The Trump Era (Jan 20, 2017 – XXXX) Political Discussion Including Foreign Impacts

1161719212226

Comments

  • timmer wrote: »
    It was called the Cold War. The West was at war with the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I don't think the reason behind post WWII east-west tension is one of history's great mysteries.
    Nice to hear from you too, @timmer. All you need is a walrus fetish, and that's evidently all you've got.

    What is difficult for most of us to comprehend (just to make life easy for you) is how America's decades-long tensions with the Soviet Union suddenly went away just because Der Drumpf has stated that it must be so. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're actually his bankroll these days & have control over his actions, could it? Naw, that couldn't be it...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, how is this different from what happened when Mr. Obama came in and tried the failed reset with Clinton? Could you at least acknowledge that this could have been a failure in execution on their part rather than a failure of intent?

    As I've said over and over again, it is in America's interest to have a working relationship with Russia. The Russia/China/US axis is going to be a very important geopolitical one going forward. All Administrations understand that.

    At least Mr. Trump is not naively looking into Mr. Putin's eyes and seeing his soul, like his Republican predecessor once did.

    He is approaching it practically. Either Putin will engage positively to these new olive branches, or he won't. Nothing wrong with that. Those attempting to derail this at the pass are the ones with an agenda, and it behooves us to ask why rather than taking the propaganda at face value.

    This has something to do with Merkel and her re-election hopes this year. The EU need an enemy (I think it needs an enema, but that's a different story). I will be watching her closely. Mr. Obama ran over there to appease her after the election for a reason, and they then gave a strongly worded joint statement (no doubt at her behest). One wonders who is wearing the pants in this relationship.
  • The difference is that Russia didn't actively involve themselves in getting Barack Obama the job of US President, unlike their involvement in handing the job to Trump. The difference is that Barack Obama doesn't have Russian investments in his business dealings that will have to be paid off one way or another (probably the other and the less said about that the better) -- unlike the case with Trump. I'm surprised you even have to ask the question, especially when you ought to have a good idea which direction my answers will be heading.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Oh dear, I'm afraid you've completely fallen for the nonsense here. This is a charade, pure and simple. It's rather obvious to those who aren't still smarting over the election loss and needing someone to blame rather than the pathetic candidate.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 3,566
    Pay no attention to the strongman behind the curtain. He is the great and powerful Trump. Tremble, stfu, and fall in line.

    Not happening, @bj. Why don't you read this -- and the comments that follow it -- and then tell me your opinion is unchanged:

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/16/we-must-know-the-truth-investigations-of-the-russia-hack-and-its-consequences-are-crucial/
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The Iron Curtain?

    How strong is Mr. Trump really? He is but one branch of government.

    He doesn't agree with his Republican colleagues on many things. If I were the downtrodden Democrats, I would find a way to engage with him positively. He can be a formidable person to have on their side for their causes if they pick them carefully, because of the passion of his supporters.
    EDIT:
    There are absolutely no facts here. Just innuendo and rumour. Bob Woodward, who has read the so called 'dossier', called it worthless.

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/
  • That's fine, I call the NY Post garbage. Poor Bob Woodward, he was once a reputable journalist. How the mighty have fallen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I could say the same of the Vanity Fair writer, sometime CNN blowhard and author of of Hillary Rodham Clinton, A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  • "Absolutely no facts here"? I suspect you haven't even read the article. FACT: "On Friday, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee reversed course and grudgingly agreed to investigate Russia’s alleged meddling in November’s election. This announcement was preceded on Thursday by the inspector general for the Justice Department announcing he will investigate FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails." Now, if you want to excise the (admittedly just an opinion) modifier "grudgingly" then do so but the fact remains: the Senate is investigating the president-elect before he's even taken the oath of office. It's your Trump Error, welcome to it...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    What fact is that? We know they are doing an investigation. With all the rubbish that has been reported in the media since Robby Mook dropped the Russia angle before the DNC, they have to, for political purposes.

    What's Comey got to do with Russia? Wasn't that related to the alleged pedophile who was married to Clinton's assistant with alleged connections to groups supporting Sharia law? I thought they found some information on his computer, along with what else I shudder to contemplate.
  • No, they didn't find anything new on his computer. Comey lied about that. A fact that must have escaped your notice...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It is my understanding that they found information which they were obligated to investigate, given they had previously said the case had been closed but also due to assurances given to Congress that they would look at new information. I still don't see what this has to do with Russia. Wasn't that due to her private basement server, emails from which were found on Weiner's laptop?
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »
    The Iron Curtain?
    There are absolutely no facts here. Just innuendo and rumour. Bob Woodward, who has read the so called 'dossier', called it worthless.

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/15/bob-woodward-calls-trump-dossier-garbage/
    No effen kidding. Its laughable :)) This tripe belongs at the bedwetting thread
    The histrionics engaged by know-nothing lefties because the people handed them their ass in a general election, after they had been bellowing to the high heavens, that they had it in the bag, is right out of Monty Python.
    And now its all Putins fault. Groan.
    Speaking of know-nothing lefty blathering
    timmer wrote: »
    It was called the Cold War. The West was at war with the glorious Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I don't think the reason behind post WWII east-west tension is one of history's great mysteries.

