politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s New American Revolution
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s New American Revolution
Inaugurations set the tone for a presidency and Trump undoubtedly set his yesterday: life will be different – for DC, for Europe, for China and for the world. In an extraordinarily pugnacious address, which might have been lifted direct from his campaign rallies, Trump served notice that the Old Order is dead as far as he is concerned. There will be no more Beltway politics, benefitting lobbyists and politicians at the expense of the public; no more Pax Americana, underwriting the global order.
Comments
-
Glorious first!0
-
2nd, like Trump (pop. vote figures)0
-
Good article and Trump certainly symbolises a rising nationalism and protectionism not seen since the 1930s. However I think he will be re elected. If as I expect the Democrats gain the House in 2018 that will force him more to the centre. Democrats are also in no mood for a moderate and sensible candidate after Hillary lost on just such a platform and early polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination puts Warren and Sanders combined well out in front. If either run they will be the frontrunner.0
-
And like a second on PB, the popular vote share is utterly meaningless...rottenborough said:2nd, like Trump (pop. vote figures)
0 -
Great article. Most important point for Trump, at least at first, will be the tension between isolationism and wiping out Islamic terrorism. The latter may well drag him into a massive involvement in middle east that is totally counter to the former.
As Robert Fisk noted in Indie the other day, the middle east has a habit of reaching out and grabbing a POTUS by the neck, whether they want it or not.0 -
Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
-
The problem with Hillary was not her platform.HYUFD said:Good article and Trump certainly symbolises a rising nationalism and protectionism not seen since the 1930s. However I think he will be re elected. If as I expect the Democrats gain the House in 2018 that will force him more to the centre. Democrats are also in no mood for a moderate and sensible candidate after Hillary lost on just such a platform and early polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination puts Warren and Sanders combined well out in front. If either run they will be the frontrunner.
0 -
More subtly, Putin 'assists' Serbia to annex part of Kosovo. Doesn't necessarily involve NATO but is a direct challenge to what is left of the EU and tests the waters as far as what Trump gives a f about.RobD said:
There is probably very little we can do on our own.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
That's the way Putin operates, as you can see from Ukraine.rottenborough said:
More subtly, Putin 'assists' Serbia to annex part of Kosovo. Doesn't necessarily involve NATO but is a direct challenge to what is left of the EU and tests the waters as far as what Trump gives a f about.RobD said:
There is probably very little we can do on our own.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
[redacted: it's too late at night]0
-
One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
I dunno. What was her platform? Anyone any idea? The message was a mess - nothing - totally lost. No narrative. Lots of micro-target stuff. Even her own husband despaired at one point.david_herdson said:
The problem with Hillary was not her platform.HYUFD said:Good article and Trump certainly symbolises a rising nationalism and protectionism not seen since the 1930s. However I think he will be re elected. If as I expect the Democrats gain the House in 2018 that will force him more to the centre. Democrats are also in no mood for a moderate and sensible candidate after Hillary lost on just such a platform and early polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination puts Warren and Sanders combined well out in front. If either run they will be the frontrunner.
Breaking the glass ceiling and something about better together.
The problem with the ceiling was that a) we've just smashed one of those by electing a non-white man to POTUS, so that will do for now thank you very much and, b) the election was framed on an entirely different question, more along the lines of the famous - do you feel better today than you did four years ago?0 -
"Why aren't I fifty points ahead you might ask?"rottenborough said:
I dunno. What was her platform? Anyone any idea? The message was a mess - nothing - totally lost. No narrative. Lots of micro-target stuff. Even her own husband despaired at one point.david_herdson said:
The problem with Hillary was not her platform.HYUFD said:Good article and Trump certainly symbolises a rising nationalism and protectionism not seen since the 1930s. However I think he will be re elected. If as I expect the Democrats gain the House in 2018 that will force him more to the centre. Democrats are also in no mood for a moderate and sensible candidate after Hillary lost on just such a platform and early polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination puts Warren and Sanders combined well out in front. If either run they will be the frontrunner.
Breaking the glass ceiling and something about better together.
The problem with the ceiling was that a) we've just smashed one of those by electing a non-white man to POTUS, so that will do for now thank you very much and, b) the election was framed on an entirely different question, more along the lines of the famous - do you feel better today than you did four years ago?
