Video G20: Trump leaves Argentine leader in the lurch - BBC News

[balo]

What else do you expect from a man with the famous words : "Grab em by the pussy " 

 

[kwilco]

 

He didn't know or forgot that he was supposed to stay on stage for a post handshake photo shoot

QED!! Everyone else did.

Edited December 4, 2018 by kwilco

[bristolboy]

On the other hand, there is this:

News Flash: No Major Damage Done at G-20!

President Trump refrained from publicly vilifying American institutions, assailing political adversaries, insulting allies or committing major gaffes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/g-20-trump-susan-rice-china.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[Skallywag]

 

Hmm.  The silence is a little deafening,  so your common sense is actually being heard.  What’s really sad is what IS news these days.  What’s even sadder is the USA is probably never going to have a great president again and as you and pure facts have mentioned we have not had one for a long time. I’m neither a Republican or Democrat. 

Agree.  With the 535 members of congress making rules to only better themselves, their corporate contributors,  and the military industrial complex, things likely wont change measurably no matter which party has a majority

[mikebike]

 

Unfortunately that trend has been occurring (the executive branch trying to gain more power) for the last few decades.

 

Ever since Ross Perot's relatively successful campaign and his performance in the presidential debates, the two main parties (Repubs and Dems) have now essentially locked out third party candidates from the debates. A lawyer for the Libertarian party and Gary Johnson (the Libertarian candidate) tried, unsuccessfully, to sue to allow other parties into the televised presidential debates. (In a way, you could say that the US is a lot like Thailand in that the two major political parties are like the Thai oligarchs, trying to protect their seats at the proverbial trough. They don't want any other parties budding in. Remember that there are no limits on "soft donations" [those made to a party and not a specific candidate] so those two parties have a strong motive to keep others away.)

 

Sadly, most Americans are deluded that there is a true democracy. You have only to look at the Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation, the big bank donations to the Clinton campaign and to both the Dem and Republican parties (as well as other large corp. donations to both Dems and Repubs) to realize that America is and has been run by a corporate oligarchy. You get enough frustration from all of this, and the result is a Trump as president. And then you get the stupid simps who worry about where on a stage Trump has walked to rather than things like, why was the Patriot Act (which allows the US govt to spy on its citizens) broadened rather than curtailed or even canceled under Obama, who touted himself as someone for civil rights, or why is Trump fighting the right battle with China (protection of IP rights and more access to markets) but using the wrong tool in tariffs (as just a couple examples).

Wow. You NAILED the problem, then totally whiffed on conclusions drawn.

[Hank Gunn]

 

QED!! Everyone else did.

They didn't have to remember to stay on stage, as none of them were the first on stage. All they had to do was join the growing group of other G20 leaders. But your blind dislike for Trump (some people call it Trump Derangement Syndrome) prevented you from seeing that point in my post.

[mikebike]

 

What’s even sadder is the USA is probably never going to have a great president again and as you and pure facts have mentioned we have not had one for a long time. I’m neither a Republican or Democrat. 

Actually the USA seems to be poised TO have a “great” POTUS. Someone “great” is gonna be needed to bring America outta the quagmire it finds itself in. Ever diminishing role on the world stage, inability to provide financial and wellness security to all of its people, ancient infrastructure, rampant corruption and pervasive fear of almost everything has eroded America’s core and 45 seems capable of little other than exacerbating the situation.

[sirineou]

On 12/3/2018 at 3:48 AM, Hank Gunn said:

Um no, but your comment only underscores one of the points I was trying to make. Besides, who's to know what instructions he was given beforehand. Maybe it was a simple, "Mr. President, first you're going to walk out and shake hands with the Venezuelan Pres. then when all of the other G20 leaders have done the same, there will be a group photo on the same stage." with no specific instructions to stay on the stage for the photo. The point is, we don't know the specifics according to the brief BBC video in the OP.

 

And with all that being considered, where was he supposed to stand exactly? If he stood to close, there'd be howls of him being an egomaniac trying to hog the spotlight. If he has stayed on stage but strayed too far, he would've been ridiculed for "awkwardly standing alone" off to the side. Dollars to doughnuts that if Obama had done the same thing, people would have been denigrating the "mickey mouse", banana republic, Latin American organizers or would have made an excuse for him like, "He was exhausted from a late night mtg. the night before combined with the long flight."

