Chaircat Meow Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, protar said: I disagree. Trump is not a president who should ever be normalised. You treat his ilk as though what they're doing and saying is okay and you give them legitimacy. Obviously I understand the delicacy of her situation - the relationship between the US and the UK is one of the most important relationships between two countries in the world. She can hardly trash the special relationship that's lasted centuries because of one president's four years. But now is the time for other world leaders to be firm and strong. She had a perfect opportunity in that press conference to make clear the areas where she opposed trump and she didn't take it. The US and UK have something called 'the special relationship' (with definite article) which has lasted centuries? Some people believe some really weird things. She did suggest some areas where she disagreed with Trump in her speech to the repubs in Philadelphia. The British government is still sticking to a hardline on Russia as yet. Her job though is to protect the UK national interest not pander to SJWs. She did ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 On The Republicans Proposed Corporate Tax: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/border-tax-two-step-wonkish/ Quote With a VAT, a firm pays tax on the value of its sales, minus the cost of intermediate inputs – the goods it buys from other companies. With a DBCFT, firms similarly get to deduct the cost of intermediate inputs. But they also get to deduct the cost of factors of production, mostly labor but also land. So one way to think of a DBCFT is as a VAT combined with a subsidy for employment of domestic factors of production. The VAT part has no competitive effect, but the subsidy part would lead to expanded domestic production if wages and exchange rates didn’t change. Yes, this is the reason I've had a difficult time seeing the DBCFT as being like a VAT. Under a VAT, factors of production are treated the same, whether foreign or domestic. Under the DBCFT, that seemingly isn't true. Quote But of course wages and/or the exchange rate would, in fact, change. If the US went to a DBCFT, we should expect the dollar to rise by enough to wipe out any competitive advantage. After the currency adjustment, the trade effect should once again be nil. But there might be a lot of short-to-medium term financial consequences from a stronger dollar. I probably should be careful about disagreeing with Paul Krugman, but the whole reason the dollar appreciates is because the quantities of imports and exports change. But, again, the biggest problem with the tax, in my view, is the fact it is being lowered to 20%. With the way the tax is now being computed the theoretical reasons for lowering the corporate tax went out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 43 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said: The US and UK have something called 'the special relationship' (with definite article) which has lasted centuries? Some people believe some really weird things. She did suggest some areas where she disagreed with Trump in her speech to the repubs in Philadelphia. The British government is still sticking to a hardline on Russia as yet. Her job though is to protect the UK national interest not pander to SJWs. She did ok. The special relationship is a pretty well known term for the close relationship between the US and the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship This isn't about pandering to "SJW's". We're at the point where the leader of the free world can talk about how he thinks torture works and is a-okay and he can do that without any challenge. We need May to spend less time cracking jokes with him and more time being publicly firm with Trump about what she finds unacceptable with his policies. I am British, so obviously I want to see May protecting the UK's national interests first and foremost. But what Trump is doing in America is relevant to us. Our close relationship with the US gives us a unique position to actually take a stand against his outright immoral policies. Even Trump will think twice about cutting ties with the UK after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 28 minutes ago, protar said: The special relationship is a pretty well known term for the close relationship between the US and the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship And Yeti is a pretty well known term for a snow monster living in the Himalayas. It doesn't exist either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti And even the most starry eyed believers in this fiction aren't ignorant enough to think it has lasted centuries. 202 years ago the UK and US were at war with each other after all. The torture thing did come up at the press conference and Trump said he isn't changing policy on the subject because he's deferring to Mattis. I'm not sure why May would want to push him further on the subject. edit: Another thing. If May was supposed to lay out her disagreements with Trump during their press conference what is she supposed to do today when she is meeting Erdogan? further edit: Ok, she may actually have given Erdogan some lip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said: The US and UK have something called 'the special relationship' (with definite article) which has lasted centuries? Some people believe some really weird things. She did suggest some areas where she disagreed with Trump in her speech to the repubs in Philadelphia. The British government is still sticking to a hardline on Russia as yet. Her job though is to protect the UK national interest not pander to SJWs. She did ok. Those horrible terrible SWJs!!!!! The US and UK have had the "Special Relationship" since WWII that's not a full century much less "centuries". The US and the UK were fairly hostile to one another through most of the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Funniest story so far this morning: Republicans booked a private train to bring attendees of their Philadelphia meetings back to Washington. Protestors have dogged them all week, so much so that not a single Republican showed up at the train station and the train left the station and went back to Washington empty. http://www.philebrity.com/blog/2017/1/27/in-the-grandest-metaphor-of-the-week-an-actual-gop-ghost-train-left-30th-street-station-this-morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said: The US and UK have something called 'the special relationship' (with definite article) which has lasted centuries? Some people believe some really weird things. The US and UK do have a special relationship; albeit one that's only about 70 years old and not monogamous. