democrats dumb
republicans smart
spurtacular clever
Yep, and thanks -- I'm screw up a lot when I post on the phone.
See how easy that is?
Spurtacular's taking this L very badly.
FACT CHECK: Does The US Pay Over 20 Percent Of The UN Budget?
Former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka claimed the U.S. pays over 20 percent of the U.N. budget on “Fox & Friends” Saturday.
“We are paying more than 20 percent of the U.N.’s budget. If you look at the peacekeeping activities, the military side of the house, we are paying almost a third, 28 percent,” said Gorka.
Verdict: True
The U.S. must pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget for 2016 to 2018. The U.S. contributes an even higher share for some agencies within the U.N.
Fact Check:
The U.N. determines required contribution levels for each member state based on factors like gross national income and debt. Based on this calculation, the U.S. paid 22 percent of the U.N.’s $5.4 billion budget for 2016 and 2017, the maximum contribution allowed. State Department do ents confirm the U.S. allocated $1.2 billion toward the budget during these years.
U.S. funding of U.N. operations is under scrutiny after 128 member states voted to condemn President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital Thursday. Trump threatened to cut U.S. funding to countries that voted for the resolution.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley called the resolution disrespectful, particularly because the U.S. pays more than any other country to the U.N. “When we make generous contributions to the U.N., we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected,” she said in remarks before the U.N. General Assembly Thursday.
Then Haley announced Sunday that the U.S. had negotiated a $285 million cut for the U.N.’s 2018-2019 budget. The new budget “reduced the UN’s bloated management and support functions, bolstered support for key U.S. priorities throughout the world, and instilled more discipline and accountability throughout the U.N system,” according to a statement from Haley’s office.
Some argue the U.S. contribution share is reasonable since the U.S. accounts for about a quarter of the world’s income. The next-highest contributors to the U.N. budget are Japan at 9.7 percent and China at 7.9 percent, although China holds the second-largest share of world income at 14 percent.
Gorka also correctly stated the U.S. pays for 28 percent of the U.N.’s peacekeeping budget, which costs the U.S. about $2.4 billion per year. The U.N. agreed in June to cut its peacekeeping budget by $570 million to $7.3 billion after pressure from the U.S. The U.S. wanted to cut the peacekeeping budget to under $7 billion.
“Just five months into our time here, we’ve already been able to cut over half a billion dollars from the UN peacekeeping budget and we’re only getting started,” Haley said in June when she announced the cuts.
In addition to the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets, the U.S. contributes to U.N. agencies like the World Health Organization, World Food Program and UNICEF. The U.S. contributed $1.5 billion to the U.N. Refugee Agency in 2016, 38 percent of the agency’s total revenue. This is the largest proportion of U.N. agency revenue funded by the U.S.
The U.S. contributed more than $10 billion in total to U.N. agencies in 2016, of which $6 billion was voluntary, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. U.N. contributions account for about 20 percent of U.S. foreign aid spending each year.
Critics of U.S.-led budget cuts worry they will harm U.N. programs and threaten agreed-upon contribution levels. But the U.S. has shown no signs it will reverse course.
“We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” Haley said in a statement Sunday.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/26/fact-check-does-the-us-pay-over-20-percent-of-the-un-budget/
U.S. funding of U.N. operations is under scrutiny after 128 member states voted to condemn President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital Thursday. Trump threatened to cut U.S. funding to countries that voted for the resolution.
U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley called the resolution disrespectful, particularly because the U.S. pays more than any other country to the U.N. “When we make generous contributions to the U.N., we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected,” she said in remarks before the U.N. General Assembly Thursday.
leading from behind
Trump claims he's boosting U.S. influence, but many foreign leaders see America in retreat
The most recent example of U.S. isolation came with President Trump's decision to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Tracy Wilkinson, Alexandra Zavis and Shashank BengaliContact Reporters
China has now assumed the mantle of fighting climate change, a global crusade that the United States once led. Russia has taken over Syrian peace talks, also once the purview of the American administration, whose officials Moscow recently deigned to invite to negotiations only as observers.
France and Germany are often now the countries that fellow members of NATO look to, after President Trump wavered on how supportive his administration would be toward the North Atlantic alliance.
And in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S., once the only mediator all sides would accept, has found itself isolated after Trump’s decision to declare that the U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
In his wide-ranging speech on national security last week, Trump highlighted what he called the broadening of U.S. influence throughout the world.
But one year into his presidency, many international leaders, diplomats and foreign policy experts argue that he has reduced U.S. influence or altered it in ways that are less constructive. On a range of policy issues, Trump has taken positions that disqualified the United States from the debate or rendered it irrelevant, these critics say.
Even in countries that have earned Trump’s praise, such as India, there is concern about Trump’s unpredictability — will he be a reliable partner? — and what many overseas view as his isolationism.
