These guys--like, all of these guys--are the masters of punching down. I honestly don't think there's even much of a strategy behind it, if any. It's simply their nature. I imagine that there are some within the administration and the GOP, generally, who possess either some sense of diplomacy or are adherents of the "Southern Strategy" and the like, who cringe at this stuff; but they just grin and bear it, because they don't fundamentally disagree with the sentiment, but rather just with the form of expression.
Insulting one's allies - to what end?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
Trade is not going to happen - at least no new trade deal.
Trump wants the EU - and I guess UK as well - to balance the trade surplus that he thinks Europe is enjoying. He seems to think that this is the same as the US "subsidising" these countries. He's trying to force them (somehow) to buy more oil/gas from the US, which the EU, I believe, was already intending to do to make up for the last bit of Russian stuff that will be closed off. But nowhere near enough to balance the trade deficit.
[Naturally, there is no consensus among economists as to whether a trade surplus, deficit, or balance is preferable, as there are pros and cons with each, but Trump seems hell bent on reducing the US trade deficit, and focussing on the deficit in goods. As CFR Distinguished Fellow Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, has said: “every legitimate economist states that measuring trade policy by the size of the goods deficit is probably not a passing grade in a basic economics class." (Oct. 2017).]
As for the UK, though, any trade-deal is pretty much a non-starter as the US seems to see the NHS as the big-ticket item, along with foodstuffs that we just don't want (chlorinated chicken etc). After that it's just scraps, despite what those "experts" told us would happen as a result of Brexit.
Regarding Canada... this just in:
Trump says he’d use ‘economic force’ to make Canada 51st state
Trump said the US doesn’t need “anything” that Canada produces.
Well, take a look at how it goes; our neighbor Zero Point Native↑, for instance. He's not a Trump supporter, as he doesn't have any interest in politics, which is why he supports Trump.
It's a pretty low standard.
The fact that anyone would take it seriously tells us something about what Trump is trying to do.
Someone, a columnist or analyst or some such, once framed the Trump/Putin affair as a dispute between liberal democracy and a revival of the old authoritarianism from which it emerges. That's pretty much what Trump and his team are after, and if it's harder to understand why, remember, that part doesn't need to make sense. Whether Trump thinks he's hiding from prison, or expects to get rich, or is just a Puti-poodle barking on cue, the reason why he or anyone else thinks this is a good idea is entirely internal, as such has no obligation to make sense to anybody, and likely will not make any logical sense.
• • •
But ... but ... an Australian assures me the majority has other reasons than all that.
I know, I know. Geopolitik.
But, yes, international fever dreams aside, what we're going to find at the heart of it is a very immediate pretense of ethic. Think of Trump like a businessman long enough to ask why any business would do this or that, and it becomes apparent that we should not assess his behavior in that way. Trying to calculate politics according to any similar logic will similarly fail. His team is sympathetic to their mascot, as such, because they think they're going to get what they want, but even if they do, they are harmed. If we discount that reality according to some superstition that nobody would do that to themselves on purpose, we're doing it wrong.
If I suggest the next step for Trump is to deregulate opioids, it's only a joke insofar as I have a hard time imagining how that would go, which in turn means I can't promise you it won't happen. But if we end up with single-payer because of a right-wing HIV crisis after they all started shooting heroin just to own the libs, hindsight will probably be quite clear about what happened.
(I know that sounds like a bad joke, but we already went through the drill, on that, in Scott County, Indiana↗, where they had an HIV crisis in order to stave off single-payer.)
There is a certain degree to which describing the movement as a cult is insufficient; inasmuch as we might look at Trumpism as a religion, we have a rough sketch of its components. The real question is in how long this lasts compared to, quite literally, the rest of Trump's life. How much will the creed formalize, code standardize, and cult regularize? And what happens when time and tide call Trump to dust, i.e., how sacred is their sacred focus? While it's easy enough to consider fundamentalism in the Christian nationalist↗ context, Riesebrodt's typology (below) might reasonably also describe the rest of Trumpism; their identical authenticity, as such, would seem to be experiential.
Starmer's ratings have been dropping every time he opens his mouth since the election. Within the first month his approval rating had dropped from +11 just after the election (which isn't great as it is, but at least it's positive) down to -38! That's a 49 point drop! And it's a record, I believe!
By contrast, Tony Blair, the last Labour PM to win an election before Starmer, had an approval rating of +46 three months after his victory in 1997.
So I wouldn't put it down to Musk, but rather to the fact that he's really just a shit PM. And we've been blessed with shit PMs over the past decade or so. David Cameron was probably the last sensible and reasonably respected one. May was wet. Johnson a buffoon, Truss was... whatever that debacle was... and Sunak... well, he was okaaaay, I guess. But just made too many gaffes.
