header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: The first female president

 (Read 2839 times)

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2017, 05:51:16 PM »
I thought this would be about Nikki Haley.

I must admit she scares me (from a partisan standpoint).  I'm thinking (hoping?) she might have some baggage though, but I can't remember what it is.

Would be tough for Dems to play identity politics if the Republicans ran a female Asian.....

Is she Asian?  

I'm seeing her and Kirsten Gillibrand right now...




HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17960
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2017, 06:08:38 PM »
Her parents immigrated from India.

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

Haley was born Nimrata Randhawa in Bamberg, South Carolina, on January 20, 1972 to an Indian American family.[16] She was "always called Nikki, which means 'short little one,' by her family". Her parents, father Ajit Singh Randhawa and mother Raj Kaur Randhawa, are emigrants from Amritsar District, Punjab, India. Her father had been a professor at Punjab Agricultural University, and her mother had received her law degree from the University of Delhi. Haley's parents immigrated to Canada after her father received a scholarship offer from the University of British Columbia. When her father received his PhD degree in 1969, he moved his family to South Carolina, where he accepted a position as a professor at Voorhees College. Her mother Raj Randhawa earned a master's degree in education and taught for seven years in the Bamberg public schools before founding a clothing shop, Exotica International, in 1976.

When Haley was five years old, her parents entered her in the "Miss Bamberg" contest. The contest traditionally crowned a black queen and a white queen. Since the judges decided Haley did not fit either category, they disqualified her.

t age 12, Haley began helping with the bookkeeping in her mother's ladies' clothing shop, Exotica International. In her autobiography, Haley credited her time keeping the books in her mother’s dress shop with giving her "an extreme watchfulness about overheads and a sharp aversion to government intrusion".

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19040
  • Liked:
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2017, 08:19:18 PM »
Are the republicans really ready to accept a female for their nomination, much less a non-aryan female?  

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17960
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2017, 08:26:28 PM »
Almost all Republicans view candidates and officials in regards to their accomplishments, capabilities and views on issues.

It appears that only Democrats are obsessed with skin pigmentation.

The first state to secede from the US during the Civil War has in the past decade has elected a black Senator and an Indian Governor.  

Two Republican Senators from Southern States are Hispanic.
And I would argue that the favorite to succeed Corker as Tennessee's Senator is Marsha Blackburn.



« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 08:31:36 PM by HK_Vol »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: The first female president
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2017, 05:14:47 AM »
Are the republicans really ready to accept a female for their nomination, much less a non-aryan female?  
I think most Republicans just want someone that represents true conservative values, not a RINO.

SLM85VOL

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Agent Orange is my color!
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2017, 11:36:04 AM »
I agree that it's inspiring to see someone finally have the courage to stand up for America's forgotten corporations (to say nothing of the tax breaks for private jet owners).  

And lets not forget the additional long-overdue deductions for the sadly deprived families who can afford to send their kids to private schools while no longer allowing grad students to write off student loan interest.  

When this ends up exacerbating the wealth gap and being disastrous for the national debt, will the rightwing deficit hawks admit it was a mistake?  Or wait till another Democrat gets elected and blame it all on him/her?  

I wish Indy was still around to remind you guys the moral and fiscal reality of trickle down economics.  
Trickle down economics is predicated on two primary factors wherein both have to be followed in order to work:  Reducing the growth of government spending (never likely) while reducing government regulation that stifles growth and at the same time ensuring corporate profits are invested in improvements and profits must trickle down to employees in bonuses and increased wages so that all improve from the growth.  Big multi-national corporations have already come out to say they are increasing minimum wages and giving bonuses.  My concern is that corporations have been sitting on piles of cash right now.  Yet, Obama’s plan of high corporate taxes never work because they cause corporations to either move out of the country taking jobs with them to cheaper labor pools or if they cannot move then they pass on those increases to customers.  Trump’s cutting corporate taxes will have the extra benefit of an infusion of corporate dollars sitting in off-shore accounts that won’t come back into the US until those corporate taxes are reduced.  If you take an objective view of the pros and cons of Supply-side economics, the pros outweigh the cons by a good margin much more so than Keynesian policies.  The pros of Supply-side economics are: 
 
1. It reduced inflation.
 When Reagan took office, the inflation rate was at 12.5%. When he left office, the rate was at 4.4%.

2. It was a catalyst for an increase in private wealth.
 Because of Reaganomics, there was an 8% growth in private wealth experienced in the US.

