Donald Trump

tangled_metal

Not backwards on the whole just conservative even the liberal left i think. Decades ago as a kid i met my great aunts from America. Second and third Americans I'd ever met (first being my grandad). For old people they struck me as very modern. Heck my grandmother (younger than the grt aunts but over a decade) still wore dresses and skirts. They wore trousers all the time. As a very young kid i thought only my mum's generation could wear trousers. I have no reason to doubt that Americans are any more backwards now.

They have their own style i guess and attitude. In business i once got told that among directors of PLCs the highest proportion were trained accountants. In the USA it's salesmen. They value people who can sell above accountants. I think that's kind of telling.

kingstongraham

Tangled Metal wrote:

They have their own style i guess and attitude. In business i once got told that among directors of PLCs the highest proportion were trained accountants. In the USA it's salesmen. They value people who can sell above accountants. I think that's kind of telling.

That's not wrong, is it?

surrey_commuter

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not just vw. It's the suppliers to American car companies too. There's US companies in Mexico too. VW is just a European car that's invested in Mexico and USA i believe. The stuff made in Mexico can also go into plants in USA owned or supplying vw that uses US workforce.

Seriously, in the auto trade a 20% tariff on Mexico will affect USA car industry too.

The question is who will pay that tariff ultimately?

I hear you - but nobody else can. Tariffs are a magic tax used for punishing foreigners. The magic is that they don't pass it onto their customers

Imagine the outcry if you said you were going to up VAT on cars to a total of 50%

mamba80

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

If as mentioned on the other thread, leaving the largest free trade zone on the planet is a bad thing then it is hard to argue that entering a trade deal with the largest economy on earth is a bad thing.

There is a very good reason that Trump is tearing up multilateral deals and striking bilateral deals.

we export some £40b to the US and 5x that to the EU.... a better Q might be why are we moving away from the EU ? i dont really see how, as some 80% of our exports are in services, we can hope to dramatically increase this to the States, its not as if they havent got a very mature FS industry already.
the US of course would love to have access to the NHS, education, utilities and agriculture.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

If as mentioned on the other thread, leaving the largest free trade zone on the planet is a bad thing then it is hard to argue that entering a trade deal with the largest economy on earth is a bad thing.

There is a very good reason that Trump is tearing up multilateral deals and striking bilateral deals.

we export some £40b to the US and 5x that to the EU.... a better Q might be why are we moving away from the EU ? i dont really see how, as some 80% of our exports are in services, we can hope to dramatically increase this to the States, its not as if they havent got a very mature FS industry already.
the US of course would love to have access to the NHS, education, utilities and agriculture.

No, the question is why it would be bad to go for a trade deal with the US. There's another thread for the EU matter, which has already been decided so no point asking why.

So you think that facilitating trade and reducing barriers to trade with the U S won't help trade with the US ? We have no trade deal with the US, and were not obliged to sign up to something that makes it harder to trade. And btw, US companies can go buy UK companies without a trade deal.

But I do admire your ability to find negatives in nearly everything

mamba80

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?
May just looks desperate, off to Turkey next..... perhaps N Korea might cut a trade deal with us?

bendertherobot

Rogue potus staff on twitter is fun.

briantrumpet

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?
May just looks desperate, off to Turkey next..... perhaps N Korea might cut a trade deal with us?

Would that be the Turkey that the Brexiters were so keen to scare referendum voters with?

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?
May just looks desperate, off to Turkey next..... perhaps N Korea might cut a trade deal with us?

Would that be the Turkey that the Brexiters were so keen to scare referendum voters with?

What is the point of this trip? We can not conclude a trade deal for two years by when Turkey will have joined the EU.

veronese68

So Trump isn't banning muslims from entering the country. He's banning all people from certain Muslim countries, except the non-Muslims. :roll:

mr_goo

Veronese68 wrote:

So Trump isn't banning muslims from entering the country. He's banning all people from certain Muslim countries, except the non-Muslims. :roll:

I notice that Saudi Arabia was a glaring omission from his list. Seems that the Kingdom also gets special treatment (ignored) from the UN when it comes to sanctions on countries with poor human rights.

veronese68

Money talks, especially to the likes of Trump.

Ben6899

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

briantrumpet

Veronese68 wrote:

Money talks, especially to the likes of Trump.

It certainly does. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 ... -interest/

I think that his love of money and (perceived) adulation are far more important to him than any political 'philosophy'.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So Trump isn't banning muslims from entering the country. He's banning all people from certain Muslim countries, except the non-Muslims. :roll:

I notice that Saudi Arabia was a glaring omission from his list.

Bitterly ironic given that about 99% of American victims of Islamist terrorism have been killed by Saudis :-(

surrey_commuter

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

orraloon

bompington wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So Trump isn't banning muslims from entering the country. He's banning all people from certain Muslim countries, except the non-Muslims. :roll:

I notice that Saudi Arabia was a glaring omission from his list.

