Donald Trump Had the Trumpiest Phone Call With Pakistan’s Prime Minister

[I.R.A]

What else he would have said? "Fck off Nawaz Sharif your country sucks?" Come on he is US president now. It was a phone call to congratulate him and he was supposed to say the nice words. I would wait for his actions to judge him.

 

[HAIDER]

PM Sharif phones Donald Trump
November 30, 2016 By: Samaa Web Desk Published in Pakistan Be the first to comment!


ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a telephonic call to US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday and congratulated him for his stunning victory in the elections.

According to sources privy to the developments, Prime Minister Sharif has invited the US President-elect to visit Pakistan.

“Prime Minister, you are a man of good repute. Pakistan is a brilliant country of outstanding people,” Donald Trump told Nawaz Sharif.

“I would like to come to Pakistan,” he added. – SAMAA

https://www.samaa.tv/pakistan/2016/11/pm-sharif-phones-donald-trump/

Strange.statement from Trumph " you are man of good repute" ......Didn't know Trumph also master in stand up comedy.

 

[abc123xyx]

everybody waiting for 20th jan....

things going to unfold by itself.....

 

[Śakra]

I had to look up "Felicitated"... I'm glad it didn't mean what I thought it would.

Mental image crisis averted.

We still speak Victorian English in the Subcontinent.

 

[Meengla]

Besides making some comments here and there during the campaign, does Trump even have a policy on South Asia? Please spare me comments that he's in the pocket of India. As we've clearly seen, the man is capable of anything.

Yes. I watched a Chomsky interview on Al Jazeera after the elections. The host compared Trump with Hitler. Chomsky immediately corrected: No, Hitler had convictions, beliefs and was true to those. Trump has none--it's all about himself.

On the other hand, there is a recent Musharraf interview on a Pakistan tv channel where Musharraf is categorical that America doesn't want to harm Pakistan/CPEC and that there are many real friends of Pakistan in the proposed Trump team.

The Republicans tend(ed) to be slightly less hostile to Pakistan than the Democrats. Perhaps the Republicans see some value in milking the military industrial complex/Pentagon in their worldview and Pakistan fits into that worldview somehow.

We will see.

 

[That Guy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016
4 million more Californians voted for Hillary than Trump. right there is a reason why he lost the popular vote.

funny how the electoral college actually favors democrats over republicans. it's also funny when Trump breaks down the so called blue wall now all of a sudden the electoral college needs to go.

he won fair and square.

The EC needed to go a very long time ago.

Also, the so called "blue wall" wasn't even around that long. He won fair and square in the current system, yes, but even he's accused the system of being rigged.

That's because most of them were stupid

Just like you, right?

Don't call people stupid for voting a certain way, especially if you have no idea why they're actually doing it. People didn't vote for trump because he was anti-Muslim (some did, but not a majority), they voted for him because he promised change.

 

[Moonlight]

Well. You can NOT ignore Pakistan for so many reasons like CPEC, war on terrorism, one largest and most capable armed forces and as well as strategic importance of Pakistan.

From the day one I was saying, he's trying to attract voters with his stupid speeches.

US can't ruin its relationship with Pakistan.
Bad relationship with Pakistan technically means bad relationship with China. And this is not affordable for US.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

As if President-elect Trump is in a mission to undo whatever Mr. Obama had done. And, it's personal - there's a reason for him inquiring about Mr. Obama's birth certificate or offering a grand prize to show whether any "white fellow" had any association with him. No wonder TPP - supposedly the grand anti-China coalition - was the first causality. Anyway, this is the era of the end of the "exclusive clubs", and rejuvenation of bilateral ties - both Mr. Trump and Pak have their reputations at stake. With TPP, Mr. Modi's strategy to build even a grander anti-Pak coalition also drowned in the Indian ocean as the Chinese fleet is readying itself to take over from the US one. BD might be the last (wo)man standing....

 

[LA se Karachi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016
4 million more Californians voted for Hillary than Trump. right there is a reason why he lost the popular vote.

This is a nonsensical way of looking at the vote totals. I wouldn't mind us Californians taking all the credit for Trump's failure to get the most votes from the American people. But that would be absolutely wrong and unfair. Other votes counted too.

States like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, and all the others she won contributed to her margin of victory as well. We have the largest population, so naturally, we contributed the most. Not to mention that the votes she received in the states she lost contributed just as much to her total. In the popular vote, every vote counts the same and she received far more of them in states other than California:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president


California cannot be separated from other states when it comes to the popular vote. Because if one (misleadingly) does, you could do the same with New York, Illinois, Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing. This game could go on forever.

funny how the electoral college actually favors democrats over republicans. it's also funny when Trump breaks down the so called blue wall now all of a sudden the electoral college needs to go.

No it doesn't. Both in the 2016 and 2000 elections, the Republican candidate lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college, and was elected President (though Gore may have actually won the electoral vote too---but that's another conversation).

I'm not sure what's so funny. Some of us think that the electoral college should go, whoever it benefits. Only in four Presidential elections, has the candidate who received the fewest votes won the most electoral votes and become President. Two of them (half) have occurred in the past 15 years:

A lot of people feel this way:

 

[IceCold]

I think that is supposed to be my line to you.

But it isnt. Look at the thread title and than at your line of argument. Let go your anti Imran fetish and for once stick to topic.

 

[!eon]

I wonder what they talked about.

Nihari, Briani, Siri Paey, Gol Gapey, Harisa, Meethi lassi

 

[C130]

This is a nonsensical way of looking at the vote totals. I wouldn't mind us Californians taking all the credit for Trump's failure to get the most votes from the American people. But that would be absolutely wrong and unfair. Other votes counted too.

States like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, and all the others she won contributed to her margin of victory as well. We have the largest population, so naturally, we contributed the most. Not to mention that the votes she received in the states she lost contributed just as much to her total. In the popular vote, every vote counts the same and she received far more of them in states other than California:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president


California cannot be separated from other states when it comes to the popular vote. Because if one (misleadingly) does, you could do the same with New York, Illinois, Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing. This game could go on forever.




No it doesn't. Both in the 2016 and 2000 elections, the Republican candidate lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college, and was elected President (though Gore may have actually won the electoral vote too---but that's another conversation).

I'm not sure what's so funny. Some of us think that the electoral college should go, whoever it benefits. In four Presidential elections, the candidate who received the fewest votes won the most electoral votes and became President. Two of them (half) have occurred in the past 15 years:

A lot of people feel this way:

View attachment 356989

my point is if the popular vote mattered Trump would have campaigned more in these states.

you can't deny the fact California heavily voted for Clinton over Trump 4 million votes more, and the biggest red state Texas only gave 1 million more votes to Trump over Clinton.

 

[Jzaib]

Loan that goes into the development projects instead of wasting money for pointless dharnas repeatedly which only damage the economy furthermore?

are u sure that doesnt goes into panama account . or shady LNG deals with qatri prince which gives billions of ruppes as gift to sharif family?

 

[KAL-EL]

What else he would have said? "Fck off Nawaz Sharif your country sucks?

LMAO!! Not sure if you were trying to be comical or not, but none the less, you made my morning sir.

 

[I.R.A]

LMAO!! Not sure if you were trying to be comical or not, but none the less, you made my morning sir.

It was all normal sir ............. but I am glad it made someone laugh thousands of kilometers away.