192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 09:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Trump sparks fury wherever he goes. It is the price of being a blunt, plain-speaking individual which is a quality a great many people appreciate. It can and does result in unfortunate, and unnecessary, dustups, but it also can lead to effective messaging if the blunt, plain-speaking person means what he is saying. By now European leaders should realize that all of his talk about their failure to meet their NATO defense spending commitments is not going away. It's typical of children and slovenly employees to nod affirmatively in response to the admonitions of their parents and bosses, but to very shortly thereafter resume the behavior that earned them their scolding because the authority figures failed to follow-up. They call what amounts to be a bluff and they "win." That isn't going to happen with NATO.

layman
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 09:43 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It is the price of being a blunt, plain-speaking individual which is a quality a great many people appreciate.

I agree, but it's one of the qualities that cheese-eaters hate the most, eh?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 09:51 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
That's are more general response about Trump and the NATO-meeting.
My response(s) were about him being in the UK and the reaction there.

NATO spending certainly is worth talking about. (As is energy in Germany - here, Trump seems to be mis-educated.)
The problem here in Germany is: 60 percent of the population reject an increase in military expenditure to more than 1.5 percent; only 15 percent are in favour of providing more than the 1.5 percent of the GDP promised by Merkel for the Bundeswehr by 2024.

Populism wherever you look, and everybody wants to satisfy everybody.
layman
 
  -3  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 09:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The problem here in Germany is: 60 percent of the population reject an increase in military expenditure to more than 1.5 percent; only 15 percent are in favour of providing more than the 1.5 percent of the GDP promised by Merkel for the Bundeswehr by 2024.


Yeah? Well 100% of Americans say either pay your fair share (which is more than 1.5% of the GDP) or start defending your own damn self, freeloader.

So, there ya go, then, eh?

Some bum on the street to ask for a cigarette as I was passing him. I asked him: "How much you want to pay me for one? They cost me about $.30 each?"

He said he didn't want to pay anything, at first, and then offered me a penny.

I told him to look for soggy butts in the gutter and kept walking.

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 10:06 am
@Blickers,
https://www.axios.com/senate-trump-vote-supporting-nato--d1718d5b-b55a-4828-914a-21dd1f52032d.html

Quote:
In a bipartisan rebuke to President Trump, the Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a non-binding motion in support of NATO.

Why it matters: The symbolic 97-2 vote came as Trump, who is in Brussels for a summit with NATO allies, continues to lambast the alliance over what he labeled as their lack of commitment in defense spending. Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against the measure.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 10:15 am
@ehBeth,
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/09/nato-is-seen-favorably-in-many-member-countries-but-almost-half-of-americans-say-it-does-too-little/

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/var/www/vhosts/cms.pewresearch.org/htdocs/wp-content/blogs.dir/12/files/2018/07/09115749/FT_18.07.09_NATO_InmanyNATO.png

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/236942/nato-summit-damage-control-wrecking-ball-image.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2018/support_for_nato_is_down

Quote:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including 22% who have a Very Favorable one. Thirty-one percent (31%) share an unfavorable view of NATO, but only eight percent (8%) have a Very Unfavorable view. Another 15% are not sure.


__

mixed bag of results

I'd like to see NATO without the US and quite a few other countries but it's obviously not my call.
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 10:17 am
Fine. This is one case where I would say let them stay!

Quote:
Border Protection says NYC mayor de Blasio crossed border illegally

Border Patrol agents were reportedly unable to stop a brazen illegal crossing into the United States last month -- by the mayor of New York City.

The agent then asked them if they received authorization from a Border Patrol or public affairs officer to be in the area. A New York Police Department inspector said no, according to the letter.

The group disregarded the agent’s order to remain at the scene because they had crossed the border illegally, and instead drove back to Mexico, the letter stated. The agent was getting a supervisor to take the group to an official crossing for an inspection per federal law.


They should prosecute his sorry ass. He could get a 1-year sentence for what he did, which includes obstruction of justice by resisting arrest. Typical for a law-hating criminal of his ilk, eh?

revelette1
 
  6  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 10:25 am
Quote:
How Trump's trade war is already costing consumers

This is how a trade war begins. The Trump administration imposed a 25 percent tax on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports July 6, mostly on parts imported to manufacture U.S. goods.

China retaliated with taxes on an equal amount of U.S. products, including soybeans, electric cars and pork. An additional $16 billion in U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods may take effect at the end of July. And Mr. Trump is threatening hundreds of billions more.

