Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Actually it does, its a basket case in every conceivable manner, its showing all the signs of a state on its knees, gangsterism, elected dictatorship, political suppression, an economy that is lacking diversification and fake strongman stuff on the international stage to look glorious.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
Its a shit-hole state.
Putin has showed the way forward in terms of foreign influence, with his troll farms and Wikileaks. No need for tanks, when you can get the Americans to rise up and depose their own leaders and destabilise their own countries.
The risk is that rather like the Germans putting Lenin on a sealed train with just the same objective, they may well get a similar blowback. One of several reasons that the German army collapsed in 1918 was that the hundreds of thousands of troops transferred from the East brought Bolshevism and defeatism with them. Russias trolls may well go freelance...
The problem is Western weakness. Russia has a weak enough hand. The West, led by a community organiser from Illinois, effectively took the threat of properly taking on Russia off the table. The Russians respect firmness, they should get it back in spades.
Never appease a dictator of a large country, ever.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
In your pacifist Lib Dem eyes, maybe. To the rest of the world it will be a less safe place and to the US they will be completely unreliable allies. If Europe demilitarises then the idea that it could be a world power stand up against China or the US would be more of a joke than it is today. Only in your weird pacifist EUphile world does this make sense. I'd love for the EU to pursue the policy as all of Eastern Europe will decide to leave the EU, as would France if you try to take away their nukes. Germany, the cheapskates, would even have to increase spending if they were responsible for the safety of the remaining group.
Why would Europe want to "stand up to" China or the USA militarily?
They are no threat to us, and neither is Russia. Islamists are, but fighting them is not a battle to be fought by tanks or missiles. Intelligence, light special forces and drones are what is needed, and the backbone to use them.
China and Russia become a threat to Europe if it chose to demilitarise. Then again this is a wasted argument since clearly you are so far gone with this pacifism rubbish that it's not going to change your mind.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
I'm marginally more appalled by wreckers masquerading as 'conservatives'. (Not directed at you personally.)
Come on, be realistic. There isn't any world where Germans who have forced the government to shut down nuclear power plants on the basis of safety will ever allow for nuclear weapons to be made.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Actually it does, its a basket case in every conceivable manner, its showing all the signs of a state on its knees, gangsterism, elected dictatorship, political suppression, an economy that is lacking diversification and fake strongman stuff on the international stage to look glorious.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
Its a shit-hole state.
Think of it like this: Russia's exports are substantially smaller than Belgium's. And that's despite it being the world's largest oil & gas producer.
Putin has showed the way forward in terms of foreign influence, with his troll farms and Wikileaks. No need for tanks, when you can get the Americans to rise up and depose their own leaders and destabilise their own countries.
The risk is that rather like the Germans putting Lenin on a sealed train with just the same objective, they may well get a similar blowback. One of several reasons that the German army collapsed in 1918 was that the hundreds of thousands of troops transferred from the East brought Bolshevism and defeatism with them. Russias trolls may well go freelance...
I'm thinking of doing a guest post on this but the rest of the world isn't going to leave these tools to Russia. You can't reasonably protect politicians' computers from a nation-state adversary, so the upshot is that everything that can come out will come out.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
In your pacifist Lib Dem eyes, maybe. To the rest of the world it will be a less safe place and to the US they will be completely unreliable allies. If Europe demilitarises then the idea that it could be a world power stand up against China or the US would be more of a joke than it is today. Only in your weird pacifist EUphile world does this make sense. I'd love for the EU to pursue the policy as all of Eastern Europe will decide to leave the EU, as would France if you try to take away their nukes. Germany, the cheapskates, would even have to increase spending if they were responsible for the safety of the remaining group.
Why would Europe want to "stand up to" China or the USA militarily?
They are no threat to us, and neither is Russia. Islamists are, but fighting them is not a battle to be fought by tanks or missiles. Intelligence, light special forces and drones are what is needed, and the backbone to use them.
China and Russia become a threat to Europe if it chose to demilitarise. Then again this is a wasted argument since clearly you are so far gone with this pacifism rubbish that it's not going to change your mind.
What would you say if the US and Russia agreed a new strategic arms reduction programme?
