PDA

View Full Version : Trump reads TelePrompter at UN



Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:22 PM
Trump sounded mainstream today. Thoughts?

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:24 PM
full transcript. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879


Opening

Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates: Welcome to New York. It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.
As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid. The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.
Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high -- a record. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before. Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time. And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.
Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been. For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.
We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.
But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

John of Phoenix
09-19-2017, 12:26 PM
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Mainstream psychotic?

oznabrag
09-19-2017, 12:30 PM
The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

'They', not 'we'?

That should tell you everything you need to know about this bozo.

EVEN HIS SPEECHWRITERS CAN'T CONCEAL HIS SEPARATION FROM THE 'COMMON' FOLK.

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:30 PM
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Mainstream psychotic?

how does one talk to a rogue 3rd world leader gangster who suggests he wants to hit California with a nuke.

oznabrag
09-19-2017, 12:32 PM
how does one talk to a rogue 3rd world leader gangster who suggests he wants to hit California with a nuke.

One speaks loudly and tries to conceal one's small hands, apparently.

George Jung
09-19-2017, 12:33 PM
Never gonna happen, Ted. Lots of sabre rattling - and China has their 'back', unless they do something stupid - like lob a missile at the USA. Then, all bets are off - I'd expect China might even nuke 'em, as clean up.

JimD
09-19-2017, 12:33 PM
A few excerpts from a MacLean's magazine article:
...when he manages to simply read from a teleprompter it is a major step forward... more reminiscent of a speaker at a multilevel marketing seminar than a global statesman at the General Assembly...his aggressive rhetoric barely registered among the hundreds of gathered leaders and diplomats. No one gasped or murmured. The Iranian representative played on his iPhone. ...After eight months in office, the world knows he is a president that must be carefully managed, but at the same time he is not a man that can be taken seriously...Trump may be president, but he matters less now than he did six months ago. And his speech likely confirmed for many in the audience that America also matters less than it did before—it is no longer “the leader of the free world”... American allies like Canada and Europe are re-aligning and building new coalitions. ... The Trump sideshow is over. Everyone has work to do. The world is moving on.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/donny-from-marketing-goes-to-the-united-nations/

Personally, I have never had less interest in American politics. Someone wake me up when he's gone, please.

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:36 PM
'They', not 'we'?

That should tell you everything you need to know about this bozo.

EVEN HIS SPEECHWRITERS CAN'T CONCEAL HIS SEPARATION FROM THE 'COMMON' FOLK.

Or perhaps it is an direct acknowledgement to the world that there are two kinds of citizens in this country.

BrianY
09-19-2017, 12:37 PM
how does one talk to a rogue 3rd world leader gangster who suggests he wants to hit California with a nuke.

well, you could start by not backing him - or us - into a corner...especially when that corner will inevitably lead to immense death and destruction in an allied nation and quite possibly result in nuclear war.

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:40 PM
Never gonna happen, Ted. Lots of sabre rattling - and China has their 'back', unless they do something stupid - like lob a missile at the USA. Then, all bets are off - I'd expect China might even nuke 'em, as clean up.

So you let a gangster build dozens of nukes and advanced H-Bomb delivery systems. What a pickle.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-19-2017, 12:40 PM
Trump's use of his new pet name for Kim Jong-un, "Rocket Man" in the United Nations address makes Trump look petty and amateurish.

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:45 PM
well, you could start by not backing him - or us - into a corner...especially when that corner will inevitably lead to immense death and destruction in an allied nation and quite possibly result in nuclear war.

we have to stop thinking we are dealing with a crazy western thinker. Many Asians, Koreans and specifically North Koreans do not have western belief and value systems like the west. Our approaches of traditional containment are passé.

The real issue issue is how does this country make the gangster leadership of North Korea lose face and seek a honorable less deadly path. Trump may be empowering the breaking sycophants who may be encouraged to cut the head off and formulate a regime change.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-19-2017, 12:48 PM
we have to stop thinking we are dealing with a crazy western thinker. Many Asians, Koreans and specifically North Koreans do not have western belief and value systems like the west. Our approaches of traditional containment are passé.