    What is difficult for most of us to comprehend (just to make life easy for you) is how America's decades-long tensions with the Soviet Union suddenly went away just because Der Drumpf has stated that it must be so. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they're actually his bankroll these days & have control over his actions, could it? Naw, that couldn't be it...
    This response is so lame, its not even worthy of a response.
    Again its called the Cold War. It ended in 1991. Maybe you were beached somewhere at the time.

    walrusjpg.jpg

    People come and go from Russia now. I have friends who make a good living playing hockey over there. Russians play hockey here. I have a Russian neighbor. His relatives visit from Russia.
    We can do business with Russia. We in the west have been doing so for a long time now. You could go there too.
    But do let the bed-wetting continue. It does provide comic relief.
    I do empathize though. This election was particularly tough on the lefty-brigade. The comeuppance was the stuff of legend. Shakespearean.
    I do admit, I do take glee in watching the teeth-knashing, whining and crying coming from the predictable quarters.
    Meryl Streep was gold! Even John McCain had to face-palm. "thank you Meryl for illustrating why so many Americans voted for Trump"
    I also do pat myself on the back for fortuitous instincts.
    For years @timmer has had a firm no-Streep movie policy. I had no idea she was a loon. She just seemed way too pleased with herself.
    Now mind you I do like football and stuff, and can at least appreciate why others might like MMA, even if I don't follow it.
    Speaking of, Obama did a nice job with the Cubbies today. He actually made what I would call a full-blown baseball speech.
    Is Meryl ok with baseball fans? Did it throw her for a loop that outgoing President loves baseball, and horrors, he does like NFL too. What's a privileged sanctimonious lefty to do?! The dilemma!
    I am sorry @Walrus, but this really is too much fun and the belly laughs will continue, I have no doubt, you shall serve up. Surely the ditch-digging and diaper soiling has only scraped the surface.

    And back to its all Putins fault. The wikileaks investigation revealed all of the leaked emails were the real deal.
    Loserville is howling about the fact that inconvenient truths ( to borrow from former Vice President Windbag) were revealed
    I could list but I am really getting bored with it all.
    The Russians eagerly "encouraged" the leaking of DNC emails. They didn't actually hack, otherwise NSA etc could easily have traced the source of the hacking.
    Remember Boris, Goldeneye? Fine point, I guess, but its clear Putin couldn't stand the thought of HRC winning. Of course he interfered. That's what the Russkies do.

    And again the Cold War ended in 1991. Cuba though not so much. Its still a socialist backwater.

    This is the new Russian Flag

    flag-russia-big.jpg

    This is old evil Soviet Flag.

    9264730-Soviet-Flag-Stock-Photo.jpg
    Yeltsin pulled it down after Gorby dissolved the failed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    This is Miss Russia. Good times! We can work with her!
    1038165056.jpg

    This may as well have been Miss Soviet Union. Bad times.

    Walrus-Walrus.jpg

    Is this helping? I am trying.

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 3,566
    Yes indeed, sometimes you're very trying.

    (That's a joke, son. A joke. Say it in a Foghorn Leghorn voice, maybe the true meaning can get through. Sorry, but I just don't know any cartoon walrus voices.)
  • bondjames wrote: »
    It is my understanding that they found information which they were obligated to investigate, given they had previously said the case had been closed but also due to assurances given to Congress that they would look at new information. I still don't see what this has to do with Russia. Wasn't that due to her private basement server, emails from which were found on Weiner's laptop?

    Comey's intrusion into the election has nothing at all to do with Russia. I never said it did. It's a separate issue, but one that did unfairly impact the election. Nothing new was discovered on Weiner's laptop, so Comey had no need to say anything new to Congress; that he did so without true cause is the issue in this particular case.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 11,119
    timmer wrote: »
    This is the new Russian Flag

    flag-russia-big.jpg

    Well dear @Timmer. Let's go a bit into detail about what's so 'new' about the current Russian flag :-)

    Some historical background on the Russian flag
    Two accounts of the flag's origin connect it to the tricolor used by the Dutch Republic (the flag of the Netherlands).

    Tsar Peter the Great asks Dutchman Butteler for advice
    The earliest mention of the flag occurs during the reign of Alexis I, in 1668, and is related to the construction of the first Russian naval ship, the frigate Oryol. According to one source, the ship's Dutch lead engineer Butteler faced the need for the flag, and issued a request to the Boyar Duma, to "...ask His Royal Majesty as to which (as is the custom among other nations) flag shall be raised on the ship." The official response merely indicated that, as such issue is as yet unprecedented, even though the land forces do use (apparently different) flags, the tsar ordered that his (Butteler's) opinion be sought about the matter, asking specifically as to the custom existing in his country.

    Tsar Peter the Great gets inspired by the Dutch 'Prinsenvlag'
    A different account traces the origins of the Russian flag to tsar Peter the Great's visits to Arkhangelsk in 1693 and 1694. Peter was keenly interested in shipbuilding in the European style, different from the barges ordinarily used in Russia at the time. In 1693, Peter had ordered a Dutch-built frigate from Amsterdam. In 1694 when it arrived, the Dutch red-white-and-blue banner flew from its stern. Peter decided to model Russia's naval flag after this banner by changing the sequence of colors.

    nlrf.jpg

    The Dutch flag book of 1695 by Carel Allard, printed only a year after Peter's trip to Western Europe, describes the tricolor with a double-headed eagle bearing a shield on its breast, and wearing a golden crown over both of its heads.

