Donald Trump

rick_chasey

In fairness, everyone looks like a d!ck compared to Obama.

Obama's problem wasn't that he wasn't a good bloke. Au contraire, he was one of the most decent men I think I've ever seen or read about.

bianchimoon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... a7356a7910
How can we allow men/religious rights group to make such decisions, sad day

bianchimoon

Jim Clark · Bellingham, Washington
My Mom was one of my Dad's Possessions, that's the way it was before the 60s. She didn't own the cloths on her back. She had to obey him. My mom and the others of her generation gave birth to the Baby Boomers because they had no choice. 53% of White Women voted to become Possessions again. I'd like to say I'm sorry for them but I can't, as I spent my adult life fighting for Women's Rights just to see women stupidly give them away.

just one of the replies

Stevo_666

The Trump tax policies were looking quite interesting - especially on the corporate side with a major drop to corporate rates and a lower tax on repatriation of overseas profits.

That is, until they came up with their proposal for 'Destination based cash flow tax'.
https://taxfoundation.org/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained
Hopefully this will not get through without significant watering down, given the likely ramifications for non-US based companies that export to the US. Potentially a massive protectionist move, although exact rates and rules are still up for debate. Given his stubbornness it is a bit worrying.

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-men_us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910
How can we allow men/religious rights group to make such decisions, sad day

I think it was Nancy Pelosi who pointed out that this supposedly 'pro-life' (to use that oxymoron) act will probably increase the number of abortions as the order will also restrict access to family planning information and contraception.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness, everyone looks like a d!ck compared to Obama.

Obama's problem wasn't that he wasn't a good bloke. Au contraire, he was one of the most decent men I think I've ever seen or read about.

Decent? No doubt.
Not universally revered as a great President though. Perhaps took his eye off the ball with foreign policy.


http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/oba ... ory-works/

cooldad

I'm sure Trump will have his eye on the ball.

Unless he gets distracted by a pussy.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Trump tax policies were looking quite interesting - especially on the corporate side with a major drop to corporate rates and a lower tax on repatriation of overseas profits.

That is, until they came up with their proposal for 'Destination based cash flow tax'.
https://taxfoundation.org/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained
Hopefully this will not get through without significant watering down, given the likely ramifications for non-US based companies that export to the US. Potentially a massive protectionist move, although exact rates and rules are still up for debate. Given his stubbornness it is a bit worrying.

I tried reading that but got lost - what's the concern for non-US based companies?

bendertherobot

So, he's undoing the Dakota pipeline ban now.

America first, unless you were in America first.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

The Trump tax policies were looking quite interesting - especially on the corporate side with a major drop to corporate rates and a lower tax on repatriation of overseas profits.

That is, until they came up with their proposal for 'Destination based cash flow tax'.
https://taxfoundation.org/house-gop-s-destination-based-cash-flow-tax-explained
Hopefully this will not get through without significant watering down, given the likely ramifications for non-US based companies that export to the US. Potentially a massive protectionist move, although exact rates and rules are still up for debate. Given his stubbornness it is a bit worrying.

I tried reading that but got lost - what's the concern for non-US based companies?

Effectively a large tax charge on non-resident companies exporting to the US. Effectively a form of import tariff or irrecoverable sales tax. Designed as far as I can see to encourage US domestic production but with quite a few far reaching effects including some yet to be determined (law of unintended consequences).

Try this one if you are patient...
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/tax-services/publications/insights/assets/pwc-house-republican-blueprint-destination-based-cash-flow-tax.pdf

orraloon

All looking rainbows and unicorns then for T Mayhem's jaunt across the water later this week.

Gizza deal, go on, giz one, giz any one, go on. Per Yosser Hughes, Boys from the Blackstuff.

pinno

orraloon wrote:

All looking rainbows and unicorns then for T Mayhem's jaunt across the water later this week.

Gizza deal, go on, giz one, giz any one, go on. Per Yosser Hughes, Boys from the Blackstuff.