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Supress free speech and expressed opinion? Not my politics, it sounds more like yours. LD party meetings have a much wider political debate than I see in any of the other mainstream parties. No Fuhrerprincipat for us, while Corbynites, Faragists and Mayflies all kiss arse.
We voted to turn our back on Eastern Erope in June. It is none of our business now.
I think the breakup of NATO is a great opportunity to rethink our military.
We voted to leave NATO? Or did we vote to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO?
The EU is dying on its feet right now, we voted leave a decrepit political sham, our military alliance is still supported by the majority of people and the government. You may not like it, but pacifism is dead in this country, your views are in the minority, as is your EUphilia.
No, it is the Trumsters that have issued the call to pull America back from countries that do not pay their way. The EU. South Korea, Japan etc
Trump is an old fashioned Isolationist, like prewar America, the collapse of NATO one of the benefits.
Why should we go to the defence of Estonia or Greece?
Time for Europe to pay up in that case. €117bn from the freeloaders please.
Nah. Not going to happen.
A demilitarisation of Europe would be a good thing.
In your pacifist Lib Dem eyes, maybe. To the rest of the world it will be a less safe place and to the US they will be completely unreliable allies. If Europe demilitarises then the idea that it could be a world power stand up against China or the US would be more of a joke than it is today. Only in your weird pacifist EUphile world does this make sense. I'd love for the EU to pursue the policy as all of Eastern Europe will decide to leave the EU, as would France if you try to take away their nukes. Germany, the cheapskates, would even have to increase spending if they were responsible for the safety of the remaining group.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Either give yourself a new label, or give them a new label. Don't make it a battle for liberalism, make it a battle for the heart of the nation.
If Pax Americana ends then we'll need a Pax Europa. Which in practical terms means a Pax Germanica. We aren't a million miles away from actually asking the Germans to rearm. They've the wealth, population and industrial mass to lead the EU's defence of it's eastern borders. But it would be a hell of a psychological and political switch ( as well as taking time ).
Nah. We asked the Germans to rearm in 1949, and they did.
West German forces formed the backbone of NATO forces on the Rhine for almost 40 years.
Don't be silly. Germany is deliberately and rightly a military pigmy relative to it's size and wealth. But that is/was part of the deal with Pax Americana. If Pax American ends then all is in flux. And as you are well aware free Europe's front line is now much further west than the Rhine. There is simply more Europe to defend these days.
I'm not being silly. I'm simply challenging your assertion that asking the Germans to rearm is a big deal, and a huge psychological/political switch.
We asked them to do it within 4 years of Hitler's death. They did, and it wasn't a big deal.
Hmm - Germany created a defence force. It spends comparatively nothing on defence. As Europe's richest, most populous country it should by rights have its biggest and most powerful military, as a permanent seat on the Security Council. A German military capability in line with its financial might and number of inhabitants would dwarf what we have. Are we really comfortable with that? What would Germany's neighbours think?
Don't know about anyone else but I'm totally comfortable with that.
Why wouldn't we be ?
Germany not having to spend 2% of gdp on defence must give them a comparative advantage on other stuff.
It did; but absorbing East Germany was a massive drag also. They took from guns, and spent it on the formerly Communist East,
And now they have differences in wealth between East and West that are far smaller than the geographic splits in the UK and the US. It's hard to call that anything other than a huge success.
There is a world, but it probably involves Russia invading a bunch of eastern European countries.
Not very likely tbh, there is a reason Putin stopped at Crimea. Other than reabsorbing client states like Belarus I'm not sure how much effort Putin really wants to put into bothering Europe. If he tried to invade an EU nation the response militarily and economically would be devastating for Russia. The only upside might be that oil prices would go up with that kind of war. The Russian capacity to wage war with Europe is quite poor which is why they have picked off small targets like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. Going into Poland, for example, is a non starter.
I agree with all of that. Russia, ultimately, is a demographic disaster zone, dependent of the sale of oil and gas to the Europeans and Chinese. Unfortunately for them, new energy sources - whether LNG from Australia or the US, or solar and wind - are a long term drag on its primary industry.
In China they have a word for Russia, they call it colloquially "the dying one". The danger is that, like a dying wasp, it stings before it expires.
The fertility rate in Russia is significantly above Germany. The idea that Russia is dying does not stand up to scrutiny.