Bitterly ironic given that about 99% of American victims of Islamist terrorism have been killed by Saudis :-(

There will be alt facts along shortly to clarify that the 9/11 terrorists were not Saudi but Somali. Both start with 'S' so close enough.

bendertherobot

Borders closed then. Google and Facebook already upset.

veronese68

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

I get the distinct impression he doesn't give a flying fig about human rights.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

Perhaps. USA poor human rights outside of its borders. Saudi poor human rights inside of its borders.
I know that it is purely oil that talks when it comes to dealing with the Kingdom. USA in particular, especially the accords they signed with them during the Cold War era to secure energy supply (oil). In return Saudi gained wealth and security. Plus the agreements permitted them to continue their violent and fundamentalist version of Islam, Wahhabism, free from western interference. Because of this the world has suffered from a feedback loop of Islamic terrorism since the 70s. Mujahideen, Al- Qaeda, Taliban, IS, etc, etc. And all due to USA and Saudi being cozy.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

Perhaps. USA poor human rights outside of its borders. Saudi poor human rights inside of its borders.
I know that it is purely oil that talks when it comes to dealing with the Kingdom. USA in particular, especially the accords they signed with them during the Cold War era to secure energy supply (oil). In return Saudi gained wealth and security. Plus the agreements permitted them to continue their violent and fundamentalist version of Islam, Wahhabism, free from western interference. Because of this the world has suffered from a feedback loop of Islamic terrorism since the 70s. Mujahideen, Al- Qaeda, Taliban, IS, etc, etc. And all due to USA and Saudi being cozy.

That is my point. They offshore people they want to illegally detain and torture. Assassinating foreign nationals and invading sovereign states whilst inflicting the death penalty on a surprisingly large proportion of it's population. Check the incarceration rates for different sectors of society.

Seems Obama only looked good bookended by GWB and Bush.

surrey_commuter

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

I get the distinct impression he doesn't give a flying fig about human rights.

There is a part of me that thinks he should be applauded for his transparency. Obama talked the talk but never shut Guantanamo or stopped killing innocent civilians.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?

I guess we will find out. The relationship has many facets - trade and business is one of them. Regardless of Brexit, a good trade deal with the country with the largest economy on the planet is something we should look to get.

Presidents change but the USA will continue to be a major economy and trading partner. If we followed your tactics of not doing business with any country on the grounds that their head of state was n0b then we wouldn't be doing a great deal of trade (aside from the question of which moral court would decide who's a nob and how much of a n0b they have to be before we don't do business with the entire country in question).

(Edited to head off smarty pants centre left pedantry )

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I thought May did well, yesterday. Holding hands and managing not to get goosed.

As for Saudi Arabia... Oil.

Not sure the US of A should be judging somebody else's human rights record.

I get the distinct impression he doesn't give a flying fig about human rights.

There is a part of me that thinks he should be applauded for his transparency. Obama talked the talk but never shut Guantanamo or stopped killing innocent civilians.

I wouldn't mind betting that torture continued under his stewardship. Although we will never know.
I cannot see any head of state closing an avenue of gaining intelligence that would save the lives of their own citizens or those of other states.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?

I guess we will find out. The relationship has many facets - trade and business is one of them. Regardless of Brexit, a good trade deal with the largest economy on the planet is something we should look to get.

Presidents change but the USA will continue to be a major economy and trading partner. If we followed your tactics of not doing business with any country on the grounds that their head of state was n0b then we wouldn't be doing a great deal of trade (aside from the question of which moral court would decide who's a doorknob and how much of a n0b they have to be before we don't do business with the entire country in question).

The title of largest economy fluctuates with currencies between China, USA, and the EU (most sensible commentators view it as one economy).

Actions speak louder than words when guessing what we might do trade wise

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?

I guess we will find out. The relationship has many facets - trade and business is one of them. Regardless of Brexit, a good trade deal with the largest economy on the planet is something we should look to get.

Presidents change but the USA will continue to be a major economy and trading partner. If we followed your tactics of not doing business with any country on the grounds that their head of state was n0b then we wouldn't be doing a great deal of trade (aside from the question of which moral court would decide who's a doorknob and how much of a n0b they have to be before we don't do business with the entire country in question).

The title of largest economy fluctuates with currencies between China, USA, and the EU (most sensible commentators view it as one economy).

Actions speak louder than words when guessing what we might do trade wise

As I said let's see.

I'm not interested in arguments over whether a collection of countries in a trading bloc should be classed as one country. They clearly are not one country.

US is well ahead of all countries from what I can see:
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

surrey_commuter

You said largest economy not largest country.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i think she is just acting a little hasty that is all steve0, we might well value the special relationship but does the US ?

I guess we will find out. The relationship has many facets - trade and business is one of them. Regardless of Brexit, a good trade deal with the largest economy on the planet is something we should look to get.

Presidents change but the USA will continue to be a major economy and trading partner. If we followed your tactics of not doing business with any country on the grounds that their head of state was n0b then we wouldn't be doing a great deal of trade (aside from the question of which moral court would decide who's a doorknob and how much of a n0b they have to be before we don't do business with the entire country in question).

once again read what i posted, i did not say dont do a deal, we cant in any case. but that May is acting hastily and looking slightly desperate, we dont see Merkel beating a trail to DT's door do we?

i remember after the Iraq war, some pretty major contracts were given to the French, GWB extended the hand of commerce to the very country that refused point blank to support the 2nd Gulf war.

Of course we need to remain friends with the USA & as you rightly say, they are a major economy but not the only one, DT has changed the rules and we should tread perhaps more carefully, that is all.

No one respects someone who is weak and May is making UK (and her) look weak, maybe thats why he felt the need to hold her hand, she was looking a bit shaky down those steps.

bendertherobot

May is busy fairly calling Erdogan out today. But not calling out Trump yesterday.

bendertherobot

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/r ... .html?_r=0