• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Shortforbob

Woah! actual transcript of Trumps Jan call to Nieto

24 posts in this topic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/you-cannot-say-that-to-the-press-trump-urged-mexican-president-to-end-his-public-defiance-on-border-wall-transcript-reveals/2017/08/03/0c2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.e40c1bca3089

President Trump made building a wall along the southern U.S. border and forcing Mexico to pay for it core pledges of his campaign.

But in his first White House call with Mexico’s president, Trump described his vow to charge Mexico as a growing political problem, pressuring the Mexican leader to stop saying publicly that his government would never pay.

“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said repeatedly, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call obtained by The Washington Post. Trump made clear that he realized the funding would have to come from other sources but threatened to cut off contact if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued to make defiant statements.

The funding “will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said, adding later that “it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.” But “if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”

He described the wall as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”

Trump spent much of his call with Peña Nieto seeking to enlist the Mexican president in a deal to stop talking about how the wall would be paid for. Two days earlier, Trump had signed an executive order mandating construction of the wall, but funding for it remains unclear.

“On the wall, you and I both have a political problem,” Trump said. “My people stand up and say, ‘Mexico will pay for the wall,’ and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language.”

Trump seemed to acknowledge that his threats to make Mexico pay had left him cornered politically. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall — I have to,” he said. “I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”

To solve that problem, Trump pressured Peña Nieto to suppress the issue. When pressed on who would pay for the wall, “We should both say, ‘We will work it out.’ It will work out in the formula somehow,” Trump said. “As opposed to you saying, ‘We will not pay,’ and me saying, ‘We will not pay.’ ”

Peña Nieto resisted, saying that Trump’s repeated threats had placed “a very big mark on our back, Mr. President.” He warned that “my position has been and will continue to be very firm, saying that Mexico cannot pay for the wall.”

Trump objected: “But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that.”

Searching for an exit, Peña Nieto reiterated that the border plan “is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country” but agreed to “stop talking about the wall.”

The exchange suggests that even at the outset of his presidency, Trump regarded the prospect of extracting money from Mexico as problematic but sought to avoid acknowledging that reality publicly.

Trump reiterated that vow as recently as last month, when he said during a summit of foreign leaders in Germany that he “absolutely” remained committed to forcing Mexico to pay for the wall. Weeks later, however, the House approved a spending bill setting aside $1.6 billion for a structure that is projected to cost as much as $21 billion.

Trump told Peña Nieto that he knew “how to build very inexpensively . . . and it will be a better wall and it will look nice.” He has suggested the money could come from border taxes and even threatened to block remittance payments that flow from workers in the United States to relatives in Mexico, but has yet to provide complete plans or funding details.

Trump also lashed out at Peña Nieto over the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy,” Trump said. “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.”

He described Mexican drug cartel leaders as “pretty tough hombres” and promised U.S. military support, saying that “maybe your military is afraid of them, but our military is not.”

Peña Nieto responded by saying that drug trafficking in Mexico is “largely supported by the illegal amounts of money and weapons coming from the United States.”

Trump also threatened to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on imports from Mexico, saying that as president he had been given “tremendous taxation powers for trade,” even though tariffs are mainly the province of Congress.

Despite the friction, Trump at other moments sought to sweet-talk Peña Nieto, telling him that “you and I will always be friends,” and that if they could resolve their disputes over the border and trade, “We will almost become the fathers of our country — almost, not quite, okay?”

Though Australia is one of the United States’ closest allies, Trump’s call with Turnbull was even more contentious. The prime minister opened by noting that he and Trump have similar backgrounds as businessmen turned politicians. Trump also inquired about a mutual acquaintance, the golfer Greg Norman.

But the conversation devolved into a blistering exchange over a U.S. agreement to accept refugees from Australian detention centers on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island and the island nation of Nauru. The Obama administration had agreed to accept some of those being detained on humanitarian grounds after intervention by the United Nations.

At one point, Trump expressed admiration for Australia’s refusal to allow refugees arriving on boats to reach its shores, saying it “is a good idea. We should do that too.” In a remark apparently meant as a compliment, Trump told Turnbull, “You are worse than I am.”

But the conversation rapidly deteriorated.

“I hate taking these people,” Trump said. “I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people” — an apparent reference to U.S. dairy farms.