    Sadly, since we're talking about Putin's ultranationalist Mother Russia here, these historical facts will most likely be ignored completely. Because it's a sign of weakness and lack of innovation if you can't come up with your own national flag and actually need inspiration from another country.



  • GBFGBF
    edited January 2017 Posts: 3,197
    @Bondjames

    I guess you make a mistake like Mr. Trump when you call China a great rival. This is often the view of business men like Trump who only regard other countries as competitors. In fact, international trade does not mean competition in the first place but the mutual exchange of goods and services. You can only import if you export something of the same value or other countries invest in your country. Of course Chinese steal producers compete with US steal producers. But when Chinese companies export cheaper steal to the US, Chinese companies receive $ which they can either keep or use to buy other American products or to invest in the US which is good for the US. Trump said that it is unfair that BMW exports many cars from Germany to the US and American car producers export only few cars to Europe.
    Well GM owns the German car company OPEL which has quite a solid share in the EU market and does not have an own market strategy.

    On the other hand, Germany as well as China import soft ware as well as hollywood films from the US. Should they now say that the US is unfair by not importing Chinese soft ware or German films? Trump's America first strategy seem to have the objective to reduce the imports of goods to a minimum. However, he neglects that you can only export your own products if you import goods of the same value.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @GBF, as you said, Mr. Trump is a businessman. China is indeed a competitor of the United States, there is no question about that. A very formidable competitor. That is how China views the US. The US has, to date, seen China as a market. It's policy has been to open that market up and bring it into the world trading system, to benefit US companies. The Chinese, very smartly understanding this, set the market up in a way that benefited their growth and knowledge transfer using a divide and conquer strategy.

    The US has had a laissez-faire approach to industrial policy to date. This has benefited some of its corporations at the expense of its workers but has also facilitated the destruction of its manufacturing industries. Germany has its Mittelstadts, Korea has its Chaebols, Japan has its Keiretsus etc. China has followed this principal of interlocking Government/Corporate/Employee shareholding and cross shareholdings. There is a strategy there.

    America has nothing comparable. Instead, its 'industrial' policy has been driven by military (it's one of the biggest exports), banking, entertainment (like you said) etc. As I noted earlier, the incoming Trump Administration is taking a different approach to this. It is not establishing a similar structure, but is using the bully pulpit and power of the United States market to lead companies towards prioritizing American jobs. The 35% tariff threat is an opening bid in a discussion with Germany to get its automakers (who make $ billions selling to US consumers) to move more production to the US, at least when they are selling to the US. It will be up to the companies to cooperate, just like GM will (announcement coming today).

    I used to live in the UK. A comparable Mercedes-Benz product in the UK is far more expensive there than the same product in the US market. That is because the US market is more open, has less tariffs, and is larger. If Mr. Trump's strategy results in Mercedes-Benz cars being more expensive in the US, then so be it. Consumers will temporarily switch to other products (including Japanese ones) until Daimler (the parent company) starts to play ball (by moving more production of vehicles intended for the US market to the US). The US market is large enough that it won't be abandoned entirely.

    At the end of the day, this is just repositioning. As I said, Mr. Trump is not afraid to use the bully pulpit of his office to jostle for some changes.

    PS: There is no way that I will ever purchase a VW product manufactured in Mexico. That's not because I'm a racist, but rather because the quality control is rubbish. I have clients and friends who own Mexican made VW's and they are nowhere near the quality of the German imported machines.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 11,119
    Here we go again :-). Are we ready for some good bit of factual research journalism?
    TROUBLE FOR TRUMP APPOINTEES
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2017/Pres/Maps/Jan17.html#item-1

    Generally speaking, staffing a new presidential administration is a fairly low-drama process. Presidents-elect don't want to embarrass themselves or get off on the wrong foot, so they tend to choose highly-qualified, well-vetted nominees. The Senate, even if controlled by the opposition party, generally wants to respect tradition and avoid antagonizing someone they're going to have to work with for 4-8 years. Donald Trump is not like other presidents, however, and so for him the process has been a real soap opera. On Monday, problems of various sorts emerged with a trio of his high-profile appointees.

    --> First up is Secretary of HHS-designate Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). He will theoretically be the hatchet man that chops Obamacare up into tiny pieces for the administration. On Monday, however, news broke (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/tom-price-bill-aiding-company/index.html ) that just last March, Price purchased thousands of dollars in shares in pharmaceutical company Zimmer Biomet, and then promptly introduced legislation that would help the company (and its stock price). And this is not the first time that Price has done this (though it's among the more egregious); while in office he has bought and sold more than $300,000 worth of shares in biomedical companies who were likely to be affected by legislation that he was pursuing. At best, this looks very bad. At worst, it's pure corruption, and possibly even insider trading.

    --> Then there is Secretary of Labor-designate Andrew Puzder. As a corporate bigwig, he's rather accustomed to fawning and flattery, and not so much to criticism and condemnation. He's gotten plenty of the latter in the past few weeks, and he does not care for it. He's also not thrilled that the vetting process is turning his life into an open book. Consequently, Puzder is reportedly having second thoughts about his appointment (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/andrew-andy-puzder-labor-trump/index.html) . "He may be bailing," said a Team Trump insider on Monday. "He is not into the pounding he is taking, and the paperwork." Puzder and the Trump staff both deny this, but that is what we would expect them to do right up until the point that he pushes the eject button.

