US Politics / Biden thread
Comments
-
I see you're not disagreeing with my theory.sungod said:
as is trollingStevo_666 said:its amazing how much reaction a simple post about a phone call and the good relationship between 2 countries can elicit.
Now that the Trump thread is fading away, this more evidence for my 'first law of Cake Stop thermodynamics' theory (whinging and negativity are never destroyed, they are simply transferred to other threads)
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
biden: i called mexico before you, and canadafocuszing723 said:elbowloh said:Maybe Boris was first call because he needed to be told off first.
Something like, you sucked up to Trump, you fecked up with the whole Brexit shambles and if you censored up Good Friday , well, there'll be hell to pay.
That's not the face of a man being told off!
boris: ha ha ha, good one!
biden: no, really, i did
boris: ha ha ha, i'm on camera, please, throw me a bone here
biden: just getting you little trump sucker out of the way before i talk to the grown ups
boris: oh, but, but, lawks
biden: looking forward to a united ireland, bye
boris: joe! joe? (cripes, keep smiling)
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny1 -
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.0 -
...and it will continue to be a one way thing until we realise otherwise.focuszing723 said:
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well that showed him!Stevo_666 said:
If someone has a go unprovoked, they get it back with a bit of topspin on, simple. You should know that by now; same goes for 'bitter boy'.briantrumpet said:
🤣1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
pblakeney said:
...and it will continue to be a one way thing until we realise otherwise.focuszing723 said:
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.
It undoubtedly has been a 'thing', for differing reasons, and not necessarily asymmetric: Reagan took inspiration from Thatcher - he didn't have her fierce intelligence, and I think looked to her and her government as having broken new (right wing) ground in a major western democracy. And once the UK was in the EEC/EU, the UK was a very useful bridge between the US and the EEC/EU, sharing values of and having a foothold in both, politically and culturally.
Since then, not so much. I think Blair was a poodle to GWB in the Iraq war, trying to be a big boy (sorry to mix my metaphors) at a time when the UK's political might was decreasing. And now the UK has chopped itself out of the EU, it's much less useful as a bridge to Europe.
That's not to say that the US won't refer to the 'special relationship', but if they do, it won't be for old times' sake, but for what it's worth to them. What do they get out of it now? What has the UK got to give, other than someone who can quote cod Latin on the end of a phone?0 -
Thanks for your useful contribution, but that wasn't my intentionrjsterry said:
Well that showed him!Stevo_666 said:
If someone has a go unprovoked, they get it back with a bit of topspin on, simple. You should know that by now; same goes for 'bitter boy'.briantrumpet said:
🤣 "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The sale of nuclear arms etc?briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
...and it will continue to be a one way thing until we realise otherwise.focuszing723 said:
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.
It undoubtedly has been a 'thing', for differing reasons, and not necessarily asymmetric: Reagan took inspiration from Thatcher - he didn't have her fierce intelligence, and I think looked to her and her government as having broken new (right wing) ground in a major western democracy. And once the UK was in the EEC/EU, the UK was a very useful bridge between the US and the EEC/EU, sharing values of and having a foothold in both, politically and culturally.
Since then, not so much. I think Blair was a poodle to GWB in the Iraq war, trying to be a big boy (sorry to mix my metaphors) at a time when the UK's political might was decreasing. And now the UK has chopped itself out of the EU, it's much less useful as a bridge to Europe.
That's not to say that the US won't refer to the 'special relationship', but if they do, it won't be for old times' sake, but for what it's worth to them. What do they get out of it now? What has the UK got to give, other than someone who can quote cod Latin on the end of a phone?
A staging post for rendition?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Golfing holidays. Downton Abbey?pblakeney said:
The sale of nuclear arms etc?briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
...and it will continue to be a one way thing until we realise otherwise.focuszing723 said:
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.
It undoubtedly has been a 'thing', for differing reasons, and not necessarily asymmetric: Reagan took inspiration from Thatcher - he didn't have her fierce intelligence, and I think looked to her and her government as having broken new (right wing) ground in a major western democracy. And once the UK was in the EEC/EU, the UK was a very useful bridge between the US and the EEC/EU, sharing values of and having a foothold in both, politically and culturally.
Since then, not so much. I think Blair was a poodle to GWB in the Iraq war, trying to be a big boy (sorry to mix my metaphors) at a time when the UK's political might was decreasing. And now the UK has chopped itself out of the EU, it's much less useful as a bridge to Europe.
That's not to say that the US won't refer to the 'special relationship', but if they do, it won't be for old times' sake, but for what it's worth to them. What do they get out of it now? What has the UK got to give, other than someone who can quote cod Latin on the end of a phone?