The real issue s sue is how does one make the leadership of North Korea lose face and seek a honorable less deadly path.

Just out of curiosity .... what are you suggesting?

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 12:54 PM
Just out of curiosity .... what are you suggesting?

What kind of benefit and reward would a coup leader receive if the actors got rid of rocket man and sought peaceful Korean unification. In Asian ideological thought, they actions would be revered as the great uncle / father approach.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-19-2017, 12:59 PM
What kind of benefit and reward would a coup leader receive if the actors got rid of rocket man and sought peaceful Korean unification. In a buddest or Asian ideological thought, they actions would be revered.


I don't know.

We watched Ken Burn's Viet Nam last night, it made me think about the US History of involvement in regime change. The record of success is not one I'd bet on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Osborne Russell
09-19-2017, 01:01 PM
Trump's use of his new pet name for Kim Jong-un, "Rocket Man" in the United Nations address makes Trump look petty and amateurish.

And he calls the British "the Brits". At the United Nations.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-19-2017, 01:03 PM
And he calls the British "the Brits". At the United Nations.

At least he didn't call the Saudi Arabians "Towel Heads" or something much worse!

John Smith
09-19-2017, 01:06 PM
My questions is: Does Trump know/understand what he read and spoke?

Osborne Russell
09-19-2017, 01:09 PM
we have to stop thinking we are dealing with a crazy western thinker. Many Asians, Koreans and specifically North Koreans do not have western belief and value systems like the west. Our approaches of traditional containment are passé.

What in the world are you talking about? Asians can't think strategically, is that really what you mean to say?

Is there any doubt in your mind that if North Korea makes a move unilaterally, the Chinese will drop them like a bad habit? Maybe even help the west destroy them? What do you do with a puppet that's gone haywire, especially when they have nukes? Put on your game face and say, well, I guess it's time to die for our puppet oops I mean allies?

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 01:10 PM
I know the cycle of extortion never ends whether done by local Asian gangsters or rogue leaders. Such threats by them rarely end peacefully.

Ted Hoppe
09-19-2017, 01:17 PM
What in the world are you talking about? Asians can't think strategically, is that really what you mean to say?

Is there any doubt in your mind that if North Korea makes a move unilaterally, the Chinese will drop them like a bad habit? Maybe even help the west destroy them? What do you do with a puppet that's gone haywire, especially when they have nukes? Put on your game face and say, well, I guess it's time to die for our puppet oops I mean allies?

i did not say that asians couldn't think,strategically - just have a different approach to threats, justifications and what they can live with. If we examine the hundred and seventy five years of America in Asia, we can see how differently we think and what tolerated losses we would accept verses theirs.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-19-2017, 01:17 PM
My thought are along the lines of......

There is a huge difference between isolation and containment of North Korean today and the appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

North Korea cannot expand their territory, they know that we know that, everyone knows that. Kim is using this crises as a tool to fortify his own position at home and the Orange One is playing right into his hands.

LeeG
09-19-2017, 01:31 PM
So you let a gangster build dozens of nukes and advanced H-Bomb delivery systems. What a pickle.

Yes, other countries are not under our control. That doesn't define their threat.

BrianY
09-19-2017, 03:33 PM
we have to stop thinking we are dealing with a crazy western thinker. Many Asians, Koreans and specifically North Koreans do not have western belief and value systems like the west.

Agreed


Our approaches of traditional containment are passé. Well, maybe, but they've worked perfectly so far. Perhaps some changes are needed but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if by doing so we provoke a war.


The real issue issue is how does this country make the gangster leadership of North Korea lose face and seek a honorable less deadly path. Trump may be empowering the breaking sycophants who may be encouraged to cut the head off and formulate a regime change.

Now you're applying western thinking to the situation...they very thing you warned against earlier.