Titters
0 -
Oh, that's a good call...unfortunately...rottenborough said:
More subtly, Putin 'assists' Serbia to annex part of Kosovo. Doesn't necessarily involve NATO but is a direct challenge to what is left of the EU and tests the waters as far as what Trump gives a f about.RobD said:
There is probably very little we can do on our own.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?
0 -
The Churchill bust is back:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-oval-office-makeover-233954
Along with golden curtains.....0 -
Or Trump says 'ask the EU', they're your neighbours......viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
Remember in 1982 the Americans had a plan to give the Falklands to Argentina......0 -
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
Some airports are dumps, some are kinda nice. Same goes for roads. When I lived in Arizona the roads were pretty nice, but here in California they are crap.rottenborough said:
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
Hmmm. Didn't Churchill spend most of the war trying to get USA interested in getting involved and stop being so isolationist?CarlottaVance said:The Churchill bust is back:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-oval-office-makeover-233954
Along with golden curtains.....0 -
So is this a State thing?RobD said:
Some airports are dumps, some are kinda nice. Same goes for roads. When I lived in Arizona the roads were pretty nice, but here in California they are crap.rottenborough said:
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
The Great Powers: the Balkans. Always the Balkans. Fitting for Trump if he has reinstated Churchill's bust on his new desk.viewcode said:
Oh, that's a good call...unfortunately...rottenborough said:
More subtly, Putin 'assists' Serbia to annex part of Kosovo. Doesn't necessarily involve NATO but is a direct challenge to what is left of the EU and tests the waters as far as what Trump gives a f about.RobD said:
There is probably very little we can do on our own.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
Right then folks, I am heading out to the garden to bed down in my nuclear shelter. In God we trust we shall all be here tomorrow morning.0
-
For roads, I think the only bit the federal government control are the interstates. There could be grants for infrastructure spending though. Not sure what the situation is with airports.rottenborough said:
So is this a State thing?RobD said:
Some airports are dumps, some are kinda nice. Same goes for roads. When I lived in Arizona the roads were pretty nice, but here in California they are crap.rottenborough said:
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
It will be when they start using Chinese steel for the bridges that the proverbial will hit the fan.....ask the SNP government.....But yes, some American infrastructure is very poor......just goes to show, the market isn't always the solution.....rottenborough said:
If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?0 -
source for that? Oh that is right you cant give one because in fact we dont know. The best we can do is have an estimate of global temperatures from proxiesFeersumEnjineeya said:
Nope, because the sun was a bit dimmer in those days.Pagan said:fpt
during the carboniferous period co2 levels were 1800ppm almost 5 times more than now, if we were going to turn into venus we would have already done soFeersumEnjineeya said:
There's a small, but not completely negligible, chance that burning all accessible fossil fuels will turn the Earth into another Venus. Our descendants may have some difficulties adapting to that.SeanT said:
Good. Climate change is economic voodoo. We will adapt. The best periods for life on earth - a provable fact in terms of species variety - have been the warmer periods.FeersumEnjineeya said:
How utterly depressing. That quite possibly means the end of the Paris Climate Agreement and, with it, the last real change of limiting carbon emissions. If you want your descendants to inherit the family home, best make sure it's on high ground!Scott_P said:
Hoping no one would call you on made up facts were you? Or going to surprise me with a solar irradiance graph going back that far?
Get a clue here the science of climate is not settled . If it were people could create a computer model that would predict the future plus or minus a few percent. Not the several hundred percent errors current models have.
Climate change is happening, it will always happen
are we contributing to it probably
are we going into a warm spell or an ice age, no one has any real fucking idea its just a guess
can we stop it, no probably not regardless of what we do
take your cult and shove it0 -
rottenborough said:
Hmmm. Didn't Churchill spend most of the war trying to get USA interested in getting involved and stop being so isolationist?CarlottaVance said:The Churchill bust is back:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-oval-office-makeover-233954
Along with golden curtains.....
