I can never remember which British papers are bullshit and which aren't, where does the Times fall? It sounds like Trump/Bannon, but Bannon would have been so proud, it's weird it wouldn't have leaked to some friendly outlet.
In a somewhat related story, Merkel's party won state elections in Saarland fairly easily. Was expected to be closer than it was. Their right wing nationalists did worse than they did last year.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Without making any official announcement and without most of Washington DC knowing, Trump has sent 500 extra troops into Syria.
War Powers Act is a hell of a thing.
More likely it's based on the Use of Force authorization that Obama was using, i.e. the one Congress passed waay back during GWB's first term, the one that they've never touched or attempted to call BS on the President using despite going beyond the original intent because they want 0 blame or responsibility for anything bad that may or may not occur because of it changing in any way.
I can never remember which British papers are bullshit and which aren't, where does the Times fall? It sounds like Trump/Bannon, but Bannon would have been so proud, it's weird it wouldn't have leaked to some friendly outlet.
In a somewhat related story, Merkel's party won state elections in Saarland fairly easily. Was expected to be closer than it was. Their right wing nationalists did worse than they did last year.
Alternative fur Deutschland (the party that's as close to neo-Nazi as legally possible in Germany) lost a lot of their credibility when their leader went and met with Putin. Europe doesn't truck with Putinism, even if they might be sympathetic to the alt-right message otherwise. Which is why it's odd that Le Pen recently went to meet with Putin when she's already struggling in round 2 polling v Macron.
I can never remember which British papers are bullshit and which aren't, where does the Times fall? It sounds like Trump/Bannon, but Bannon would have been so proud, it's weird it wouldn't have leaked to some friendly outlet.
In a somewhat related story, Merkel's party won state elections in Saarland fairly easily. Was expected to be closer than it was. Their right wing nationalists did worse than they did last year.
The Times is part of News Corp, which also owns the Sun (which also used to own The News of the World); i.e. they own both a Tabloid and a Broadsheet when it comes to the UK press.
To be fair, I've not read the Times in years, but that's because its behind an online paywall.
PSN Fleety2009
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
So if it's lies from Murdoch and clan, what is the aim of it to their intended audience? Are they trying to make Trump look bad, or are they trying to help break NATO themselves by having the groundlings complain about how much money Germany owes?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Newscorp international is not super fond of Trump - one of their people was on Bill Maher this past week and she was outright saying he needs to be resisted at every turn and his corruption needs to be exposed.
It was pretty surprising.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It is considered to be a Newspaper of quality and standards
Being considered something doesn't make it true.
To bring it onto topic;
I believe that the Times is respectable enough in terms of it's journalistic quality that, if it says that Donald Trump did that in a meeting with Angela Merkel, I believe that it's true to the best of their knowledge and worth discussion
If Trump really does think that NATO works that way then that is very, very dangerous levels of ignorance we are seeing from the White House and a complete and utter lack of capability amongst advisors to make the President informed, either because they are similarly ignorant or because Trump doesn't listen to anyone
The US' destabilisation of NATO will go down very poorly internationally. You don't just throw away decades of trust and get it back when the White House occupant changes. Some things need to show they are beyond each individual administration.
You can elect the best and brightest administration of all time. You'll just flipflop again. I'll trust them when there are fewer eligible republicans than I can benchpress.
You can elect the best and brightest administration of all time. You'll just flipflop again. I'll trust them when there are fewer eligible republicans than I can benchpress.
That's the thing, as has been repeated, until the current generation of Republicans is but a memory, there's no trusting the US for a span longer than 8 years. It simply can't be done.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Longer than that - the crazy current that Trump rode isn't a fluke. It's a solid 20% baseline of the population, and a piece of a pretty plausible plurality of the electorate for at least the foreseeable future.
Or, put another way: if you intend to be a long term ally of the US, you can no longer deny any that this form of nationalist xenophobia is one of the key powers with influence over our policymaking, and at any given moment X years into the alliance may have its hands all over the steering wheel.
Hmm. I'm starting to see an increasing number of pieces coming out now that are, one way or another, betting against a substantial reform of NAFTA. Seeing justifications ranging from American officials starting to downplay expectations, Trump's low popularity, the AHCA implosion, emboldened Congresspeople from border states, etc..