I suggest that we stop for a moment and consider what the "gangster leadership" really wants, how they perceive the US and the west and why they have those perceptions and then seek solutions based on that knowledge and understanding instead of treating them like they do hold western beliefs and thinking they'll react to threats and bluster like westerners would. I do not believe that the US really understands what drives Kim Jong-un and what he wants. Instead we dismiss him as "irrational" and use pejoratives like "gangster" to describe him. We cannot imagine why any "reasonable" leader would feel threatened by the US, so we dismiss his fears as being unreasonable. We cannot understand why any "rational" leader wants to possess nuclear weapons to protect his country and raise its international stature, so we ascribe malevolent motives and aspirations. All of this indicates our arrogance and lack of understanding and impedes our ability to have any productive diplomatic relations with them. Oh wait, I forgot, we don't have any diplomatic relations with them, do we?

We're so stuck on preconditions and preconceptions that we cannot negotiate anything in good faith and the North Koreans know an understand this. Now, I'm not saying that they the most reasonable bunch in the world, but just because they're paranoid it doesn't mean that the West isn't out to get them. The US is not blameless in this situation.


Anyway, if you really believe that they're crazy, that they are evil and malicious and totally irrational, do you really think that they're going to respond positively to threats and bluster? A cornered animal that see no way to avoid a threat, no way out of a bad situation will choose to fight even if that fight leads to its destruction. What other option does it have?

LeeG
09-19-2017, 04:10 PM
He sounds like a self-centered ass

John of Phoenix
09-19-2017, 04:22 PM
...he is not a man that can be taken seriously...Trump may be president, but he matters less now than he did six months ago.This is worrisome. That's one thing that trump can't tolerate and he's highly likely to do things that make people take him VERY seriously... tweeting aside, that is.

SMARTINSEN
09-19-2017, 05:06 PM
He sounds like a self-centered ass

The Korean leader or the American?

Chris Smith porter maine
09-19-2017, 05:35 PM
Agreed

Well, maybe, but they've worked perfectly so far. Perhaps some changes are needed but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if by doing so we provoke a war.



Now you're applying western thinking to the situation...they very thing you warned against earlier.

I suggest that we stop for a moment and consider what the "gangster leadership" really wants, how they perceive the US and the west and why they have those perceptions and then seek solutions based on that knowledge and understanding instead of treating them like they do hold western beliefs and thinking they'll react to threats and bluster like westerners would. I do not believe that the US really understands what drives Kim Jong-un and what he wants. Instead we dismiss him as "irrational" and use pejoratives like "gangster" to describe him. We cannot imagine why any "reasonable" leader would feel threatened by the US, so we dismiss his fears as being unreasonable. We cannot understand why any "rational" leader wants to possess nuclear weapons to protect his country and raise its international stature, so we ascribe malevolent motives and aspirations. All of this indicates our arrogance and lack of understanding and impedes our ability to have any productive diplomatic relations with them. Oh wait, I forgot, we don't have any diplomatic relations with them, do we?

We're so stuck on preconditions and preconceptions that we cannot negotiate anything in good faith and the North Koreans know an understand this. Now, I'm not saying that they the most reasonable bunch in the world, but just because they're paranoid it doesn't mean that the West isn't out to get them. The US is not blameless in this situation.


Anyway, if you really believe that they're crazy, that they are evil and malicious and totally irrational, do you really think that they're going to respond positively to threats and bluster? A cornered animal that see no way to avoid a threat, no way out of a bad situation will choose to fight even if that fight leads to its destruction. What other option does it have?

I agree with most of this, but I can see where his fear comes from 30,000 American troops on his border, joint millitary exercises right across his border, the might of the US Navy parked in his backyard. He watched us invade Iraq for weapons that didn't exist, with nukes that won't happen to him, is his belief. I'm not sure I disagree with him, would I prefer he didn't get nukes yes. As far as the reunification of the Korea's going to be a long way off neither China or Russia wants 30,000 US troops, missles, and jet aircraft on there border.