As opposed to Nigel "Giz a job" Farage.

burnthesheep

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-men_us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910
How can we allow men/religious rights group to make such decisions, sad day

I think it was Nancy Pelosi who pointed out that this supposedly 'pro-life' (to use that oxymoron) act will probably increase the number of abortions as the order will also restrict access to family planning information and contraception.

The hypocrisy in my country is far reaching. It abhors me to see them go after abortion, but at the same time strip insurance and social welfare safeguards. Pay to play brother, if you want fewer abortions make it easier for mothers in healthcare and family planning.

On the religious note.......more hypocrisy........claiming to be Christians and pro-life.....if you're pro-life you don't get to choose who's life it is. About 90% of American evangelicals I know are pro-death penalty. And they will CHEER for suffering for those who commit crime. Who made you the one to judge the quick and the dead.

I also love how American evangelicals always pick the sins of the less fortunate to enforce by law and defund. God forbid that same group went after the divorced the same ways as gays and abortion. Oh, I forgot, Trump has had THREE wives. THREE.

We'll forgive that sin but we won't forgive the rest.

pinno

burnthesheep wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-men_us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910
How...sad day

I...contraception.

The...Oh, I forgot, Trump has had THREE wives. THREE.

We'll forgive that sin but we won't forgive the rest.

Hmm, all we need is for some woman to come forth and claim she got a wad in a brown envelope from Trump to... If you see what I mean.

rick_chasey

Wouldn't matter.

Trump's a vehicle for Republican politicians to get through what they want.

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wouldn't matter.

Trump's a vehicle for Republican politicians to get through what they want.

That's what the Washington Post is suggesting - get through all the looniest ideas via Trump, then the Republicans impeach him, blame all the sh1t on Trump, get their man Pence in, but leave all the tax-cutting, deregulation, climate-destroying, minorities-bashing Trump actions in place.

rick_chasey

Sure, that's how it works.

Politicians support leaders who give them what they want.

Republicans will know he's deeply unpopular, but they'll also know he delivered a clean sweep across the 3 pillars of American power.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wouldn't matter.

Trump's a vehicle for Republican politicians to get through what they want.

It doesn't make him untouchable, I mean look at the dung that was flung at B Clinton. There will be something that will stick but if the suggestion that Pence will take his place, maybe we should hope his term is long enough to damage the Republicans.

mr_goo

Given Trump's pseudo isolationist stance I will be interested to see how much of the US armed forces are withdrawn from Europe.
He has stated that it's not the USAs job to defend Europe. Quite honestly he is right.

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wouldn't matter.

Trump's a vehicle for Republican politicians to get through what they want.

It doesn't make him untouchable, I mean look at the dung that was flung at B Clinton. There will be something that will stick but if the suggestion that Pence will take his place, maybe we should hope his term is long enough to damage the Republicans.

It's not untouchable. He's expedient for the party.

It'll stick when they want to get rid of him.

ballysmate

Mr Goo wrote:

Given Trump's pseudo isolationist stance I will be interested to see how much of the US armed forces are withdrawn from Europe.
He has stated that it's not the USAs job to defend Europe. Quite honestly he is right.

Yes he is right. We, and i mean Europe , have been content to shelter under the American umbrella for decades, both conventionally and particularly nuclear for decades.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Given Trump's pseudo isolationist stance I will be interested to see how much of the US armed forces are withdrawn from Europe.
He has stated that it's not the USAs job to defend Europe. Quite honestly he is right.

It's always been mostly self interested - to stop first the USSR and latterly Russia gain8ng an advantage. It certainly wasn't out of the kindness of their heart. That continued support of a stable Europe might be in America's interest might be a bit subtle for Trump to grasp, though.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Given Trump's pseudo isolationist stance I will be interested to see how much of the US armed forces are withdrawn from Europe.
He has stated that it's not the USAs job to defend Europe. Quite honestly he is right.

It's always been mostly self interested - to stop first the USSR and latterly Russia gain8ng an advantage. It certainly wasn't out of the kindness of their heart.

I always felt the Europe first approach to the second world war, which then birthed the marshal plan was as much born out of recognition of the ties its citizens had to Europe as anything else.

bondurant

I'd go for self interest personally.

