Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Eh, the actual quote isn't that bad.
Nauert is a tool though. She was a "Fox News blonde" for ages, and more or less got her job on the basis of being pretty and also being willing to badmouth Iran. She's one of those people who will just about say anything for a paycheck.
They should have sent a poet.
Citing D-Day while talking about the "long and strong relationship" between the USA and Germany is stupid - because just in case some people have forgotten: Germans and Americans weren't just having a nice day on the beach - there was an invasion going on and people were shooting each other. As one tweet points out, it's like bringing up Pearl Harbour when trying to highligh the strong relationship between the USA and Japan.
This blunder also came out of an attempt of the White House to downplay the fact that their new ambassadore has been trying to meddle in German and European politics, which caused German MPs to call for his expulsion
.
edited 15th Jun '18 9:11:25 PM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyYou know, I was actually annoyed when Trump fired all the diplomats without replacing them, hoping he'd get off his ass and actually fill these posts again.
Well, Be Careful What You Wish For, I guess.
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyI'm still baffled by how blatant this ambassador is about what he's doing - outright talking about "empowering the right in Europe", meeting with Austria's chancellor over dinner...
It would be comical if I wasn't horrified.
edited 15th Jun '18 9:21:45 PM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historySo I was reading an opinion piece on CNN and this bit had me both laughing and crying on the inside:
"In fact, more than a year after Trump took office, Republican outrage over anything and everything Obama or Hillary Clinton-related still knows no bounds. In fact, for fun, I periodically tune into Fox News, because on that network Clinton is actually president — at least on the days they aren't suggesting Barack Obama still is, and he's to blame for some current wrong."
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Because expelling an ambassador is a big step with consequences, a decision that has to be carefully evaluated.
You can't just make rash decisions in sensitive matters like this.
edited 15th Jun '18 10:38:46 PM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyFrom my understanding, expelling an ambassador is a last resort situation that is usually preceded by the breaking of diplomatic relations between two countries.
Even when an ambassador is found to be a criminal, both countries negotiate a way to remove the ambassador while making it perfectly clear that all is well (so to speak) between the home and host nations. For example, the home country government will recall their ambassador and then assignsomeone else to replace them.
Since we know Trump won't do that, the German government has got to be smart on how to handle the situation.
Also, while traditionally ambassadors are more of a suggestion between friendly/allied countries (their need is greatly reduced when two countries get along just fine), the situation with Trump is far from friendly so it's in Germany's best interests to keep the ambassador around for they know, as the smart adults they are, that resolving diplomatic issues through the proper channels is better than just ranting on Twitter.
Or so it was explained to me by my boyfriend who works at the UE embassy.
edited 15th Jun '18 10:51:10 PM by Lorsty
It's a bit of a Sadistic Choice, like so many things in politics. Do you stick with the borderline Neo-Nazi ambassador who is trying to tear Germany apart by appealing to its worst elements? Or do you kick him out, pissing off the most powerful nation on Earth's mercurial immature manchild of a leader? Who might respond by either leaving the post empty, denying Germany pretty much all diplomatic channels, or replace said borderline Neo-Nazi with an even more blatant Neo-Nazi?
There's no "good" option here. But then, the chance for a "good" option was lost the moment Trump won.
edited 15th Jun '18 11:26:16 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSorry. This site is still glitching out (why am I getting ads now even with Adblock on, everything is going slow, pages reloading about a dozen times and certain symbols appearing as blank squares? This didn't happen until today) and this tweet on how recent events in the US are similar to what Nazis did really doesn't help: https://twitter.com/Redpainter1/status/1007388578912055296
edited 16th Jun '18 1:07:44 AM by Wariolander
U.S. expected to retreat from main U.N. rights forum: activists, diplomats
A U.S. source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the withdrawal appeared to be “imminent” but had no details.
Diplomatic sources said it was not a question of if but of when the United States retreats from the Human Rights Council, which is holding a three-week session through July 6.
A separate U.S. official in Geneva had no information about a looming pull-out during the upcoming talks, saying: “We are still moving ahead with our engagement for the coming session.”
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, publicly told the Council a year ago that Washington might leave the body unless a “chronic anti-Israel bias” were removed.
The forum, set up in 2006, has a permanent standing agenda item on suspected violations committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, which Washington wants removed.
Washington says the Council is stacked with opponents of Israel and boycotted it for three years under President George W. Bush before rejoining under Barack Obama in 2009.
The 47-member forum last month voted to set up a probe into killings in Gaza and accused Israel of excessive use of force. The United States and Australia cast the only “no” votes. Israel’s ambassador in Geneva, Aviva Raz Shechter, castigated the Council for “spreading lies against Israel”.
LACK OF CONSENSUS
Talks held in Geneva and in New York for months could not find consensus around a new agenda, according to activists and diplomats who have taken part.
While the Trump administration has yet to announce a decision, any suspension or withdrawal would be the latest U.S. rejection of multilateral engagement after pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and the deal with world powers over Iran’s nuclear program.
Diplomats said it could also lead to Israel being even more isolated in the Human Rights Council and could bolster countries such as Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan and Russia who resist what they see as U.N. interference in sovereign issues.
The European Union failed to find a common position, mainly due to Belgium’s wish to keep violations in individual countries firmly on the agenda of each session, they said.
The United States also wants to make it easier to kick off member states with egregious rights records. Haley has cited Venezuela, China and Saudi Arabia as violating standards.
The Council has ongoing investigations into violations in hotspots including Myanmar, South Sudan, and Syria, with a view to gathering evidence that could lead to future prosecutions.
Marc Limon, executive director of the think tank Universal Rights Group, said there were “rumors and mutterings” of a “political decision” having been taken in Washington to disengage.
“They could either leave the seat empty, which could happen in June, or if withdrawing, formally notify the (U.N.) General Assembly,” he told Reuters.
Swiss Ambassador Valentin Zellweger said: “The decision by the Americans will have a profound impact on the Council. If they withdraw, we can expect significant consequences.”
The United States had long played a “leadership role” in the Council, Zellweger said, adding: “Unfortunately I agree with them that not all members fulfil the (membership) criteria.”
(The story corrects position of Belgium in 12th paragraph to wanting to keep urgent situations in countries, not just Israel, on the agenda of each session)
edited 16th Jun '18 1:19:55 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history

D-Day is example of America's 'strong relationship with German government', Trump State Department spokeswoman says
Whenever you think it couldn't get any stupider...
edited 15th Jun '18 8:58:26 PM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from history