Canoeyawl
09-19-2017, 06:35 PM
The Korean leader or the American?

No difference

LeeG
09-19-2017, 06:57 PM
The Korean leader or the American?

The SCROTUS Donald. The electoral college and a wee bit of gerrymandering and Russian tickling of Murican idiocy made DOnald possible. The Murican empire is going down, down, down. It had to happen sometime but never thought a clown would do it.

L.W. Baxter
09-19-2017, 08:46 PM
I didn't listen, why waste my beautiful mind?

Let M. Bamford explain the world to you, essokay baby essso-kay


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

LeeG
09-19-2017, 08:51 PM
He's an ass

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41327130

On Tuesday, Mr Trump criticised North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, saying: "Rocket man is on a suicide mission."
"If [the US] is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," he added.
Reuters news agency said one audience member covered his face with his hands, and that loud, startled murmurs filled the hall in response.
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, who was observed crossing her arms, told the BBC: "It was the wrong speech, at the wrong time, to the wrong audience."

L.W. Baxter
09-19-2017, 08:56 PM
Well, it's not as if the President of the United States got up in front of the United Nations and blithely and obliviously threatened to kill millions of people, right?

Wait, whut?

LeeG
09-19-2017, 08:59 PM
He's an ass

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/trump-un-speech-north-korea-venezuela-response-terrifying-delusional-a7956306.html

Donald Trump gave his first address to the United Nations General Assembly, pushing for “sovereignty” in what has been called both “terrifying” and “delusional” by experts.
....
Although all the experts The Independent spoke with agreed that it was a consistently Trump-esque speech - “it was more rhetorically repetitious than intellectually coherent” according to UN expert at the European Council of Foreign Relations Richard Gowan.

Mr Gowan said the speech was more catered toward appeasing the President’s base of supporters who have stuck to Mr Trump’s repeated campaign and early term remarks that the UN is full of elitists and “just a good time “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time”.

TJ Pempel, a political science professor at the University of California-Berkeley, echoed that statement, adding that the speech was “good for headlines” but not much else in terms of reducing global threats.

Anjali Dayal, an international security professor at Fordham University, said the speech was "terrifying" since it was such a drastic break from past US presidents despite the fact that sovereignty is still a “cornerstone” of the UN.

LeeG
09-19-2017, 09:10 PM
I didn't listen, why waste my beautiful mind?

Let M. Bamford explain the world to you, essokay baby essso-kay


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

Thx!

Lew Barrett
09-19-2017, 10:03 PM
"I could carve a better man out of a banana."

David G
09-19-2017, 10:06 PM
https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21687909_10154745420741022_4840749798374479860_n.p ng?oh=520eb28b767a380e8b3de52240dd670d&oe=5A452E92

Gerarddm
09-19-2017, 10:30 PM
You FOOLS who voted for him.

LeeG
09-19-2017, 10:30 PM
Jesus what a waste of a presidency

Gerarddm
09-19-2017, 11:03 PM
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-war-of-elton-john-lyrics-kim-jong-un-calls-trump-honky-cat

Ian McColgin
09-20-2017, 12:03 AM
[IMc- Far from "presidential", Trump told more falsehoods than any president has told the UN in one speech. Here's a fact check.]

Trump’s U.N. Speech
The president made misleading boasts about his record on the economy and foreign issues.
By Robert Farley, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo GorePosted on September 19, 2017

In his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump reprised misleading talking points on everything from job growth to defense spending.
We’ve written about variations of some of these claims numerous times, but since these comments were made to a world audience, we are revisiting some of them.

We also cover new claims the president made on foreign issues.

Trump boasted that “unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years.” True, but it is a continuation of a years-long trend that predates his election.

Trump misleadingly claimed that “we have more people working in the United States today than ever before.” Since the population constantly increases, that’s not unusual. The employment-to-population ratio isn’t higher “than ever before” — it was higher every month between September 1985 and February 2009.

The president wrongly claimed companies are “moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time.” Jobs have been steadily increasing every month for years. In fact, the job gains have been fewer under Trump than they were during the same time frame in each of the previous four years.