3. It helped the economy reach different heights.
 During the time of Reagan, the economy in the US was 1/3 larger than when he began. This fact is corroborated by a study performed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, in 1996. In that study, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years (which included two terms) on 8 of 10 economic variables than presidencies before and after.  Real median family income experienced growth under Reagan by increasing to $4,000 after experiencing no growth pre-Reagan. Post-Reagan, income experienced a loss of $1,500.

4. It lowered interest rates.
 When Reagan was president, interest rates fell by six full points. But apart from interest rates, other economic variables such as inflation and unemployment fell faster during his administration than in presidencies before or after.

5. It created jobs.
 The unemployment rate when Reagan stepped into office was 7.6% and peaked during the recession from 1981 to 1982. When he left office, the rate was 5.5%. Also, eight million jobs were created when he was in office.

The only major con was:
1. It left the US in debt.
 The debt held by the public increased from 25.2% GDP ($789 million) in 1981 to 39.3% GDP ($2,190 trillion) in 1989; however, this was more to do with not lowering government spending that can only be addressed with forcing the federal government to follow state budgets in not spending more than they bring in with taxes.

People who say Reaganomics didn't work throw the baby out with the bath water because President Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives: First was Tax Cuts that stimulated consumer demand. By Reagan's last year in office, the top income tax rate was 28 percent for single people making $18,550 or more. Anyone making less paid no taxes at all. That was much less than the 1980 top tax rate of 70 percent for individuals earning $108,000 or more. Reagan indexed the tax brackets for inflation.  Reagan cut the corporate tax rate from 46 percent to 40 percent. But the effect of this break was unclear. Reagan changed the tax treatment of many new investments. The complexity meant that the overall results of his corporate tax changes couldn't be measured. 2nd was Slowed Spending Growth while not cutting Social Security or Medicare payments. In fact, Reagan's budgeted spending was 22 percent of gross domestic product. 3rd was Reducing Regulation by eliminated the Nixon-era price controls on domestic oil and gas. They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan also deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. Reagan deregulated too much with easing bank regulations that helped create the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. 4th was reducing Inflation by attacking the double-digit inflation of the 1970s. He used contractionary monetary policy, despite the potential for a double-dip recession. When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. “For the last couple of years of his administration, President Obama kept claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. Obama was the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.” The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?
"Everyone thinks I'm the best damn coach in the country.  But he taught me everything I know.  I never beat him, but I learned a lot from playing him."  Bear Bryant on the General

fuzzynavol

  • seeker of passage
  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2017, 12:00:52 PM »
Trickle down economics is predicated on two primary factors wherein both have to be followed in order to work:
 
Here we go - false premise time...

Reducing the growth of government spending (never likely)
 
That has nothing to do with trickle down.  Trickle down is enriching the very wealthy through tax cuts and expecting their good fortune to "trickle down" to middle and lower income classes.

while reducing government regulation that stifles growth
 
Again - nothing to do with regulations.  You're batting 1,000 with your irrevancies.

and at the same time ensuring corporate profits are invested in improvements
 
Laughable.  Trickle down doesn't "ensure" corporate profits will benefit the workers - that's a major problem with it - the profits are reliably NOT reinvested in the work force.  Studies show even CEO's admit that.

and profits must trickle down to employees in bonuses and increased wages so that all improve from the growth.

That's the debunked ideological theory, yes.  

Big multi-national corporations have already come out to say they are increasing minimum wages and giving bonuses.  My concern is that corporations have been sitting on piles of cash right now.  Yet, Obama’s plan of high corporate taxes never work because they cause corporations to either move out of the country taking jobs with them to cheaper labor pools or if they cannot move then they pass on those increases to customers.  Trump’s cutting corporate taxes will have the extra benefit of an infusion of corporate dollars sitting in off-shore accounts that won’t come back into the US until those corporate taxes are reduced.
 
That's a good summary of the spin being used to put a public rationalization of what's going on - enriching the wealthiest 1% and exacerbating the wealth gap. 

 
1. It reduced inflation.
 When Reagan took office, the inflation rate was at 12.5%. When he left office, the rate was at 4.4%.

So trickle down is going to take credit for everything good that happened to occur during the Reagan years?  Did it bring down the Berlin Wall, too?

2. It was a catalyst for an increase in private wealth.
 Because of Reaganomics, there was an 8% growth in private wealth experienced in the US.

Who cares of all that "private wealth" was concentrated in 1% of the population?  

3. It helped the economy reach different heights.
During the time of Reagan, the economy in the US was 1/3 larger than when he began.
 