Turnbull tried to salvage the deal, noting that the detainees were economic refugees who had not been accused of crimes. He explained that they were being denied entry into Australia because of a policy aimed at discouraging human smuggling.

“There is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal,” Turnbull said. “You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.”

Trump only became angrier, saying the refugees could “become the Boston bomber in five years.”

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

 
Sign up
 

“I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made,” Trump said. “As far as I am concerned, that is enough, Malcolm. I have had it.”

Turnbull tried to turn to Syria and other subjects. But Trump refused. The call, which began at 5:05 p.m., ended 24 minutes later with Turnbull thanking the still-fuming Trump for his commitment.

“You can count on me,” Turnbull said. “I will be there again and again.”

“I hope so,” Trump said before saying thank you and hanging up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world's greatest negotiator, going to bring them to their knees. Will his supporters even notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The world's greatest negotiator, going to bring them to their knees. Will his supporters even notice?

Notice what, that they are on their knees?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Notice what, that they are on their knees?  

LOL, they will not notice, and even if they did, they will deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't FOX news giving "fair and balanced" coverage to this ?

Fucking kakistocracy is killing America 

IMG_3201.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with this. A leak too far -

David Frum in the Atlantic

Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially—and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-leaking-transcripts-of-trumps-calls-is-so-dangerous/535809/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit!! These so called leaders work for us. They each ought to have microphones and cameras on them and their field of. Idiom 24/7/365

There is absolutely ZERO. Excuse for a POTUS to have a secret conversation

with the possible exception of discussing strategy during a war.

The USA has not been in a legally declared war since 1945

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gouvernail said:

Bullshit!! These so called leaders work for us. They each ought to have microphones and cameras on them and their field of. Idiom 24/7/365

There is absolutely ZERO. Excuse for a POTUS to have a secret conversation

with the possible exception of discussing strategy during a war.

The USA has not been in a legally declared war since 1945

You are simply wrong about this. I think that your reply is more emotional than rational, and that you're simply not considering the different situations to which a President must respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

I agree with this. A leak too far -

David Frum in the Atlantic

Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially—and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-leaking-transcripts-of-trumps-calls-is-so-dangerous/535809/

I can see the argument. So, is this Priebus getting even?  Are we going to get one of these a day for awhile now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You are simply wrong about this. I think that your reply is more emotional than rational, and that you're simply not considering the different situations to which a President must respond. 

If the President wants to lie about his communication, repeatedly, it becomes news.

1) It's terrible these were leaked

2) They really are a terrible read, the man's a moron.

3) Eradicates any doubt Trump hasn't been able to attract, motivate and manage much high quality talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sean said:

 

I agree with this. A leak too far -

David Frum in the Atlantic

Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially—and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-leaking-transcripts-of-trumps-calls-is-so-dangerous/535809/

if everyone who works for you thinks you are psychotic, the ones with morals will do what they can to stop it.  Only two ways to prevent leaks: 1) Earn the loyalty of your troops, or 2) have your police force shut down the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You are simply wrong about this. I think that your reply is more emotional than rational, and that you're simply not considering the different situations to which a President must respond. 

My statement was overstated for effect. 

However, total openness should be the default expectation.

Any secret government operation should be performed with permission and approval from the other branches of government.

Any secret activity should be clearly defined, limited, be specifically permitted for a defined period, and  the dates for full disclosure should be written into the permission documentation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

My statement was overstated for effect. 

However, total openness should be the default expectation.

Any secret government operation should be performed with permission and approval from the other branches of government.

Any secret activity should be clearly defined, limited, be specifically permitted for a defined period, and  the dates for full disclosure should be written into the permission documentation. 

 

In general agreement, but, the POTUS will have private conversations with US/world leaders about subjects that aren't ready for prime-time public dissemination, the premature release of which could have potentially devastating results.  Trump isn't gonna be Pres forever, but, anything done with him in mind applies as well to everyone who comes after - lots of govt workings aren't and shouldn't be in the public eye, simply because the public doesn't have the background knowledge and context to properly interpret what is being said, nor the responsibility to safeguard the information from improper dissemination.  

