same for Pratchett.</spoiler>

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a democratic Republic with a pro-slavery holdover institution (electoral college)for electing the president.

        4. Byron "Jito463"

          Re: --->Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

          "But that’s democracy for you"

          Good thing the US isn't a democracy, then. We are - and have always been - a constitutional, representative republic.

    2. Lee D Silver badge

      I have a big problem with people who think that when only two options are presented for voting, they have to choose one.

      This is quite possibly the BIGGEST problem we have in electoral politics.

      Simple solution:

      - Make voting compulsory, over a 7-day period. Everyone gets a chance to vote.

      - All votes have "Brewster's option": "None of the above"

      - Brewster is treated as a candidate, just like any other. He can hold a majority if enough people vote for that option.

      - If his votes win, then neither of the others get to be president/whatever, and the election has to be redone with ENTIRELY NEW CANDIDATES (with the exception of Brewster, who's always a shoe-in).

      We could also implement this overnight. Certain votes aren't valid if the turnout is low. All we have to do is add the option in for "I've turned up as required, but I want neither of these clowns", and then make voting compulsory, like in many other countries.

      Given a choice between Trump, Clinton and Brewster... who would have won?

      1. handleoclast Silver badge

        Why Brewster?

        A more traditional name is Ron. As in Re-Open Nominations.

        Another one is NOTA. None Of The Above.

        Also FEA. [expletive] 'Em All.

        Yes, every election should have it. No, it's never going to happen, short of an armed revolution (and almost certainly not even then). The ones in safe constituencies would never permit it, because once RON is on the ballot their constituency will no longer be safe.

        Even so, it won't work until we have something better than first past the post. Something using a Condorcet method is theoretically the best option but practicalities render it infeasible (you need to tally the votes by computer and few here would trust that). Some Australian elections use a method that can be done by hand and allows for preference voting. We definitely need that.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Why Brewster?

          Because of Brewster's Millions

          "A minor league baseball player has to spend thirty million dollars in thirty days, in order to inherit three hundred million dollars. However, he's not allowed to tell anyone about the deal."

          One of his ways to "waste" a lot of the $30m was to run a None Of The Above political campaign because not only was he not allowed to tell anyone about the reasons for spending £30m in 30 days, he also had to have nothing to show for it either.

        2. Cpt Blue Bear

          Re: Why Brewster?

          "Some Australian elections use a method that can be done by hand and allows for preference voting."

          By some I presume you mean all except for local government. Voting is also compulsory and we generally get the result before bed time the night of the election.

          Yeah, we get all this done in one day but people still say compulsory voting is impossible and proportional representation is too hard.

      2. punk4evr

        consequences?

        Problem i see there is that what is the punishment for not voting still? Just because you claim its compulsory, does not mean everyone will still vote. So what's the compulsion for forcing everyone to vote? , I'm from the usa so I don't know. but i have a thought, in that for here, if you say, don't vote, you don't get your tax return. or if you owe money, then an additional penalty of 2000.00 is added to your tax bill. That should encourage people to vote, i would think. But here it seems that so few turn out to vote I don't know if this would work. I'm thinking that perhaps the same system could be in play but that the vote of redo would only apply if a, the voters voted for it, or b, less than 51 percent of the eligible voters voted. Then a forced redo would be in order. otherwise the total winner carries. Seems like a possible solution, to the only bad choices dilemma.

        1. ImmortanJoe

          Re: consequences?

          In Australia at least, it's a contestable fine. There are legitimate reasons why a person can't get to a polling office on the day.

          I think the fine is something like $120 which is still enough to scare the hell out of most people.

          If people take issue with the election, the usual method is the donkey vote. Turn up, get your name marked off, and eventually put blank ballot papers in the collection box.

          I have to say our government integrity is very poor at best, as is any confidence in it. It's mirrored pretty well with the number of donkey votes and the approval rating of both major parties.

          The best governmental times we've had in recent memory are when it has destabilised so completely that it has functionally stopped. It's like a 3 year old wearing itself out and having a nap after a massive tantrum, running around smashing everything in sight.

    3. eldakka Silver badge

      > I don’t have a problem with people who voted Trump. I can see that they might honestly have believed that Hillary represented a bigger threat to them - the Trump campaign beguiled them with a rush of endorphins and a boat full of lies. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake.

      I dislike both Hillary and Trump.

      However, I was (and still am) of the opinion that Trump will do less lasting harm than Hillary.

      Why?

      Because Hillary is a politician, and has been for a long time. Combined with her husband's political experience, between them they have like 50 years of political know-how.

      Hillary knows how to play the system, how to get done what she wants to get done. The right way to approach issues, the right way to put them forward. She'd do the necessary 'homework' on how to get legal executive orders issued for what she wants done, how to phrase them to pass Judicial scrutiny. How to schmooze the legislature, etc.

      But Trump? He's an embarrassment and a buffoon who's alienated his own party and is in the process of alienating even his strongest backers. Sure, he's going to make a mockery of the Presidential institution, but he won't get shit done, witness his short-lived executive orders to ban immigrants etc.

      The bureaucracy will fight him - can't get much done if the civil servants resist implementing directives - and the legislature will fight him, even his own party for the worst excesses. The judiciary will call him out on his blatant - illegal - excesses of presidential power.

      I think he is going to be an ineffectual president, with little real impact to the government of the US as a whole. But hopefully he will be a wake-up call to the US public on how captured the whole political process has become to vested interests and partisan politics.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Trump's legacy

        I think he is going to be an ineffectual president, with little real impact to the government of the US as a whole.