The current China-U.S. tit-for-tat comes on top of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from allies including the EU, Canada and Mexico. All three struck back with tariffs on U.S. exports of products including blue jeans, motorcycles, whiskey and even ketchup.

That costs U.S. companies money. So even if a company has enough pre-tariff supplies stockpiled or is protected by a contract for imported goods to make its products, eventually tariffs will catch up with them.

That means consumers will ultimately pay, no matter if companies figure out ways to avoid some higher costs by shifting suppliers or supply chain routes, according to an analysis from Peterson International Institute of Economics. Here's a list of goods whose prices are already up or are expected to rise shortly:

Everyday consumer goods

Goods that use parts for products subject to Mr. Trump's tariffs and made in the U.S. will eventually cost consumers more as manufacturers are forced to pass on the higher cost, according to the National Retail Federation.

The tariffs enacted last week will push prices higher for tool sets, batteries, remote controls, flash drives and thermostats, the NRF said in a statement last week.

"And students could pay more for the mini-refrigerator they need in their dorm room as they head back to college this fall," the group said.

Housing

Tariffs on Canadian lumber are adding about $9,000 to single-family home prices and more than $3,000 to multifamily homes, Randy Noel, chairman of the National Association of Homebuilders said last month.

Some companies can shield themselves, for now, with long-term contracts already in place for materials. Lennar, a major publicly traded U.S. homebuilder, said on a June 26 earnings call that it's protected by its existing national contracts from most rising costs tied to tariffs, like an increase of "a few hundred dollars per home" in steel bars used to reinforce concrete.

"To a lesser extent, there are some minor increases in products such as garage doors, screws and nails," Chief Operating Officer Jon Jaffe told investors.

Washing machines

Whirlpool is hiring 200 more workers and praised the initial tariffs that went into effect in January, citing its long-running battle with Korea's LG.

But by April, the price of washing machines was up 9 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In May, prices climbed 6 percent. Both are the biggest jumps since the BLS started collecting statistics in 1977, according to the Washington Post.
Common electronics

Buyers in the U.S. will soon see price hikes on computers, phones, thermostats and "everyday items," according to the Information Technology Industry Council, a group that represents tech companies.

Hundreds of Chinese components that the Trump administration penalized are used to make everything from LEDs to sensors to printer and scanner components. When manufacturers pay more for their parts, the costs are typically passed on to consumers, the ITI said.
Your Chick-fil-A sandwich

North American Food Equipment Manufacturers Association Vice President Charlie Souhrada told the Associated Press that tariffs may raise the price of pressure cookers made by one of its members, Henny Penny. Chick-fil-A uses the cooker for its sandwiches. The administration has placed "these import taxes squarely on the shoulders of manufacturers and by extension consumers," Souhrada told the AP in a recent interview.

Autos

Consumers may see an average price increase of $5,800 if a 25 percent import tariff that Mr. Trump has threatened goes into effect, according to estimates cited by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), a lobbying group for carmakers.
That's a "$45 billion tax on consumers," the group said, citing an analysis of Commerce Department data.

America's top-10 best-selling vehicles will each come with a bigger price tag in a range from just under $1,000 to more than $3,600, according to AutoWise, an auto buying service.

Harley-Davidson motorcycles

European counter-tariffs are forcing Harley-Davidson to move some factories to Europe to avoid these levies put in place to retaliate for Mr. Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs.

Harley-Davidson said that it won't raise its prices due to "an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region," although the tariffs are adding about $2,200 in costs per motorcycle exported from the U.S. to the EU. That means Harley is absorbing those higher costs, at least for now.
Farm products

Zippy Duvall, the American Farm Bureau president, told Fox Business News July 6 that farmers are "already in a very bad farm economy," citing a February U.S. Department of Agriculture prediction that 2018 crop profits would drop 0.8 percent to $188.2 billion, a 12-year low. That largely reflects lower prices, according to a USDA presentation.

Farmers, while supportive of Mr. Trump on many fronts, need stability, Duvall said, so they know when to harvest and when their operating loans to run their farms must be repaid to avoid going out of business.

"There are some harvests going on in South Texas. And as the months and days go on, the harvesting will move north into the heartland of America, and that will be a very difficult time if we don't fix or find some solutions to our trade issues," he said.

But China may not be able to avoid buying at least some soybeans, the biggest U.S. crop export, Axios reported. That's because other producing countries, like Brazil, can't match the U.S.'s capacity. That could ease at least some of the pain of China's tariffs for U.S. soybean growers.