Your "dates for full disclosure" are already a component of any classification guidance, it's called the "declassification date", and the specific definitions of what constitutes "classified" content are well documented, and any content creator is required to take annual refresher training to ensure that they aren't inadvertently over-classifying content.  Additionally, a small percentage of classified content is audited annually for proper adherence to established classification guidelines.  There's a lot of structure/oversight involved that might not be apparent to the casual observer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

I agree with this. A leak too far -

David Frum in the Atlantic

Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially—and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/why-leaking-transcripts-of-trumps-calls-is-so-dangerous/535809/

Trump is a narcissistic man-child. He needs to be opposed, undermined and harried in every way possible.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Trump is a narcissistic man-child. He needs to be opposed, undermined and harried in every way possible.  

 

To the point that such behavior causes irreparable harm to the US and its allies by virtue of inappropriate disclosure?  I'd agree - keeping the US safe, and protecting relationships w/our international partners is more important than undermining Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the point that such behavior causes irreparable harm to the US and its allies by virtue of inappropriate disclosure?  I'd agree - keeping the US safe, and protecting relationships w/our international partners is more important than undermining Trump. 

We keep the US safe and protect our relationships by undermining Trump and evicting him from office. This is the damage Trump is doing to the US, right here, and you still think if everyone behaves and pulls through it'll be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

We keep the US safe and protect our relationships by undermining Trump and evicting him from office. This is the damage Trump is doing to the US, right here, and you still think if everyone behaves and pulls through it'll be ok.

You're conflating a few things.  Undermining Trump can be effected in many ways - justifying something as harmful as an inappropriate disclosure simply because we want to undermine Trump is simply juvenile, spiteful thinking.   Trump's ability to cause damage can/should be mitigated by the separation of powers, not in public disclosure of confidential discussions that will impact the trust of every domestic and foreign leader from this point forward, regardless of who's sitting in the WH. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think it's important for Australia that we Know what a moron our PM has to deal with..The rest of the world may get some idea of what their leaders are having to deal with to.

The full transcript of Trumps Phonecall to Malcolm Turnbull..Read it if you have the patience of a  year 8 english teacher.

(BTW, Malcolm lied to trump, these are not economic refugees they've been accepted as refugees under UN guidlines)

 

Here is the full transcript of the call, that took place on January 28, from 5:05pm to 5:29pm AEST.

Turnbull: Good evening.

Trump: Mr Prime Minister, how are you?

Turnbull: I am doing very well.

Trump: And I guess our friend Greg Norman, he is doing very well?

Turnbull: He is a great mutual friend yes.

Trump: Well you say hello to him. He is a very good friend. By the way thank you very much for taking the call. I really appreciate it. It is really nice.

Turnbull: Thank you very much. Everything is going very well. I want to congratulate you and Mike Pence on being sworn in now. I have spoken to you both now as you know. I know we are both looking to make our relationship which is very strong and intimate, stronger than ever — which I believe we can do.

Trump: Good.

Turnbull: I believe you and I have similar backgrounds, unusual for politicians, more businessman but I look forward to working together.

Trump: That is exactly right. We do have similar backgrounds and it seems to be working in this climate — it is a crazy climate. Let me tell you this, it is an evil time but it is a complex time because we do not have uniforms standing in front of us.

Instead, we have people in disguise. It is brutal. This ISIS thing — it is something we are going to devote a lot of energy to it. I think we are going to be very successful.

Turnbull: Absolutely. We have, as you know, taken a very strong line on national security and border protection here and when I was speaking with Jared Kushner just the other day and one of your immigration advisors in the White House we reflected on how our policies have helped to inform your approach.

We are very much of the same mind. It is very interesting to know how you prioritise the minorities in your executive order. This is exactly what we have done with the program to bring in 12,000 Syrian refugees, 90 per cent of which will be Christians. It will be quite deliberate and the position I have taken — I have been very open about it — is that it is a tragic fact of life that when the situation in the Middle East settles down — the people that are going to be most unlikely to have a continuing home are those Christian minorities.

We have seen that in Iraq and so from our point of view, as a final destination for refugees, that is why we prioritise. It is not a sectarian thing. It is recognition of the practical political realities. We have a similar perspective in that respect.

Trump: Do you know four years ago Malcolm, I was with a man who does this for a living. He was telling me, before the migration, that if you were a Christian from Syria, you had no chance of coming to the United States. Zero. They were the ones being persecuted.