        What he chiefly does is try to undo everything Obama did. For those who didn't like Obama, this makes him a great president. The thing is, any republican could have done the same, along with his only two real accomplishments of getting a conservative Supreme Court justice and the tax bill. That republican also could have got a lot of other things done with the republican congress. I'll bet a new health care bill would have been one - the main reason that flopped was an utter lack of leadership from the president.

        His legacy will at best be his buffonery and general cluelessness, at worst impeachment followed by criminal indictments and bankruptcy. Most likely somewhere in between those two extremes. Whatever the outcome, history will not look kindly upon him. When they publish rankings of presidents in the future, it will be between him and Hoover (who was mainly a victim of circumstance) as the worst president since the Civil War.

        1. Stu Mac

          Re: Trump's legacy

          Perhaps you should read less WP and NYT and save yourself the delusions and daydreams. It's been hard for you. It's going to get A LOT worse.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Eldakka, not even remotely accurate. Trump is filling judicial positions with religious nutters. This is in addition to Gorsuch. DeVos is damaging our education system. Our foreign policy is far worse than before. Instead if interfering and causing some instability, we're handing over influence to China and causing far more problems than we normally do. We're destroying our long term economic security. That's not including the fact that Trump has made blatant racism popular again.

      3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

        1. IglooDude

          "...taking advantage of a young person while in a position of power and authority over them has a name. Sexual Assault."

          You've seen the video where Trump jokes about doing exactly that? Donald and Bill are cut from the same cloth; claiming otherwise is allowing partisanship to blind you to the facts.

          "was dragging the nation down to the level of laughing stock once not enough?"

          Apparently not, because we're indeed doing it again.

        2. Hollerithevo Silver badge

          Women being attacked?

          @Stu Mac, Mr Clinton was a womaniser and a liar about it and I don't defend him for an instant. He had affairs and abused the trust of subordinate female employees, as well as gandering around town from (apparently) his cradle.

          His wife stood beside him, as wives tend to do. She could have left him, condemend him, ineed have turned him in. But wives often stay loyal, often because they love the jerk.

          Trump is a womaiser and a liar about it. he has had affairs and abused the trust of subordinate female employees, as well as gandering around town from (apparently) his cradle.

          Several of his wives have left him, or have been traded for newer models.

          So the worst thing you can think of is having the wife of Mr Clinton as President? Her sins are worse than her husband's? Worse than Trump's?

      4. Hollerithevo Silver badge

        An interesting take

        @eldakka, it's an interesting proposition, but I think having someone come in and smash things means that the legacy will be a country full of broken institutions, broken people, and broken faith. I was not keen on Mrs Clinton, but I would rather an experienced captain in charge of the bridge than an experienced passenger.

      5. tfb Silver badge

        There's a persistent myth that Trump won't 'get shit done'. He has got a lot done. Repeating myself from a previous comment, he has: fucked the Paris agreement probably irreperably which will likely result in billions of deaths over the next century; fucked the Iran nuclear deal which will probably result in major wars in the middle east, possibly including nuclear war; fucked numerous trade agreements resulting in increased barriers to trade, increased poverty and probably millions more deaths; destroyed trust in the US ever playing fairly with anyone, essentially handing their role as last superpower standng to China. That is a really significant achievement: it's quite difficult to imagine that Hillary Clinton could have done so much.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          fucked the Paris agreement probably irreperably which will likely result in billions of deaths over the next century; fucked the Iran nuclear deal which will probably result in major wars in the middle east, possibly including nuclear war

          Looks like you've been sucked in.

          Trump's main actions have been tax reform and regulation repealing. So, expect a resurgence of dodgy financial products, wildcat oil and gas exploration and a return to 1980s and 1990s levels of water and air pollution.

          Most of the international stuff has yet to come fully into effect. For example, withdrawing from the Paris accord doesn't happen before next year. The Iran thing will only cause problems if the US decides to enforce secondary sanctions. Shouting at China and North Korea has handed them the initiative (China has already lifted some energy restrictions on North Korea). Not that I think Trump gives a shit where golf clubs or Make America Shite Again caps are made.

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Trump pulling the US from the Paris accord or Iran deal only stops them if the EU and the rest of the world decide to go along with the US. I'm hoping they give a big F.U. to Trump and work with Iran on the deal without the participation of the US, and do their utmost to block or work around any attempts by the US to place new sanctions on Iran.

            Then Trump's legacy will be the end of the US as the leader of the free world, which seems fitting for a guy who admires dictators and obviously wishes he was one instead of a president with checks on his authority from the other branches and the watchful eye of the press.

            What's really funny is if he makes a deal with North Korea he will claim it is great but it'll undoubtedly end up much worse than the flawed but workable Iran deal because North Korea won't give up its nukes and its stockpiles of highly refined uranium that can be used to make more nukes. There's no way it could be verified even if they agree to inspections - it is such a closed off country no one knows all the places we'd need to look. He's had years to plan ahead with secure hiding places for when his nuclear program was complete and he'd be willing to negotiate from a position of strength.

            1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

              What's really funny is if he makes a deal with North Korea he will claim it is great

              That, and getting Mueller off his back, is pretty much all he cares about. Rounds 1 and 2 already went to Kim Jong Eun and China is making a packet running the book but if Trump gets a summit and a promise to disarm out of it, he'll be off to the next photo opportunity, probably on the Mexican border…

      6. strum Silver badge

        >Hillary knows how to play the system, how to get done what she wants to get done.

        It's extraordinary that anyone would suggest that this is a bad thing. Competence is a positive thing, not a negative.

        And if you are hoping that weakening gummint will hand power "back to the people", think again. All that power has to go somewhere, and it won't go to Joe Shmoe. It will go to the strong, the rich, the already-powerful. To corporations, to oligarchs, to pressure groups. Which is why all of these constantly attack 'gummint' (and why they supported 'man of the people' Trump).