Again, who benefited?

This fact is corroborated by a study performed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, in 1996.
 
If you want to start adhering to their findings, then fine by me, but don't only quote liberal think tanks when you like their findings.

4. It lowered interest rates.
When Reagan was president, interest rates fell by six full points.

Okay, explain how trickle down was responsible for that.

5. It created jobs.
 The unemployment rate when Reagan stepped into office was 7.6% and peaked during the recession from 1981 to 1982. When he left office, the rate was 5.5%. Also, eight million jobs were created when he was in office.

How'd we do under George H.W. Bush?  Do you think trickle down stopped in '88?  

The only major con was it left the U.S. in debt.

I guess if you support the bottom 80% of the country owning 7% of the wealth and the top 1% owning 40%, then you've got a good point.  

SLM85VOL

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Agent Orange is my color!
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2017, 03:13:53 PM »
Trickle down economics is predicated on two primary factors wherein both have to be followed in order to work:
 
Here we go - false premise time...

No, there you go with false assumptions and false conclusions.

Reducing the growth of government spending (never likely)

That has nothing to do with trickle down.  Trickle down is enriching the very wealthy through tax cuts and expecting their good fortune to "trickle down" to middle and lower income classes.

Yes, it does.  Trickle down economics is another name for "Supply Side economics," which is the theory that holds that, by lowering taxes on corporations, government can stimulate investment in industry and thereby raise production, which will, in turn, bring down prices and control inflation.  Over regulation is a big part of stifling stimulus, which is why governments provide incentives and disincentives.  Supply-side fiscal policy focuses on businesses. Its tools are tax cuts and deregulation. Companies that benefit from these policies hire more workers. The resultant job growth creates more demand which further boosts growth.

while reducing government regulation that stifles growth
 
Again - nothing to do with regulations.  You're batting 1,000 with your irrevancies.

Again, you miss the linkages between growth and over-regulation.  Supply-side works by giving incentives to businesses to expand. Deregulation removes restrictions to growth and the costs associated with complying. Companies are then free to explore new areas of growth. Irrevancies?  I believe you mean irrelevancies, but at any rate—they are extremely relevant.  You’re batting 1,000 with your incomprehension.

and at the same time ensuring corporate profits are invested in improvements
 
Laughable.  Trickle down doesn't "ensure" corporate profits will benefit the workers - that's a major problem with it - the profits are reliably NOT reinvested in the work force.  Studies show even CEO's admit that.

You miss the entire point by seeing the tree rather than the forest:  There are all types of businesses that do ensure employees obtain profits such as profit sharing, stock options, etc

 and profits must trickle down to employees in bonuses and increased wages so that all improve from the growth.


That's the debunked ideological theory, yes.  

No!  Expand your knowledge base of what type of companies and corporations exists in the US that do ensure employees obtain profits and bonuses before you jam every one of your conclusions into one paradigm of the greedy multi-national corporation.  In a mostly capitalist country, like the US, there are many different kinds of business organizations such as for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships, credit unions, retailers’ cooperatives, consumers’ cooperatives, and employee cooperatives. That’s right, worker cooperatives can and do exist in what Karl Marx would call a “capitalist society.” Examples of consumers’ cooperatives include REI in the US and “The Co-op” in the UK. Examples of employee cooperatives include the Cheese Board Collective in Berkeley, California, the Rainbow Grocery Cooperative in San Francisco, and the Citybikes Workers’ Cooperative in Portland, Oregon. These latter three are companies where employees own and control the means of production in their company, democratically. It’s the wave of the future!

Big multi-national corporations have already come out to say they are increasing minimum wages and giving bonuses.  My concern is that corporations have been sitting on piles of cash right now.  Yet, Obama’s plan of high corporate taxes never work because they cause corporations to either move out of the country taking jobs with them to cheaper labor pools or if they cannot move then they pass on those increases to customers.  Trump’s cutting corporate taxes will have the extra benefit of an infusion of corporate dollars sitting in off-shore accounts that won’t come back into the US until those corporate taxes are reduced.
  
That's a good summary of the spin being used to put a public rationalization of what's going on - enriching the wealthiest 1% and exacerbating the wealth gap. 