    --> Finally, there's Monica Crowley, who apparently plagiarized everything she's written in the last 25 years. This means her dissertation (and resulting Ph.D.), her bestselling books, and her lengthy list of op-eds are all a sham; among writers of all stripes there is no greater offense. She was set to serve as a key member of President-elect Trump's national security team. And given that the position does not require Senate approval, along with the likelihood that The Donald does not care about egghead crimes like plagiarism, she might have weathered the storm. On the other hand, she would have faced uncomfortable questions for months or years, and she likely would have struggled to maintain the respect of her NSA colleagues, especially since her job was supposed to be...speechwriting. So, on Monday, she dropped out (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/monica-crowley-plagiarism.html ). :-q

    For most presidents-elect, all of these developments would be pretty embarrassing. For Donald Trump, on the other hand, who knows? Monday's news probably bothers him less than the latest Trump sketch on "Saturday Night Live".


    TRUMP HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO BUSINESS IN RUSSIA FOR DECADES
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2017/Pres/Maps/Jan17.html#item-2

    Many people are wondering why President-elect Donald Trump is so friendly to Vladimir Putin, especially since most Republicans are not big fans of Communist (quasi-)dictators. One theory that is widely circulated, but for which there is no public evidence, is that after his four bankruptcies, U.S. banks wouldn't lend money to Trump any more so he borrowed it from Russia. However, the Times just published an article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-business.html?ref=politics&_r=0 ) that suggests an alternative explanation (although the two are not mutually exclusive). Trump has been trying to pull off real-estate deals in Russia for decades, with no success. He and his children have visited Moscow over and over to talk to developers and government officials, trying to make deals. But so far to no avail. He would love for there to be a Trump Tower in Moscow, but up until now that has eluded him, albeit not for lack for trying.

    At his news conference last week, Trump said: "I have no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away."

    That is flatly untrue. He applied for a Russian trademark in 1996. In 2006, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Felix Sater, a Russian immigrant to the U.S., developer, and Trump business partner, stayed at a hotel across from the Kremlin for several days, talking to potential partners.

    In 2013, Trump himself visited Moscow to look for deals, tweeting:
    "TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next."

    It didn't happen, but he certainly tried to make it happen. Maybe this is the moment that he could make it happen (:|.

    Lying and acting like an Italian crook these days apparently.....doesn't matter anymore for the new US Administration. My ooowh my, Carl Bernstein is getting busy again :-).
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    bondjames wrote: »
    @GBF, as you said, Mr. Trump is a businessman. China is indeed a competitor of the United States, there is no question about that. A very formidable competitor. That is how China views the US. The US has, to date, seen China as a market. It's policy has been to open that market up and bring it into the world trading system, to benefit US companies. The Chinese, very smartly understanding this, set the market up in a way that benefited their growth and knowledge transfer using a divide and conquer strategy.

    The US has had a laissez-faire approach to industrial policy to date. This has benefited some of its corporations at the expense of its workers but has also facilitated the destruction of its manufacturing industries. Germany has its Mittelstadts, Korea has its Chaebols, Japan has its Keiretsus etc. China has followed this principal of interlocking Government/Corporate/Employee shareholding and cross shareholdings. There is a strategy there.

    America has nothing comparable. Instead, its 'industrial' policy has been driven by military (it's one of the biggest exports), banking, entertainment (like you said) etc. As I noted earlier, the incoming Trump Administration is taking a different approach to this. It is not establishing a similar structure, but is using the bully pulpit and power of the United States market to lead companies towards prioritizing American jobs. The 35% tariff threat is an opening bid in a discussion with Germany to get its automakers (who make $ billions selling to US consumers) to move more production to the US, at least when they are selling to the US. It will be up to the companies to cooperate, just like GM will (announcement coming today).

    I used to live in the UK. A comparable Mercedes-Benz product in the UK is far more expensive there than the same product in the US market. That is because the US market is more open, has less tariffs, and is larger. If Mr. Trump's strategy results in Mercedes-Benz cars being more expensive in the US, then so be it. Consumers will temporarily switch to other products (including Japanese ones) until Daimler (the parent company) starts to play ball (by moving more production of vehicles intended for the US market to the US). The US market is large enough that it won't be abandoned entirely.

    At the end of the day, this is just repositioning. As I said, Mr. Trump is not afraid to use the bully pulpit of his office to jostle for some changes.

    PS: There is no way that I will ever purchase a VW product manufactured in Mexico. That's not because I'm a racist, but rather because the quality control is rubbish. I have clients and friends who own Mexican made VW's and they are nowhere near the quality of the German imported machines.

    There are no tariffs for German cars in the UK since both are part of the Single European Market, it might be a matter of national taxes why the consumer price is higher in Britain compared to the US or because parts of the Mercedes-Benz sold in th US is produced in Mexico where it is cheaper. Especially for high price products, tariffs do not prevent anything. German manufacturers produce high end cars which are much more expensive than Japanese cars. And those who buy a Mercedes-Benz won't buy a Toyota just because of a price increase of $ 2'000. The US is the biggest export market for German companies. Most of the exports are cars and very specific maschines which cannot be substituted so very easily. Tariffs mean that these import good become more expanisve for US companies which is absolutely not to the advantage of the US economy.