And now we have bland Starmer who can't seem to do anything right, despite a considerable majority in Parliament.
And now this:
"US President-elect Donald Trump has threatened "very high" tariffs on Denmark if it resists his effort to take control of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory."
Trump threatens Denmark with economic retaliation on Greenland
In a rambling news conference, the president-elect also repeated the idea of the US taking over Canada and the Panama Canal.
www.bbc.co.uk
"US President-elect Donald Trump has threatened "very high" tariffs on Denmark if it resists his effort to take control of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory."
I get all my news about the UK from Jonathan Pie, this is what he said about Starmer just before the election.
Now we have Starmer who is awkward as [ __ ] he's very dull he's a bit like an untrained AI or a very realistic Jim Hensen puppet minus any charm he's a bit slug-like again with that odd strange nasal voice like Ed Millerand eating a dry cake.
Now we have Starmer who is awkward as [ __ ] he's very dull he's a bit like an untrained AI or a very realistic Jim Hensen puppet minus any charm he's a bit slug-like again with that odd strange nasal voice like Ed Millerand eating a dry cake.
Yep. That's about right. He's bland, and to be honest it is probably what the country needs after the crazies of Johnson, Truss, and Sunak's forced persona. But he has to get the policies right to survive, as he doesn't have the character to do it. As soon as someone else in the Labour party stands up to challenge, it may all be over for him.
No peeps out of those who voted for Trump as to whether territorial aggression is to be carried out in their name?Trade is not going to happen - at least no new trade deal.
Trump wants the EU - and I guess UK as well - to balance the trade surplus that he thinks Europe is enjoying. He seems to think that this is the same as the US "subsidising" these countries. He's trying to force them (somehow) to buy more oil/gas from the US, which the EU, I believe, was already intending to do to make up for the last bit of Russian stuff that will be closed off. But nowhere near enough to balance the trade deficit.
[Naturally, there is no consensus among economists as to whether a trade surplus, deficit, or balance is preferable, as there are pros and cons with each, but Trump seems hell bent on reducing the US trade deficit, and focussing on the deficit in goods. As CFR Distinguished Fellow Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, has said: “every legitimate economist states that measuring trade policy by the size of the goods deficit is probably not a passing grade in a basic economics class." (Oct. 2017).]
As for the UK, though, any trade-deal is pretty much a non-starter as the US seems to see the NHS as the big-ticket item, along with foodstuffs that we just don't want (chlorinated chicken etc). After that it's just scraps, despite what those "experts" told us would happen as a result of Brexit.
Regarding Canada... this just in:
Seems he's doubling down on Canada being the 51st state, and "doesn't care" what the leading candidate to be the next PM after the elections later this year has to say on the matter (i.e. that Canada will never be a US state).Trump says he’d use ‘economic force’ to make Canada 51st state
Trump said the US doesn’t need “anything” that Canada produces.fortune.com
Are they happy to cede Taiwan to China and Ukraine to Russia so that they can take a dump in S America and anywhere else unlucky enough to be easily remembered geographically?
Who you vote for is who you are.
I found this on Labour's website in their Manifesto, do you think they'll get it done?
Labour’s first steps for change show how we will begin to achieve those missions, with plans to deliver economic stability, cut NHS waiting times, launch a new Border Security Command, set up Great British Energy, crackdown on antisocial behaviour and recruit 6,500 new teachers.
In order:
economic stability - nothing they'll do will be as significant as global impacts... such as Trump. In a Trump-free world, maybe, but they'll likely restrict UK growth compared to the EU. And the UK has already been behind the EU since Brexit.
NHS - no. Waiting times will at best stagnate, but with a growing population and constant underfunding, things will only get worse. Of course, they may try to pull a fast-one and recategorise stuff so that the official waiting times seem to drop. They want to reach the target of 92% of patients starting routine treatment within 18 weeks, and have targeted 40,000 additional appointments and procedures a week (2m a year) although this will apparently only be 15% of the additional activity needed to bring waiting times down to the pledged level by the end of the parliament. So, no, although there may be slight improvements from "veeeery long" to "veeery long" waiting times.
Border Security Command - probably this will happen, not sure of the details, and I think they've appointed "the commander of the command", and are now just looking at what they're actually going to do.
Great British Energy - hmmm. Nice idea, in theory. I think they've started the process and are on track. Not sure of timeframes, though.
Antisocial behaviour - perennial issue. How is it measured? How easy will it be to fudge the numbers to make it look as though they're doing something. I can see them introducing some new powers, but whether these will have any effect in reducing numbers, or whether they will just ebb and flow as usual, time will tell.