Actually it does, its a basket case in every conceivable manner, its showing all the signs of a state on its knees, gangsterism, elected dictatorship, political suppression, an economy that is lacking diversification and fake strongman stuff on the international stage to look glorious.
You have to look at its leader, he can play poker but he is an ex KGB desk jockey who prances about on a horse trying to look macho. In reality he is as weak and vain as the country he governs. They are welcome to the regime they have but fuck I'd fight every single one of them if they came anywhere near the door.
Its a shit-hole state.
Think of it like this: Russia's exports are substantially smaller than Belgium's. And that's despite it being the world's largest oil & gas producer.
There are many villages I passed on the train between Moscow and St Petersburg which appeared positively feudal. Very sad, really. You can talk of GDP and population, but we are talking life and death for the people in Russia.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
America. China are too closed, India is too corrupt. America has a common language and heritage with the UK.
Russia's exports are hampered by their lack of integration into the world economy - they only joined the WTO in 2012 and then fell under a sanctions regime.
Nevertheless despite their supposed lack of a diversified economy they have internet giants like Yandex and Mail.ru which are unmatched by any UK equivalents.
There are many villages I passed on the train between Moscow and St Petersburg which appeared positively feudal. Very sad, really. You can talk of GDP and population, but we are talking life and death for the people in Russia.
Putin rode the coat tails of oil going from $8 to $150. As Chavez discovered, it's easy to look (temporarily) smart when the money is rolling in.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
There are many villages I passed on the train between Moscow and St Petersburg which appeared positively feudal. Very sad, really. You can talk of GDP and population, but we are talking life and death for the people in Russia.
Putin rode the coat tails of oil going from $8 to $150. As Chavez discovered, it's easy to look (temporarily) smart when the money is rolling in.
I don't think the problems started with Putin, perhaps they didn't end there.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
I'm marginally more appalled by wreckers masquerading as 'conservatives'. (Not directed at you personally.)
In Philly's 19th ward and 14th district, Obama got 100% of the vote. Clinton got 93%. Stuff like that adds up.
Looks like Trump did get more AA voters after all....at least in the Midwest.
Philly as in Pennsylvania? Hardly the midwest.
Whatever. Rust belt or whatever.
Looks like I spoke to soon about being relaxed about Trump appointees, his touted Sec of state wants to bomb Iran! The neo cons are back. Nooooooooooooo! Taniel – Verified account @Taniel
Russia's exports are hampered by their lack of integration into the world economy - they only joined the WTO in 2012 and then fell under a sanctions regime.
Nevertheless despite their supposed lack of a diversified economy they have internet giants like Yandex and Mail.ru which are unmatched by any UK equivalents.
A good friend of mine is the CFO of mail.ru
It's not really an export earner, mind. How many non-Russian users does it have?
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism should value freedom of thought and opinion, give the individual maximum reasonable freedom to live, work and grow without interference, for the people to be sovereign over their political destiny and most of all Liberalism should be robust in its defence and oppose those seek to subvert it, whether dictators or the thought police we have masquerading as liberals or 'progressives' today.
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Supress free speech and expressed opinion? Not my politics, it sounds more like yours. LD party meetings have a much wider political debate than I see in any of the other mainstream parties. No Fuhrerprincipat for us, while Corbynites, Faragists and Mayflies all kiss arse.
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
America. China are too closed, India is too corrupt. America has a common language and heritage with the UK.
And tbe new POTUS likes Putin and sees him as an ally. Owes him a few favours too. Putin won't just have raided Clintons emails...
Russia's exports are hampered by their lack of integration into the world economy - they only joined the WTO in 2012 and then fell under a sanctions regime.
Nevertheless despite their supposed lack of a diversified economy they have internet giants like Yandex and Mail.ru which are unmatched by any UK equivalents.
A good friend of mine is the CFO of mail.ru
It's not really an export earner, mind. How many non-Russian users does it have?
The Russian diaspora is spread far and wide.
Incidentally there's a lot of cross pollination between the Baltic tech sector and the Russian.
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Supress free speech and expressed opinion? Not my politics, it sounds more like yours. LD party meetings have a much wider political debate than I see in any of the other mainstream parties. No Fuhrerprincipat for us, while Corbynites, Faragists and Mayflies all kiss arse.