    And by the way, there are WTO rules. You cannot simply "punish" a particular country by discrimnating its companies, simply because you find that you ar eimporting to many of their goods. Should Germany start blackmailing Microsoft to develope more software or google to develope new applications in Germany. Of course this won't happen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    GBF wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @GBF, as you said, Mr. Trump is a businessman. China is indeed a competitor of the United States, there is no question about that. A very formidable competitor. That is how China views the US. The US has, to date, seen China as a market. It's policy has been to open that market up and bring it into the world trading system, to benefit US companies. The Chinese, very smartly understanding this, set the market up in a way that benefited their growth and knowledge transfer using a divide and conquer strategy.

    The US has had a laissez-faire approach to industrial policy to date. This has benefited some of its corporations at the expense of its workers but has also facilitated the destruction of its manufacturing industries. Germany has its Mittelstadts, Korea has its Chaebols, Japan has its Keiretsus etc. China has followed this principal of interlocking Government/Corporate/Employee shareholding and cross shareholdings. There is a strategy there.

    America has nothing comparable. Instead, its 'industrial' policy has been driven by military (it's one of the biggest exports), banking, entertainment (like you said) etc. As I noted earlier, the incoming Trump Administration is taking a different approach to this. It is not establishing a similar structure, but is using the bully pulpit and power of the United States market to lead companies towards prioritizing American jobs. The 35% tariff threat is an opening bid in a discussion with Germany to get its automakers (who make $ billions selling to US consumers) to move more production to the US, at least when they are selling to the US. It will be up to the companies to cooperate, just like GM will (announcement coming today).

    I used to live in the UK. A comparable Mercedes-Benz product in the UK is far more expensive there than the same product in the US market. That is because the US market is more open, has less tariffs, and is larger. If Mr. Trump's strategy results in Mercedes-Benz cars being more expensive in the US, then so be it. Consumers will temporarily switch to other products (including Japanese ones) until Daimler (the parent company) starts to play ball (by moving more production of vehicles intended for the US market to the US). The US market is large enough that it won't be abandoned entirely.

    At the end of the day, this is just repositioning. As I said, Mr. Trump is not afraid to use the bully pulpit of his office to jostle for some changes.

    PS: There is no way that I will ever purchase a VW product manufactured in Mexico. That's not because I'm a racist, but rather because the quality control is rubbish. I have clients and friends who own Mexican made VW's and they are nowhere near the quality of the German imported machines.

    There are no tariffs for German cars in the UK since both are part of the Single European Market, it might be a matter of national taxes why the consumer price is higher in Britain compared to the US or because parts of the Mercedes-Benz sold in th US is produced in Mexico where it is cheaper. Especially for high price products, tariffs do not prevent anything. German manufacturers produce high end cars which are much more expensive than Japanese cars. And those who buy a Mercedes-Benz won't buy a Toyota just because of a price increase of $ 2'000. The US is the biggest export market for German companies. Most of the exports are cars and very specific maschines which cannot be substituted so very easily. Tariffs mean that these import good become more expanisve for US companies which is absolutely not to the advantage of the US economy.

    And by the way, there are WTO rules. You cannot simply "punish" a particular country by discrimnating its companies, simply because you find that you ar eimporting to many of their goods. Should Germany start blackmailing Microsoft to develope more software or google to develope new applications in Germany. Of course this won't happen.
    Fair enough on the UK tariff situation. It's been many years since I lived there so my knowledge is outdated. Bottom line: due to competition, Mercedes-Benz is not the company it once was. A much larger proportion of its production is lower priced, almost entry level cars. They will be impacted by a rise in taxes, and they can be substituted by another product. Your comments on Toyota perhaps reflect the UK situation. In the US/Canada, we have Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Hyundai's Genesis, Volvo and several US manufacturers who are quite competitive in the high end market. They can easily pick up the slack. Having said that, as you noted, some consumers will still choose to buy a more expensive Mercedes. That's their choice.

    Regarding GAAT & successor WTO: The US will first look for abuses and reduce that. That will be the first step. It's the same approach as they will take with illegal immigration. There are already laws on the books that are being abused.

    I've said this many times before and will mention it again. Mr. Trump's approach is to be provocative and signal his desire. Then he waits for the response and the counter position. It can either be combative (and then he knows where he stands & what he must do) or conciliatory. Ms. Merkel's comments yesterday were the right ones. Now they work behind closed doors voluntarily to solve the problem to mutually benefit both parties. The signalling is that the 'status quo' is not on.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Not happening, @bj. Why don't you read this -- and the comments that follow it -- and then tell me your opinion is unchanged:

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/16/we-must-know-the-truth-investigations-of-the-russia-hack-and-its-consequences-are-crucial/

    What I get out of that is that the FBI are working for the Russians.

  • Not happening, @bj. Why don't you read this -- and the comments that follow it -- and then tell me your opinion is unchanged:

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/16/we-must-know-the-truth-investigations-of-the-russia-hack-and-its-consequences-are-crucial/

    What I get out of that is that the FBI are working for the Russians.