Trump boasted that “the stock market is at an all-time high” since Election Day. True, but it has reached new heights regularly since March 5, 2013, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average topped the previous record set in October 2007.

Trump said the U.S. “has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined.” ISIS territory has been reclaimed at a faster rate under Trump, but more territory was reclaimed from early 2015 to early 2017.

The president said the United States “continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance.” That’s true by volume, but not as a percentage of gross national income, or GNI, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As a percentage of GNI, the U.S. ranks 20th out of 28 OECD member countries.
Trump got ahead of himself when he said “we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.” The Senate passed a nearly $700 billion defense authorization bill, but it must be reconciled with a House version. And lawmakers still have to pass a separate bill appropriating the money.

Analysis

The president addressed the U.N. on Sept. 19 in New York.

Unemployment

Trump boasted that “unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years.”
The unemployment rate in August was 4.4 percent, up a tick from 4.3 percent in July, but down from the 4.7 percent rate Trump inherited in January. The unemployment rate briefly hit the same 4.4 percent in 2006 and 2007, but to find a rate lower than that, as Trump says, you’d need to go 16 years back, to early 2001. But as with several other statistics, Trump is taking credit for a trend that long predates his presidency.

Number of Working People

Trump claimed that “because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before.” In raw numbers, total nonfarm employment hit a record high in August at 146,730,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But there’s less there than meets the eye.
The U.S. population is also constantly on the rise. There have been “more people working” in the U.S. than ever before many, many times since BLS started tracking the data in 1939. Obama could have made that claim every month from mid-2014 on.

By another measure, the employment-population ratio of people in the U.S. age 16 and over was 60.1 percent in August, slightly higher than nearly every month under Obama, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it’s not the highest ratio “ever.” It was higher in the first two months of Obama’s presidency, and higher every month prior to Obama’s presidency going all the way back to September 1985.
Job Growth

Trump wrongly claimed companies are “moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time.” In fact, the job gains have been fewer under Trump than they were during the same time frame in each of the previous four years.
The U.S. has been steadily adding jobs every month since early 2010, according to the BLS.

“The job market is great and getting better,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told us back in June when Trump similarly boasted about job growth as a result of his election. “But it is unfair to say the good economic news began with Trump’s election. The economy has been consistently creating jobs for about 7 years – a record length of time. And the pace of job growth has been very consistent; the same before and after the President’s inauguration. The economy was on fundamentally solid ground when Trump took office, and that hasn’t changed.”

The nation has now experienced positive job growth for 83 straight months, with 76 of those under Trump’s predecessor.

Indeed, the job gains under Trump, although similar to those during Obama’s last few years in office, have been slightly lower. The economy added 1,189,000 net new jobs since Trump took office in January. That’s slightly fewer than the 1,375,000 jobs added in the preceding seven months.

It’s also fewer jobs than were added during the same time period of 2016 (1,422,000), 2015 (1,547,000), 2014 (1,734,000) and 2013 (1,384,000).
Stock Market Broken Records

Trump also touted the rise of the stock market since his election victory in November. “The stock market is at an all-time high, a record,” he said.
That’s true, but it has reached new heights regularly in recent years after recovering from the Great Recession, which plunged the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a 12-year low in 2009.

The Dow Jones closed at 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009 — its lowest point since April 15, 1997. It has been climbing back ever since and reached a new high on March 5, 2013, when it “closed at 14,253.77, topping the previous record of 14,164.53 on Oct. 9, 2007, by 89.24 points,” as the Associated Press reported at the time. (We note that these figures do not account for inflation.)

Since March 5, 2013, the Dow has continued to set new milestones: 15,000 on May 3, 2013; 16,000 on Nov. 21, 2013; 17,000 on July 3, 2014; 18,000 on Dec. 23, 2014; and 19,000 on Nov. 22, 2016 — all while President Barack Obama was in office.