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
Find me an example of when I have done tbat in any of my 15000 pb posts! You are either misrepresenting me, or projecting your own predjudices.
(actually I have pointed out a bit of xenophobia but never the other two!)
Liberals need to make the case for the authority of international rules, respect for others and the state not interfering unduly in the way people live their lives - all liberal values - because these things are good.
They are good, and I don't think people are rejecting those values, but they are fed up with "values" trumping basic economic competence. You can't eat values, values don't pay the mortgage; freedom without economic security isn't all that appetising.
Undoubtedly. And let me be clear for my own benefit, liberalism HAS failed. It has benefitted the wealthy while disregarding those that struggle to get by. It's not a wrong perception held by those that don't know better; it's the reality. The problem is that in discounting those liberal values because "you can't eat them and they don't pay the mortgage" they are lost and the world turns that much nastier.
Liberalism hasn't failed, its been bastardised by the politically correct left. Liberalism as it should be isn't at all what its seen as now.
What we have today is a Tyranny of Liberalism.
Liberalism
+1
Comrades, we have fallen from the path to glory, we must denounce that act in our name as traitors, and push them aside.
Or, just putting it out there, we could come up with a new doctrine, with a new name, and stand it in place of liberalism.
No, kick out the regressives who have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) to take over the liberal label. The Lib Dems are the worst of the lot. They are neither liberal nor democratic.
Supress free speech and expressed opinion? Not my politics, it sounds more like yours. LD party meetings have a much wider political debate than I see in any of the other mainstream parties. No Fuhrerprincipat for us, while Corbynites, Faragists and Mayflies all kiss arse.
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
Find me an example of when I have done tbat in any of my 15000 pb posts! You are either misrepresenting me, or projecting your own predjudices.
(actually I have pointed out a bit of xenophobia but never the other two!)
Not you personally, but your leader is pretty rubbish and Clegg has been calling everyone out there who isn't a rabid EUphile xenophobic.
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
If those views are not in fact racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, and you are just using those as labels to shut down free speech, you are no liberal. But if expressed views are indeed racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, there's a problem because mutual respect and allowing people to live their lives the way they wish are also liberal values.
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
America. China are too closed, India is too corrupt. America has a common language and heritage with the UK.
America is corrupt too. The corporate interest is abysmal really and most Indians speak English anyway. Besides America is not going to be the dominant economy within a generation.
In Philly's 19th ward and 14th district, Obama got 100% of the vote. Clinton got 93%. Stuff like that adds up.
Looks like Trump did get more AA voters after all....at least in the Midwest.
Philly as in Pennsylvania? Hardly the midwest.
Whatever. Rust belt or whatever.
Looks like I spoke to soon about being relaxed about Trump appointees, his touted Sec of state wants to bomb Iran! The neo cons are back. Nooooooooooooo! Taniel – Verified account @Taniel
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Of all the misunderstandings about Trump's run for office, one of the biggest has been the idea that he didn't really want to be President. He's a man in a hurry to leave a legacy.
Watching David Harewood on BBC2 - honest question for all: if you were calculating the 'probability' of there being a PM who is black, what would be your starting data analysis?
Mine would be the % of the population that is black.....
Really surprised me that it wasn't the go-to data just now. It was poverty instead.
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
If those views are not in fact racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, and you are just using those as labels to shut down free speech, you are no liberal. But if expressed views are indeed racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, there's a problem because mutual respect and allowing people to live their lives the way they wish are also liberal values.
The problem is that today's liberals think that wanting to reduce immigration is xenophobia, wanting to reduce immigration from Islamic countries is islamophobia and speaking out against multiculturalism is racist. We've seen it here and in the US, look at Hillary's ill fated comment about "deplorables".
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
America. China are too closed, India is too corrupt. America has a common language and heritage with the UK.
America is corrupt too. The corporate interest is abysmal really and most Indians speak English anyway. Besides America is not going to be the dominant economy within a generation.
Indian corruption is just on another level though, look at how crazy things have become in the last few days with the withdrawal and replacement of larger denomination notes. I wouldn't want to throw my lot in with India. I say this as someone of Indian origin.