When I say persecuted, I mean their heads were being chopped off. If you were a Muslim we have nothing against Muslims, but if you were a Muslim you were not persecuted at least to the extent — but if you were a Muslim from Syria that was the number one place to get into the United States from. That was the easiest thing. But if you were a Christian from Syria you have no chance of getting into the United States. I just thought it was an incredible statistic. Totally true — and you have seen the same thing. It is incredible.

Turnbull: Well, yes. Mr President, can I return to the issue of the resettlement agreement that we had with the Obama administration with respect to some people on Nauru and Manus Island. I have written to you about this and Mike Pence and General Flynn spoke with Julie Bishop and my National Security Adviser yesterday. This is a very big issue for us, particularly domestically, and I do understand you are inclined to a different point of view than the Vice-President.

Trump: Well, actually I just called for a total ban on Syria and from many different countries from where there is terror, and extreme vetting for everyone else — and somebody told me yesterday that close to 2,000 people are coming who are really probably troublesome.

And I am saying, boy that will make us look awfully bad. Here I am calling for a ban where I am not letting anybody in and we take 2,000 people.

Really it looks like 2,000 people that Australia does not want and I do not blame you by the way, but the United States has become like a dumping ground. You know Malcolm, anybody that has a problem — you remember the Mariel boat lift, where Castro let everyone out of prison and Jimmy Carter accepted them with open arms. These were brutal people. Nobody said Castro was stupid, but now what are we talking about is 2,000 people that are actually imprisoned and that would actually come into the United States.

I heard about this — I have to say I love Australia; I love the people of Australia. I have so many friends from Australia, but I said — geez that is a big ask, especially in light of the fact that we are so heavily in favour, not in favour, but we have no choice but to stop things. We have to stop. We have allowed so many people into our country that should not be here.

We have our San Bernardinos, we have had the World Trade Centre come down because of people that should not have been in our country, and now we are supposed to take 2,000. It sends such a bad signal. You have no idea. It is such a bad thing.

 

 

Turnbull: Can you hear me out Mr President?

Trump: Yeah, go ahead.

Turnbull: Yes, the agreement, which the Vice-President just called the Foreign Minister about less than 24 hours ago and said your administration would be continuing, does not require you to take 2,000 people. It does not require you to take any. It requires, in return, for us to do a number of things for the United States — this is a big deal, I think we should respect deals.

Trump: Who made the deal? Obama?

Turnbull: Yes, but let me describe what it is. I think it is quite consistent. I think you can comply with it. It is absolutely consistent with your executive order so please just hear me out. The obligation is for the United States to look and examine and take up to and only if they so choose — 1,250 to 2,000. Every individual is subject to your vetting. You can decide to take them or to not take them after vetting.

You can decide to take 1,000 or 100. It is entirely up to you. The obligation is to only go through the process. So that is the first thing. Secondly, the people — none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.

Trump: Why haven't you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?

Turnbull: Okay, I will explain why.

It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product.

So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize-winning genius, we will not let you in. Because the problem with the people —

Trump: That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.

Turnbull: This is our experience.

Trump: Because you do not want to destroy your country. Look at what has happened in Germany. Look at what is happening in these countries. These people are crazy to let this happen. I spoke to Merkel today, and believe me, she wishes she did not do it. Germany is a mess because of what happened.

Turnbull: I agree with you, letting 1 million Syrians walk into their country. It was one of the big factors in the Brexit vote, frankly.

Trump: Well, there could be 2 million people coming in Germany. Two million people. Can you believe it? It will never be the same.

Turnbull: I stood up at the UN in September and set up what our immigration policy was. I said that you cannot maintain popular support for immigration policy, multiculturalism, unless you can control your borders. The bottom line is that we got here.

I am asking you as a very good friend. This is a big deal. It is really, really important to us that we maintain it.

It does not oblige you to take one person that you do not want. As I have said, your homeland officials have visited and they have already interviewed these people. You can decide. It is at your discretion. So you have the wording in the executive order that enables the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to admit people on a case by case basis in order to conform with an existing agreement. I do believe that you will never find a better friend to the United States than Australia. I say this to you sincerely that it is in the mutual interest of the United States to say, 'yes, we can conform with that deal — we are not obliged to take anybody we do not want, we will go through extreme vetting' and that way you are seen to show the respect that a trusted ally wants and deserves.

We will then hold up our end of the bargain by taking in our country 31 [inaudible] that you need to move on from.

Trump: Malcolm, why is this so important? I do not understand.

This is going to kill me. I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position.