 

Again, I think there's a real double-standard here making a big deal out of such an inane incident. There are so many other things to be concerned about.

Given all the variables you considered, I wonder how attendees to such occasions in the past managed  to not wander off and fumble. 

    Is it possible that they have protocol officers that instruct them how the whole occasion is going to flow? and they  having a few brain cells intact were able to follow such simple  instructions?  or is it possible that as you said they are thrown out there with minimal instruction and have to figure it on the fly?

 

PS: I wonder if you are all defending Trump, or defending your decision to support Trump.  Think about it.  There comes a time to cut bait and run.

[Hank Gunn]

 

Given all the variables you considered, I wonder how attendees to such occasions in the past managed  to not wander off and fumble. 

    Is it possible that they have protocol officers that instruct them how the whole ocasion is going to flow? and they  having 

a few brain cells intact were able to follow such simple  instructions?

or is it possible that as you said they are thrown outhere with minimal instruction and have to figure it on the fly?

I have no idea. I'm just saying it's plausible that he didn't receive specific instructions, or perhaps, as a 70-something person, he had a "senior moment" and just forgot about those instructions and thought it best to wait offstage until everyone else had had their moment on stage, greeting the Argentinian pres. (I'll soon be 58 and I know I could've made the same mistake forgetting something like this.)

 

Again, my main point is, there are so many other things to criticize Trump for, that to get so critical about this is silly and detracts from what people should really worry about (his potential curtailing of press freedoms being just one example). Further, I think it's gross hyperbole on the BBC's part to state that he left the pres. of Argentina "in the lurch" as if it was the Argentinian president's responsibility to organize a photo shoot on stage, rather than just greet G20 leaders as they came on stage.

 

As for those disparaging Trump's intelligence and saying he's too stupid to follow instructions, again just blind hatred clouding their judgement (and it's fine if someone hates Trump). That's a common mistake but he is not dumb. (While he did inherit a vast fortune, he's multiplied it many times over; something a dumb person wouldn't be able to do.) No, if anything, Trump is a narcisist, who most likely filters out advice instructions depending on his mood. In this case, the only thing he probably heard was that there was going to be a group photo after each person had been greeted.

[mikebike]

Hmmmm... let’s talk about “plausiblities”.

 

You find it plausible that 45 was having a “senior moment”.

 

I find it plausible that he is grossly unfit to serve as POTUS.

 

Have we achieved equivalence?

Edited December 4, 2018 by mikebike

[Hank Gunn]

 

Hmmmm... let’s talk about “plausiblities”.

 

You find it plausible that 45 was having a “senior moment”.

 

I find it plausible that he is grossly unfit to serve as POTUS.

 

Have we achieved equivalence?

I do indeed think it plausible that he is unfit to be president, although I'm holding out judgement on that for two reasons: first, it's still rather early in the game and he could actually accomplish something; and second, he's done two things which merit positive marks, bringing China to task on unfair trade practices (albeit with the wrong tactics) and not marching the US into any new wars/armed conflicts, something pretty much all his predecessors have done dating back to Clinton.

 

When W. was in the White House, I saw a bumper sticker that simply said: "Worst president ever." No reference to W himself, just that statement. I thought it was a great bumper sticker and would have to say that I still agree with it. With that said, there's still time for Trump to edge W out for that notorious distinction, but as I said above, still too early.

[alex8912]

6 hours ago, mikebike said:

Actually the USA seems to be poised TO have a “great” POTUS. Someone “great” is gonna be needed to bring America outta the quagmire it finds itself in. Ever diminishing role on the world stage, inability to provide financial and wellness security to all of its people, ancient infrastructure, rampant corruption and pervasive fear of almost everything has eroded America’s core and 45 seems capable of little other than exacerbating the situation.

There is no one great who will be analyzed by the microscopes of the media and many others. This perfect person may exist but is probably having a much better life doing something else. Just look at the next bunch of potentials!! It’s so horrible! 

The one from Massachusetts is the worst. The presidents before Trump exacerbated everything you mentioned as well. Everyone knows this.  I mean really you think the next Pres will be great??? We will know many of the choices in the next 4-6 months.  

[mikebike]

16 minutes ago, alex8912 said:

There is no one great who will be analyzed by the microscopes of the media and many others. This perfect person may exist but is probably having a much better life doing something else. Just look at the next bunch of potentials!! It’s so horrible! 