And didn't succeed. Only Hitler directly involved the US in the European war, by declaring war on the US.......0 -
Stars like the Sun gradually get more luminous as they age, I don't think that is in doubt.Pagan said:
source for that? Oh that is right you cant give one because in fact we dont know. The best we can do is have an estimate of global temperatures from proxiesFeersumEnjineeya said:
Nope, because the sun was a bit dimmer in those days.Pagan said:fpt
during the carboniferous period co2 levels were 1800ppm almost 5 times more than now, if we were going to turn into venus we would have already done soFeersumEnjineeya said:
There's a small, but not completely negligible, chance that burning all accessible fossil fuels will turn the Earth into another Venus. Our descendants may have some difficulties adapting to that.SeanT said:
Good. Climate change is economic voodoo. We will adapt. The best periods for life on earth - a provable fact in terms of species variety - have been the warmer periods.FeersumEnjineeya said:
How utterly depressing. That quite possibly means the end of the Paris Climate Agreement and, with it, the last real change of limiting carbon emissions. If you want your descendants to inherit the family home, best make sure it's on high ground!Scott_P said:
Hoping no one would call you on made up facts were you? Or going to surprise me with a solar irradiance graph going back that far?
Get a clue here the science of climate is not settled . If it were people could create a computer model that would predict the future plus or minus a few percent. Not the several hundred percent errors current models have.
Climate change is happening, it will always happen
are we contributing to it probably
are we going into a warm spell or an ice age, no one has any real fucking idea its just a guess
can we stop it, no probably not regardless of what we do
take your cult and shove it0 -
0
-
The feds don't control the interstates, the states own, maintain, manage and in places toll them. They are built to a federally-defined standard (which famously in the early days at least included perfectly straight sections every so many miles for use as emergency airfields in wartime) to be designated an interstate. They are usually planned by the federal DoT and the states together, with feds usually paying the lion's share of the costs. A state can't just build a road to interstate standards and expect the DoT to give it an I-number though.RobD said:
For roads, I think the only bit the federal government control are the interstates. There could be grants for infrastructure spending though. Not sure what the situation is with airports.rottenborough said:
So is this a State thing?RobD said:
Some airports are dumps, some are kinda nice. Same goes for roads. When I lived in Arizona the roads were pretty nice, but here in California they are crap.rottenborough said:
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?
Airports are mostly state, municipally or privately owned. Some share their runways with an sir force base and many were originally built by the military.
0 -
Ah, thanks for the correction!rpjs said:
The feds don't control the interstates, the states own, maintain, manage and in places toll them. They are built to a federally-defined standard (which famously in the early days at least included perfectly straight sections every so many miles for use as emergency airfields in wartime) to be designated an interstate. They are usually planned by the federal DoT and the states together, with feds usually paying the lion's share of the costs. A state can't just build a road to interstate standards and expect the DoT to give it an I-number though.RobD said:
For roads, I think the only bit the federal government control are the interstates. There could be grants for infrastructure spending though. Not sure what the situation is with airports.rottenborough said:
So is this a State thing?RobD said:
Some airports are dumps, some are kinda nice. Same goes for roads. When I lived in Arizona the roads were pretty nice, but here in California they are crap.rottenborough said:
Trump may have been clever. He wants to put America back to work. The focus has all been on his protectionist stuff, but less focus on the infrastructure. I keep reading how crap American airports, bridges, roads, railways etc etc are (it's been 20 years since I visited - it all seemed fine to me then). If he spends a ton of money on this and gets people working, maybe they will forget that the rusting steel mill at the end of the street is still rusting.CarlottaVance said:One thing that struck me in (parts of) Trump's speech - as with May, a lot of focus on the 'left behind' who have not progressed under globalisation - however, a radically different prescription on the solution! 'Global Britain' vs 'America First'!
Their meeting will be interesting.......Trump State visit before the end of the year?
Airports are mostly state, municipally or privately owned. Some share their runways with an sir force base and many were originally built by the military.0 -
they do indeed however we are talking about a fairly short time span when compared to the life of a star. It is reckoned a sun gets 10% hotter per billion years, the carboniferous period was 300 million years ago so the sun would be 3% cooler than now, however the big bad co2 was 5 times more than now, climate fearmongers are always telling us solar forcing plays no part in the world heating up .RobD said:
Stars like the Sun gradually get more luminous as they age, I don't think that is in doubt.Pagan said:
source for that? Oh that is right you cant give one because in fact we dont know. The best we can do is have an estimate of global temperatures from proxiesFeersumEnjineeya said:
Nope, because the sun was a bit dimmer in those days.Pagan said:fpt
during the carboniferous period co2 levels were 1800ppm almost 5 times more than now, if we were going to turn into venus we would have already done soFeersumEnjineeya said:
There's a small, but not completely negligible, chance that burning all accessible fossil fuels will turn the Earth into another Venus. Our descendants may have some difficulties adapting to that.SeanT said:
Good. Climate change is economic voodoo. We will adapt. The best periods for life on earth - a provable fact in terms of species variety - have been the warmer periods.FeersumEnjineeya said:
How utterly depressing. That quite possibly means the end of the Paris Climate Agreement and, with it, the last real change of limiting carbon emissions. If you want your descendants to inherit the family home, best make sure it's on high ground!Scott_P said:
Hoping no one would call you on made up facts were you? Or going to surprise me with a solar irradiance graph going back that far?