Most things are, where nation states are concerned. The US didn't leap to our defence in 1939, even if it condemned the actions of Germany and supported us in other ways. Public opinion in the US was not, if I remember correctly, strongly in favour of going to war either.

I think that an increasingly strong Russia and a fragmented NATO / EU would be a concern to the US in the end, and they have mounting issues with China too.

pinno

Mr Goo wrote:

Given Trump's pseudo isolationist stance I will be interested to see how much of the US armed forces are withdrawn from Europe.
He has stated that it's not the USAs job to defend Europe. Quite honestly he is right.

NATO is intrinsically linked to the UN Security council and we know Trump's feelings towards those institutions.
Withdrawing US troops is effectively another stepping down from the cold war. A good thing really so long as Trump doesn't see China as the new global 'threat'. If Trump is intent on this protectionist route, it will ultimately result in economic conflict with China - then China becomes the new enemy to blame when the protectionist policies start to fail.

rick_chasey

Bondurant wrote:

I'd go for self interest personally.

Most things are, where nation states are concerned. The US didn't leap to our defence in 1939, even if it condemned the actions of Germany and supported us in other ways. Public opinion in the US was not, if I remember correctly, strongly in favour of going to war either.

I think that an increasingly strong Russia and a fragmented NATO / EU would be a concern to the US in the end, and they have mounting issues with China too.

Out of interest, if you do think it was self interest after Pearl Harbour, why did the US have a Europe first policy?


Western Europe owes an awful lot to the US, however unfashionable it is to say so.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bondurant wrote:

I'd go for self interest personally.

Most things are, where nation states are concerned. The US didn't leap to our defence in 1939, even if it condemned the actions of Germany and supported us in other ways. Public opinion in the US was not, if I remember correctly, strongly in favour of going to war either.

I think that an increasingly strong Russia and a fragmented NATO / EU would be a concern to the US in the end, and they have mounting issues with China too.

Out of interest, if you do think it was self interest after Pearl Harbour, why did the US have a Europe first policy?


Western Europe owes an awful lot to the US, however unfashionable it is to say so.

American involvement came grudgingly and at a huge price. I am convinced they saw the war as a nail in the coffin of the British Empire and a chance for them to take over and take over they have with Global Capitalism. Ironic how it is biting them in the ass*.
It took them 3 years to enter into the war fully and we didn't pay the Anglo-American loan off until 2006. Since the end of the war, we have continued on this path of 'special relationship'. So special, that Americans don't need Visas to come to the UK but we do if we want to go there and so 'special' that I think it has detracted from proper EU integration: one foot in Europe and one foot in the USA - it didn't work, did it? We are heading towards purgatory.
Never mind living under the cloud of potential Nuclear war. I was less worried about what the Russians were going to do, I was always more worried about what the Americans were going to do. I do not thank them for that fear.
I wonder what former East Germans think or Swedes who felt they were on the front line and built all those bunkers. Go to Uppsala university campus and go see all the bunkers (now used as study rooms and gyms). It's real and ominous all at the same time.

*That's not an endorsement of the British Empire, it's simply underlining their self interest, so don't go off on one.

bondurant

One other point also, on the Marshall Plan. On one hand, to rebuild Europe after the war. On the other, if you think about what countries the money went to and how the US saw communism, the Marshall Plan was also an ideological buffer against the USSR.

This is not to say we don't owe the US a lot, just to point out some realpolitik that worked out well for us.

mr_goo

I think we shall see the withdrawal of most of the US forces in Europe. The UK and Europe should not be reliant on another country to defend them. And clearly even in the Obama administration there was American frustration at the lack of spending from Euorpean countries on defence.
The Royal Navy will take delivery of two new aircraft carriers, and aparently there are only enough personnel to have one at sea at any time. Not forgetting the fiasco over the selection of which variant of the F35 to acquire an the £ millions wasted.
The UK should ditch Trident 2 (nobody is ever going to press the button) and plough the money into conventional military hardware an recruitment.

The UK needs to act soon before Trump withdraws from places like Lakenheath.

bompington

EDIT... comment on Marshall plan deleted as it was total nonsense :oops: , see posts below...