It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
How is it you can so confidently state a falsehood?
Seriously? Do you think Donald Trump personally built Trump Tower all by himself? (That, too, is what sarcasm actually looks like.) Trade deals are negotiated by career State Department/ Foreign Ministry personnel. Presidents do not negotiate them, they approve them and submit them to Congress. This allows them to brand them with their name.
From the Whitehouse communication I linked it CLEARLY states the president has finished negotiating.
Now you clinging on to your falsehood. Whether in it's entirety or in part, the President IS involved in the negotiations.
It's one thing to get something wrong as you did, but another to then double down and try to mislead people.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
From the Whitehouse communication I linked it CLEARLY states the president has finished negotiating.
So now White House communications are spin free?
Now you clinging on to your falsehood. Whether in it's entirety or in part, the President IS involved in the negotiations.
It has taken years to forge the TPP. Where has the President been all that time? Locked in negotiations? Trump seems to think that trade deals are negotiated in a locked room one-on-one. Sure, Obama attended a summit meeting with other Pacific Rim leaders, but he did little or no actual negotiating.
It's one thing to get something wrong as you did, but another to then double down and try to mislead people.
You mean like Trump does? By the way, good job steering the thread away from these posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Do you have anything to say about those? Or are you going to double down on your transparent efforts to derail the thread?
I am just calling out your falsehood, which needs to be done. It was you who incorrectly stated that the President does not negotiate trade deals in another attempt to discredit one of Trumps positions.
Clearly the President is involved in negotiations.
If you are going to engage in dialogue, as you said you wanted to, please try not to make things up.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
You said 'The President does not negotiate trade deals'. It's pretty easy to post countless references to him being involved in negotiations. I assume what you meant to say is that he does not exclusively negotiate trade deals.
Either way he talks about trade deals often and it seems genuine.
The President does not negotiate trade deals, which have to be ratified by Congress. Even if Trump were as brilliant a negotiator as he thinks he is, that would more likely end up serving Trump's needs sooner than America's.
The implication you pushed that Trump's negotiating skills would not be relevant in negotiating trade deals is false.
Firstly, you have no idea of the machinations relating to the actual discussions that take place to agree and draft wording
and secondly you have no idea what processes Trump would adopt if President. You have no idea, not because of ignorance, but because both are simply not known in detail by anyone other than those involved day to day.
You simply used a falsehood to discredit one of Trump's strengths.
A few have had suspicions that you started this thread in order to create points to attack Trump and this is a perfect example of such.
originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: UKTruth
TPP negotiation rounds.
You think Obama was at all these meetings? Or even any?
Do you think the ADD simpleton Trump would sit through meetings like this?
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
1.As a Security Council permament member, why not get the UN to monitor polling stations? Although said in jest, i am part serious there. As there is so much political polarisation within the US at the moment, neither side will trust whoever monitors polling stations - so get a neutral party to do it.
2. Trump is unstable so you never know what you may get. He is as likely to be dignified in defeat (he is perfectly capable of dignified behaviour) as he is to explode at the reporters and everyone else on election night - therefore i can't make a prediction here. From a neutral perspective, i don't think such unpredictability is a good trait for the possible leader of the worlds only superpower. That said, the alternative is a compulsive liar.
3. As long as the result follows the electoral rules in place, i don't think he could do much either way. Say he gets the popular vote but not the electoral colleges (or whatever it is), i am sure he would raise it for future elections (as in trying to get changes in place) but i don't think he would use it as an excuse to go to court over this election. Although, with my first sentence for point 2, you never know!
4. Wouldn't really care either way. Unstable liar or compulsive liar - neither is a particularly great choice for either the USA or the rest of the world!
5. Can't answer because there are so many imponderables. For example, why would the Supreme Court have ruled on the election? Is there any evidence of voter fraud? etc, etc. I am not a Trump fan (or Clinton!) but i don't think the Donald would moan if the decision was overturned for legitimate reasons. And if, hypothetically, it was overturned for illegitimate reasons, then he would every right to moan and whinge and incite protests.
Whatever happens though, the world will keep on spinning, we will keep on getting older and taxes will continue to be accrued.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: UKTruth
Here is your proof:
The US has three branches of government.
The Judicial Branch rules on the Constitutionality of an agreement or treaty.
The Legislative Branch (specifically the Senate) confirms the treaty or agreement.
It is the Executive Branch that proposes and or negotiates treaties and agreements.
If my memory serves me correctly, the POTUS is in charge of the Executive Branch.
In the old days, the POTUS was responsible for what went on in the Executive Branch.... you know, as in 'the buck stops here'.
US Constitution Treaty Clause
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
Thanks - I think it is pretty obvious that Obama is in charge of negotiations