Get a clue here the science of climate is not settled . If it were people could create a computer model that would predict the future plus or minus a few percent. Not the several hundred percent errors current models have.
Climate change is happening, it will always happen
are we contributing to it probably
are we going into a warm spell or an ice age, no one has any real fucking idea its just a guess
can we stop it, no probably not regardless of what we do
take your cult and shove it
I am sorry I am not convinced that a 3% less bright sun will make much difference against a 500% increase in co2 if what the doom mongers tell us about that evil gas are right.
The sun was not signifigantly cooler, co2 was signifigantly higher0 -
According to wikipedia, a study on the link between solar activity and temperature suggested that even a 0.05% change in solar irradiance led to a 0.1c change in temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sensitivity_to_solar_forcing). So Solar forcing probably plays a part, but only as part of the mix.Pagan said:
they do indeed however we are talking about a fairly short time span when compared to the life of a star. It is reckoned a sun gets 10% hotter per billion years, the carboniferous period was 300 million years ago so the sun would be 3% cooler than now, however the big bad co2 was 5 times more than now, climate fearmongers are always telling us solar forcing plays no part in the world heating up .
I am sorry I am not convinced that a 3% less bright sun will make much difference against a 500% increase in co2 if what the doom mongers tell us about that evil gas are right.
The sun was not signifigantly cooler, co2 was signifigantly higher0 -
Guy Verhofstadt: Hostile inauguration speech. We can't sit around &hope for US support & cooperation.Europe must take its destiny & security in its own hands
Belgium Defence Spending % GDP: 0.85% - beaten only by Luxembourg on 0.44% vs target 2%
Equipment share - Belgium 2.17% vs Nato target 20%0 -
I never claimed it didnt what I was refuting was the hyperbole that we are going to end up as venus, the agw crowd claim an increase of a mere 100 ppm of co2 will see us warming by 2 or 3 degreesRobD said:
According to wikipedia, a study on the link between solar activity and temperature suggested that even a 0.05% change in solar irradiance led to a 0.1c change in temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sensitivity_to_solar_forcing). So Solar forcing probably plays a part, but only as part of the mix.
so lets do the rough maths
current co2 around 350
carboniferous co2 around 1800 call it 1400 difference, 2 degrees per 100ppm extra = a temperatur rise of 28 degrees at 2 degrees per 100
sun now = 100 %
carboniferous = 97%
therefore at 0.1degrees per 0.05 percent
current = -0.0%
carboniferous - 6 degrees
therefore by deduction the average carboniferous global temp should have be 22 degrees hotter
current average global temp for last year 14 degrees or so
which means average global temp for the carboniferous should be about 36 degrees
hmm what were the average temperatures of the earth then
oh 20 degrees in the early part of the carboniferous decreasing to 12 degrees in the late carboniferous.
Anything seem a little out of joint here?
In addition did you know that only two periods of earths history have had co2 levels less than 400 ppm
the late carboniferous where co2 levels dropped down to around todays levels and our current period
during all that time we havent turned into venus and even when the co2 levels were 1800 the total average heat was still only 6 degrees higher
There are only two periods in history as well where global temperatures were as low as today
the late carboniferous and the ordovcian
We have already mentioned the co2 levels in the carboniferous, the ordovician period however had co2 levels ranging from around 4000 to as high as 4500ppm and was only 100 million years before the carboniferous so the sun was only about 1% less bright
As I said when climate "scientists" can produce a model that gets things right within a 5 to 10% error over 20 years then I will believe they know what the hell they are talking about and the science is settled. Current models have so far been out by upto 400% on their predictions
0 -
Belgium...Back of the queue.....CarlottaVance said:Guy Verhofstadt: Hostile inauguration speech. We can't sit around &hope for US support & cooperation.Europe must take its destiny & security in its own hands
Belgium Defence Spending % GDP: 0.85% - beaten only by Luxembourg on 0.44% vs target 2%
Equipment share - Belgium 2.17% vs Nato target 20%0 -
We should send them a nuke to help outFrancisUrquhart said:
Belgium...Back of the queue.....CarlottaVance said:Guy Verhofstadt: Hostile inauguration speech. We can't sit around &hope for US support & cooperation.Europe must take its destiny & security in its own hands
Belgium Defence Spending % GDP: 0.85% - beaten only by Luxembourg on 0.44% vs target 2%
Equipment share - Belgium 2.17% vs Nato target 20%
0 -
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue0 -
He sank the Reuben James several weeks before Pearl Habor.CarlottaVance said:rottenborough said:
Hmmm. Didn't Churchill spend most of the war trying to get USA interested in getting involved and stop being so isolationist?CarlottaVance said:The Churchill bust is back:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-oval-office-makeover-233954
Along with golden curtains.....