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The last time I saw such an intriguing will they won't they was Moonlighting.

  4. jake Silver badge

    Cue ...

    ... the usual deluded defenders of the bumbling buffoon.

  5. Milton Silver badge

    "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

    45RPM: "I don’t have a problem with people who voted Trump. I can see that they might honestly have believed that Hillary represented a bigger threat to them - the Trump campaign beguiled them with a rush of endorphins and a boat full of lies. Everyone is allowed to make a mistake."

    I think you write with good-willed sincerity. But I'm also afraid that you are wrong.

    A great many people, including some sincere and moderate conservatives, figured out early on that Trump was a pathological liar, ignoramus, hypocrite, bully, misogynist and racist. Let's be honest: you didn't need to be particularly smart to realise this.

    In fact, Trump's vile character and dishonesty would have been obvious to an awful lot of the people who did vote for him. His odious man-child nature wasn't concealed. Even the not-so-bright would have realised quite early on: 'Actually, this guy is a real scumbag'.

    So why did so many vote for him? (Admittedly, 3m fewer than Hillary, but the ridiculous electoral college still gave him the Presidency). That is the question. Why? This ... man ... is an absolutely repugnant, stupid, know-nothing misogynist hypocrite and outright racist.

    You see, I think the clue is in that last word. Trump's voters did see what he was. they saw something they actually rather liked. Someone who was like them.

    90% of all of Trump's otherwise incomprehensibly lunatic behaviour as President has been about his visceral hatred for Obama. He is not the only Republican who cannot stomach the idea that a black man could be president (and he couldn't stomach the idea of a woman president, either, remember?). Almost everything Trump has said and done is about trying to undo Obama's achievements. The completely crazy and dysfunctional disavowal of trade partnerships, Iran deal, Obamacare—it's all about trying to erase Obama from history. Trump's racism, to put it bluntly, is visceral, personal and unhinged.

    The problem we have is that we're mystified that so many voters could be "conned" by Trump: we cannot compute that millions couldn't see through this obviously putrid sack of racist shit. We can't fathom that Republicans tolerate his dragging their party through the sewer.

    We won't allow ourselves to realise that actually, Trump voters and apologists do see something filthy ... but it's something that they like.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      "A great many people, including some sincere and moderate conservatives, figured out early on that Trump was a pathological liar, ignoramus, hypocrite, bully, misogynist and racist. Let's be honest: you didn't need to be particularly smart to realise this."

      Well he was a democrat for most of his life!

      But yeah, want to know why so many people are flocking to him.

      Just take a look at your condescending, demeaning and bigoted post.

      ALL Trump supports this.

      ALL Trump supports that.

      Well I have about 7 years left of this salt to laugh at..

      1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

        "Well he was a democrat for most of his life!"

        Not according to his political registrations. Republican, then Reform party, Democrat then Republican again. So Democrat from 2001 to 2009, Republican or Reform the rest of his life.

        I understand in partisan politics, everything is one side or the other, but Trump appears to be pretty "normal" in political terms for a US businessman. Party is meaningless, it's only about exchange of favors and benefits.

        Trump's only real mistake was to win. Losing would have been much better, since he'd have gotten his brand bump, not pissed off his wife*, and avoiding a probe by the FBI into his business affairs. Indeed, many of the potential crimes that could come to light are only problematic for a public official, not a private citizen.

        It's also not hard to see why people voted for him. I broadly agree with Hillary on most political issues, find her palatable as far as lizards/politicians go, and think she's got a decent record of competent public service. I find Trump creepy, corrupt and evidence of the worst forms of crony capitalism. But he's entertaining and she feels like you're being scolded by your aunt. So emotively, MAGA. Rationally, whole different kettle of fish, but people don't make rational decisions when confronted by strong emotional motivators.

        "Well I have about 7 years left of this salt to laugh at.."

        Depends on exactly how anger translates into motivation for each side. It'll be four years since Obama then, so the "get the muslim nigger out" vote might not be quite as strong, and there are quite a lot of angry anti-Trump voters. The Alabama may be a taste of things to come, but I suspect that the Democrats will get off their asses a bit more next time. Maybe with an emotionally satisfying candidate :)

        * Trump's 2000 Reform party run was halted, in part, by Melania breaking up with him. I suspect she is smart enough to realise the potential down sides to becoming a public official after ~50 years of some what dodgy real estate deals.

    2. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      @Milton

      That’s a pretty depressing outlook. I hope that you’re wrong. I think that you’re wrong. I suppose we’ll find out after the mid-terms. I only hope that I’m not wrong!

    3. handleoclast Silver badge

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      We won't allow ourselves to realise that actually, Trump voters and apologists do see something filthy ... but it's something that they like.

      It's not quite that simple. There is a bit of a nuance to it, and there's one other factor.

      The other factor first. The thick voters who voted for Trump were under the impression that the Dems (who were on their side) looked down on them (to some extent they did, because those voters were well and truly thick) so they vote for the GOP which consistently acts against their best interests but talks in a language they like (stooopid, like Palin).

      The nuance. Around 30% of the population look for a strong man to run things. So they're prime targets for a racist like Trump. But under different circumstances they'd happily gang up against people of their own race but from a different country (Hitler, Poland) or different sexuality (Hitler, gays) or a different religion (Hitler, Jews). So racism is a subset of the whole package, which is fear, dislike and hatred of "the other." These are the people who regularly vote for would-be dictators because those are the "strong men" who will "get things done."

      The worst thing about it is that they'll continue to support their "strong man" even when it all goes to shit because he got into power. The first reason is to stick it to the "elites" who "talked down to them," even if those voters are the ones who suffer most. The second reason is that the "strong man" can blame all his failures on enemies like the "coastal elites" and "deep state" and his supporters believe him (because they're fucking thick).