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
Yeah but one will emerge eventually. We need to suck up and encourage one now so we will have a "special relationship" with them.
America. China are too closed, India is too corrupt. America has a common language and heritage with the UK.
America is corrupt too. The corporate interest is abysmal really and most Indians speak English anyway. Besides America is not going to be the dominant economy within a generation.
Indian corruption is just on another level though, look at how crazy things have become in the last few days with the withdrawal and replacement of larger denomination notes. I wouldn't want to throw my lot in with India. I say this as someone of Indian origin.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
But the one with the potential has terrible demographics and an economy built on debt and capital expenditure... Almost exactly like Japan in 1990, in fact.
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Send them an email.....
Not sure I want wikileaks to share all my personal info
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
But the one with the potential has terrible demographics and an economy built on debt and capital expenditure... Almost exactly like Japan in 1990, in fact.
The one child policy has really done a number on their future working population.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
Watching David Harewood on BBC2 - honest question for all: if you were calculating the 'probability' of there being a PM who is black, what would be your starting data analysis?
Mine would be the % of the population that is black.....
Really surprised me that it wasn't the go-to data just now. It was poverty instead.
Particularly since the non-graduate routes to politics have been pretty much turned off. How many MPs without a degree now?
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
But the one with the potential has terrible demographics and an economy built on debt and capital expenditure... Almost exactly like Japan in 1990, in fact.
The one child policy has really done a number on their future working population.
Yes, and no. There is still much potentialmovement from the countryside, and female workforce participation is higher because of the one child policy too.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
America declaring bankrupcy?
An interesting way of making America Great Again!
Or how about the Fed printing more money, the US government selling it the debt and then handing the newly created money over to the Chinese on the redemption of any bonds? China can't unilaterally call in any existing bonds, all they can really do is sell what they currently hold on the market and try and crash US bond prices. It would be tough though even within the global trillion dollar bond rout sinxe Trump won US debt yields are still low by historical standards.
Where did I say I want to suppress free speech? They can say what they want tbh, just don't try and call yourselves liberal when you try and shut down opposing views as racist, xenophobic or islamophobic.
If those views are not in fact racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, and you are just using those as labels to shut down free speech, you are no liberal. But if expressed views are indeed racist, xenophobic or islamophobic, there's a problem because mutual respect and allowing people to live their lives the way they wish are also liberal values.
The problem is that today's liberals think that wanting to reduce immigration is xenophobia, wanting to reduce immigration from Islamic countries is islamophobia and speaking out against multiculturalism is racist. We've seen it here and in the US, look at Hillary's ill fated comment about "deplorables".
I don't think speaking out against multiculturalism is racist. There are real questions of how to integrate people with more than one identity. Forcing them to lose an identity might be illiberal however. Being somewhat literal, people want to reduce immigration because they don't like foreigners and that strictly is the definition of xenophobia; if you want to restrict immigration from Islamic countries, specifically, and not other countries it would only be because you are Islamaphobic and dislike Islam.
These are all labels really. People like to think of themselves as liberals but often aren't. Left or Right doesn't have a monopoly on this
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Send them an email.....
Not sure I want wikileaks to share all my personal info
I knew it - you are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders love child!
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Send them an email.....
Not sure I want wikileaks to share all my personal info
I knew it - you are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders love child!
You understand why I wanted to sneak in before Trump took over, I'd surely be banned, or subject to extreme vetting.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
With great difficulty
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
With great difficulty
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
I heard today from a senior State Department official that Trump's transition team arrived in State Department today, 4 days before expected. Seems they're getting on with it.
Argh, that is four days they could have spent working on the documentation I need from them! Thanks Trump!
Send them an email.....
Not sure I want wikileaks to share all my personal info
I knew it - you are Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders love child!
You understand why I wanted to sneak in before Trump took over, I'd surely be banned, or subject to extreme vetting.
I thought the rumor was without - ahem - Foundation
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
With great difficulty
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
Will the US ever pay off its huge debts?
While China owns a lot, so do others such as middle Americans. Reneging on the debt would not just crash the banks.
Trumps low tax and high spend policies need someone daft enough to buy the bonds.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
With great difficulty
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
Will the US ever pay off its huge debts?
While China owns a lot, so do others such as middle Americans. Reneging on the debt would not just crash the banks.