6,500 new teachers - they still want to do this, and will apparently fund it through the removal of the VAT-exemption on private school fees. But from what I gather this will be inadequate by itself in terms of money raised. But it'll be a start. You could raise the teachers through increasing their pay by 20%, encouraging more into the sector that way, but that would cost upwards of £5bn a year, and would likely cause other public-sector workers to demand similar pay increases, leading to strikes and unrest etc. Otherwise they're stuck with a more focussed approach of trying to retain staff, and build up numbers through reduction in leavers rather than more starters. But, having a number of friends that are teachers, it's not pay that is making them leave, but rather the working conditions, stress, workloads etc. Even with 6,500 new teachers (which is less than one teacher for every 5 schools in the UK), these issues won't disappear.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What is the solution, in your opinion? Higher taxes?In order:
economic stability - nothing they'll do will be as significant as global impacts... such as Trump. In a Trump-free world, maybe, but they'll likely restrict UK growth compared to the EU. And the UK has already been behind the EU since Brexit.
NHS - no. Waiting times will at best stagnate, but with a growing population and constant underfunding, things will only get worse. Of course, they may try to pull a fast-one and recategorise stuff so that the official waiting times seem to drop. They want to reach the target of 92% of patients starting routine treatment within 18 weeks, and have targeted 40,000 additional appointments and procedures a week (2m a year) although this will apparently only be 15% of the additional activity needed to bring waiting times down to the pledged level by the end of the parliament. So, no, although there may be slight improvements from "veeeery long" to "veeery long" waiting times.
Border Security Command - probably this will happen, not sure of the details, and I think they've appointed "the commander of the command", and are now just looking at what they're actually going to do.
Great British Energy - hmmm. Nice idea, in theory. I think they've started the process and are on track. Not sure of timeframes, though.
Antisocial behaviour - perennial issue. How is it measured? How easy will it be to fudge the numbers to make it look as though they're doing something. I can see them introducing some new powers, but whether these will have any effect in reducing numbers, or whether they will just ebb and flow as usual, time will tell.
6,500 new teachers - they still want to do this, and will apparently fund it through the removal of the VAT-exemption on private school fees. But from what I gather this will be inadequate by itself in terms of money raised. But it'll be a start. You could raise the teachers through increasing their pay by 20%, encouraging more into the sector that way, but that would cost upwards of £5bn a year, and would likely cause other public-sector workers to demand similar pay increases, leading to strikes and unrest etc. Otherwise they're stuck with a more focussed approach of trying to retain staff, and build up numbers through reduction in leavers rather than more starters. But, having a number of friends that are teachers, it's not pay that is making them leave, but rather the working conditions, stress, workloads etc. Even with 6,500 new teachers (which is less than one teacher for every 5 schools in the UK), these issues won't disappear.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Trump is a narcissist and that's really all there is to the man himself. He creates the drama to stay "relevant". The people behind him have agendas, mainly crazy ones.
Trump's actions and the reason for some of his public support are those of a "change agent" I believe. Groups of people are rarely rational. The French cut off the heads of their royalty but did that fix any problem? No.
For those who wanted "change" was Jeb Bush going to do that? No. So, they picked Trump and he gave them plenty of "action" without actually cutting off anyone's head. At this point and in this context, Elon is no different.
The dysfunction is that when your opponent gives you a target you should be able to hit that target. The Democrats haven't risen to the task. The progressive policies aren't the kind of change that people wanted. If they had moved to the center and quit trying to "tax the rich" and make everyone a victim through "unequal income and wealth" mantas, Trump could be in the rear view mirror by now.
There won't be more Trumpism once he is gone. There isn't another one. That doesn't mean that everything will be great. There is still the debt, which is the real problem, IMO.
Regarding the tariffs, the threats to take over Greenland, Canada, Mexico, etc, it's just disruptive negotiating in Trump's mind as far as I can tell. It's got everyone rattled and that was his desire.
Yes, when he meets with leaders in Europe, he is going to be rude. He is going to push a few buttons and that's because there are a few buttons to push. The economy isn't as good as it could be, the government isn't as efficient as it could be, Europe is a little to reliant on others for defense and gas. It hurts because there is some truth there.
He may actually get better trade terms with his bluffing (or not). If he spends less, reduces regulations for business, the economy will get better. Reducing spending and encouraging business is the only way to grow our way out of the debt. Politics is messy though so I wouldn't hold my breath but that would also be true under Harris.
Trump's actions and the reason for some of his public support are those of a "change agent" I believe. Groups of people are rarely rational. The French cut off the heads of their royalty but did that fix any problem? No.