      Modified Carlin quote: think how stupid the average person is. Half the people are even stupider than that and they voted for Trump.

      1. AK565

        Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

        I've said all along that the only reasons a person would vote for Trump would be Borderline Intellectual Functioning or a blinding desire to be anti-Obama. Looks like I'm not the only person to come to that conclusion.

        1. flactem

          Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

          I stopped reading the comments after I saw your post... And if I may be so bold ak-565 you're right on point. The FBI and the news media are blaming the Russians for hacking and loading up social media with garbage.... Okay I understand that...

          The media also takes a swipe at Trump for rhetoric that stirs the lowest common denominator of the soulless 30 to 40% of the American electorate... But I don't blame the Russians or Trump or social media.... I think the people know that they're voting for a bigot and a liar and make up excuses to mitigate their choice.....

          I live here in this great country America and was shocked that a third of our electorate can be so easily punk'd... So it's really not Trump's fault or Russia's fault for Facebook's fault you have your own free will when you go into the voting booth.... I honestly believe that you can come out here to the Midwest and sell a bunch of Brooklyn Bridges..... Or Eiffel Towers....

          And ak-565 your statement regarding the Trump's hatred for Obama is barely mentioned in the media, an issue that I think they should bring more attention too... The pendulum really swamp in the opposite direction after Obama's 8 years it's an absolute shame....

    4. joma0711

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      Sadly, I think much of his obvious hatred for Obama stems from this moment:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

      Not defending Trump at all, I personally think he's a dreadful person.

    5. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      @Milton, I agree with you, but can we stop dragging in the 3million popular vote? That is .08% of the population. It is not statistically significant and, because it's not how Presidents are voted in, pointless to bring up.

    6. tfb Silver badge

      Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

      I'm sad to say that I agree with this. Liberal elitists like to think that the people who voted for Trump were, bluntly, stupid: he fooled them. I don't think that's true: I think they were just as smart as everyone else, and they knew just what they were voting for. I think the 'they were too stupid' view is arguably offensive in fact: it stems from the belief among liberal elitists that being liberal is smart, and therefore that not being liberal is dumb, which is a logical error: even if liberal => smart is true you don't know that (not liberal) => dumb; to know that you would need smart => liberal.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

        "It stems from the belief among liberal elitists that being liberal is smart, and therefore that not being liberal is dumb"

        Beer, sir, for DARING to point out the truth in the face of all of the (organized?) opposition.

        It's both smug AND arrogant to always assume that NOT thinking "liberal" means that you're "intellectually challenged".

        (as far as I'm concerned, liberalism is all 'feel' not 'think' anyway, hardly intellectual)

        1. tfb Silver badge

          Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

          Exaxctly. This isn't a problem of smart vs stupid: it's a problem of good vs evil.

        2. handleoclast Silver badge

          Re: "Everyone is allowed to make a mistake"

          It's both smug AND arrogant to always assume that NOT thinking "liberal" means that you're "intellectually challenged".

          It's a simplification, I'll grant you.

          Let me put on my "Republican" glasses. Now the only thing that motivates me is selfish greed. What's in it for me? OK, to continue...

          Extremely rich liberals are (remember, I'm wearing Republican glasses) stupid. They want to tax the extremely rich in order to aid the poor. They're voting against their own interests. That's stupid.

          Poor Republicans are stupid. The Republican policy is to tax the poor to give to the rich. They're voting against their own interests. That's stupid.

          There are a fuck of a lot more poor people voting Republican than there are extremely rich people

          voting Democrat. So it turns out that the stupid overwhelmingly vote Republican. So it's a simplification, but not far off the truth, that Republican voters are fucking stupid. Republican politicians aren't so stupid, because they get good pay and a fuck of a lot of bribes for stealing from the poor to give to the rich, but the voters are thick as pig shit.

  6. Sanguma

    He only does it because ...

    nobody's ever wished him a Happy Mother's Day. He's been attention-seeking ever since Primary School because nobody ever wished him a Happy Mother's Day there. So if you're in the States, ring him up at the White House - which is generally the name used in saner parts for Psychiatric Outpatients Drop-In Centres - and wish him a Happy Mother's Day. He'll be overwhelmed, at least according to the little pink fiberglass vampyre batt that's just whispered n my ear ...

  7. Trollslayer Silver badge
    Flame

    Doctor Seuss

    makes more sense

  8. Andre Carneiro

    “You’re heads are spinning”?

    Someone’s spell checker didn’t wake up properly today... ;)

    1. Jonathan Richards 1
      Go

      Tips and corrections:

      Linkified at the bottom of every article with a mailto:

      Easier than commenting!

      1. teknopaul Bronze badge

        Re: Tips and corrections:

        Tip and correction here: its actually not easier to use that link since its a mailto: link that breaks on my phone which haa no email configured and I had to F12 the page on a desktop PC to submit a typo. Bit of a palavour.

        Link to a web form would be better. IMHO

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    da drumpf! da drumpf!

    #Thinking that every culture in the world have the same values.

    #Thinking that every culture in the world see strength and weakness the same way.

    Its funny how every time trump 'throws his toys out of his pram' the east capitulate.

    To the point where the Korean war may finally be over (or at the very least a lot closer to it that it has been in the past decades), and most of that was due to Trump leaning on China.

    You had Obama 'the statesman' who was viewed as so weak in the east they literally turned their nose at him at every opportunity, even when he visited China they didnt even bother to send anybody to meet him.

    Trump on the other hand was given a full honours parade.

    Its hilarious even when the guy is doing something right, they still cant give the guy his due.

    And his crime for all this hate, because he had a R after his name when running for election.