It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.

Turnbull: With great respect, that is not right — it is not 2,000.

Trump: Well, it is close. I have also heard like 5,000 as well.

Turnbull: The given number in the agreement is 1,250 and it is entirely a matter of your vetting. I think that what you could say is that the Australian Government is consistent with the principles set out in the executive order.

Trump: No, I do not want say that. I will just have to say that unfortunately I will have to live with what was said by Obama. I will say I hate it.

Look, I spoke to Putin, Merkel, Abe of Japan, to France today, and this was my most unpleasant call because I will be honest with you.

I hate taking these people. I guarantee you they are bad. That is why they are in prison right now. They are not going to be wonderful people who go on to work for the local milk people.

Turnbull: I would not be so sure about that. They are basically —

Trump: Well, maybe you should let them out of prison. I am doing this because Obama made a bad deal. I am not doing this because it fits into my executive order. I am taking 2,000 people from Australia who are in prison and the day before I signed an executive order saying that we are not taking anybody in. We are not taking anybody in, those days are over.

Turnbull: But can I say to you, there is nothing more important in business or politics than a deal is a deal. Look, you and I have a lot of mutual friends.

Trump: Look, I do not know how you got them to sign a deal like this, but that is how they lost the election. They said I had no way to 270 and I got 306. That is why they lost the election, because of stupid deals like this. You have brokered many a stupid deal in business and I respect you, but I guarantee that you broke many a stupid deal. This is a stupid deal. This deal will make me look terrible.

Turnbull: Mr President, I think this will make you look like a man who stands by the commitments of the United States. It shows that you are a committed —

Trump: Okay, this shows me to be a dope. I am not like this but, if I have to do it, I will do it but I do not like this at all. I will be honest with you. Not even a little bit. I think it is ridiculous and Obama should have never signed it. The only reason I will take them is because I have to honour a deal signed by my predecessor and it was a rotten deal.

I say that it was a stupid deal like all the other deals that this country signed. You have to see what I am doing. I am unlocking deals that were made by people, these people were incompetent. I am not going to say that it fits within the realm of my executive order. We are going to allow 2,000 prisoners to come into our country and it is within the realm of my executive order? If that is the case my executive order does not mean anything Malcolm. I look like a dope.

The only way that I can do this is to say that my predecessor made a deal and I have no option then to honour the deal. I hate having to do it, but I am still going to vet them very closely. Suppose I vet them closely and I do not take any?

Turnbull: That is the point I have been trying to make.

Trump: How does that help you?

Turnbull: Well, we assume that we will act in good faith.

Trump: Does anybody know who these people are? Who are they? Where do they come from? Are they going to become the Boston bomber in five years? Or two years? Who are these people?

Turnbull: Let me explain. We know exactly who they are. They have been on Nauru or Manus for over three years and the only reason we cannot let them into Australia is because of our commitment to not allow people to come by boat. Otherwise we would have let them in. If they had arrived by airplane and with a tourist visa then they would be here.

Trump: Malcolm, but they are arrived on a boat?

Turnbull: Correct, we have stopped the boats.

Trump: Give them to the United States. We are like a dumping ground for the rest of the world. I have been here for a period of time, I just want this to stop. I look so foolish doing this. It [sic] know it is good for you but it is bad for me. It is horrible for me. This is what I am trying to stop. I do not want to have more San Bernardino's or World Trade Centres. I could name 30 others, but I do not have enough time.

Turnbull: These guys are not in that league. They are economic refugees.

Trump: Okay, good. Can Australia give me a guarantee that if we have any problems — you know that is what they said about the Boston bombers. They said they were wonderful young men.

Turnbull: They were Russians. They were not from any of these countries.

Trump: They were from wherever they were.

Turnbull: Please, if we can agree to stick to the deal, you have complete discretion in terms of a security assessment. The numbers are not 2,000 but 1,250 to start. Basically, we are taking people from the previous administration that they were very keen on getting out of the United States. We will take more. We will take anyone that you want us to take. The only people that we do not take are people who come by boat. So we would rather take a not very attractive guy that help you out then to take a Nobel Peace Prize winner that comes by boat. That is the point.

Trump: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.

Turnbull: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the Government decides, the people's representatives decides.

So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us — that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.

Trump: I do not know what he got out of it. We never get anything out of it — START Treaty, the Iran deal. I do not know where they find these people to make these stupid deals. I am going to get killed on this thing.