The Dow Jones more than doubled during Obama’s tenure, rising 148 percent from Jan. 20, 2009, to Jan. 19, 2017. (See our pre-inauguration article “What President Trump Inherits.”)

The stock market has continued its remarkable run under Trump. The Dow broke 20,000 on Jan. 25, a few days after Trump’s inauguration, and then 21,000 on March 1 and 22,000 on Aug. 2.

The Dow closed on Sept. 18 at 22,331.35 — up 13.2 percent since 19,732.40 on Jan. 19, the day before Trump took office. By comparison, the Dow was up 13.1 percent during that same time period a year ago, from 16,016.02 at close on Jan. 19, 2016, to 18,120.17 at close on Sept. 19, 2016.
So, while Trump boasts of the stock market being at an all-time high, the Dow Jones is actually just keeping pace with last year.

- - - more - - -

Ian McColgin
09-20-2017, 12:04 AM
- - - cont - - -

The Fight Against ISIS

The president touted gains made against the terrorist group the Islamic State, saying more had been achieved under his presidency than in “many, many years combined.”

We find that while the ISIS territory has been reclaimed at a faster rate under Trump, more total territory was reclaimed during the last few years of Obama’s presidency.

Trump: In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined. We seek the deescalation of the Syrian conflict and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people.

We asked the White House press office about this claim, and a similar boast Trump made in late August, when he claimed “record-breaking success” against ISIS since his inauguration. But we haven’t received an on-the-record response.

However, an Aug. 4 Washington Post story quoted an administration official saying military gains against ISIS have “dramatically accelerated” under Trump’s presidency. But that article included some statistics that contradict Trump’s claim that there has been more achievement in eight months than in “many, many years combined.”

The Post quoted Brett McGurk, the State Department’s special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS. McGurk credited moves by Trump, such as giving more decision-making authority to on-the-ground commanders rather than the White House, for increasing success against ISIS. He said, according to the Post, that ISIS had lost about 27,000 square miles of territory in Iraq and Syria since a peak for the group in early 2015. And nearly a third of that — about 8,000 square miles of territory — had been regained during Trump’s time in office.

That certainly shows an “accelerated” gain, as McGurk said. But there would have been more achievement – more than two-thirds of the territory reclaimed – from early 2015 to early 2017. That’s the opposite of what Trump claimed in his U.N. speech.

The president could have instead said that the rate at which ISIS had lost territory had increased under his presidency. Other data lend support to that as well.
The analytics and consulting firm IHS Markit released an analysis in late June that said ISIS had lost 30,400 square kilometers from January 2015 to January 2017, and another 24,200 square kilometers from the beginning of January through June. The terrorist group’s territory totaled 90,800 square kilometers in January 2015, IHS Markit’s first estimate.

Those numbers show a 33.5 percent drop in Islamic State territory from 2015 to 2017, but a 40 percent drop since January, which of course would include nearly three weeks of the Obama administration.

IHS Markit also released figures on the decline in the average monthly revenue for ISIS, though the time periods don’t allow for a comparison of the drop under Obama and Trump. The figures show a 62 percent decline in average monthly revenue from the second quarter of 2015 to the third quarter of 2016, and another 48 percent drop from the third quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017.

The analysis said the Islamic State was “unlikely to survive” in 2018.

Columb Strack, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Markit, said in the group’s press release that ISIS’ “rise and fall has been characterized by rapid inflation, followed by steady decline.”

Strack said: “The Islamic State’s remaining caliphate is likely to break up before the end of the year, reducing its governance project to a string of isolated urban areas that will eventually be retaken over the course of 2018.”

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a foreign policy senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told us that the president’s time frame is off. “ISIS only seized its holdings in 2013/2014 so it’s not an issue of many many years. And the tide really started to turn in 2016 with Obama,” O’Hanlon said in an email. “There is credit (and blame) to go around, and lots more work to do.”

