Trump 2.0

exchemist said:
The thing is that the more he vacillates, the more business loses confidence that any eventual tariff regime will be permanent. Nobody is going to spend three years to build a billion dollar car plant, just on the off-chance that the investment will be justified, over a payback period of say a decade, by these now-you-see-them-now-you-don't tariffs.
Click to expand...
It's difficult to even get a sense at what his true motive might be - unless it really is as in front of our nose as "Trash the economy!" and "Help Russia!" as currently it seems to be. Does anyone know? Does he know?

exchemist said:
And now there's this nutty idea of mandating the Fed to hold part of its reserves in crapto. (I'm not sure the president has authority to mandate that, but no doubt we shall see.)
Click to expand...
It would need Congress support, I think (but not sure). And if so then I can't see even the Republicans voting to use public money to buy into crypto - unless they have their own interests in that area. Maybe they could just hold a stockpile from any crypto seized by law-enforcement. There's meant to be something like 200k Bitcoin (c. $18n at todays price) and likely plenty of other coins being held. No reason, I guess, not to hold on to those in that form. But I think the intention of a "strategic reserve", as touted, would be somewhat larger scale than that.
 
Seattle said:
Clinton managed to balance the budget with Reagan era tax rates and there was a lot of innovation as well.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Almost as if innovation is independent of both taxation and the number of billionaires in the US.

Yet, the so called "tax cuts for the rich" are just tax cuts for everyone.
Click to expand...

Then they are tax cuts for everyone.
 
geordief said:
Is there a serious argument for Canada and Mexico to retain their retaliatory tariffs on USA even while Trump has withdrawn them(for his customary month)?
Click to expand...
Sure. Make it clear that they will hammer US industries hard if Trump tries it again. Trump really only responds to being hurt.
 
exchemist said:
Back on the important stuff, have you seen Trudeau's speech:


Quite a powerful speech and very clear - quite unlike Trump's rambling, whining, wheedling and bullying. He rightly takes very seriously Trump's threat to cripple Canada economically and then annex it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was excellent. It's been 8 years now since we've had a president who spoke in a lucid fashion--Biden was always rambling about Corn Pop and other faux folksie crap.

Also, did Melanie Jolie become a general or something?
 
parmalee said:
Yeah, that was excellent. It's been 8 years now since we've had a president who spoke in a lucid fashion--Biden was always rambling about Corn Pop and other faux folksie crap.

Also, did Melanie Jolie become a general or something?
Click to expand...
I had to look her up. She seems to be Canada's Foreign Minister. Law degree and Magister Juris from BNC Oxford. Quebecoise.

But yes, what a breath of fresh air to hear a political leader (Trudeau) speak so articulately, with real statesmanship.
 
Justin's father was also known for clarity, statesmanship and charisma, to the degree that there was "Trudeaumania" in his heyday. If you ever have heard Pierre's speeches, you will notice some similarities in Justin's speech patterns and cadence.
 
Tiassa said:
Oh, cheer up: At least they're having after transgender.

Y'know, something, something, "Rowling is spot-on"↗

When are people going to learn, this is what it gets them?

Oh, right, this is what they wanted.
Click to expand...
Score, let's applaud Tiassa right there. That's the objective right? Just try and pick a hole in someone's character, chip away, a poster here a poster there.
The trans discussion, mm, I don't know yet, it's another discussion, I have questions, it's another discussion BUT fuck that right?

You did the same with me with the, " i have some right wing views."

I'm totally fine with that because I know context and I'm not some well poisoning, gutless fucking coward who only wants to:

1. Blogs his view, self importance
2. Outlines the failures of the site
3. Outlines the failures of posters

Fuck off. Prick.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Score, let's applaud Tiassa right there. That's the objective right? Just try and pick a hole in someone's character, chip away, a poster here a poster there.
The trans discussion, mm, I don't know yet, it's another discussion, I have questions, it's another discussion BUT fuck that right?

You did the same with me with the, " i have some right wing views."

I'm totally fine with that because I know context and I'm not some well poisoning, gutless fucking coward who only wants to:

1. Blogs his view, self importance
2. Outlines the failures of the site
3. Outlines the failures of posters

Fuck off. Prick.
Click to expand...
Yes he is. But I also think billvon's advice is sound.

Actually, I find I don't need to put Tiassa on Ignore, because what he writes is such a turgid load of incomprehensible gibberish that I can't be bothered to read his posts in the first place.
 
billvon said:
You can just ignore him, you know. Might be better both for you and the site.
Click to expand...
He was on ignore. However, with everything that has been going on with the disaster at the Whitehouse with Zelensky, the follow ups with Starmer, Trudeau and finally the "random country" POS Vance comment I thought just once, just once he might focus on what is important right now.
Nope, let's dig out a comment from a regular poster from seven weeks ago because that might mean he is a fucking fascist or something because THAT is what is important.
An absolute spineless, sniveling little cunt.
Pretty much silent through these awful few days/weeks of true worry for world security, trade war and general shit show of the this administration BUT should the opportunity arise? For the real issues?
Yeah THEN he will post.
No. Not on ignore. This is TRUMP 2.0 and I am referencing to that, all posters.
 
exchemist said:
Yes he is. But I also think billvon's advice is sound.