The one from Massachusetts is the worst. The presidents before Trump exacerbated everything you mentioned as well. Everyone knows this.  I mean really you think the next Pres will be great??? We will know many of the choices in the next 4-6 months.  

I doubt “perfection” is required, competence and an imperative to work for the people rather than the establishment would do just fine.

 

Why look at who is running in 2020 now? Did YOU see Trump coming in 2014? If ya did you are the only one...

[billd766]

16 hours ago, Hank Gunn said:

Okay, yes I am defending the man, but only in this stupid situation. What I meant is I don't defend his whole presidency.

 

But you're coming up with a stupid argument. Your'e saying he's had 2 photo shoots a week where he's gone on stage to meet and greet a guest leader, then stay on stage while 19 other leaders waltz in and do the same, then get together for a group photo. Yeah, I don't think so, unless you can point that out. (Yes he's been photographed a couple of times a week while in office, speaking to the press or meeting other dignitaries one on one in the Oval Office or in another where he or both are seated.)

 

Look, I'm just saying it's just a stupid thing to criticize him for. As I said in a previous post, he may have thought he was supposed to wait off stage and then after everyone else had met with the Argentinian pres. they would all go out for the group photo. Him walking off stage was no major diplomatic breach (unlike his name-calling of other world leaders) and was not him "leaving anyone in the lurch". Just ridiculous hyperbole. Again, my point is the hypocrisy in making a big deal out a minor social gaffe, where if the same had occurred with any other president, the press would have been mum. 

 

I am following the thread of this post which is all about Trump walking out, shaking hands and walking off the stage.

 

Of course he has done photo shoots before and even before he was elected, but if he cannot remember what to do after 2 or 3 years, even if/when he was briefed, why do you think he will improve? 

[hugocnx]

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You're confused. Anti trump speech may or may not be prompted by hatred. But it's the content of the speech that qualifies it as hate speech, not the alleged motivation behind it. Get a grip.

Not confused at all. It's the tone that makes the music or like it comes originally from the French language "C'est le ton qui fait la musique".

I, that means me, my opinion, I feel hatred in the anti Trump speech here on TV. And you just tell me to get a grip. Get a life.

[mikebike]

11 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Not confused at all. It's the tone that makes the music or like it comes originally from the French language "C'est le ton qui fait la musique".

I, that means me, my opinion, I feel hatred in the anti Trump speech here on TV. And you just tell me to get a grip. Get a life.

So sensitive... 

 

Everyone else who is not a white male (that means most of the US peeps) is feeling the hatred in 45's speech!! ????

 

Maybe they just cannot hear the sweet tone of 45's racist, mysoginist, elitist music... ????

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

Not confused at all. It's the tone that makes the music or like it comes originally from the French language "C'est le ton qui fait la musique".

I, that means me, my opinion, I feel hatred in the anti Trump speech here on TV. And you just tell me to get a grip. Get a life.

Well, whatever your feelings may be, and whether or not they correspond to reality, what you are calling hate speech is nothing of the sort. And this is the second time you've voice the "get a life" sentiment. I wonder what emotion lies behind that phrase. Loving kindness?

[Hank Gunn]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am following the thread of this post which is all about Trump walking out, shaking hands and walking off the stage.

 

Of course he has done photo shoots before and even before he was elected, but if he cannot remember what to do after 2 or 3 years, even if/when he was briefed, why do you think he will improve? 

And you still missed my point. All photo shoots are not the same. There's a big difference between being photographed shaking someone's hand in an office, being photographed while on a podium at some event, and being photographed as part of a group of 19 other G20 members. As far as I know, this is the first one he's attended. I'm also guessing this is the first photo shoot where he was supposed to be "posed" in a large group with others, as opposed to being photographed while milling about a room. So please tell me, what event has Trump been at where he's walked onto a stage for a brief greeting/handshake and then was supposed to stay on said stage and wait while a procession of others came out to join him for a group photo. (My point being that simply being photographed in a room with others, is not necessarily a photo shoot, and certainly not the same as being in a meet and greet procession.)

 

However, my main point is that if Obama or most any other president had done this, there would have no mention of it in the media. I'm just saying it's good to be cognizant of media bias, whether or not it favors your point of view. Because one day it may work the other way.