“The president can and does turn things inside out,” said Manoj Joshi, a scholar at a New Delhi think tank, the Observer Research Foundation. “So the chances that the U.S. works along a coherent and credible national security strategy are not very high.”
As the U.S. recedes, other powers including China, Russia and Iran are eagerly stepping into the void.
One significant issue is the visible gap between the president and many of his top national security advisors.
Trump’s national security speech was intended to explain to the public a 70-page strategy do ent that the administration developed. But on key issues, Trump’s speech and the do ent diverged. The speech, for example, included generally favorable rhetoric about Russia and China. The strategy do ent listed the two governments as compe ors, accused the Russians of using “subversion” as a tactic and said that countering both rival powers was necessary.
Russia reacted angrily: America continues to evince “its aversion to a multipolar world,” President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, said.
At the same time, Trump’s refusal to overtly criticize Russia, some diplomats say, has emboldened Putin in his military actions in Ukraine, where Russian-backed rebels are battling a pro-West government in Kiev. Kurt Volker, the administration’s special envoy for Ukraine, said that some of the worst fighting since February took place over the past two weeks, with numerous civilian casualties. Volker accused Russia of “massive” cease-fire violations.
Nicholas Burns, who served as a senior American diplomat under Republican and Democratic administrations, said the administration’s strategy was riddled with contradictions that have left the U.S. ineffective.
Trump “needs a strong State Department to implement” its strategy, he said. “Instead, State and the Foreign Service are being weakened and often sidelined.”
Trump’s “policy of the last 12 months is a radical departure from every president since WWII,” Burns said in an interview. “Trump is weak on NATO, Russia, trade, climate, diplomacy. The U.S. is declining as a global leader.”
The most recent example of U.S. isolation came with Trump’s decision to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, delighting many Israelis, but angering Palestinians and reversing decades of international consensus.
On Thursday, an overwhelming majority of the U.N. General Assembly, including many U.S. allies, voted to demand the U.S. rescind the decision.
For the last quarter-century, successive U.S. governments have held themselves up as an “honest broker” in mediating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Trump insisted he is not giving up on a peace deal, but most parties involved interpreted his announcement as clearly siding with Israel.
"From now on, it is out of the question for a biased United States to be a mediator between Israel and Palestine,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at a summit of more than 50 Muslim countries that he hosted in Istanbul. “That period is over.”
Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said that if a peace deal is to be made now, “it won’t be from American policy.”
“Trump took himself and the administration out of the peace process for the foreseeable future,” he said.
Trump had boasted of his ability to convene Muslim leaders during his trip to Saudi Arabia in May, but that would seem far less possible today. In Jordan, arguably Washington’s closest Arab ally in the Middle East, government-controlled television has started 24-hour broadcasts of invitations to follow a Twitter account whose hashtag roughly translates as “Jerusalem is ours … our Arabness.”
Regional leaders and analysts also say that for all of Trump’s tough rhetoric, they see few concrete steps by the U.S. to counter Iran’s steady expansion of its military, economic and political influence, a perception that Iranian leaders are happy to exploit.
“Trump is ranting and making empty threats,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, a conservative Iranian politician with close ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Russia, China and Iran are gaining ground in the Middle East, and America is losing ground and influence.”
That view is also shared by Iranian moderates, with whom the Obama administration thought it could work.
“The reality on the ground in the Middle East is that the American administration has failed to form an efficient coalition against its self-proclaimed enemies,” said Nader Karimi Juni, an independent Iranian analyst who writes for reformist dailies and magazines.
“Now Russia is celebrating its victory in Syria, and America is watching as an onlooker,” Juni said.
In Syria and Iraq, the U.S. under Trump has succeeded in helping its allies drive Islamic State militants out of their strongholds. But Washington has opted to take a back seat in the other conflicts roiling the two countries.
This month, another round of U.N.-mediated and U.S.-backed peace talks on Syria wrapped up in Geneva without any progress. Instead, a Russia-led process is gaining traction.
Even some longtime opponents of Assad quietly acknowledge that Sochi, the Black Sea resort where Russia aims to convene a “Syrian people’s congress” next year, and not Geneva, will be the focus of efforts to bring an end to the war.
Trump has won praise in parts of South Asia, a region his team has re-dubbed the “Indo-Pacific” and where it is favoring India and Afghanistan over Pakistan. The administration has asked Congress for $350 million in aid to Pakistan for 2018, not quite one-tenth the amount Washington provided five years ago.
Afghan officials say they are encouraged by Trump’s renewed pressure on neighboring Pakistan to take “decisive action” to stop militant groups operating from its soil.
“Our partnership, which reflects a renewed U.S. commitment, will set the conditions to end the war and finally bringing peace to Afghanistan,” Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s office said in a statement.
But even there, officials say they worry that Trump’s bellicose rhetoric will strengthen China’s status as a power broker.