    What I get out of what you say is that satire has a hard time keeping up with reality these days.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    bondjames wrote: »
    Again, these are all fears at this point, some of which may indeed be warranted. I believe the Cabinet heads have been appointed to look at their respective portfolios with a critical eye. To see where improvements can be made, with a view to reducing wastage and eliminating overt political leanings. Mr. Trump is looking for efficiencies in the public departments. That much should be expected, and it is what I want him to do.
    Yes, and this of course is what he was elected to do, but you do realize such initiative is lost on @walrus. His rather obvious socialist big-government bent makes such actions ideologically toxic to him. He frets over Trump appointees
    Finding such efficiencies is anathema. His bent is such that such portfolios be expanded and grown. Big government is best. Inefficiencies, waste, bloat etc are allowable trade-offs in furthering the broader goal of massive government and public service expansion. This is the leftist way. The end justifies the means. The "end" of course, being broadening the scope and breadth of big central government.
    You are wasting breath when championing such quaint notions as efficiencies, and leaner, decentralized approaches to governance.


    eg from @walrus
    " many of the cabinet members seem to be inclined to totally dismantle the work of their particular agencies (in social needs like education, health care and so forth.) "
    Horrors! No kidding. I would expect no less. The appointees are presumably disinclined towards bloat (that can be today's word of the day, as it is so appropos) in such departments..."and so forth" eg in @walrus world (the bloated walrus imagery is of course by design) there are far too many departments to name, that must be spared the dreaded efficiencies.
    Championing such fiscal responsibility to the @walrus set is like preaching restraint to porkers feeding at trough. Bloating the beast is the actual goal.

    Here's another @walrus gem. Its the stuff of eye-rolling and also kind of revealing in a disturbing way
    If anything, the Republican Party has been far more antagonistic to Russia than the Democratic Party since the end of the Viet Nam war. I
    And this is a bad thing?! The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was sworn enemy of the west during this period. Remember. We've been through this. The Cold War.
    Making nice with the Soviets wasn't exactly on the Western agenda during this period.
    Our hero 007 expended much effort, fighting this evil. The idea was to destroy the Soviet menace.
    And this did come to pass,well after the end of the Vietnam war. Again, in 1991.
    There is no currency in having been less antagonistic to the Soviets during this period.

    Also from @walrus
    and a fair amount of that selection is being revealed to have been the result of meddling by one of America's chief -- let's say "rivals" in world affairs --
    No, the selection was achieved by actual Americans casting ballots.
    As to what was revealed due to the meddling.
    Again, "inconvenient truths" come to mind. I don't think Gore intended that his cute turn of phrase would come back to haunt.

    Anyway, key findings of the WikiLeaks investigation:

    The most key I guess, was that the leaked emails were the real deal. Not forgeries
    That can't be good.
    And what did we find?
    1. Obama did communicate with Clinton on her illegal email system under pseudonym, while publicly denying knowledge of the system's existence.
    (hmmm, thats not cricket)
    2.The Democratic National Committee did sandbag poor Bernie.
    (for shame)
    3. HRC did lie about playing fast and loose with confidential information and was fed debate questions in advance by media enablers.
    (the unmitigaged....for shame)

    One could argue that the leaked emails did actually further the greater good.
    American voters were that much better informed of the perfidy, of the desperate White House at-all-costs-leader of the once proud Democratic Party.
    The Party of the Kennedys, FDR...... for shame.

    And another question worth mulling.
    Which likely had a greater impact on the election results: leaked email meddling or the outrageous boosterism for HRC, by entitled media enablers during the campaign?
    Which poses a greater danger for U.S. democracy?

    Still more belchings from @walrus
    The majority of the American voters didn't see things his way in the actual election, and just because an antique method of selecting the contest's winner says that he's the guy, don't think we're going to bend over backwards for him.

    Yawn. This reminds of the Canada-Soviet 1972 Hockey Summit Series. Arguably the greatest hockey series ever played. Dubbed the War On Ice.
    For the first time in history the top Canadian NHL professionals were teamed up, to take on the powerful Soviet international hockey machine- a formidable force indeed.

    The first 4 games were played in Canada. The next 4 in Moscow. It was indeed War on Ice. Some of the best hockey players that ever lived, on both sides, engaged in the most ferocious of competition, at the height of the Cold War.
    The Soviet dirty-tricks machine was operating full throttle. I am truly surprised everyone got out alive
    Ultimately Canada prevailed, but by the slimmest of margins.
    The series was tied 3 wins each, with one tie game, going into the final 8th game in Moscow.
    That final game was tied 5-5 late in the third period. It appeared the series might finish in a draw, until Paul Henderson scored the most famous goal in Canadian history!
    A proud hockey nation, wildly celebrated, while the Soviet bear grimaced.
    Canada had won 4-3-1. The final tally: 4 wins for Canada - 3 wins for USSR and 1 tie.

    However, if you picked up Pravda the next day, the Soviets had won the series.
    You see, they suddenly declared the glorious Soviet to have won on total-goals aggregate.
    The propaganda machine was cranked up full. The decadent west had been defeated by the glorious Soviet.

    In the real world, hockey series, are about winning individual contests, known as "games"
    Teams collect "wins" in order to achieve victory.
    US elections are won by achieving electoral college wins.

    Somehow I don't think the electoral college results would be considered quite so "antique" if the results had been more favourable to poor, devastated HRC.
    Same with the Soviet Bear circa 1972. If Yakushev had scored the deciding goal, rather than Henderson, the long standing "wins" system would have been just fine.
    Hockey series are not decided by total-goals aggregates, despite what Brezhnev might have wished, after the fact.
    US Elections are decided by the Electoral College, despite what HRC might have wished, after the fact.