[hugocnx]

28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, whatever your feelings may be, and whether or not they correspond to reality, what you are calling hate speech is nothing of the sort. And this is the second time you've voice the "get a life" sentiment. I wonder what emotion lies behind that phrase. Loving kindness?

I haven't called anything on here as hate speech. Check carefully please. And I do have the freedom of speech to use the 'get a life' phrase for the second time when I feel you really didn't understand me or were just denigrating. So be it. And btw, it's not about feelings but about facts.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

I haven't called anything on here as hate speech. Check carefully please. And I do have the freedom of speech to use the 'get a life' phrase for the second time when I feel you really didn't understand me or were just denigrating. So be it. And btw, it's not about feelings but about facts.

Well, here's what you orignally wrote.

"Yikes, TV Trump haters by default. Meanwhile having a mouthful about hate speech. Get a life."

I have to confess that it's not entirely clear what you meant. It doesn't seem to be the most coherent piece of prose. Which is remarkable, given its short length.

But inferring that people who harshly criticize Trump need "get a life" seems pretty good evidence that these alleged "Trump haters" have at least one hater, too. But I for one, wouldn't have the presumption based on such skimpy evidence to believe that I know enough about their life to tell them to get one. 

•  

[alex8912]

11 hours ago, mikebike said:

I doubt “perfection” is required, competence and an imperative to work for the people rather than the establishment would do just fine.

 

Why look at who is running in 2020 now? Did YOU see Trump coming in 2014? If ya did you are the only one...

The Iowa caucus is in less than 14 months right after is the New Hampshire primary. Not sure what you are thinking. Just about everyone who will run will be announcing it in the next 4 to 6 mos as I said.  If you don’t believe me feel free to check back in April/May  when the list will be good sized already.  This next election will be so drawn out I can hardly wait to not follow it. Great time to get a new hobby 2019. 

[sirineou]

20 hours ago, Hank Gunn said:

I have no idea. I'm just saying it's plausible that he didn't receive specific instructions, or perhaps, as a 70-something person, he had a "senior moment" and just forgot about those instructions and thought it best to wait offstage until everyone else had had their moment on stage, greeting the Argentinian pres. (I'll soon be 58 and I know I could've made the same mistake forgetting something like this.)

 

Again, my main point is, there are so many other things to criticize Trump for, that to get so critical about this is silly and detracts from what people should really worry about (his potential curtailing of press freedoms being just one example). Further, I think it's gross hyperbole on the BBC's part to state that he left the pres. of Argentina "in the lurch" as if it was the Argentinian president's responsibility to organize a photo shoot on stage, rather than just greet G20 leaders as they came on stage.

 

As for those disparaging Trump's intelligence and saying he's too stupid to follow instructions, again just blind hatred clouding their judgement (and it's fine if someone hates Trump). That's a common mistake but he is not dumb. (While he did inherit a vast fortune, he's multiplied it many times over; something a dumb person wouldn't be able to do.) No, if anything, Trump is a narcisist, who most likely filters out advice instructions depending on his mood. In this case, the only thing he probably heard was that there was going to be a group photo after each person had been greeted.

All that you said are plausible and most likely true, But the question is, do we want such pearson to lead as?

As far as his and for that matter, anyone else's intelligence the old adage stands "stupid is as stupid does"  

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, Hank Gunn said:

As far as I know, this is the first one he's attended.

It's not. See G20 meeting in 2017.

PS: Front row second from viewer's left

Trump was overheard saying 'get me out of here' as he suddenly walks off stage at G20 summit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-g20-video-watch-stage-hot-mic-mauricio-macri-summit-argentina-buenos-aires-a8663486.html

Trump not only lacks class but represents only one person before the world stage (himself) and not the 350 million Americans.

[mtls2005]

54 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Trump was overheard saying 'get me out of here' as he suddenly walks off stage at G20 summit.

 

Mueller says, "We're working on that sir."

 

WH rumblings are that his "condition" is getting worse, and is exacerbated by travel and lack of sleep. He'll go out with a bang, or a whimper.

 

 

[Hank Gunn]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

All that you said are plausible and most likely true, But the question is, do we want such pearson to lead as?

As far as his and for that matter, anyone else's intelligence the old adage stands "stupid is as stupid does"  

Yes, but the question is not about whether we want Trump to lead us (us Americans). I've already been pretty clear that I'm not a supporter of his, didn't vote for him, nor would I ever.