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are part of it too. Its called the Five Eyes, is based on the original UKUSA Agreement, and is the most interconnected state SIGINT sharing system in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/obamacare-message-healthcare-gov-trump-234278 Reversing course, Trump administration will continue Obamacare outreach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The US and UK have had the "Special Relationship" since WWII that's not a full century much less "centuries". Just now, Fez said: The US and UK do have a special relationship; albeit one that's only about 70 years old and not monogamous. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are part of it too. Well, I have to disagree. Look, if we're going to have an argument, I must take a contrary position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Toth said: Why asking when you already know the answer? It would be insanity to claim that history would ever repeat under the exact same circumstances. But you can't deny that we live in a time where populism is on the rise and the trust in the flexibility of democracies is on an all-time low. The factors are the same. And Trump is in a very good position to erode the American democracy, even though unlike Hitler I am less scared of him as of his advisors. Comparing him to Louis or Napoleon would be laughable for this exact reason. Those two monarchs were extremely cunning, Trump most certainly is not. I would actually rather compare Putin to Napoleon, though I do that mostly in regards to having an ambitious and scarily competent workoholic in charge. And as I said, in the best case they are just a bunch of corrupt leeches. The most powerful con-artists imaginable. My feeling is that the desire of many to see current events solely through a 1930s prism is actually harmful. This comparison obscures far more than it reveals. I regard your assertion that the factors are the same as absurd. No, of course they are not. We are talking about very different economic problems, totally different ethnic/religious issues, a totally different ethos prevailing among the elites and a totally different international and geopolitical situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Just now, Chaircat Meow said: My feeling is that the desire of many to see current events solely through a 1930s prism is actually harmful. This comparison obscures far more than it reveals. I regard your assertion that the factors are the same as absurd. No, of course they are not. We are talking about very different economic problems, totally different ethnic/religious issues, a totally different ethos prevailing among the elites and a totally different international and geopolitical situation. The factors might not be the same. But, there are some pretty interesting parallels. And are the economic problems largely different? Maybe to some extent. But, I think one can draw a pretty strong parallel to the Gold Standard and the Euro. The Great Depression was largely the result of a malfunctioning gold standard. I'd say, the problems in Europe has largely been because of a malfunctioning Euro. Both resulted in low inflation and low output. Both, the Great Depression and the Financial Crises in Europe were largely due to monetary problems. And those problems have made people extremely unhappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Republican split on Obamacare strategy evident during private meeting An audio recording of the closed-door session revealed a host of divisions over the details of a replacement plan. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-obamacare-private-meeting-audio-234292 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Republican split on Obamacare strategy evident during private meeting An audio recording of the closed-door session revealed a host of divisions over the details of a replacement plan. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-obamacare-private-meeting-audio-234292 What journalistic justification is there for not releasing the audio recording? Why must we take the author's word on faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 15 hours ago, Swordfish said: We've been hearing about these eventual cracks leading to his demise for about a year now. Might be time to revise the game plan. Similarly, we've been hearing about him being a political neophyte that can be twisted this way and that by just giving him the right set of words for months.And yet, in his first week, he does the sorts of things he campaigned on and not the fantasy stuff "moderate Ivanka" or Al Gore or Kanye were supposed to feed him. Everyone has their illusions with this guy,everyone takes what they want to be true. Some liberals sound like his supporters, with the wishful thinking of "oh, he wouldn't really do that if we just talk with him!". Come on man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said: And Yeti is a pretty well known term for a snow monster living in the Himalayas. It doesn't exist either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti And even the most starry eyed believers in this fiction aren't ignorant enough to think it has lasted centuries. 