Trumps low tax and high spend policies need someone daft enough to buy the bonds.
Maybe that's why the breitbart guy is hired. ready made audience of dafties on board
Watching David Harewood on BBC2 - honest question for all: if you were calculating the 'probability' of there being a PM who is black, what would be your starting data analysis?
Mine would be the % of the population that is black.....
Really surprised me that it wasn't the go-to data just now. It was poverty instead.
Particularly since the non-graduate routes to politics have been pretty much turned off. How many MPs without a degree now?
He forgot to mention that John Major didn't go to Oxford!
Here's a statistic: Obama won 86% in Starr County, TX (the most Latino county in the nation). Clinton got 79%. Hillary is crap will never be President.
Watching David Harewood on BBC2 - honest question for all: if you were calculating the 'probability' of there being a PM who is black, what would be your starting data analysis?
Mine would be the % of the population that is black.....
Really surprised me that it wasn't the go-to data just now. It was poverty instead.
Particularly since the non-graduate routes to politics have been pretty much turned off. How many MPs without a degree now?
He forgot to mention that John Major didn't go to Oxford!
The route that John Major rose through - the non-graduate access to executive jobs in finance - is gone.
Here's a statistic: Obama won 86% in Starr County, TX (the most Latino county in the nation). Clinton got 79%. Hillary is crap will never be President.
Seems like Hillary was popular with white people in cities (Overperformance in urban VA), and west coast liberals - everyone else, not so much
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
With great difficulty
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
Will the US ever pay off its huge debts?
While China owns a lot, so do others such as middle Americans. Reneging on the debt would not just crash the banks.
Trumps low tax and high spend policies need someone daft enough to buy the bonds.
He can probably see a repeat of the LA riots on the horizon.
US really has got itself in a mess when upholding the law is so controversial, especially if individuals have committed crimes in addition to being there illegally.
Off topic..Roberts suggestion of Red Oaks on Amazob Prime...just binge watched 5 episodes. It's very good and despite that appears to have flown totally under the radar.
"Austria says no further delay to December 4 election, dismisses ballot scare
Austria said on Tuesday there was no reason to delay again its presidential election due on Dec. 4 after newspapers reported it was possible to order postal ballots online using fake passport numbers"
Off topic..Roberts suggestion of Red Oaks on Amazob Prime...just binge watched 5 episodes. It's very good and despite that appears to have flown totally under the radar.
Here's a statistic: Obama won 86% in Starr County, TX (the most Latino county in the nation). Clinton got 79%. Hillary is crap will never be President.
Seems like Hillary was popular with white people in cities (Overperformance in urban VA), and west coast liberals - everyone else, not so much
Overall, more Americans wanted her to be president than Trump.
Here's a statistic: Obama won 86% in Starr County, TX (the most Latino county in the nation). Clinton got 79%. Hillary is crap will never be President.
Seems like Hillary was popular with white people in cities (Overperformance in urban VA), and west coast liberals - everyone else, not so much
Overall, more Americans wanted her to be president than Trump.
Liberal, rational, centrist politicians need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask, why are they losing?
They can say simply that the voters are stupid (the Matthew Parris approach). They don't know how lucky they are. Perhaps, the answer is to end democracy, so they can remain in power a bit longer.
Or maybe, the answer requires a bit of hard thinking. Are they doing things that are wrong?
They are not providing easy answers to complicated problems and issues. But the centre has lost. They right is utterly dominant in the US and the UK. We'll now find out if the easy answers work.
There's nothing to stop the centre (and left) putting forward constructive ideas.
I am sure we will. But this is unequivocally the right's game now. It owns all that happens - good and bad - from here on in.
Bit of a predicament you're in - if it all falls apart the West is likely f'cked but if it goes well the future is Trump and Farage stamping on the centre-left's face forever.
As to new ideas from the centre-left I won't be holding my breath - the last two were "spend more money" and "British Jobs For British Workers".
British jobs for British workers and spend more money look to be precisely the policies we are going to be following over the next few years. Maybe Brown has won after all.
Trump appointing w.Bush former staffers makes me feel a bit better. Tho America is still in relative decline and I feel like the American people have accepted that to an extent by electing an isolationist.
