Donald Trump

1…222223225227228…550

Comments

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ah the breastapo are out again are they?
    Eh?

    there are many reasons why women can not breast feed. This is obviously very distressing and the baby may be reluctant to take a bottle. The desparate mum will then meet the Breastapo who will treat them with anger and contempt.

    From what I have read the WHO objection to formula is that in most parts of the world people do not have access to clean water.

    Are you speaking from experience or just what you've heard? It doesn't fit with our experience at all. All of which has absolutely f*** all to do with the US blocking this as a sop to their dairy and formula industry. This is not about 1st world pushy midwives.

    try having a prem baby that spends 3 weeks in hospital and see how milk production goes. When a baby is fed through tubes because it is not strong enough to suck then it can lose the instinct which can lead to prolonged feeding issues. As Rick says HVs and Midwives can be very hostile. Paedeatricians are very good. Funnily enough I read up on the subject and realise the NHS blindly follows WHO guidelines even though they were written with the developing world in mind. No solids before 6 months is also about access to clean water.

    Bingo. Again this - the US blocking the resolution - has absolutely nothing to do with the attitudes of NHS midwives. This is about the US dairy and formula industry wanting to aggressively and misleadingly market their products to the soft target of developing countries with its lower levels of education and lack of availability of clean drinking water. Ironically there are a lot of similarities between this and what everyone is getting their hair off about. This is just straightforward commercial lobbying.

    If people want to have a moan about maternal care in the NHS, then there's a whole range of topics to choose from, but none related to Trump.

    Edit: that's twice I've sort of agreed with Stevo today...
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    However using Trump's protectionism to get WHO to look at it again might not be a bad thing if the NHS just copies Who policy even if it's targetted at third world nations?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    However using Trump's protectionism to get WHO to look at it again might not be a bad thing if the NHS just copies Who policy even if it's targetted at third world nations?
    It's not even protectionism, just naked commercial gain. The WHO is aiming their policy at developing countries where needs are a little more urgent. Things may well need to change in the NHS - and frankly the problems SC and others have experienced are not even limited to maternal care, let alone breastfeeding - but trying to approach those problems via the WHO is... somewhat indirect to say the least.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,891
    rjsterry wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    However using Trump's protectionism to get WHO to look at it again might not be a bad thing if the NHS just copies Who policy even if it's targetted at third world nations?
    It's not even protectionism, just naked commercial gain. The WHO is aiming their policy at developing countries where needs are a little more urgent. Things may well need to change in the NHS - and frankly the problems SC and others have experienced are not even limited to maternal care, let alone breastfeeding - but trying to approach those problems via the WHO is... somewhat indirect to say the least.

    Are you sure? I thought the low rates of breastfeeding in the UK were part of the WHO's concerns, so it is not just targeting less developed countries where breastfeeding rates are much higher.

    Your point is still valid. It is for naked commercial gain. Much like "follow on milk"
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    That might be a secondary concern but I'd guess infant mortality in the developing world was higher up the list.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,376
    rjsterry wrote:
    Edit: that's twice I've sort of agreed with Stevo today...
    I must have missed the other one - please do tell :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,537
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Edit: that's twice I've sort of agreed with Stevo today...
    I must have missed the other one - please do tell :)
    The Brexit thread. Admittedly it did look like I was disagreeing but as you pointed out it boiled down to the same thing.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... usion.html

    Worth a read.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,891
    Trump is sparring with Merkel and adding lots of tariffs to Chinese goods. Never a quiet day for him.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    What is the longer term implication for the US given China holding huge quantities of US debt which could be dumped at any time and also China's continual investment in building trade routes outside of the US (Silk road, Africa, SE. Asia etc).

    Surely someone is telling the cretin to think about more than just ratings?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    No chance did he know about the gas pipeline - he must have asked someone "find me something to annoy the Germans."

    Whoever it was, good call. It is a legitimate concern, and coming from anyone else, in a different way, would be a good thing to raise. Unfortunately....
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,891
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    What is the longer term implication for the US given China holding huge quantities of US debt which could be dumped at any time

    That would just strengthen RMB which would make Chinese exports even more expensive.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    No chance did he know about the gas pipeline - he must have asked someone "find me something to annoy the Germans."

    Whoever it was, good call. It is a legitimate concern, and coming from anyone else, in a different way, would be a good thing to raise. Unfortunately....

    Russia supplies roughly a third of Germany's gas with the rest coming from the EU and Norway, all through pipes. It would be feasible for Germany to import more gas from the EU and less from Russia.

    If Germany ceased to care about climate change (like Trump doesn't care) it could use its vast reserves of dirty coal - lignite - for energy production.

    As with any country, energy consumption could be cut considerably by better building insulation.

    One reason why Trump courts Russia is that it is a country well endowed with natural resources, it is dependent on selling resources like gas to support its economy. Trumpistan must be aware that the Russian economy would be hard hit if the Germans stopped buying their gas. As a country it is a paradise for the mega-rich and pretty crap for every other Russian.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,891
    Trump was finding it tricky to stick to legitimate criticisms of Germany, so has decided NATO countries should spend 4% of GDP on defence.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Trump was finding it tricky to stick to legitimate criticisms of Germany, so has decided NATO countries should spend 4% of GDP on defence.