Humanitarian Assistance

Trump said the United States “continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance.” That’s true by volume, but not as a percentage of gross national income, or GNI, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As a percentage of GNI, the U.S. ranks 20th out of 28 OECD member countries.
In April 2016, the OECD issued a report on “official development assistance,” or ODA, by its member countries in 2015. The U.S. is a member of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, and 28 of those countries combined gave a total of $131.6 billion in aid in 2015 to developing countries — led by $31.1 billion from the U.S.

“The United States continued to be the largest donor by volume with net ODA flows amounting to USD 31.1 billion in 2015, a fall of 7.0% in real terms compared to 2014,” the report says. (Net ODA is the amount after deducting loan repayments.) Other top donors by volume in 2015 were the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and France.

But the report also says that the U.S. — which has the world’s largest economy — was well below the OECD average as a percentage of gross national income.
The U.S. net ODA was 0.17 percent of its GNI; the OECD average was 0.30 percent. Sweden had the highest figure at 1.4 percent of its GNI (see chart 1).
In a 2016 report on U.S. foreign aid, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that the OECD does not capture all foreign aid. It said the OECD does not count “military assistance and aid to developed countries” when calculating a nation’s “official development assistance.”

Using the “broadest definition of aid,” CRS said that the U.S. provided $48.57 billion in foreign aid in fiscal year 2015, including military assistance. CRS said it used the OECD data for the sake of international comparisons, noting that the U.S. “often ranks low” when its foreign aid is measured as a percentage of GNI.

CRS, June 17, 2016: Even as it leads in dollar amounts of aid flows to developing countries, the United States often ranks low when aid is calculated as a percentage of gross national income (GNI). This calculation is often cited in the context of international donor forums, as a level of 0.7% GNI was established as a target for donors in the 2000 U.N. Millennium Development Goals. In 2014, the United States ranked at the bottom among major donors at 0.19% of GNI, tied with Japan (0.19%). Sweden ranked first among top donors at 1.10% of GNI, followed by Norway at 0.99%, while the United Kingdom ratio was 0.71%, France 0.36%, and Germany 0.41%.

In 2015, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom were the only countries that “exceeded the United Nations’ ODA target of 0.7% of GNI,” the OECD report says.

Defense Spending

Trump got ahead of himself when he said “it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.” The deal isn’t final.
There is a two-step process for government funding: Congress first must pass an authorization bill and then an appropriation bill.

On Sept. 18, the Senate — by a vote of 89-8 — passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. The bill reportedly authorizes about $640 billion for base defense spending — nearly $37 billion more than Trump’s budget request — and another roughly $60 billion for additional war spending.

But the bill still must be reconciled with the House-passed version before it goes to Trump for his signature. And compared with the Senate bill, the House bill included about $632 billion for base defense spending and almost $65 billion for war spending, according to The Hill.

On top of that, Congress will still have to vote on a separate bill to appropriate the authorized spending, as both the House and Senate bills exceed the caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act that mandated automatic cuts in military spending.

After the Senate authorization bill passed, the New York Times reported that “while the proposal outlines a hefty defense budget, whether the Pentagon gets the money will be determined by congressional appropriators, and Democrats have pledged to block major increases in military spending without a similar boost for domestic programs.”

For now, as we have previously written, the Defense Department will start the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 with no increase in funding. Trump signed a continuing resolution on Sept. 6 that he negotiated with Democratic leaders that kept defense spending at the same level as fiscal 2017 for the first three months of fiscal 2018.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/trumps-u-n-speech/

LeeG
09-20-2017, 12:22 AM
He is a stain

mdh
09-20-2017, 12:33 AM
What a terrific speech: and Bebe, too.

skuthorp
09-20-2017, 12:47 AM
Trump is an independent, certainly not a Republican, he just took over their selection process. Trump is there for himself and his family.
He will likely drag support from both majors and survive. I reckon the process and the presidency will not be the same again. Neither likely will be America if he survives in office.

Lew Barrett
09-20-2017, 08:57 AM
This is worrisome. That's one thing that trump can't tolerate and he's highly likely to do things that make people take him VERY seriously... tweeting aside, that is.