Interestingly, the Peso's been up against the USD since inauguration, recovering all the ground lost since Trump's election. That is to say, the markets now think Trump's ability to harm the Mexican economy now is the same as it was before he got elected....
That's part of the package of any modern democracy though, especially around the western world.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Longer than that - the crazy current that Trump rode isn't a fluke. It's a solid 20% baseline of the population, and a piece of a pretty plausible plurality of the electorate for at least the foreseeable future.
Or, put another way: if you intend to be a long term ally of the US, you can no longer deny any that this form of nationalist xenophobia is one of the key powers with influence over our policymaking, and at any given moment X years into the alliance may have its hands all over the steering wheel.
It's not an uniquely American trend though. Nationalism has been on the rise these past few years worldwide.
Hmm. I'm starting to see an increasing number of pieces coming out now that are, one way or another, betting against a substantial reform of NAFTA. Seeing justifications ranging from American officials starting to downplay expectations, Trump's low popularity, the AHCA implosion, emboldened Congresspeople from border states, etc..
Interestingly, the Peso's been up against the USD since inauguration, recovering all the ground lost since Trump's election. That is to say, the markets now think Trump's ability to harm the Mexican economy now is the same as it was before he got elected....
I would bet against anything happening on that front personally. Anything that requires Congressional action is highly unlikely.
The problem is that anti-NAFTA sentiment is geographically constrained to some extent but more importantly is mostly just a populist bunch of bullshit and the establishment/elites/etc put out zero support for this shit.
Which means this is the kind of thing that only gets done if Trump can act unilaterally or if Trump can bully Congress into action via threats. And we all saw how well the second works for him with the Obamacare fight.
+4
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited March 2017
Nothing will happen with NAFTA with this administration because there is no way in hell they can get Canada and Mexico on board for renegotiation.
Edit: and it's an international treaty. The only possible unilateral action is violation.
Nothing will happen with NAFTA with this administration because there is no way in hell they can get Canada and Mexico on board for renegotiation.
Edit: and it's an international treaty. The only possible unilateral action is violation.
Oh, I think they could very probably get Canada and Mexico on board for some type of renegotiation because both countries would be looking to tilt NAFTA to their advantage. It all depends on their evaluations of the situation. Certainly Trump and his administration is an easy mark.
The worst part is they could probably fleece Trump and the US pretty easily by promising small things that are beneficial to Trump specifically in exchange for concessions that tilt NAFTA in their favor in very real ways.
When Donald Trump met Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany earlier this month, he put on one of his most truculent and ignorant performances. He wanted money — piles of it — for Germany’s defense, raged about the financial killing China was making from last year’s Paris climate accord and kept “frequently and brutally changing the subject when not interested, which was the case with the European Union.”
This was the summation provided to me by a senior European diplomat briefed on the meeting. Trump’s preparedness was roughly that of a fourth grader. He began the conversation by telling Merkel that Germany owes the United States hundreds of billions of dollars for defending it through NATO, and concluded by saying, “You are terrific” but still owe all that dough. Little else concerned him.
Trump knew nothing of the proposed European-American deal known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, little about Russian aggression in Ukraine or the Minsk agreements, and was so scatterbrained that German officials concluded that the president’s daughter Ivanka, who had no formal reason to be there, was the more prepared and helpful. (Invited by Merkel, Ivanka will attend a summit on women’s empowerment in Berlin next month.)
Nothing will happen with NAFTA with this administration because there is no way in hell they can get Canada and Mexico on board for renegotiation.
Edit: and it's an international treaty. The only possible unilateral action is violation.
Between the president who only barely recognizes the concept of international institutions, much less respects them, and a Congress which will probably forget its infighting to temporarily vote en bloc against any attempt by Foreigners(tm) to jerk it around, I'm honestly bracing for a unilateral "whatcha gonna do about it, huh? huh?" from the US on this front sometime in the next couple of years.
Posts
In a somewhat related story, Merkel's party won state elections in Saarland fairly easily. Was expected to be closer than it was. Their right wing nationalists did worse than they did last year.