    Never mind that the guy had been a business Democrat for most of his life.

    Or that most of his policies are left leaning, well except for the lower taxes (ermahgod literally Hitler)

    Point is Trump knows you have to play hardball in the east, its why he has managed to do more in that area of the world in the past 6 months that Obama did during 8 years, Or even what Hillary "it was her turn - because entitlement" Clinton would of managed, which I no doubt would of been on the lines of selling Chinese baby organs to help funnel large amounts of cash into the Clinton Foundation, buts lets not focus on the evil of our team colours..

    But anyway.. Trump is playing the their game their way, and every time he does something not to western sensibilities the media spazzes out because of it own ignorance.

    And YET these are the same fuckwits telling us we should get rid of our boarders and let large populations in from completely different countries because 'we are all the same', ironically the bigotry is astounding.

    1. Sanguma

      Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

      Never mind the Sex Pistols! It's the Bollix!

      Ironically, I read the reason why Obama got the cold shoulder from the PRC was his rapturous reception in Europe as the one viable Anything-But-Bush candidate; and the PRC leadership wasn't going to have him do that to their students, let alone the hoi polloi.

      Whereas for Trump ... I read about the way the Chinese feted him, and laughed out loud. It's called blindsiding someone if you've ever played League or Rugby - getting past them by going down their blind side. And he lapped it up like it was his due.

      Have you perchance heard the Doobie Brothers' song "What a Fool Believes"? It describes Our Dear President very well. Come to think of it, so does Sophie Ellis Bextor's "Get Over You."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Trollface

        Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

        "It's called blindsiding someone"

        Blindsiding suggests get one over on someone.

        Trumps dealing has mostly been in to renegotiate what have already been negative trade agreements and for the most part he has managed to get exactly that.

        But if you have information where he has completely failed please do enlighten us.

        1. David Webb

          Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

          He has failed to follow agreements that have been set down with many partners from many countries. He pulled out of the Paris accord because he wants Americans to die from pollution related diseases. He pulled out of the Iran accord because he didn't like it, even though Iran was keeping to the accord. Now the sane countries are trying to keep that accord going because the alternative is Iran working on their own nuke. Now he wants Korea to believe he'll live up to any agreement he had made?

          He went against the peace accords for Palestine and stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (it isn't) which totally screws up an oppressed state which is constantly violated with human rights abuses (but any time it's brought up in the UN with a condemnation, the US vetoes it)

          Oh, and he's made the rest of the world look at the US and go "how the hell did they elect something worse than Bush Jnr?".

          In closing, you state that Trump leanings are more to the left, well, the thing is, in every single country other than the US, your left is still our far right.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Trollface

            Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

            "He has failed to follow agreements"

            " He pulled out of the Paris accord"

            "He pulled out of the Iran accord "

            He failed or he pulled out? Choose one.

            Rejecting something you disagree with is not failure.

            Just because you think its a good idea doesnt mean everyone in the world does.

            "because he wants Americans to die from pollution related diseases."

            Yeah I'm pretty sure that was part of the campaign pledge.

            "even though Iran was keeping to the accord."

            So even if you think its a bad deal, you should carry on without question?!

            "Now the sane countries are trying to keep that accord going because the alternative is Iran working on their own nuke."

            Yes, because that's what they working towards everything pointed to it, expect it doesnt.

            And lets just say that you are right, and?

            What right do you have to dictate how a country defends itself?

            "Now he wants Korea to believe he'll live up to any agreement he had made?"

            No he only doing this for the lol's

            "He went against the peace accords for Palestine and stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (it isn't) which totally screws up an oppressed state which is constantly violated with human rights abuses (but any time it's brought up in the UN with a condemnation, the US vetoes it)"

            Careful that sounds anti-Semitic, here in Air-Stripe One that is counted as hate-speech, you could end up doing 12 months. Can I see your online posting licence?

            "Oh, and he's made the rest of the world look at the US and go "how the hell did they elect something worse than Bush Jnr?"."

            Yeah, nothing to do with the media spazzing out about the R thing I was going on about earlier.

            "In closing, you state that Trump leanings are more to the left, well, the thing is, in every single country other than the US, your left is still our far right."

            First off I'm not American, the way I spelt certain words should of been a give away.

            And yeah left and right at this point are meaningless, but that doesnt stop the amount of authoritarianism, you can say what you like but you dont go to prison for making nazi dog jokes or twitter posts in the US, such is the state of the UK.

            Now anything else you want to get emotional about because some people dont think the same as you?

            1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

              1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

                1. eldakka Silver badge
                  Coat

                  Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                  > I make fun of the situation, the last guy was 'grabbing his pearl necklace and crying "wont someone please think of the children"' thinking I would take that shit seriously!

                  This really confused me, I wasn't sure what a pearl necklace had to do with anything.

                  But then you also wrote this:

                  > No everyone is busy tossing each other off, I hardly call that a "conversation"

                  Now it makes sense where the pearl necklace comes into it!

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                @45RPM : there is a “report post” link that you might find useful...

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Trollface

                  Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                  "there is a “report post” link that you might find useful..."

                  Its right there above the troll icon, please report me for not agreeing with your feelings..

                  Better still get on twitter and get the police involved, I'm an obvious case of wrong think.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                    I don’t do Twitter. Maybe we can agree on one thing : Twitter is for Twats.

                    Oh, wait...

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Trollface

                      Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                      I don’t do Twitter. Maybe we can agree on one thing : Twitter is for Twats.

                      Oh, wait...?

                      .... you feel the need to add something to that statement?, because its pretty much perfect from here.

            2. David Webb

              Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

              He failed to live up to the agreements of the accords by pulling out of them, there is no exclusivity clause in that statement, both are inherently true.