No spin friend!  Facts are facts jack.  If you want to make the rich look evil so that  you can buy into the culture wars and identity politics that the leftists perpetuate and have you believe—go for it.  Under the political system of capitalism, the founders or owners of a business–those who have invested money or effort into the business–determine what “mode of production” it will use. If the owners want to spend some time working for wages in the business, instead of devoting all their time to managing the business, then the business is “worker controlled,” in the sense that a subset of wage workers controls the business. If the founder of a business wants to pay his workers in stock, rather than wages, and they agree to that, then he can do that under capitalism, and the business is “worker controlled” to an extent. If a group of people want to get together, pool their funds, and form a cooperative that they work in and equally own, then they are free to do that as well.  

  1. It reduced inflation.
 When Reagan took office, the inflation rate was at 12.5%. When he left office, the rate was at 4.4%.

So trickle down is going to take credit for everything good that happened to occur during the Reagan years?  Did it bring down the Berlin Wall, too?

Did I say trickle down would take credit for everything good that happened during the Reagan years?  No—I didn’t.  That was your baseless conclusion.
By making the economy more efficient, supply-side policies help reduce cost push inflation.


2. It was a catalyst for an increase in private wealth.
  Because of Reaganomics, there was an 8% growth in private wealth experienced in the US.
 

Who cares of all that "private wealth" was concentrated in 1% of the population?  

Wrong again!  If the richest gain an increase in wealth, then: They will spend a proportion of this extra wealth.  The extra wealth will cause an increased demand for goods and services, causing higher employment and rise in wages.  The higher wages will also cause a multiplier effect, e.g. if more chauffeurs are employed by the rich, the chauffeur will gain increased income and, in turn, they will increase spending in local businesses.  Alternatively, the wealthy may invest their increased wealth. If the wealth is invested in new businesses, it will create new jobs and increase incomes of those employed.  Higher spending and investment will stimulate economic activity leading to a rise in tax revenues (higher income tax, higher VAT).  Higher tax revenues can fund public programmes such as healthcare, education and welfare payments to the poor.

3. It helped the economy reach different heights.
During the time of Reagan, the economy in the US was 1/3 larger than when he began.
 

Again, who benefited?

Higher profit can trickle down to everyone in society.
·        If profit is invested, new jobs are created.
·        If profit is saved in bonds and shares, it can help finance personal pensions.  Do you have a 401K that has matching funds that the corporation pays?


This fact is corroborated by a study performed by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, in 1996.
 
If you want to start adhering to their findings, then fine by me, but don't only quote liberal think tanks when you like their findings.

Then you quote a different think tank that supports your findings rather than supporting your theories with no data or analysis.

4. It lowered interest rates.
When Reagan was president, interest rates fell by six full points.

Okay, explain how trickle down was responsible for that.

You really don’t know how leading economic indicators impact the other do you?  A strong economy allows companies to sell more and raise prices. It allows workers to bargain for higher wages. Both pay more taxes on their increased income.  High interest rates retard growth by not allowing people to invest, buy homes, etc.

5. It created jobs.
 The unemployment rate when Reagan stepped into office was 7.6% and peaked during the recession from 1981 to 1982. When he left office, the rate was 5.5%. Also, eight million jobs were created when he was in office.

How'd we do under George H.W. Bush?  Do you think trickle down stopped in '88? 

It helps to have more facts as in the massive tax cuts under George H. W. Bush stimulated the U.S. economy but failed to increase tax revenues because the 1985 Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction Act triggered automatic spending cuts.  A little history lesson would help understanding.

The only major con was it left the U.S. in debt.

I guess if you support the bottom 80% of the country owning 7% of the wealth and the top 1% owning 40%, then you've got a good point.  