Anybody give you an aye aye for your comment? I think it's an astute one. Another tone deaf speech by the Commander in Thief.

Ian McColgin
09-20-2017, 09:23 AM
It is the norm for US citizens to make up insulting names for our own and other nation's public figures. A right of citizenship that we get to exercise in large part because we are not personally interacting with those people.

It's different when one is a public figure addressing another public figure. Then various forms of insult might be used, usually to influence some third party. But there are also limits.

The only reason for one national leader to publicly and bully and insult another nation's leader, no matter how despicable they both are, is to foreclose all options except thermonuclear war. That is Trump's goal, stated as plainly and as unlawfully as possible.

JimD
09-20-2017, 09:26 AM
Anybody give you an aye aye for your comment? I think it's an astute one. Another tone deaf speech by the Commander in Thief.Sure, why not? Can't let his war mongering Republican predecessor get all the glory.

LeeG
09-20-2017, 09:27 AM
"Apocalyptically stupid" says it well. Maybe his cabinet will handle him well enough to prevent a conflagration, in the meantime he really needs to lower taxes, increase the military, find those fraudulent votes and have a parade.


https://www.juancole.com/2017/09/backing-ignores-praises.html

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –
Trump more or less threatened to wipe out the 25 million people of North Korea in his speech at the UN.
Then he turned to the Middle East, where he again pledged to undermine the Iranian nuclear deal.
In other words, he put forward a plan to turn Iran into North Korea as a geopolitical problem.
...

David G
09-20-2017, 09:29 AM
I don't think counting on others in his administration to keep him on track is gonna get 'er done. For example... WHY is Niki Haley lying about Iran foreign policy?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-nikki-haley-peddling-alternative-142741286.html

Old Dryfoot
09-20-2017, 09:35 AM
He is a stain

More like a skid mark.

LeeG
09-20-2017, 09:43 AM
I don't think counting on others in his administration to keep him on track is gonna get 'er done. For example... WHY is Niki Haley lying about Iran foreign policy?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-nikki-haley-peddling-alternative-142741286.html

I am simply saying I hope they will prevent a conflagration not that they will pivot on the facts. Maybe the carrier of the nuclear briefcase forgets the combination, maybe Trump has an accident. Niki Haley has to lie to represent Trumps idiocy and the nation's accepted self delusion about "rogue states" while we merrily destabilize other countries.

LeeG
09-20-2017, 09:59 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBnkN0bOQkQ

Dave Hadfield
09-20-2017, 10:16 AM
Well, you've got what you've got...

Back to the OP -- the teleprompter is a good idea. My wife even said he sounded "a bit like a president".

Next: arrange the same thing for his Twitter postings...

Osborne Russell
09-20-2017, 10:38 AM
He's an ass

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/trump-un-speech-north-korea-venezuela-response-terrifying-delusional-a7956306.html

Donald Trump gave his first address to the United Nations General Assembly, pushing for “sovereignty” in what has been called both “terrifying” and “delusional” by experts.
....
Although all the experts The Independent spoke with agreed that it was a consistently Trump-esque speech - “it was more rhetorically repetitious than intellectually coherent” according to UN expert at the European Council of Foreign Relations Richard Gowan.

Mr Gowan said the speech was more catered toward appeasing the President’s base of supporters who have stuck to Mr Trump’s repeated campaign and early term remarks that the UN is full of elitists and “just a good time “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time”.

TJ Pempel, a political science professor at the University of California-Berkeley, echoed that statement, adding that the speech was “good for headlines” but not much else in terms of reducing global threats.

Anjali Dayal, an international security professor at Fordham University, said the speech was "terrifying" since it was such a drastic break from past US presidents despite the fact that sovereignty is still a “cornerstone” of the UN.

"Sovereignty" in this context is certain to be alt right code for something, but what, in particular? Generally, to exempt the US i.e. Donald Trump from international law, I'm guessing.