A staging post for rendition?0 -
Launch site for bombing missions so they can say it’s not just them.pblakeney said:
The sale of nuclear arms etc?briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
...and it will continue to be a one way thing until we realise otherwise.focuszing723 said:
No, I think it was still well in operation when Blair backed Bush with Iraq.pblakeney said:
The special relationship died around the time the WWII debt was paid off.First.Aspect said:The special relationship is to do with a colonial and therefore common cultural hustory, and more recently helping us not lose ww2. It has dwindled a bit since then but even in the noughties the UK would eagerly join in military action with the US. It is a special diplomatic relationship, basically.
Economically I've never seen it as special, in my life time.
It undoubtedly has been a 'thing', for differing reasons, and not necessarily asymmetric: Reagan took inspiration from Thatcher - he didn't have her fierce intelligence, and I think looked to her and her government as having broken new (right wing) ground in a major western democracy. And once the UK was in the EEC/EU, the UK was a very useful bridge between the US and the EEC/EU, sharing values of and having a foothold in both, politically and culturally.
Since then, not so much. I think Blair was a poodle to GWB in the Iraq war, trying to be a big boy (sorry to mix my metaphors) at a time when the UK's political might was decreasing. And now the UK has chopped itself out of the EU, it's much less useful as a bridge to Europe.
That's not to say that the US won't refer to the 'special relationship', but if they do, it won't be for old times' sake, but for what it's worth to them. What do they get out of it now? What has the UK got to give, other than someone who can quote cod Latin on the end of a phone?
A staging post for rendition?
Sending troops to whichever war zone they want us to so they can say it is not just them.
We are the weedy kid who stands behind the school bully.
And hats off to all the PMs who did not commit troops to Vietnam as that is about the only American war we have not scurried off to join to show our loyalty0 -
Jeez, are you all script writers for Eastenders in real life?0
-
focuszing723 said:
Jeez, are you all script writers for Eastenders in real life?
I guess I shouldn't mention the chlorinated chicked and hormone-fed beef then?0 -
0
-
No I didn't. You should read more carefully. Our relationship with the US is less important to the US relative to their relationship to Germany or France than it was 8 years ago. All of them are important, as leading western nations - ours is probably much more important in defence, much less important in trade.Stevo_666 said:
I was asking how you thought the US-UK relationship compares with say the US-France, or the US-Germany relationship. You appear to have answered a different question...kingstongraham said:
Less important to them now than it was 8 years ago. We don't have any sway in the EU any more.Stevo_666 said:
I don't know. How do you think it compares to any special relationship that the US has with (say) France or Germany?kingstongraham said:
Comes and goes, doesn't it?Stevo_666 said:
You don't think there is anything behind the long standing references to the 'special relationship' then?kingstongraham said:
I entirely agree.Stevo_666 said:
Exactly what?kingstongraham said:
Exactly.Stevo_666 said:
And...?kingstongraham said:
America has relationships with a lot of countries.Stevo_666 said:
So nothing to do with the US-UK relationship?kingstongraham said:He probably called Johnson first because he knew it's the kind of thing Johnson would be concerned about.
As with the Trump thread, it appears that some people are getting confused between nations and their leaders...
More important to us.
We're important to them, but only in so far as we have something they want.
HTH.0 -
Is there a similar summary regarding the call with Bojo?briantrumpet said:Uh oh... France: "our oldest ally"...
If not, that says even more than any wording in this particular one.0 -
To be fair, they did help them out in the 1770s when we were still trying to own them.briantrumpet said:Uh oh... France: "our oldest ally"...
0 -
Yes. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/23/readout-of-president-joe-biden-call-with-prime-minister-boris-johnson-of-the-united-kingdom/morstar said:
Is there a similar summary regarding the call with Bojo?briantrumpet said:Uh oh... France: "our oldest ally"...
If not, that says even more than any wording in this particular one.
"President Joseph R. Biden spoke today with Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the United Kingdom. The President conveyed his intention to strengthen the special relationship between our countries and revitalize transatlantic ties, underscoring the critical role of NATO to our collective defense and shared values. President Biden also noted the importance of cooperation, including through multilateral organizations, on shared challenges such as combatting climate change, containing COVID-19, and ensuring global health security. He noted his readiness to work closely with Prime Minister Johnson as the United Kingdom hosts the G-7 and United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) this year. The leaders also discussed the need for coordination on shared foreign policy priorities, including China, Iran, and Russia."
Nothing about a trade agreement in his summary.0 -
So. Defence, the NHS and some climate.kingstongraham said:
Yes.morstar said:
Is there a similar summary regarding the call with Bojo?briantrumpet said:Uh oh... France: "our oldest ally"...