And didn't succeed. Only Hitler directly involved the US in the European war, by declaring war on the US.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)0 -
That would be convenient timing, as it would counter any anthropogenic warming! On the whole I think I am in the same boat as you. The climate changes naturally, and I think we'd be fools to think we can control it as some seek to do with geo-engineering.Pagan said:
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue0 -
The thought of people trying geo engineering frightens me more than climate change. We do not understand climate mechanisms. I really dont care what folk say about the science being settledRobD said:
That would be convenient timing, as it would counter any anthropogenic warming! On the whole I think I am in the same boat as you. The climate changes naturally, and I think we'd be fools to think we can control it as some seek to do with geo-engineering.Pagan said:
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue0 -
Quite. And still Roosevelt didn't declare war....Sunil_Prasannan said:
He sank the Reuben James several weeks before Pearl Habor.CarlottaVance said:rottenborough said:
Hmmm. Didn't Churchill spend most of the war trying to get USA interested in getting involved and stop being so isolationist?CarlottaVance said:The Churchill bust is back:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-oval-office-makeover-233954
Along with golden curtains.....
And didn't succeed. Only Hitler directly involved the US in the European war, by declaring war on the US.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)0 -
What tension? I should imagine "wiping out islamic terrorism" = letting Russia get on with it.rottenborough said:Great article. Most important point for Trump, at least at first, will be the tension between isolationism and wiping out Islamic terrorism. The latter may well drag him into a massive involvement in middle east that is totally counter to the former.
0 -
The rioters who were smashing up windows and cars in Washington DC, and the self-righteous lefties who formed a barrier to prevent people in uniform from getting near the inauguration, almost make me want Trump to get a second term just to piss them off.0
-
Nice article. Wish I shared your confidence on 2020 though. I think you're underestimating how far Trump is comfortable with rule breaking normbreaking.
Car factory shutting down? He'll hand them a big contract to make military jeeps or something.
Building that wall - maybe he will force contractors to use labour from swing states with high unemployment. He won't care if it costs extra... And he may well stiff them on the bill anyway.
Poor people moaning about losing health insurance? Maybe give to them on the requirement of weekly/monthly drugs tests...
Pharmaceutical prices... He is America first. He won't be happy drugs are cheaper in Europe or Mexico. Maybe all US companies have to commit to having lower prices in US and similarly high prices elsewhere...
Maybe a well timed fbi investigation into some opponents? I don't know whether that's possible... But Trump certainly likes throwing around allegations... And the right director might think it wise to investigate.
All of these things would probably see short term benefits for him politically and could maybe get him through a re election.
And we will see minority voter suppression attempts too. With voter rights act essentially gutted i can't imagine what the republicans will try... But probably won't just be voter ID. Maybe English tests? Maybe just massively reduced poll resources in certain key democratic areas/cities.0 -
For those who share HYUFD's view that the Dems will take the House in 2018, this is worth a read:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-administration-wilderness-comeback-revival-2146500 -
Peter has talked about long shots for the Dem nomination. My tip would be former Congressman and rookie-Senator Chris Van Hollen. He is the only real prospect who is not old - he is currently 58. Chuck Schumer, an obvious candidate, is now 66 so would be 70 in 2020.
I don't even see odds for him on Paddy Power0 -
Day 2 of Trump, and as my wife just said to me, at least he hasn't hit the big red button yet!