              Why would it be bad if Iran gets the nuke? Because the odds are pretty high that they would use that nuke on Israel. The accord was put in place to try and ensure the middle east didn't become a desolate nuclear wasteland, Iran went as far as they could go in that agreement, any further and they would have rejected it and continued their strides towards becoming nuclear armed. Now what? The accord goes and Russia/China step in to fill the void and Iran becomes a nuclear power?

              As for being anti-semitic, no, I just don't believe Israel should have a get out of jail free card for everything they do, they used their win of the Eurovision (the song for peace) in military propaganda about killing people with American planes.

              At the end of the day, history will be the judge on Trump, a one term president who only got elected because the person he was going against was even less palatable than him, hey, who should we vote for, Hitler or Mussolini?

              1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

                Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                "Why would it be bad if Iran gets the nuke? Because the odds are pretty high that they would use that nuke on Israel."

                And with that fantasy you lost me.

                Israel has in excess of 80 warheads - Colin Powell said up to 200. They could obliterate Iran, causing in the process a nuclear winter that would kill a large part of the population of the Northern Hemisphere. I am pretty confident that the Iranians are not stupid enough to want to die out. They aren't all hormonal teenagers who still believe in Heaven, far from it. And there is no way they could hit both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with nuclear IRBMs without being flattened.

                Iran wants nukes for one reason only: the only hostile or unfriendly countries that the US don't attack have nuclear weapons.

                No nukes: Japan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria (by proxy), Grenada. North Korea (1952-3)

                Countries that the former USSR could have equipped with nukes: Cuba.

                Countries that the US opposes or has opposed that do have nukes: China, India, Pakistan, Russia. North Korea (2018).

                You don't need to read Clausewitz to see the logic.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Trollface

                  Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                  @Voyna i Mor

                  Pretty much ALL of that.

                  If you want to have a country that wont be threaten by the world police, then you need to build nukes.

                  So even if Iran's programme isnt for energy as they have always claimed it is, then the reason to build those nukes wasnt discourage due the world police actually not doing anything about it.

                  See, India, Pakistani and Israel

                  *And by World Police I'm not just placing this on the US, the UN has the responsibility here.

                2. David Webb

                  Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                  @Voyna i Mor

                  I do agree with you, it would be a silly idea for Iran to nuke Israel, but as Westerners we can't really fathom the hatred that exists over there, there are countries that would risk their own destruction just to destroy Israel. One of the reasons Israel gives for them not wanting Iran to have the nuke is because Iran has stated they want to wipe Israel off the map and the easiest way to do that is with nukes.

                  The area is a bit of a powder keg, you give Iran the nuke and then Israel launches attacks on Iranian positions in Syria, or launches a virus onto their nuclear research facilities, or blows up one of their facilities - which they have done in the past - and Iran suddenly gets trigger happy.

                  We do not want Iran having the nuke, we don't want any countries having nukes, the US has shown that we can have batshit crazy people with their finger on the trigger, you know we're screwed when the US president is more insane than the North Korean leader.

                  1. strum Silver badge

                    Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                    > Iran has stated they want to wipe Israel off the map

                    For the hundredth time - no they fucking didn't. One chap said he wanted to erase Israel from history - a very different wish, involving the end of an exclusionary, arguably felonious state - but not involving wiping out anyone.

                  2. Sloppy Crapmonster

                    Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                    Iran could reduce Israel to rubble with conventional weapons if they wanted to. What Trump tore up was the pretense that they wouldn't develop a nuke for the next decade. Now we don't even have that.

                    We weren't *giving* Iran nuke tech, we were *delaying them* from deploying it.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Trollface

                Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                "He failed to live up to the agreements of the accords by pulling out of them, there is no exclusivity clause in that statement, both are inherently true."

                No they are not, Trump wanted to get out of those agreements.

                Did he get out of those agreements - Yes!

                Somehow that equals failure?!

                "Why would it be bad if Iran gets the nuke?"

                Thing is I didnt ask that question, I asked what right to you have to dictate how another nation defends itself?

                "Because the odds are pretty high that they would use that nuke on Israel."

                Yeah, looking at recent history, there is just as much chance that Israel will be the one doing the nuking.

                "The accord was put in place to try and ensure the middle east didn't become a desolate nuclear wasteland, Iran went as far as they could go in that agreement, any further and they would have rejected it"

                True, but then again that would of stopped the whole energy programme.

                "and continued their strides towards becoming nuclear armed."

                There is no evidence to support that this is their end goal, they have always maintained it is for energy purposes.

                "Now what? "

                Yeah, now what?

                Lets just assume that they are as evil as the US government says it is, and they have gone and built the Nukes.

                India and Pakistan have nukes, I'm stilling waiting for that area of the world to suddenly be turned into glass.

                I'm pretty sure that the people of Iran and Israel arent particular keen on glowing at night.

                "As for being anti-semitic, no, I just don't believe Israel should have a get out of jail free card for everything they do, they used their win of the Eurovision (the song for peace) in military propaganda about killing people with American planes."

                That was a 'joke', I'm not going to sit here and defend "da joos", because you are right, they are responsible for some real shady shit.

                Trouble is you start pointing this out and suddenly you're a Nazi, a bigot etc.. etc.. Ad nauseam.

                You try to point out the hypocrisy, crime and corruptions of certain people, and never mind your intent you will be labelled.

                "At the end of the day, history will be the judge on Trump, a one term president"

                Two.. Just saying..

                "who only got elected because the person he was going against was even less palatable than him"

                But it was her turn!

                "hey, who should we vote for, Hitler or Mussolini?"

                Which one was Hillary? because didnt Mussolini end up in prison?

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                  "Which one was Hillary? because didnt Mussolini end up in prison?"

                  No, he was shot and, eventually, strung up, upside down.