For those who wanted "change" was Jeb Bush going to do that? No. So, they picked Trump and he gave them plenty of "action" without actually cutting off anyone's head. At this point and in this context, Elon is no different.
The dysfunction is that when your opponent gives you a target you should be able to hit that target. The Democrats haven't risen to the task. The progressive policies aren't the kind of change that people wanted. If they had moved to the center and quit trying to "tax the rich" and make everyone a victim through "unequal income and wealth" mantas, Trump could be in the rear view mirror by now.
There won't be more Trumpism once he is gone. There isn't another one. That doesn't mean that everything will be great. There is still the debt, which is the real problem, IMO.
Regarding the tariffs, the threats to take over Greenland, Canada, Mexico, etc, it's just disruptive negotiating in Trump's mind as far as I can tell. It's got everyone rattled and that was his desire.
Yes, when he meets with leaders in Europe, he is going to be rude. He is going to push a few buttons and that's because there are a few buttons to push. The economy isn't as good as it could be, the government isn't as efficient as it could be, Europe is a little to reliant on others for defense and gas. It hurts because there is some truth there.
He may actually get better trade terms with his bluffing (or not). If he spends less, reduces regulations for business, the economy will get better. Reducing spending and encouraging business is the only way to grow our way out of the debt. Politics is messy though so I wouldn't hold my breath but that would also be true under Harris.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
A good summary.
Truss was like a one off flu season, short horrible and everyone wants rid of.
Theresa May did what she did as home secretary which was very good. Has to be said.
Anyway now we have a labour government who NEED to have a relationship with Trump.
No. Mass culling of the elderly and infirm. Only way to stop the drain on our precious resources. Let AI dictate everything. When you reach 30 you are marked for disposal, and there's to be no escape. Society will survive.
Oh.
Wait.
That's "Logan's Run".
My bad.
Seriously, I have no idea what the solution is. Maybe it's all just a ticking time-bomb with no solution, but one I won't be around to see go off. We're already quite highly taxed, although some increase may not be too bad, if targetted well. Cut some loopholes that maybe cost us a billion or two a year. Freeze NLW/minimum wage for a while (£25k a year is quite a bit, and 2 workers in the house is then a good earning level). Cut a bit of waste in the NHS to be able to hire more staff. Stop the f**king HS2 debacle to free up a few 10s of billions. Reduce teacher's non-teaching workload. And get some competent people in government for a change.
But this thread is about the US currently baiting their allies, so let's get back to that!
The British people (no matter what party) need to have a good relationship with America.
Starmer is being responsible in trying to make the best of the awful hand we have all been dealt in this regard.
I don't know if the Labour Party is especially vulnerable to Trump's likely machinations. They have a good majority and if they do a good job of representing the electorate they should last the term.(don't think Trump is popular in UK)
Anything beyond that is through a glass darkly .....
I think you're a Trump supporter. If you had no interest in politics, you wouldn't be chiming in with this kind of comment every time Trump's name comes up on this forum.
Meanwhile, time will tell how entertaining Trump will be in his upcoming term of office. I predict you will be quite disappointed by the end.
This is a snide reference to me.
For record, I have asked Tiassa to stop calling me out in his posts. I want nothing to do with that odious little man. I have asked him to stop posting about me. I don't want to see any references to me in his posts. He invariably - and I'm beginning to suspect deliberately - misrepresents my opinions and every mention he makes about me is a snide attack. I don't even have to post in a thread to have this idiot bringing up my name.
I have issued Tiassa a warning for trolling.
The only personally-directed content I will accept from Tiassa from now on is a full and frank apology for his appalling behaviour on this forum towards me over the last couple of years.
I'm not stopping him from continuing to blog his o-so-valuable opinions on this forum. But his commentary about me stops here.
Unless you are an infant or are suffering from dementia, you really ought to find a hobby or a purpose.
There is an entertainment factor, for sure; but it diminishes over time, it diminishes with endless repetition and predictability, and it diminishes with consideration of the suffering and misery which accompanies it.
I do my share of hate-watching (and reading), but mostly of clips/content curated by others--and I'm very thankful it's not my job to make and edit these selections. I do so in part for the laughs, of course, but I also do so out of an obligation to understand--or at least try to understand--what has somehow captured the minds of tens, even hundreds, of millions of mostly young white men in America. So I've seen a fair bit of Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, and the idiots at Faux News over the years--along with the garbage regularly spewed by Trump, Musk, et al. Just as I no longer find a set of keys dangled in front of my face amusing, I no longer find Trump particularly amusing--as I always know pretty much where it's going.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I missed out "joking."