    It sounds like he just wants to take the US out of NATO.

    At which point the investigation into alleged Russian interference in favour of Trump and anything they have to blackmail Trump with suddenly becomes rather more critical.
    _
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    US softens stance on Iran (but don't tell any one).

    "Another factor pushing down oil prices midweek were the comments from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who seemed to soften America’s position as it relates to how severely it would treat countries buying Iranian oil. "

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/O ... ction.html
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    I am starting to think that nobody should agree to have talks with Trump about anything. There is no diplomatic benefit to it as Trump doesn't understand diplomacy and all that can ever happen is that he will disagree/walk out on etc anyone who he is meeting with, whilst possibly cancelling something that potentially thousands of people have spent years putting together, just because he didn't get his way about something he only gained an opinion on five minutes earlier.

    Does anyone have any example of an international meeting that someone had with Trump where the outcome was better for them than the situation prior to the meeting? Unless the outcome was to the benefit of Russia, Israel or North Korea!
    Faster than a tent.......
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.

    And a complete lack of integrity in his case, that's what you need to chisel and cheat your way to wealth as he does.

    The proper business deals are those where both parties can get something out of them. Not where one party shafts the other.

    Trump is like a dodgy ebayer who uses fuzzy pictures and inadequate descriptions or fails to send the item because the price was too low or if buying says the item didn't turn up when it did. That's the Trump 'Art of the Deal'.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,326
    Robert88 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.

    And a complete lack of integrity in his case, that's what you need to chisel and cheat your way to wealth as he does.

    The proper business deals are those where both parties can get something out of them. Not where one party shafts the other.

    Trump is like a dodgy ebayer who uses fuzzy pictures and inadequate descriptions or fails to send the item because the price was too low or if buying says the item didn't turn up when it did. That's the Trump 'Art of the Deal'.
    He seems to think that every deal involves a winner and a loser. He can't compute the idea that co-operation might mean that both parties win.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    briantrumpet wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.

    And a complete lack of integrity in his case, that's what you need to chisel and cheat your way to wealth as he does.

    The proper business deals are those where both parties can get something out of them. Not where one party shafts the other.

    Trump is like a dodgy ebayer who uses fuzzy pictures and inadequate descriptions or fails to send the item because the price was too low or if buying says the item didn't turn up when it did. That's the Trump 'Art of the Deal'.
    He seems to think that every deal involves a winner and a loser. He can't compute the idea that co-operation might mean that both parties win.

    When most of your 'deals' are with various semi-gangster types, either you're mugging people off or you're being mugged.

    That's how he sees all 'deals'.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.

    It does help if you get multi-millionaire wealth handed to you though.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Trump is a business man. Apparently he approaches every negotiation by setting out a strong position that he knows he'll compromise on to get where he really wants. He's a clever businessman is Trump. You don't get billionaire wealth handed to you. You need to have talent and intelligence.

    It does help if you get multi-millionaire wealth handed to you though.
    Bingo!

    Gets it handed to you. Could say the presidency came that way too. Clinton as opposition, mood for change, etc. Etc etc. Etc.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I think TM was being sarcastic. Everything he said, trump is the opposite.

    The presidency, I still don’t get
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    On The Apprentice, there is no consideration needed of the next time you are going to have to deal with a counterparty. Every deal is standalone, and the winning team needs to have no concept of an ongoing business relationship. Trump is trying to treat the world like that.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    ...White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders when asked about the apparently agitated body language displayed by President Donald Trump's chief of staff during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

    Sanders told The Washington Post that Kelly "was displeased because he was expecting a full breakfast and there were only pastries and cheese."
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Trump was finding it tricky to stick to legitimate criticisms of Germany, so has decided NATO countries should spend 4% of GDP on defence.

    It sounds like he just wants to take the US out of NATO.

    At which point the investigation into alleged Russian interference in favour of Trump and anything they have to blackmail Trump with suddenly becomes rather more critical.

    he asks for 2% and they vaguely promise to get there by 2025-30. Presumably he thinks that by asking for 4% they will jump at 2%.

    If I was a US taxpayer I really would not understand why I was paying to defend the EU.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Trump was finding it tricky to stick to legitimate criticisms of Germany, so has decided NATO countries should spend 4% of GDP on defence.

    It sounds like he just wants to take the US out of NATO.

    At which point the investigation into alleged Russian interference in favour of Trump and anything they have to blackmail Trump with suddenly becomes rather more critical.

    he asks for 2% and they vaguely promise to get there by 2025-30. Presumably he thinks that by asking for 4% they will jump at 2%.

    If I was a US taxpayer I really would not understand why I was paying to defend the EU.

    Stable Europe is in US interest, no?
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    Journalist: "Will you be tweeting differently once you board Air Force One?"

    Trump: "No, that's other people that do that, I don't, I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius"
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,130
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    If I was a US taxpayer I really would not understand why I was paying to defend the EU.

    You might understand that not all of the USA's defence spending is related to NATO or Europe though.

Categories