However, wheat growers are already feeling the pinch. Chinese wheat buyers stopped making purchases in March after Beijing threatened a 25 percent tariff in retaliation for U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, the National

Association of Wheat Growers said July 6.

On June 1, a farmer with 1,000 acres of corn and soybeans expected a $42,000 return. Today that return has dropped to a negative $126,000, said Christopher Hurt, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.


CBS NEWS
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 10:42 am
@ehBeth,
Quote ehBeth:
Quote:
I'd like to see NATO without the US and quite a few other countries but it's obviously not my call.
With the US and the present lineup, NATO has not only fulfilled its mission since its formation just aftr WWII of keeping the Iron Curtain from expanding into Western Europe, it went even further and provided safe haven for small Eastern European countries from being re-swallowed by the Russian Bear. Over 100 Million people saved from subjugation by Moscow.

It was a superlative performance, and history will look upon NATO well. Why fiddle with resounding success? Trump's slams against NATO merely prove how much of a Russian stooge he is.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:05 am
Quote:
US mauls Germany over Russia pipeline

Quote:
US leader Donald Trump, backed by Poland, has begun the Nato summit with a tirade against Germany's plan to build a pipeline with Russia.

"Germany is a captive of Russia," Trump said after meeting Nato head Jens Stoltenberg in Brussels on Wednesday (11 July).

A tune we never hear on this forum. Germany is giving Russia's economy a huge shot in the arm. Billions of dollars for a pipeline just to buy Russian oil.
https://euobserver.com/foreign/142348
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:13 am
@oralloy,
Quote Politico via oralloy:
Quote:
'This is the most bogus issue they have found yet,' said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). 'The president is drawing a line in sand over unworthy nominees when there are so many worthy problems out there.'"
Note the difference. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Bush 43's nominee, he had a history of pro-torture decisions. If Bush had just nominated someone who was not pro-torture, the nomination would be voted on. And action had already occurred in committee on that nomination as well. The Senate did act on the nomination.

However, with Obama, McConnell made it clear that NO action was going to happen regardless of whom Obama nominates. If Garland stepped down and Obama chose someone else, the Senate still would not consider the nominee until a year later, because they wanted the chance of passing a Republican president's nominee. They clearly admitted that.

That's unconstitutional, since the Constitution clearly says they must advise and consent, and they refused to do that. The Senate can reject the nominee, but they have to at least act on the nomination. They wouldn't.
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:14 am
Quote:
NATO pledges to boost defense spending after stern words from Trump

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The declaration comes after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders

“We’re supposed to protect you against Russia and yet you make this deal with Russia,” Trump said of Germany. “Explain that. It can’t be explained.


Yeah, that's what he thought, eh?

0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:18 am
Quote:
Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh, They Fear The Constitution

That is more than obvious. Our Constitution protects individuals and their rights. There are no individuals to Democrats, only groups, collectives they wish to manipulate and mandate to. The Constitution does not allow that, and never will unless judicial activists destroy it.
Quote:
So it is with an increasing number of Democrats and the Constitution: a document they seem believe must bend to the will of their policy preferences rather than preserve legal continuity, limited government, individual liberty, or enlightenment ideals.[


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/10/democrats-dont-fear-brett-kavanaugh-they-fear-constitution/#.W0YRIFjj7OZ.twitter
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:20 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

That's unconstitutional, since the Constitution clearly says they must advise and consent, and they refused to do that.


It doesn't say they have to consent to anyone. Refusal to consent is refusal to consent. How much simpler could it be?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:25 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
Note the difference. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Bush 43's nominee, he had a history of pro-torture decisions. If Bush had just nominated someone who was not pro-torture, the nomination would be voted on. And action had already occurred in committee on that nomination as well. The Senate did act on the nomination.
He was not the only nominee being blocked. The Democrats were mass blocking almost all of Bush's nominees for no reason whatsoever. Parts of the federal government were ceasing to function due to the lack of positions being filled.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:26 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
However, with Obama, McConnell made it clear that NO action was going to happen regardless of whom Obama nominates.

That is part of the same power Harry Reid had. The majority leader of the Senate can do a lot of things. No one says the other political party or the president at the time has to like it. Stop whining.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:46 am
@layman,
Quote:
Nice try, cheese-eaters.


GOVERNMENT cheese eaters....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 02:44:24