Question is now who should Britain suck up to now? There are only two countries that can take Americas place as THE superpower over the next couple decades. India or China. I prefer India because democracy. What do you guys think.
There is no country that has the economic and military clout to be the World's superpower. It's more like the situation in about 1900. Several major powers.
I disagree with that assessment. Only two countries have the plausible ambition for global reach: the United States and China. Possibly the second is substituting over time for the first. We won't likely know for several decades, just as we didn't know for sure that the United States would substitute for the United Kingdom until the Second World War. With Trump in place that substitution of China for the US is likely to accelerate
Only one currently has actual global reach, but its deficits and debt make it a power in decline. Another has the potential for global reach and the economic, population and budgetary surpluses to get there.
China owns trillions in US government bonds. This is their ace in any trade war with Trumpistan.
And just how does China enforce the debt?
America declaring bankrupcy?
An interesting way of making America Great Again!
Or how about the Fed printing more money, the US government selling it the debt and then handing the newly created money over to the Chinese on the redemption of any bonds? China can't unilaterally call in any existing bonds, all they can really do is sell what they currently hold on the market and try and crash US bond prices. It would be tough though even within the global trillion dollar bond rout sinxe Trump won US debt yields are still low by historical standards.
There is a reason why Chinese financial institutions are rapidly increasing their exposure to USD denominated physical assets. Your scenario is significantly more realistic than the trite, sophomoristic, US moves into Chapter 11 equivalent.
Comments
It exports (http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/) almost nothing that is not a commodity. And we just left a 20 year commodity bull market and are at the beginning of a 20 year bear market.
https://youtu.be/3KlASxNooXc
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Gingrich_Wants_New_House_Committee_on_Un-American_Activities/55235/0/38/38/Y/M.html
anybody any insight into whether this is an actual thing? If it is, it doesn't sound good.
And now they have differences in wealth between East and West that are far smaller than the geographic splits in the UK and the US. It's hard to call that anything other than a huge success.
In Philly's 19th ward and 14th district, Obama got 100% of the vote. Clinton got 93%. Stuff like that adds up.
Looks like Trump did get more AA voters after all....at least in the Midwest.
Nevertheless despite their supposed lack of a diversified economy they have internet giants like Yandex and Mail.ru which are unmatched by any UK equivalents.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-un-american-activities-committee/index.html
Looks like I spoke to soon about being relaxed about Trump appointees, his touted Sec of state wants to bomb Iran! The neo cons are back. Nooooooooooooo!
Taniel – Verified account @Taniel
The reported front-runner for Secretary of State (via @ryangrim) published this op-ed last year (via @ggreenwald): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=1 … pic.twitter.com/Q6k8vBZIX8
It's not really an export earner, mind. How many non-Russian users does it have?
Incidentally there's a lot of cross pollination between the Baltic tech sector and the Russian.
(actually I have pointed out a bit of xenophobia but never the other two!)
Tony Romo is back and will be the backup QB on Sunday against the Ravens.
A very excited fan told me this.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-clinton-campaign-work-231370
Its almost as if America has elected a halfwit!
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/798306257660739584
Mine would be the % of the population that is black.....
Really surprised me that it wasn't the go-to data just now. It was poverty instead.
I'll get my coat.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmxRcq738yE
An interesting way of making America Great Again!
These are all labels really. People like to think of themselves as liberals but often aren't. Left or Right doesn't have a monopoly on this
But it's co-dependence. Neither China nor America can sever the link without suffering severe consequences.
Trumps low tax and high spend policies need someone daft enough to buy the bonds.
(((Harry Enten))) – Verified account @ForecasterEnten
Here's a statistic: Obama won 86% in Starr County, TX (the most Latino county in the nation). Clinton got 79%.
Hillary is crap will never be President.
Minnesota:
Split ticket anti Hillary = Blue
Split ticket favours Hillary = Red
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-police-immigration-20161114-story.html
He can probably see a repeat of the LA riots on the horizon.
Austria said on Tuesday there was no reason to delay again its presidential election due on Dec. 4 after newspapers reported it was possible to order postal ballots online using fake passport numbers"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-election-scare-idUSKBN1331GN
Alastair is thus writing off the European parliament as being unelected bureaucrats.
Who knew?