Trump-Australia Feud Harms Unique Relationship

Why should I answer any of your questions?

Can you guys make a group chat on Skype and sort out your differences there, instead of on this thread?

Thanks.

The U.S. agreed to resettle (i.e. take in) 1200 asylum seekers held on detention centres on Islands off Australia, in return for Australia agreeing to resettle refugees from the countries you mentioned.

My apologies. I want to talk about the refugee ban

WARN-TORN AREAS OF THE WORLD THAT HARBOUR BLOODTHIRSTY TERRORISTS THEN.

Wind your neck in sister.

Oh I see
Thanks for clearing it up
I feel like Trump should hire someone to speak on behalf of him at all times because his choice of words can be very... problematic

Trump is used to getting his way or the high way. It'll be interesting to see how his presidencys works out in the next coming years

The phone call was cut short after 25 minutes because Trump repudiated the refugee swap deal the U.S. reached with Australia in 2016

Trump is an idiot, but he's not a fool. Australia is an important ally, and Trump has opted to continue with a deal that his supporters would hate because of the importance of that relationship.

In fact, it's a testament to the relationship that Trump has now backpeddled and said they will take the refugees.

The deal hasn't been repudiated. Trump doesn't like it, and he questioned it, but he has now confirmed the deal is going ahead.

I must have missed that Tweet; could you show me where/when he said that?


Accusing Australia of trying to export the next Boston bombers, cutting short a phone conversation in anger, then Tweeting about the deal (also in anger) seemed to suggest repudiation - but I concede that he has not actually done so (and in fact may have reaffirmed his commitment to the deal if what you say is correct).

However, the fact he created such hostility over this, for essentially nothing, to the extent that Priebus and Bannon had to meet the Australian Ambassador in the White House shortly after Trump's outburst (perhaps to apologise for his naughty behaviour), does not fill me with joy about the implications for the way in which the U.S. is seen across the world.

You and the world are going to have to get used to the idea that a forceful man who doesn't hide what he thinks, and who often thinks aloud, is in a position of great prominence. It is very common in business, though people who have been cocooned in the safe spaces of modern academe may not have been exposed to much of it in these times of namby-pambyism.

You're projecting.

Eh? He isn't a forceful man? He does hide what he thinks? Your aren't cocooned in an unrealistic world of censored messages?

You and the world are going to have to get used to the idea that a forceful man who doesn't hide what he thinks, and who often thinks aloud, is in a position of great prominence. It is very common in business, though people who have been cocooned in the safe spaces of modern academe may not have been exposed to much of it in these times of namby-pambyism.

However, the fact he created such hostility over this, for essentially nothing, to the extent that Priebus and Bannon had to meet the Australian Ambassador in the White House shortly after Trump's outburst (perhaps to apologise for his naughty behaviour), does not fill me with joy about the implications for the way in which the U.S. is seen across the world.

And he is running a country. Not a business.

Also, quite amazing given Trump seemed fanatically pro-Israeli right, the White House condemned Netanyahu's authorisation for 5,000 new settler homes to be built in the West Bank.

I'm extremely surprised that Trump has taken these two positions; a sign that the Bannon faction (including Michael Flynn), which is basically a pro-Kremlin fifth column in the West Wing, has lost the bureaucratic battle for control over the Russia and Israel policies.

So were Genghis Khan, William the Conqueror, Attila and Henry VIII, all of whom were successful without being very popular.