If not, that says even more than any wording in this particular one.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I asked you how it compares i.e. now, not its evolution over time. I think you need to read the question more carefully.kingstongraham said:
No I didn't. You should read more carefully. Our relationship with the US is less important to the US relative to their relationship to Germany or France than it was 8 years ago. All of them are important, as leading western nations - ours is probably much more important in defence, much less important in trade.Stevo_666 said:
I was asking how you thought the US-UK relationship compares with say the US-France, or the US-Germany relationship. You appear to have answered a different question...kingstongraham said:
Less important to them now than it was 8 years ago. We don't have any sway in the EU any more.Stevo_666 said:
I don't know. How do you think it compares to any special relationship that the US has with (say) France or Germany?kingstongraham said:
Comes and goes, doesn't it?Stevo_666 said:
You don't think there is anything behind the long standing references to the 'special relationship' then?kingstongraham said:
I entirely agree.Stevo_666 said:
Exactly what?kingstongraham said:
Exactly.Stevo_666 said:
And...?kingstongraham said:
America has relationships with a lot of countries.Stevo_666 said:
So nothing to do with the US-UK relationship?kingstongraham said:He probably called Johnson first because he knew it's the kind of thing Johnson would be concerned about.
As with the Trump thread, it appears that some people are getting confused between nations and their leaders...
More important to us.
We're important to them, but only in so far as we have something they want.
HTH.
Your second attempt did address the point a bit better, although wrongly as we are ahead of both Germany and France in terms of US exports to those countries and ahead of France re US imports from those countries:
https://census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You miss out the fact that they are now leading lights in the EU and we are not. We are less important to the USA re: trade than the EU. I don't think that's at all controversial.Stevo_666 said:
I asked you how it compares i.e. now, not its evolution over time. I think you need to read the question more carefully.kingstongraham said:
No I didn't. You should read more carefully. Our relationship with the US is less important to the US relative to their relationship to Germany or France than it was 8 years ago. All of them are important, as leading western nations - ours is probably much more important in defence, much less important in trade.Stevo_666 said:
I was asking how you thought the US-UK relationship compares with say the US-France, or the US-Germany relationship. You appear to have answered a different question...kingstongraham said:
Less important to them now than it was 8 years ago. We don't have any sway in the EU any more.Stevo_666 said:
I don't know. How do you think it compares to any special relationship that the US has with (say) France or Germany?kingstongraham said:
Comes and goes, doesn't it?Stevo_666 said:
You don't think there is anything behind the long standing references to the 'special relationship' then?kingstongraham said:
I entirely agree.Stevo_666 said:
Exactly what?kingstongraham said:
Exactly.Stevo_666 said:
And...?kingstongraham said:
America has relationships with a lot of countries.Stevo_666 said:
So nothing to do with the US-UK relationship?kingstongraham said:He probably called Johnson first because he knew it's the kind of thing Johnson would be concerned about.
As with the Trump thread, it appears that some people are getting confused between nations and their leaders...
More important to us.
We're important to them, but only in so far as we have something they want.
HTH.
Your second attempt did address the point a bit better, although wrongly as we are ahead of both Germany and France in terms of US exports to those countries and ahead of France re US imports from those countries:
https://census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html
1 -
...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So nothing regarding trade agreements with either the UK nor France.
Good news re. climate change action, foreign policy, pandemic co-operation, reversing actions taken by the orange fool.
But, not something you could post to indicate any significant positive trade agreement news. It’s the usual totally expected political protocol from an actual professional.
Nothing noteworthy, even for rabid Telegraphists!1 -
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-22/biden-s-million-dose-a-day-goal-sets-a-bar-that-s-nearly-met
Is this to be read as Biden being so unambitious in his target. Or is it to be seen as Biden saying the Trumpster was doing such a good job that he would basically like to match it? 0 -
no you haven't, its going to get far smaller and so does everyone else and even then, yours are rubbish.kingstongraham said:We're one of the more important, because we've a quite big economy and nuclear weapons.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
We'll be in the top 10 countries on both counts for a little while yet.MattFalle said:
no you haven't, its going to get far smaller and so does everyone else and even then, yours are rubbish.kingstongraham said:We're one of the more important, because we've a quite big economy and nuclear weapons.
0 -
nah, its gonna happen a lot quicker than you expect and doesn't matter if they are rubbish - they're just more of a liabilty.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Biden seems a bit quiet on the EUs breach of the GFA when they tried to invoke article 16. I guess the argument only works one way. Maybe I am being harsh and he called up the EU to ask what they were doing but kept quiet.0
-
I think it's not likely he would have kept quiet if it had gone beyond a one day wonder of a fuck up. See below:john80 said:Biden seems a bit quiet on the EUs breach of the GFA when they tried to invoke article 16. I guess the argument only works one way. Maybe I am being harsh and he called up the EU to ask what they were doing but kept quiet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/30/ireland-considering-playing-biden-card-force-commission-back/0 -
It's not up to Biden or the US to solve everyone else's problems.0