The single greatest contribution Germany has made to world peace in the last 70 years is not going quite so hard at the militarism thing.
You have to keep in mind that these are people who wish Germany had won and that the US had helped them win.
It's pretty clear trump still seems to think there's some bank account somewhere that all NATO members deposit 2% of their GDP in to.
Off-shore banking? Sounds legit.
It's kind of telling that he's slipped a few times and said that other NATO members owed the United States the money, not the alliance.
War Powers Act is a hell of a thing.
More likely it's based on the Use of Force authorization that Obama was using, i.e. the one Congress passed waay back during GWB's first term, the one that they've never touched or attempted to call BS on the President using despite going beyond the original intent because they want 0 blame or responsibility for anything bad that may or may not occur because of it changing in any way.
Alternative fur Deutschland (the party that's as close to neo-Nazi as legally possible in Germany) lost a lot of their credibility when their leader went and met with Putin. Europe doesn't truck with Putinism, even if they might be sympathetic to the alt-right message otherwise. Which is why it's odd that Le Pen recently went to meet with Putin when she's already struggling in round 2 polling v Macron.
I don't know if that will actually do anything, but I think we the populace, and our elected representatives, should speak up in some form.
The Times is part of News Corp, which also owns the Sun (which also used to own The News of the World); i.e. they own both a Tabloid and a Broadsheet when it comes to the UK press.
To be fair, I've not read the Times in years, but that's because its behind an online paywall.
It was pretty surprising.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It is considered to be a Newspaper of quality and standards
Being considered something doesn't make it true.
What does that even mean in this context?
Now he's agreeing to an alternative date, an offer by Nato he declined at first.
To bring it onto topic;
I believe that the Times is respectable enough in terms of it's journalistic quality that, if it says that Donald Trump did that in a meeting with Angela Merkel, I believe that it's true to the best of their knowledge and worth discussion
If Trump really does think that NATO works that way then that is very, very dangerous levels of ignorance we are seeing from the White House and a complete and utter lack of capability amongst advisors to make the President informed, either because they are similarly ignorant or because Trump doesn't listen to anyone
The US' destabilisation of NATO will go down very poorly internationally. You don't just throw away decades of trust and get it back when the White House occupant changes. Some things need to show they are beyond each individual administration.
That's the thing, as has been repeated, until the current generation of Republicans is but a memory, there's no trusting the US for a span longer than 8 years. It simply can't be done.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Or, put another way: if you intend to be a long term ally of the US, you can no longer deny any that this form of nationalist xenophobia is one of the key powers with influence over our policymaking, and at any given moment X years into the alliance may have its hands all over the steering wheel.
Interestingly, the Peso's been up against the USD since inauguration, recovering all the ground lost since Trump's election. That is to say, the markets now think Trump's ability to harm the Mexican economy now is the same as it was before he got elected....
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's not an uniquely American trend though. Nationalism has been on the rise these past few years worldwide.
I would bet against anything happening on that front personally. Anything that requires Congressional action is highly unlikely.
The problem is that anti-NAFTA sentiment is geographically constrained to some extent but more importantly is mostly just a populist bunch of bullshit and the establishment/elites/etc put out zero support for this shit.
Which means this is the kind of thing that only gets done if Trump can act unilaterally or if Trump can bully Congress into action via threats. And we all saw how well the second works for him with the Obamacare fight.
Edit: and it's an international treaty. The only possible unilateral action is violation.
Oh, I think they could very probably get Canada and Mexico on board for some type of renegotiation because both countries would be looking to tilt NAFTA to their advantage. It all depends on their evaluations of the situation. Certainly Trump and his administration is an easy mark.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
https://nytimes.com/2017/03/28/opinion/the-offender-of-the-free-world.html Trump could just actually believe all that stuff.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
We can but hope.
Between the president who only barely recognizes the concept of international institutions, much less respects them, and a Congress which will probably forget its infighting to temporarily vote en bloc against any attempt by Foreigners(tm) to jerk it around, I'm honestly bracing for a unilateral "whatcha gonna do about it, huh? huh?" from the US on this front sometime in the next couple of years.