            3. Sanguma

              Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

              ""He went against the peace accords for Palestine and stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (it isn't) which totally screws up an oppressed state which is constantly violated with human rights abuses (but any time it's brought up in the UN with a condemnation, the US vetoes it)"

              Careful that sounds anti-Semitic, here in Air-Stripe One that is counted as hate-speech, you could end up doing 12 months. Can I see your online posting licence?"

              Looks like you're conflating anti-Zionism, which at this point in time is opposition to certain specific Israeli policies, with anti-Semitism, which is the hatred and fear of the Jewish people. Now to do that, you conflate the Jewish people with the policies of the state of Israel.

              I might take exception to that. Some of the policies of the State of Israel that I happen to object to, are ones aimed at ethnically-cleansing the Palestinians. Some of my distant relatives were ethnically cleansed from Poland during a European war a few decades ago.

              I consider it highly anti-Semitic to conflate the ethnic-cleansing policies of the State of Israel with my murdered Jewish relatives. To insist that my murdered Jewish relatives are of equal value to policies that bear an unpleasant similarity to the policies that murdered them. And then to claim that one can't criticise those ethnic-cleansing policies because ... you get the picture?

          2. bombastic bob Silver badge
            Thumb Down

            Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

            "He pulled out of the Paris accord because he wants Americans to die from pollution related diseases"

            So you read his mind to make this determination?

            FUD.

            He pulled out of the Paris accord because the U.S. must make MORE concessions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY (especially countries like China and India). Besides, man-made global "climate change" is a FARCE, based on pseudo-science and political manipulation by a small number of elitists, who want to keep "theirs" but make EVERYONE ELSE sacrifice the good things in life (especially in the USA), the good things that were brought about by relatively inexpensive electricity, petroleum, coal, and natural gas.

            "They" want control, power, etc. and want to sacrifice "the rest of us" for their own personal motives, so "they" invent "climate change" because it was convenient to do so during a normal warming period between the early 1970's and the mid-2000's (a ~70 year cycle that's obviously repeated itself - 1900 cold, 1935 warm, 1970 cold, 2005 warm, 2040 cold - do not doubt me or research it and prove me wrong!)

            Showing a normal 2-3 degree celsius warming period as a "hockey stick" chart, that looked like it was increasing out of sight with no end to it, was a nasty trick to play on the world, ESPECIALLY when it did the same thing between 1900 and 1935 (then went back down again until 1970'ish, where the 'hockey stick' graph begins).

            my conspiracy theory is better than yours. heh.

            1. Tom 38 Silver badge

              Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

              He pulled out of the Paris accord because the U.S. must make MORE concessions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY

              The Paris accord is about reducing the amount of pollution we all emit. The USA has to make more concessions because the USA pollutes more than everyone else...

              1. HolySchmoley

                Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

                "The USA has to make more concessions because the USA pollutes more than everyone else..."

                Upvote.

                I remember reading somewhere that the USofA accounts for 5% of the global population and 25% of global pollution. I don't know whether this is true, but it seems likely from casual observation of the USofA.

        2. Hollerithevo Silver badge

          Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

          @ooFie, why do you thing they were negative trade agreements? When has the USA ever given away anything? All the trade agreements very much favour the USA side. And the one for Asia Pacific was also to cut the rug out from China and give the USA trade dominance in that arena. But now, of course, China is steamrolling its great Road (literally and metaphorically) through South east Asia, is threatening Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan etc in the South China Sea and generally sweeping the board.

        3. Tom 38 Silver badge

          Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

          Trumps dealing has mostly been in to renegotiate what have already been negative trade agreements and for the most part he has managed to get exactly that.

          He hasn't negotiated any trade deals! He's started a trade war with China that he thinks he will win (in fact, he thought that would be enough to force them to do his bidding, showing his naivety) but he hasn't actually agreed one trade deal anyway.

          He said the NAFTA renegotiation would take four months, and there was a congressional deadline for it to be done by May 17th - how is that one going?

        4. strum Silver badge

          Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

          >Trumps dealing has mostly been in to renegotiate what have already been negative trade agreements and for the most part he has managed to get exactly that.

          He has negotiated sod all. It's all been noise - with no results.

    2. HolySchmoley

      Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

      "And YET these are the same fuckwits telling us we should get rid of our boarders and let large populations in from completely different countries because 'we are all the same', ironically the bigotry is astounding."

      You might find that more people want to get out, than in, these days.

      A group of about 10 acquaintances in the UK were talking about the US soon after the chump 'won'. Every one of them had been to the US multiple times, for work and pleasure. Two had sons who had settled and were raising families there. Not one of the 10 wanted to go to the US any more.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

      And his crime for all this hate, because he had a R after his name when running for election.

      Those of us not in the US don't really care if there's an R or a D after their name. We just look at what they say and do. Believe me when I say that Trump, R or D, is not showing the US in the best light.

      Never mind that the guy had been a business Democrat for most of his life.

      Someone else above posted that he spent a few years as a D, most of his life not a D.

      ICBA to comment on all your points but would like to point out that it's could've and would've, not could of and would of. Alternatively, you could go with the full long form of could have and would have.

    4. flactem

      Re: da drumpf! da drumpf!

      Okay okay...!!!! I get it now Trump pseudonyms in chronological order; "John Barron" (or "John Baron"), "John Miller" and "David Dennison"...

      Now it's: ooFie !!

      Mr. president I would think you'd more important things to do than post self-congratulatory comments on the registry....

  10. John Savard Silver badge

    Winning?

    Someone seems to have confused Donald Trump with Charlie Sheen, but maybe that's just my memory playing tricks on me.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So Trump is what they call a flip-flopper then?

    China Bad,

    China Good,

    China OK if they give me lots of money.