 

The question is, is there a bias in the media? As a hypothetical, if Obama (or Clinton for that matter) had done the same, would it even make the news, and if so would the headlines read, "Obama/Clinton leave Macri in the lurch." I keep going round and round on this point with other posters, so I'm done with this thread as no one addresses what I've continually said.

 

However, before I go, regarding his intelligence, I'd say he's probably close to a zero on emotional intelligence that's for sure (similar to my dear departed dad). However, someone who takes a large inheritance and multiplies its value by a factor of seven (not through passive but active investments) I wouldn't call stupid. (My father had an advance degree in probability and statistics from a top-ranked US university.)

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Hank Gunn said:

Yes, but the question is not about whether we want Trump to lead us (us Americans). I've already been pretty clear that I'm not a supporter of his, didn't vote for him, nor would I ever.

 

The question is, is there a bias in the media? As a hypothetical, if Obama (or Clinton for that matter) had done the same, would it even make the news, and if so would the headlines read, "Obama/Clinton leave Macri in the lurch." I keep going round and round on this point with other posters, so I'm done with this thread as no one addresses what I've continually said.

 

However, before I go, regarding his intelligence, I'd say he's probably close to a zero on emotional intelligence that's for sure (similar to my dear departed dad). However, someone who takes a large inheritance and multiplies its value by a factor of seven (not through passive but active investments) I wouldn't call stupid. (My father had an advance degree in probability and statistics from a top-ranked US university.)

First off, remember when the right wing media went ballistic because Obama "bowed" to the Saudi King? I'm guessing you don't.

And I have to question your alleged impartiality on this issue. Trump was repeatedly bailed out by his father after several consecutive business failures. Without a rich father to repeatedly bail him out, where would Trump be today?

 

And it's still very much an open question over where much of his funding came from. There was that bizarre case where Deutsches bank's private banking division guaranteed new loans after Trump had stiffed the Deutsches bank business division. And that's far from being the only funding question.

 

As has been pointed out, had Trump simply invested his inheritance in index funds he'd be at least as well off today. Of course, given that his tax returns have yet to be opened for public view, we don't really know how much he's worth.

[Hank Gunn]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, remember when the right wing media went ballistic because Obama "bowed" to the Saudi King? I'm guessing you don't.

And I have to question your alleged impartiality on this issue. Trump was repeatedly bailed out by his father after several consecutive business failures. Without a rich father to repeatedly bail him out, where would Trump be today?

 

And it's still very much an open question over where much of his funding came from. There was that bizarre case where Deutsches bank's private banking division guaranteed new loans after Trump had stiffed the Deutsches bank business division. And that's far from being the only funding question.

 

As has been pointed out, had Trump simply invested his inheritance in index funds he'd be at least as well off today. Of course, given that his tax returns have yet to be opened for public view, we don't really know how much he's worth.

Okay, really my last post on this thread. Because you're pretty far off.

• The "right wing media" is not, nor does represent, the mainstream media as a whole. Most people dismiss Fox news, typically using the term "Faux" News as a right-wing mouthpiece for R. Murdoch. There's a big difference between a small, ill-regarded segment of the media and most of what's referred to as "the mainstream media" (BBC being a good example of that).
• You missed the point I made about active vs. passive investing. Active takes a lot more skill and intelligence to succeed in, that's why even Warren Buffet recommends the avg. Joe invest in passive, index funds, specifically the S&P 500 index funds. (Here's an article from Forbes. What the New York Times Got Right (And Wrong) Regarding Fred and Donal Trump.

[mtls2005]

41 minutes ago, Hank Gunn said:

However, someone who takes a large inheritance and multiplies its value by a factor of seven (not through passive but active investments) I wouldn't call stupid.

 

Michael Corleone would agree I imagine?

 

That said, trump likes to fiddle with "asset valuation" and obfuscate "liabilities".

 

And by liabilities, I don't mean his girth, air, intellect, children, IQ.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Hank Gunn said:

The question is, is there a bias in the media? 

Of course there is. But it is a corporate/establishment bias, not a bias towards either party.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Hank Gunn said:

However, someone who takes a large inheritance and multiplies its value by a factor of seven

Financial experts opinion is that if 45 had just invested his inheritance in a bluechip portfolio he would be far more wealthy now. Him getting his "great brain" involved COST him wealth... I would call that stupid.