202 years ago the UK and US were at war with each other after all. The torture thing did come up at the press conference and Trump said he isn't changing policy on the subject because he's deferring to Mattis. I'm not sure why May would want to push him further on the subject. edit: Another thing. If May was supposed to lay out her disagreements with Trump during their press conference what is she supposed to do today when she is meeting Erdogan? further edit: Ok, she may actually have given Erdogan some lip. Okay centuries? No. But a special relationship? Yes. Clearly the US and UK are close allies and major trading partners. It's an alliance that even trump would think twice about ruining which puts us in a position where UK leaders can actually try and steer things in a less troubling direction. I applaud her for standing strong on sanctions against Russia, but other than that I think she came across as very spineless and subservient to trump. That's my point here. Unlike with Turkey we actually have a very close relationship with the US which means we can be clear on when the US is doing something bad without it spoiling our entire relationship. The situation with Turkey is more delicate (although I am at the very least happy she bought up Edrogan's human right's violations.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 The reality of the special relationship is that it's about as special as either (or both) nations want or need at any time, and it is skewed in favour of the United States. Republican presidents also seem to have been far keener on it than Democrats: Reagan, Bush I and II and Trump were all much more enthusiastic about it than Clinton and Obama. But yes, overall the level of cooperation between the USA and UK on diplomacy, trade, military matter and intelligence is extremely unusual and very high. Britain has a similar level of cooperation only with Commonwealth members (so countries that used to be part of Britain, considerably more recently than the USA). There are strong benefits to the special relationship, but, as we saw with regards to Iraq, considerable dangers and negatives, and these tend to be far more serious for Britain than for the United States. Our international reputation has never recovered from the Iraq debacle and is unlikely to do so for some time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Werthead said: The reality of the special relationship is that it's about as special as either (or both) nations want or need at any time, and it is skewed in favour of the United States. Republican presidents also seem to have been far keener on it than Democrats: Reagan, Bush I and II and Trump were all much more enthusiastic about it than Clinton and Obama. But yes, overall the level of cooperation between the USA and UK on diplomacy, trade, military matter and intelligence is extremely unusual and very high. Britain has a similar level of cooperation only with Commonwealth members (so countries that used to be part of Britain, considerably more recently than the USA). There are strong benefits to the special relationship, but, as we saw with regards to Iraq, considerable dangers and negatives, and these tend to be far more serious for Britain than for the United States. Our international reputation has never recovered from the Iraq debacle and is unlikely to do so for some time to come. I fear for a repeat of iraq. If Trump goes to war for some frivolous reason, the UK is bound to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Quote What journalistic justification is there for not releasing the audio recording? Why must we take the author's word on faith? Both Sessions' and MacArthur's office confirmed the remarks they made. Which comments do you think are fake? And why does this story bother you so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 36 minutes ago, protar said: Okay centuries? No. But a special relationship? Yes. Clearly the US and UK are close allies and major trading partners. It's an alliance that even trump would think twice about ruining If there's one thing that is absolutely clear about Trump, it is that he very rarely thinks twice about anything, and does not give a damn about historical precedent, alliances, or relationships that require him to give as well as take. He's interested in the 'special relationship' for the same reason he's interested in any relationship, ie what he can get out of it, and the minute we start trying to take back he'll willingly ruin it for the price of a cup of coffee, or just out of spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Just now, Commodore said: What journalistic justification is there for not releasing the audio recording? Why must we take the author's word on faith? “I hate to think we’re going to keep going down this road that says, ‘You have to do it now! Now! Now! Now! Now!,’ and then wake up and say, ‘What did we do?’” House Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) told the room after being called on by someone moderating the question and answer session. Several of the other speakers on the recording could be identified because they were similarly called on by name. Sessions' office confirmed his comments. After the room applauded the Texas Republican, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) stood up and echoed the very same fear: “We’re telling those people that we’re not going to pull the rug out from under them, and if we do this too fast, we are in fact going to pull the rug out from under them,” said MacArthur, one of just a handful of Republicans who opposed a recent bill kicking off the GOP repeal effort. His office also confirmed the remarks. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/republicans-obamacare-private-meeting-audio-234292 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.