  12. Florida1920 Silver badge

    In other news

    China has approved 13 new Ivanka Trump trademarks in the last three months.

    Ivanka Trump's brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: In other news

      Lets skim this some more..

      Chinese officials have emphasized that all trademark applications are handled in accordance with the law.

      More approvals are likely to come. Online records from China's trademark office indicate that Ivanka Trump's company last applied for trademarks — 17 of them — on March 28, 2017, the day before she took on a formal role at the White House.

      yeah, this is going to be another big nothing burger again isnt it!

      1. Florida1920 Silver badge

        Re: In other news

        yeah, this is going to be another big nothing burger again isnt it!
        Yes, clearly she (and her husband) haven't used their proximity to The Leader (sic!) of the Free World to promote their brand. Daddy is renowned for his ethics, after all.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Trollface

          Re: In other news

          appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion

          What can they Prove?

          Like I said Nothing Burger.

          1. DamnedIfIKnow

            Re: In other news

            @ooFie

            You are the living embodiment of the saying that there are none so blind as those who won't see.

            Speaking of which, you don't happen to have any relatives by the name of Hovind, do you? Or Ham?

            I ask because you seem to be displaying the same dogged determination to completely ignore facts that those two gentlemen are justly famous for.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: In other news

        "More approvals are likely to come. Online records from China's trademark office indicate that Ivanka Trump's company last applied for trademarks — 17 of them — on March 28, 2017, the day before she took on a formal role at the White House.

        yeah, this is going to be another big nothing burger again isnt it!

        So, that formal role at the White House was an out of the blue surprise that she had no inkling of? Yeah, right!

  13. Big_Baldy_Bloke

    Oreo for ZTE Axon 7

    I find it strange to be directly affected by The Donald, the US government and their dealings with China. Oreo was promised for Axon 7 in April, and by all accounts was pretty much ready when the ban on US sales to ZTE was announced. Just hope the global wheels turn far and fast enough for Oreo to be released sometime soon. Not that this matters much in the grander scheme of things! Sent from my Axon 7 in the UK. Still a good phone.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    no confusion here

    How can you do spying with a low cost China Smartphone with US Android Software and a US network? Not a single piece of evidence (like manipulated SW) over years. It is obvious, some politicians want to protect a US industry which cannot compete anymore. Furthermore, if you are confused then by the media, the events around ZTE and the Trade negotiations are in logic order. It all makes sense and Trump had the right approach.

    1. tfb Silver badge

      Re: no confusion here

      Because you made the silicon and you therefore control what's in the silicon.

      Note I'm not trying to imply that ZTE (or other Chinese manufacturers) are spying using their control over the hardware, just that building the hardware does give you a platform from which you can do a lot, if you want to do so.

      1. Tom 38 Silver badge

        Re: no confusion here

        Because you made the silicon and you therefore control what's in the silicon.

        I thought a lot of this fuss was because Trump ordered ZTE to be forbidden from buying things from the US, and the thing they mainly bought from the US was their silicon.

  15. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Something missing in the timeline

    May, 7 2018: Ivanka Trump is granted seven trademarks by Chinese authorities

    May, 11 2018: the Chinese government floated a $500 million loan to a project partnered with the Trump organization.

    Those Chinese are clever businessmen, they know well how to use corruption with the greedy ones.

    1. HolySchmoley

      Re: Something missing in the timeline

      "Those Chinese are clever businessmen, they know well how to use corruption with the greedy ones."

      Certainly a lot cleverer than The Chump, who is the cleverest ever in his own eyes.

  16. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

    Personal Relationship

    ... and my personal relationship with President Xi

    It's a good thing that President Xi is a middle aged male.

    No female is safe with President "Pee"

  17. mhenriday
    Boffin

    On the other hand,

    if Marco Antonio Rubio opposes a ZTE deal, it can't be all bad.... ;-)

    Henri

  18. MangyDog

    Going back several steps... Has there actually been any evidence of ZTE tech being used to spy via any kind of built in means?

    Or is this all just speculation because ZTE has some ties with the Chinese gov, as does pretty much every single large Chinese manufacturer?

    Remember the Chinese elite are elite for a reason. They arent purely ideological, they have financial interests too. Just like nearly every senator in the US congress :p

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      The thing is, what large US corporation doesn't have ties to the US government? The US perception of the world sometimes appears to be transmit only.

    2. HausWolf

      Actually the big problem with ZTE was them breaking laws dealing with sanctions on NK and Iran. Trump just gave them a pass, or took some chinese bribes and let them go on their business... depending on how you look at it.

  19. kbutler.toledo

    OK, ZTE....

    Now blow up those empty holes in the mountain to prove you have realllly replaced your managers

  20. David 45

    A Trump back-pedal with strings!

    Why should they be subject to a fine? Have they done something wrong, proven and sentenced in a court of law?

  21. JassMan Silver badge

    I want to know when...

    ... he is gong to tweet an apology for raising the price of fuel all over Europe by an average of 10p/litre. Can the EU sue the bastard on a monthly basis so that the duty on fuel can be reduced to ensure the cost to us consumers remains the same?

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ZTE - beware the affront

    Take care NOT to conflate ZTE with other 'Chinese Tech Companies"...

    Even within China, ZTE has a reputation for ruthless IPR harvesting... just ask Huawei.

    But; the POTUS tweets run the risk of a much deeper affront to Chin's leadership...

    ZTE (Zhongxing Semiconductor Co) -was- formed with state investment, and is seen as having deep political ties within China.

    So...

    Would China threaten to shut down Cisco product sales on 'National Security' grounds due to the speculative potential for back-dooring of Cisco routers by the NSA? Just as a negotiating gambit, of course...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019