Trump cancels UK trip citing Obama's 'bad' embassy deal

London matters

But with the demise of the great Anglo-American partnership that saw us through 3 world wars counting the Cold War, London now matters in a negative sense.

What a shame

 

I did not mention trumps taxes except in response to a liberal

 

Good so you are admitting he is massivly financially benefitting from being President and your nonsense about seeing his taxes is just an attempt at diversion.

 

Somehow I don't see much of a positive agenda. Actually don't see an agenda at all.

 

right. I base my opinion of criminality on a variety of data which is "evidence" in the court of public opinion. I am able to discern the difference between that court and a legalIy constituted court and the differences in what can be considered evidence.

So I am expressing a reasonably informed OPINION. Not presenting a legal case before a judge and jury.

Some of those datum include:
trump's displayed lack of integrity, and pathological lying.
his known history of associations with russian mobsters and oligarchs
Both donnie and jr claiming during one of their financial crisises that they got all the money they need from russia, then denying it years later
Donnies adamant denial during the campaign he had no ties with russia despite him signing a letter of intent to build Trump MOscow
Evidence of potential money laundering to the tune of well over a billion

then there is the "beholden" issue.

I guess when you owe somebody a few hundred million they cannot exert any influence on you or obtain favors from you. Oh no, that is not how human nature works and such a fine upstanding citizen as trump never allow himself to sacrifice his principles. (if he had any that wasn't directly concerned with his own benefit). A wonderful trait for a POtuS.

I could go on,but I'm sure you get the message.

I've always wondered, when somebody sticks their head in the sand, doesn't it get in their ears and up their nose? Must be as irritating as the reality one is attempting to escape.

 

I'll elaborate on the one that is most important to me.
The EU.

The EU agenda is to create a new nation. A global super power.
It's aims are to rival and curb American influence. To surpass it even and dictate the agenda of the entire world.

And in their eyes, I am their citisen. An active participant in this.

I do not like or want their agenda. The only participation I am willing to offer in this is in a war to prevent it.

It is not in America's interests for this to come to pass and it is not in my countries either. Obama, embraced the EU, campaigned to keep my country in it.
Campaigned to deny me democracy. Campaigned to enslave me to a political vision that is anathema to my heritage, my history and my culture.
That I believe to be inherently evil and a direct threat to world peace.

<Mod Edit>

Now if you are a fascist or a globalist, you will not see the positive in this agenda. Just as if you are a global warmist, you won't either.
But if you are either of those things I won't be ruled by you. And nor will most people.

And so this is an agenda of freedom.

<Rule 2>

This agenda is freedom. Freedom from their oppression.
Freedom from tyranny. Freedom from those who would enslave me. Freedom from hostile minority rule.

If it's not a positive agenda for you, tough ****. You don't rule here.
You don't set the agenda. You are not morally or intellectually my superior. Any attempt to paint yourself so is simply an offense.
A disregard for the fundamental tenet of my society which is that we are all of equal importance to each other.
Fascism.

Welcome to a free and liberal country where none of that crap works.

 

I am?

I didnt say that

 

I think you have a whole bunch of nuthin

 

Ya got me there columbo.

 

Sorry, I thought your attempts a missrepresenting what I actually posted constituted a tacit admission that I was correct. Guess ir was just comprehension disability.

 

Baff, were you aware that it was the USA that pushed and funded the EU project dating back to circa 1954?

They did it because they wanted to have a bulwark in Western Europe to combat the Soviet Union.

Mostly it was geopolitical in nature but as time went on they also wanted a big market to sell into, plus develop an offshore centre for expatriated dollars (originally known as the Eurodollar market).

This is one of the enduring problems I have with the EU.