You tell us what system is going to massively close the gap between the rich and the poor.  Socialism?  This Marxist class theory, with its blatantly false collectivism, and its materialistic and false Labor Theory of Value, serves as a pseudo-intellectual cover for the desires of envious non-achievers to smash and rob their betters. It’s a rationalization for a seething resentment of those who have earned great success and prosperity.  Socialism is not about workers getting together and starting their own companies. It’s about eliminating private property rights in order to forcibly seize what the most productive individuals in the society have produced. Morally, the essence of socialism is coercive injustice.  What you fail to recognize is that it’s not any one economic policy that will close the inequality gap as much as the impact of social differences.  Look at wages, the main source of income for most people, and you understate the importance of health care where fewer people now can afford it than ever before. Look at household income and you need to take into account that the typical household has fallen in size in recent decades, thanks to the growth in single-parent families that is exacerbated by the leftist welfare state. Look at statistics on spending and you find that the gaps between top and bottom have widened less than for income.  Most economists agree that the main cause of inequality was an inferior education system.  Leftists who champion the poor oppose school choice programs that would raise educational achievement and future earnings. They only want the “rich” to have school choice.  In fact, leftists don’t want us to have any choice at all except one choice—abortion and certainly not the freedoms to choose our healthcare or our schools or paying into social security.  The inferior government schools did not respond fast enough to technology, which increased the demand for skilled workers relative to their supply, with freer trade reinforcing the effect.  Statistics indicate that the annual income of Americans with a college degree has fallen relative to that of high-school graduates for the first time in decades. So, whereas the 1980s were hardest on the lowest skilled, the 1990s and this decade have squeezed people in the middle.  Put these pieces together and you do not have a picture of ever-widening inequality but a polarization of the labor market. The bottom is no longer falling behind, the top is soaring ahead and the middle is under pressure.  Changes in technology explain this revised picture more than anything since computers and the internet have reduced the demand for routine jobs that demand only moderate skills, such as the work of bank clerks, while increasing the productivity of the highest-skilled. The pace of job growth since the early 1990s has been slower in occupations that are easy to computerize and robotize.  For the most talented and skilled, technology has increased the potential market and thus their productivity. Top entertainers or sportsmen, for instance, now perform for a global audience.   International trade deals like NAFTA implemented under Clinton have killed American manufacturing.  Trump is right that bi-lateral agreements are the only recourse to stave off the integration of China's low-skilled millions and the increased offshoring of services to India and other countries that has expanded the global supply of workers. This has reduced the relative price of labor and raised the returns to capital. That reinforces the income concentration at the top, since most stocks and shares are held by richer people. More important, globalization may further fracture the traditional link between skills and wages.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 03:18:17 PM by SLM85VOL »
"Everyone thinks I'm the best damn coach in the country.  But he taught me everything I know.  I never beat him, but I learned a lot from playing him."  Bear Bryant on the General

BrownCounty

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3677
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2017, 03:36:40 PM »
It appears that only Democrats are obsessed with skin pigmentation.
Democrats are obsessed with dividing folks and creating victims.
So yes, skin pigmentation is one way to do that.
And gender, and sexual disorientation, and economic class, and etc...

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: The first female president
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2017, 04:05:38 PM »
Democrats are obsessed with dividing folks and creating victims.
So yes, skin pigmentation is one way to do that.
And gender, and sexual disorientation, and economic class, and etc...
For a Democrat, the ultimate evil is a white, straight, successful, Christian, male American citizen.

SLM85VOL

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Agent Orange is my color!
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2017, 06:43:44 PM »
Democrats are obsessed with dividing folks and creating victims.
So yes, skin pigmentation is one way to do that.
And gender, and sexual disorientation, and economic class, and etc...
Divide and conquer!  Kids learn it at a young age.
"Everyone thinks I'm the best damn coach in the country.  But he taught me everything I know.  I never beat him, but I learned a lot from playing him."  Bear Bryant on the General

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 17960
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2017, 07:04:32 PM »
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/283983/#respond


Quote
She has made it clear that the U.N. needs America more than America needs the U.N. This is not just because the U.S. hosts the body’s headquarters. It’s because the U.S. remains the indispensable member of the organization. It contributes 23 percent of the U.N. annual budget. The U.S. provides nearly 30 percent of the budget to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA. That’s the agency that runs Palestinian schools and medical facilities and has often turned a blind eye to the participation of outlaws like Hamas. The U.S. provides the logistics for moving troops and material for peace-keeping missions and disaster relief. There is no U.N. without the U.S.

Haley made this point well in her speech announcing the U.S. veto Monday of the U.N. Security Council resolution condemning recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than 1 percent of UNRWA’s budget — when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace — the American people lose their patience.”

Haley has delivered this message in public and private a lot in her first year on the job. She pulled the plug on U.S. participation in U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization after it declared Hebron to be a Palestinian world historic site with no mention of the deep Jewish historical connection to that city. She has sought ways to cut the fat from the U.N. peace-keeping budget, and has used the monthly U.N. Security Council meeting to deal with the Middle East to call attention to Iranian aggression.

Under the Obama-Carter theory, Haley’s approach would lead to America’s isolation at the U.N. But so far this has not been the case.

That’s because the UN self-evidently does need the US more than the US needs the UN — and it ought to give Americans a swelling sense of pride to have a UN ambassador who understands this and acts accordingly.

UPDATE: I should have added that the UN member states have always understood this, but have counted on the US pretending not to understand it.

steve37777

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Liked:
Re: The first female president
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2017, 01:10:20 PM »
Fuzz, you have been owned in this Thread..

 

Associate Links/Search