Turnbull: You will not.

Trump: Yes, I will be seen as a weak and ineffective leader in my first week by these people. This is a killer.

Turnbull: You can certainly say that it was not a deal that you would have done, but you are going to stick with it.

Trump: I have no choice to say that about it. Malcolm, I am going to say that I have no choice but to honour my predecessor's deal.

I think it is a horrible deal, a disgusting deal that I would have never made. It is an embarrassment to the United States of America and you can say it just the way I said it.

I will say it just that way. As far as I am concerned that is enough Malcolm. I have had it. I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.

Turnbull: Do you want to talk about Syria and DPRK?

Trump: [Inaudible] this is crazy.

Turnbull: Thank you for your commitment. It is very important to us.

Trump: It is important to you and it is embarrassing to me. It is an embarrassment to me, but at least I got you off the hook. So you put me back on the hook.

Turnbull: You can count on me. I will be there again and again.

Trump: I hope so. Okay, thank you Malcolm.

Turnbull: Okay, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I get that Trump is focussed solely on himself and perception of his nascent presidency. What a big surprise.

But, there isn't a lot here that I wouldn't expect to hear from one leader to another. Seems to me Trump's doing what he thinks is important for his constituency, remaining true to the attitudes and misconceptions/fake issues which got him elected. 

Can't say I'm glad to see a transcript published, that's essentially wiretapping heads of state, which I consider off-limits, as the scandal involving the cell phone surveillance of Angela Merkel demonstrated. No one likes to think their semiprivate conversations are tapped, and there should be greater security afforded heads of state.

There really isn't a public need-to-know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree..security issues aside..our representitives are elected on what they tell us their stance and policy is on any number of things.

If these diplomatic discussions were routinely transparent and public there just might be a little more honesty in Government..a thing that we all crave..left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious question is what did Putin promise or receive from trump, on that phone cal,l that made the greatest angry having to deal with  Obamas leftovers from the Aus PM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think unselective leaking of all POTUS call transcripts is indeed a step too far. I don't think this particular case is nor the information revealed of a level that requires the umbrage expressed.

What is important to Trump in regards to his political promise is important to US voters. This transcript revealed that Trump is more concerned with the optics of his promise and extracting the funding through some kind sleight of hand than he is with keeping his word. The US is not hurt by this information being revealed, only more informed about one of it's politicians.

What is important to Mexico is knowing that their leaders were willing, for the sake of diplomacy, to not talk about the wall whilst still being upfront to the US government they're not going to pay for it. Their priorities haven't changed and remain as they said they'd be to voters in Mexico. Mexico is not hurt by this information being revealed, only more informed about the priorities of it's government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here...you see this is why these conversations need to be public...these people have a right to know the shenanigans and lies.

Here is also a perfect demonstration of how trumps intemperate stupidity effects other countries and other people.

These are innocent people these arseholes are playing games with. They have committed no crime, They just failed to claim asylum in the legaly prescribed manner. and are being used as a deterant . permenantly legally marooned.

Most Australians thought we actually had a solution to this cruel mess..theres gonna be a backlash here.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/04/fake-deal-fake-process-manus-asylum-seekers-angry-over-trump-turnbull-transcript

 

Asylum seekers being held in Australian immigration detention on Manus Island have responded to the release of a phone call transcript in which the PM told the US president he could decide who to take or not take in the refugee swap.

 

The publication of the transcript of the first phone call between the then new US president Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been met with anger on Manus Island.

When Mr Trump asked Mr Turnbull about the details of the refugee swap deal brokered under the previous US administration, Mr Turnbull said the US was only obliged to "go through the process".

Iranian Kurdish journalist Behrouz Boochani told SBS World News via phone that the transcript shows the deal was not a real option for asylum seekers being held on Manus Island and Nauru.

He also rejected Mr Turnbull’s claim that most of those seeking asylum are “economic refugees” as disingenuous.

“It is only propaganda… this deal is a fake deal. And the American president clearly said that ‘we are not going to take these people',” said Mr Boochani, who has been imprisoned on the island for four years.

“They only needed this fake deal to put people through a fake process to waste time.

“They don’t want people to settle in PNG. There is not a future for us in this country, and this is not a safe country. There is enough evidence that this is not a safe country for the refugee.”

 

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0