 

"...On October 8, 2008, the embassy announced a conditional agreement with the real estate developer Ballymore Group to purchase property for a new embassy site on the South Bank of the River Thames in the Nine Elms area of the London Borough of Wandsworth.[17] The site lies within the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area as set out in the London Plan. The proposed plan would only go forward if approved by the United States Congress and by the local planning authority.[18] The Northern line extension to Battersea will have new stations at Battersea and Nine Elms—combined with major local development. The United States Department of State announced in January 2009 that it was choosing among nine architectural firms, all "modern" and "upmarket", to replace the ageing embassy headquarters.[19] In March 2009 the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations announced that four architectural firms had been selected for the final phase of the design competition.[19] By law, the architect for a U.S. embassy must be an American firm with "numerous security clearances".[19]


The new Embassy in Nine Elms with construction work complete.
In November 2009, the U.S. government conditionally agreed to sell the lease of the Grosvenor Square Chancery Building to Qatarireal-estate investment firm Qatari Diar, which in 2007 purchased the Chelsea Barracks.[20] Though the price was undisclosed, the lease's worth was estimated at £500 million in July 2000.[21] The development value of the property was reduced when the building was given Grade II listed status, requiring developers to maintain its current design. The building is now one of Mayfair's 238 listed buildings and monuments.[22][23] In 2016 plans were approved for the conversion of the building into a hotel.[24]

On February 23, 2010, the U.S. government announced that a team led by the firm of KieranTimberlake had won the competition to design the new embassy building and surrounding green spaces.[25] The winning design resembles a crystalline cube, with a semi-circular pond on one side (called a "moat" by The Times)[26] and surrounded by extensive public green spaces.[27]

Ground was broken on November 13, 2013, and the building opened to the public on December 13, 2017.[28][29] US President Donald Trump had been expected to visit in February 2018 to undertake the official opening of the new embassy, but, in January 2018 announced he would not make the trip. Trump publicly criticized the cost of the new embassy and its location, as well as the apparent price received for the sale of the lease of the building in Grosvenor Square, blaming the administration of his predecessor, Barack Obama for making what he referred to as a "bad deal" [30] (Note however that the decision to move the embassy was made before the Obama administration [31])."

--Wikipedia

 

There was no EU project in 1954 mate.
It began in the nineties.

Much as Israel likes to claim it is an ancient nation from our history, so does the EU. But it isn't. It started in the 1990's.
I predate the EU project. So do you.

Americans like Obama may indeed have sought to encourage the EU to take over from the Soviet Union after it's fall. Short sighted of them in my opinion.
The events in Ukraine however demonstrated America's true position in this "**** the EU".

With TTIP we can see that America has been as divided on the issue of the EU as everyone else. It's basically a globalist vs nationalist political divide.
Currently nationalism is in political ascendance both in America and the UK.

 

A US president who isn't welcome in England - our greatest ally?

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Once he is banned from the US we are all set.

 

You know what? I'll let Drumpf have this one. Sure. Tell yourself that is why you are not going to visit the UK. Though there is much that can be said, all that needs to be said by the Brits is "We won't miss you"

 

The left tends to riot, not just protest.

 

He'd only become confused about no go zones like Buckingham palace and other shitholes. Best he stays home in his underpants with his phone tweeting out increasingly inane drivel so the perma-dimmed don't notice the vandals and terrorists behind the curtain.

 

its the anarchists that usually start the crap. they have an ideological alignment with the radical left AND the radical right. Reconstitution of the nation. you know what they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

Actually there was. History's a bitch ain't it:

http://benwilliamslibrary.com/blog/?p=5080

 

This is not the EU. Sorry.

The concept of a united Europe is not new. Caesar had it too.
So did Napoleon and Hitler.

But just as the Roman Empire is not the EU, neither is this. Sorry.

 

I think globalists have much more in mind than a united europe

 

The concept of a United States of Europe goes back a long way, I agree. The Rhodes-Milner Oxford Group expounded on it in the late 1890's early 1900's too.

Today the project is called the EU. Back in the 1970's it was called the Common Market (EEC), but everyone in the know back then knew the longer term project was a unified federal Europe as it is, indeed, becoming.

The below extract from the Beeb is dated December 2000 and reveals the error of your 2009 beginning of the EU project you stated in your earlier post. The superstate blueprint was in place as the article stated:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1058155.stm

And we can see the path it was always intended to follow:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...ker-plan-economy-army-Brussels-led-superstate

But the key background to the project was the USA in the form of the CIA and it's desire for an Atlanticist project as detailed in this detailed Newsbud article.

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/03/30/...the-first-steps-towards-european-integration/

I hate to disagree with you, but in the last analysis the history post WWII is clear and unimpeachable. I don't know of any serious academic or historian who disputes this either, but if you can find one - or some evidence backing your assertion, I'll happily read it.

Otherwise this is just your opinion which, of course, you're more than entitled to espouse, but which doesn't have any serious historical backing.