    "Henderson Scores for Canada!" Canda wins fair and square! The Soviet defeated!


    Electors score for America! Trump wins fair and Square. HRC defeated!

    2016_final_projections_election_results.jpg

    bonus Miss Universe Canada picture, appropriately costumed.
    Just13 more days!
    ===o-MISS-UNIVERSE-PAGEANT-facebook.jpg
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 3,566
    timmer wrote: »
    No, the selection was achieved by actual Americans casting ballots.

    Rave on....and on........and on, @timmer. Since most of your ire is evidently directed at a fictional construct that exists nowhere but in your own deluded mind, I can't really be bothered. I especially have no interest in whatever truth is revealed in hockey games. But one thing you evidently didn't notice: 2 MILLION more Americans actually cast ballots for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Enjoy your Miss Universe fantasies!
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    The understanding of the Electoral College construct truly is lost to you, although there is also the sore loser thing. Sigh.

    @graves I wouldn't be so sure the Russians wouldn't acknowledge the Dutch heritage linked to their flag.
    All flags have a story and history associated with their creation.
    Interesting story though. If I bump into Putin, I'll run it by him.
    It is a good looking flag.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    But one thing you evidently didn't notice: 2 MILLION more Americans actually cast ballots for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.
    Well, to be absolutely accurate, she won 2,864,974 more votes than Mr. Trump, but that's just 864,974 more votes that are entirely irrelevant as far as the firmly established rules under which the leader of the free world is elected is concerned.
    timmer wrote: »
    The understanding of the Electoral College construct truly is lost to you, although there is also the sore loser thing. Sigh..
    It baffles me why those who were supporting Mrs. Clinton find the Electoral College concept so difficult to appreciate. It's not like it's something new.
    timmer wrote: »
    You are wasting breath when championing such quaint notions as efficiencies, and leaner, decentralized approaches to governance.
    I'm beginning to think you may be right on this. I hope not though. Everyone, no matter what their political leanings, must expect Government to be more efficient and responsive to the public. This is one of the key reasons that President Elect Trump won the election and I hope his Cabinet picks find ways to streamline operations.

    Perhaps Chris Liddell, who was announced today as assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives, may be there to facilitate this efficiency drive. Mr. Liddell was previously CFO of Microsoft & GM, where he helped trim costs, & navigated GM's IPO after the financial crisis.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/17/former-microsoft-liddell-cfo-joins-trump-administration.html

    Liddell said Mr. Trump supported free markets but not "unbridled free markets". "The days of unbridled free trade and unbridled free markets are over," he said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88519138/kiwi-businessman-chris-liddell-named-as-assistant-to-donald-trump

    General Motors (GM) today announced that it is going to make over $1bn in new investments in the US and create approximately 5000 new jobs over a series of years. Last week at the Detroit Auto Show, the automaker intimated that they weren’t planning anything new to accommodate President Elect Trump’s suggestion that US automakers make more investments in American jobs. Shortly thereafter, the President Elect, in his customary style, called out GM via twitter, asking them to follow Ford & Fiat-Chrysler with US investments and threatening them with import duties if they continue to sell the Mexican made version of the Chevy Cruz. In an apparent change of heart, today’s press release also announced that 450 additional jobs will be ‘moved’ from Mexico, and 1500 jobs which were previously on the chopping block are also being retained. So the total is actually in the region of 7000 jobs.
    srG8WrU.jpg

    Separately, Walmart announced it will invest $6.8bn in the US, resulting in 59 Walmart and Sam’s Club locations opening and 10,000 new jobs. The company also promised to invest $250bn over several years on products made in the US.

    "Thank you to General Motors and Walmart for starting the big jobs push back into the US!" President Elect Trump tweeted enthusiastically

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/general-motors-responds-to-trump-with-1-billion-in-new-us-spending-cm734403

    http://fortune.com/2017/01/17/walmart-jobs-donald-trump/

    German giant Bayer-Monsanto announced $8bn in agricultural research in the US, following a meeting between the Presdient Elect, Bayer CEO Werner Baumann & Monsanto head Hugh Grant last week.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-monsanto-idUKKBN1512JK

    Korean Gonglomerate Hyundai also announced today that it will invest $3.1bn in the US over five years and may build a new plant here. Hyundai currently has one of the lowest ratios of cars built in the US to what it actually sells in the US.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hyundai-motor-usa-idUSKBN1510L5

    It looks like the President Elect is getting some traction with his approach of using twitter to lay out some strategic priorities for the markets. It's an interesting approach, given he really has no official pulpit until Friday, and he has been rather effective to date.

    In other news, The President Elect gave a wide ranging joint interview with Conservative MP & columnist for the Times of London Michael Gove and Kal Diekman of German newspaper Bild yesterday. This has garnered some attention across the pond among our European friends.
    gF5vT0y.jpg

    Key points include:

    1. Mr. Trump congratulated the UK for Brexit and said he plans to arrange a trade deal with them as soon as possible.
    apbuTwG.jpg
    2. He reiterated his disappointment with Ms. Merkel for letting in almost 1m refugees last year.
    3. He indicated he will start off trusting both Ms. Merkel and Mr. Putin, but will look to see how the relationship develops with both.
    4. He indicated that he believes the UK will not the last to leave the EU, suggesting that countries want their sovereignty and identity back.
    5. He reaffirmed his positive view of NATO (despite calling it obsolete in its current form), but said members have to pay up for the protection that they receive from the US (indicating only 5 pay the required amount at present), and further said that he believes that the organization is not structured to properly fight today’s terrorism threat.
    6. He again denied the allegations in the so called ‘dossier’ compiled by an ex-MI6 employee (reportedly in hiding at present).
    7. He remained vague on the Iran Nuclear Deal, only saying he thinks it’s a bad deal.
    8. He inferred that the EU is a vehicle for Germany first and foremost and also said that he believes the US is agnostic towards independent European states vs. a consolidated EU.
    9. The President Elect reaffirmed his intention to levy a tariff of 35% on auto manufacturers who make vehicles in foreign countries and sell them into the US. This was seen as a dig at BMW, who plans to build a new plant in Mexico.
    [img][/img]3TInmJL.jpg
    10. He once again said that he aims to reset relations with Russia and hopes to use sanctions as leverage on nuclear arms reduction.
    11. Mr. Trump expressed his disappointment with the situation in Aleppo and the Obama Administration’s handling of the Syria situation. He said he would have preferred security zones be set up in Syria to prevent the refugee crisis on Europe’s shores.
    12. The President Elect once again said what most of us believe – that the illegal US invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq in 2003 was possibly the worst decision made in US history.
    13. When asked what he brings from his Scottish/German heritage, the President Elect said he likes German orderliness and Scottish penny pinching.
    14. Mr. Trump reiterated that he disagreed with the US abstention at the UN regarding Israeli settlements, and also said that he wishes the UK had vetoed it. He also said that his son-in-law, Mr. Jared Kushner, is a good kid and can make a deal with Israel/Palestine. I can only hope Mr. Trump was joking here. Mr. Kushner may have bagged the President Elect's daughter Ivanka, a fine catch (worthy of Bond girl imho), but there's far more to Israeli/Palestinian peace.
    ziyAk0S.jpg

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-deal-idUSKBN14Z0YE
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 3,566
    timmer wrote: »
    The understanding of the Electoral College construct truly is lost to you, although there is also the sore loser thing. Sigh.

    Timbo, I've voted in many, many Presidential elections. Sometimes my guy has won, sometimes my guy has lost. Up until now I've been pretty philosophical about it. "Wait 'til next time" isn't just a phrase used in sports.

    But the electoral college and the popular vote have generally been pretty much in sync. Not always...but usually. In the last 20 years, however, the electoral college has disagreed with the popular vote twice. Not a good sign. Last time around, it favored GW Bush II. "Oh well," says I, "Wait 'til next time. How much damage can he do in four years?"

    I was wrong. I admit it. I misunderestimated him. He got us into an unending war in the middle east, nearly drove the American economy into a ditch, and really, really, really messed things up. I'm not making the same mistake again. Donald Trump is an illegitimate president, and he's not mine. You want him, he's all yours. Let the rain of feces that's about the fall all over this fair land be on your head. I'm resisting him every step of the way...and the majority of the American people are on my side, not yours, no matter what a set of rules devised in the 18th century may say.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Well, to be absolutely accurate, she won 2,864,974 more votes than Mr. Trump, but that's just 864,974 more votes that are entirely irrelevant as far as the firmly established rules under which the leader of the free world is elected is concerned.

    We'll see how irrelevant that advantage of nearly 3 million people is when the second American Civil War gets under way, @bj. Sure, I hope it doesn't come to that...but we'll just have to see how they next few years shakes down. Professional gamblers (who are a lot more canny about these things than pollsters) are giving good odds on impeachment -- it's just a matter of when. You want an entertaining administration? As the saying goes, "Watch out what you ask for...you just may get it."
  • GBFGBF
    edited January 2017 Posts: 3,197
    @bondjames

    "The President Elect reaffirmed his intention to levy a tariff of 35% on auto manufacturers who make vehicles in foreign countries and sell them into the US. This was seen as a dig at BMW, who plans to build a new plant in Mexico."

    I guess this kind of measures may sometimes lead to short term benefits for some US regions and workers but in the medium and long run harm the US economy. Already today BMW produces more cars in the US than selling there. In fact, BMW is a big investor in South Caronlina and exports 70% of the cars they produce there. What if other countries now levy tariffs on US car exports.

    Here is some background information on BMW plant in South Carolina:

    "The $2.2 billion plant, which employs 8,000, is one of the company’s global five-plant production network.

    In addition to the South Carolina manufacturing facility, BMW's North American companies include sale, marketing, design, and financial services operations in the United States, Mexico and Canada, as well as throughout Latin America.

    The automaker announced in 2014 an additional $1 billion investment in the facility that will make South Carolina BMW's largest factory, with an annual capacity of 450,000 units. There were 364,000 vehicles produced in 2014, of which 70% were exported to 140 countries. The plant is second only to the plant in Dingolfing, Germany in BMW vehicle production."

    It is normal that you build a production plant for a particular car models. This means you export and import permanantly. As it is said, 70% of the BMW produced in the US are exported.

    How can a president elect affront a foreign investor as Trump did? Isn't he aware that BMW could take this as a sign of less investment security and reconsider their future investment strategy to the disadavntage of the US. In fact, BMW has invested a lot in the US, however Trump cannot expect that every multinational company only invests in the US. The plant that is now planed in Mexico is planed for the global market, not for sole imports into the US.
This discussion has been closed.