Actually, I find I don't need to put Tiassa on Ignore, because what he writes is such a turgid load of incomprehensible gibberish that I can't be bothered to read his posts in the first place.
Click to expand...
It is not as if he makes any sort of sense.
"Oh, cheer up: At least they're having after transgender"
What does that even mean?
Also he does know you are British right? So did not actually vote in the AMERICAN election? COULD NOT vote in the American election? For Trump?

Unless I completely missed a meeting, the one where you up sticked and moved to Florida renounced your British citizenship to live out the rest of your well earned retirement eating red meat, absorbing UV and occasionally shooting poor people.
 
Pinball1970 said:
It is not as if he makes any sort of sense.
"Oh, cheer up: At least they're having after transgender"
What does that even mean?
Also he does know you are British right? So did not actually vote in the AMERICAN election? COULD NOT vote in the American election? For Trump?

Unless I completely missed a meeting, the one where you up sticked and moved to Florida renounced your British citizenship to live out the rest of your well earned retirement eating red meat, absorbing UV and occasionally shooting poor people.
Click to expand...
Hmm. “….they’re having after transgender” might be an ungrammatical way of saying the Trumpies are attacking the rights of transgender people. And then “cheer up” might be an insinuation that whoever he is addressing (you?) is the sort of person who would welcome those attacks. Have you ever expressed an opinion on transgender rights, or has he made that up?

As for me, I really have no idea what he thinks about me. I’m not sure that if he were to attack me (perhaps he has?) I would even realise. In fact, as I think I may have mentioned my own views on the transgender issue are more or less those of J K Rowling, perhaps he might be confusing you with me.

For some reason I have a mental image of Tiassa as someone permanently unemployed (due to his appalling written communication skills) , living in the basement of his mother’s house, somewhere in the Pacific NW, and spending all his time on the internet. I’ve no idea why I think of him that way but he’s so weird that a mental picture of some kind seemed to be required. It’s probably partly to do with the weirdo avatar. :)
 
My views on the transgender issue as you call it, exchemist, is that JK Rowling is a myopic cunt.
One of my step kids is trans and I will back him over a guy in the latter part of life.
Exactly like I will back the rights of gay people and anyone not hurting other people.
This might be the first time where I feel inclined to tell you to
shut up and grow up.
 
exchemist said:
...perhaps he might be confusing you with me.
Click to expand...
Just for clarity: Tiassa was responding to you, and linked to where you had previously commented that you share Rowling's views. So he's not confusing you and Pinball1970. :)

Can I suggest that any discussion of that particular issue be carried out in another thread? So as not to detract from the focus here on the current US administration?
 
Sarkus said:
Just for clarity: Tiassa was responding to you, and linked to where you had previously commented that you share Rowling's views. So he's not confusing you and Pinball1970. :)

Can I suggest that any discussion of that particular issue be carried out in another thread? So as not to detract from the focus here on the current US administration?
Click to expand...
Aid to Ukraine now halted by Trump till further notice and Vance refers to the UK as "some random country." Roughly 2.15
Angela Rayner suddenly learning how to talk is a plus.

 
Pinball1970 said:
Aid to Ukraine now halted by Trump till further notice and Vance refers to the UK as "some random country." Roughly 2.15
Click to expand...
This harks back to a previous discussion/thread about how people claim not to be talking about X simply because they didn't explicitly say "X", and whether they believe they weren't saying it. In Vance's case he knew afterwards that what he said was undiplomatic, and his subsequent gaslighting was textbook "slimy politician".
 
Sarkus said:
Just for clarity: Tiassa was responding to you, and linked to where you had previously commented that you share Rowling's views. So he's not confusing you and Pinball1970. :)

Can I suggest that any discussion of that particular issue be carried out in another thread? So as not to detract from the focus here on the current US administration?
Click to expand...
Ok then it all stacks up. No need for further discussion.
 
Kristoffer said:
My views on the transgender issue as you call it, exchemist, is that JK Rowling is a myopic cunt.
One of my step kids is trans and I will back him over a guy in the latter part of life.
Exactly like I will back the rights of gay people and anyone not hurting other people.
This might be the first time where I feel inclined to tell you to
shut up and grow up.
Click to expand...
Hmm I don’t think Rowling’s views are childish. And the partner of a good friend’s daughter is also trans, so my views are not formed in a vacuum. But we shouldn’t discuss it here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top