China has also benefited from Trump’s refusal to join other nations to work against climate change. Even as Trump removed climate change from the list of threats menacing the United States, China announced it would begin phasing in an ambitious program to curb carbon emissions by establishing the world’s largest market for trading emissions permits.
Trump was not invited to an international climate summit hosted earlier this month by French President Emmanuel Macron because of his decision to pull the United States out of 2015 international climate deal.
“You cannot pretend to be the guarantor of international order and get out of [an accord] as soon as it suits you,” Macron told France 2 TV.
Globalist Macron bashed Trump? No way!
Chris diving in front of mean words about Trump? No way!
EMBOLDENED BY TRUMP: 10 More Countries May Move Their Embassies To Jerusalem
On Monday, after Guatemala courageously decided it would follow the United States’ lead and move its embassy to Jerusalem, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely announced that at least 10 other countries are discussing moving their embassies to Jerusalem as well.
As The Times of Israel reports, when Hotovely spoke to Israel Radio, she would not confirm which states were discussing the move with Israel, but Channel 10 reported that the first country likely to announce such a decision would be Guatemala’s neighbor, Honduras.
On Sunday, Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales announced on his official Facebook account that he had told his foreign ministry to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He spoke of his talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying:
We spoke about the excellent relations that we have had as nations since Guatemala supported the creation of the state of Israel. One of the most important topics [of the conversation] was the return of the embassy of Guatemala to Jerusalem. So I inform you that I have instructed the chancellor to initiate the respective coordination so that it may happen.
On Monday, Netanyahu saluted Guatemala in the Knesset, stating:
God bless you, my friend, President Jimmy Morales. God bless both our countries, Israel and Guatemala. I told you recently there would be other countries that will recognize Jerusalem and move their embassies. I repeat: There will be more, this is just the beginning.
Also on Monday, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein told attendees at a Likud party event that the parliamentary heads of two other countries had echoed their desire to move their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. According to the Walla news, Romania and Slovakia are planning to make such a move. Paraguay and Togo are reportedly also considering such a move.
In recent years, Israel and Honduras have had close relations; in 2016 the two countries signed an agreement so Israel could aid Honduras’ armed forces to fight organized crime. Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez graduated from MASHAV, Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation.
Honduras joined Guatemala last week to vote against the U.N. General Assembly’s resolution condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Guatemala has been friendly to Israel since the founding of the Jewish state in 1948; its embassy resided in Jerusalem from the 1950s until 1980. Before 1980, Guatemala, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, The Netherlands, Panama, Venezuela and Uruguay had their embassies in Jerusalem, but when Israel declared in 1980 that Jerusalem was its indivisible and eternal capital, the U.N. Security Council passed U.N. Security Council resolution 480 urging those countries to move their embassies to Tel Aviv, prompting their transfer.
The vote in the U.N. Security council in August 1980, 14-0 with one abstention, could have been defeated with one negative vote from one of the five permanent members of the Council, (the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China) but the Carter Administration would not vote against the resolution, instead abstaining from the vote. Resolution 480 followed U.N. Security Council Resolution 476, in June 1980, which stated that Israel had no right “to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem.” The vote was 14-0, with one abstention; the Carter Administration abstained from that resolution, too.
Of course, Jerusalem has been acknowledged as the eternal capital of the Jewish people for more than three millennia; so announcing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital isn’t changing the status of anything.
The Czech republic and Russia have not committed wholly to accepting Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but they have recognized West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25074/emboldened-trump-10-more-countries-may-move-their-hank-berrien
Hater is gonna love this.
So Chris, why did China, Russia, Europe all vote against?
Why did 99.9 % of the world's representation in the UN vote against outside of the US (Trump)?
Why?
...Because we withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. I already addressed this earlier, try to keep up please.
Trump got totally humiliated by the UN. "We're taking names"
You are truly an idiot.
Stick to the memes
Just don't type and you are ok.
Blah blah blah nonsensical blah blah blah grumble grumble blah
Explain the correlation Chis.
They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Go ahead. I dare you.
"nother level"
AaronY
Globalism, globalists!
not one of you rightwingnut sheeple assholes have a clue what it is
Globalism, globalists!
not one of you rightwingnut sheeple assholes have a clue what it is
They really dont.
Because from what I understand some of it fits their narrative, and some of it misses by a wide margin.
So I would like a definition so I can give examples and ask, Globalism? Si or no? They don't want to get tied down with anything that might explain it. Because the contradictions might be embarrassing.
It (globalism) is actually closely associated with the one percent concept. But as a liberal sheep, you've decided to ignore that.
That selective outrage thingy. Demands explanations and answers while feigning ignorance. Standard tactics for the Left in a debate, but sadly this one is incapable of debate, only low energy grumblings and mumblings.
If you can't explain it in your own words you don't get it.
Spurter uses a phrase, Chris has absolutely nothing...
Both don't want to touch it, just use it because it sounds widespread and terrifying. Typical fake conservative dumb down bots.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