A good article David, as usual. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next couple of years, the new President didn't hold back in his inauguration speech, so the question now is what can he deliver in the next couple of years before the midterms. He has his own party controlling Congress, so can throw them some red meat on things like healthcare reform, tax cuts and SC judge nominations to get things he wants through, such as infrastructure building and trade deal renegotiations.
But as David said, he has less than two years until those mid-terms, so he needs to avoid the mistakes made by many of his predecessors of not moving quickly enough on key areas of legislation. This is somewhere his business experience should help him is knowing that quick wins are important - he wants to see unemployment numbers down quickly and key announcements on manufacturing jobs being reshored.
The sticking points will be issues like pharmaceutical monopoly reforms and military spending programmes, where the interests of the entrenched position are very well represented on Capitol Hill. If he really wants to drain the swamp he might try and get term limits in Congress, but he'll need an awful lot of political capital for that one!
I say good luck to him, right now he has the benefit of the doubt but let's see how long that lasts.0 -
Unemployment is less than 5% - historically that's quite low.... I think the problems are more around the need to raise median wages.Sandpit said:Day 2 of Trump, and as my wife just said to me, at least he hasn't hit the big red button yet!
A good article David, as usual. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next couple of years, the new President didn't hold back in his inauguration speech, so the question now is what can he deliver in the next couple of years before the midterms. He has his own party controlling Congress, so can throw them some red meat on things like healthcare reform, tax cuts and SC judge nominations to get things he wants through, such as infrastructure building and trade deal renegotiations.
But as David said, he has less than two years until those mid-terms, so he needs to avoid the mistakes made by many of his predecessors of not moving quickly enough on key areas of legislation. This is somewhere his business experience should help him is knowing that quick wins are important - he wants to see unemployment numbers down quickly and key announcements on manufacturing jobs being reshored.
The sticking points will be issues like pharmaceutical monopoly reforms and military spending programmes, where the interests of the entrenched position are very well represented on Capitol Hill. If he really wants to drain the swamp he might try and get term limits in Congress, but he'll need an awful lot of political capital for that one!
I say good luck to him, right now he has the benefit of the doubt but let's see how long that lasts.
Trump wants to increase military spening doesn't he? I don't think he will run into any entrenched problems there... I'm sure the beltway lobbyists will be very happy to make suggestions.0 -
AIUI the unemployment figure in the US is pretty much meaningless, there are a lot of people looking for work who aren't counted as officially unemployed for one reason or another. Agree that the median wage is another important measure.rkrkrk said:
Unemployment is less than 5% - historically that's quite low.... I think the problems are more around the need to raise median wages.Sandpit said:Day 2 of Trump, and as my wife just said to me, at least he hasn't hit the big red button yet!
A good article David, as usual. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next couple of years, the new President didn't hold back in his inauguration speech, so the question now is what can he deliver in the next couple of years before the midterms. He has his own party controlling Congress, so can throw them some red meat on things like healthcare reform, tax cuts and SC judge nominations to get things he wants through, such as infrastructure building and trade deal renegotiations.
But as David said, he has less than two years until those mid-terms, so he needs to avoid the mistakes made by many of his predecessors of not moving quickly enough on key areas of legislation. This is somewhere his business experience should help him is knowing that quick wins are important - he wants to see unemployment numbers down quickly and key announcements on manufacturing jobs being reshored.
The sticking points will be issues like pharmaceutical monopoly reforms and military spending programmes, where the interests of the entrenched position are very well represented on Capitol Hill. If he really wants to drain the swamp he might try and get term limits in Congress, but he'll need an awful lot of political capital for that one!
I say good luck to him, right now he has the benefit of the doubt but let's see how long that lasts.
Trump wants to increase military spening doesn't he? I don't think he will run into any entrenched problems there... I'm sure the beltway lobbyists will be very happy to make suggestions.
Trump wants to increase military capability, as opposed to military spending. He will argue that the failure to understand the difference between these concepts among those in Washington is behind a lot of the problems. He's already criticised the cost of his own replacement executive jet, and the long running saga that is the F35 program, currently $130bn (with a B ) over budget.0 -
"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
Thank goodness the warmonger HRC wasn't inaugurated yesterday.0 -
Yes; he didn’t differentiate between IS and any other form of radical Islam did he. He didn’t mention th backers though!daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
Suspect Sandpit is right, too, about the usefulness of official unemployment statistics. It’s a bit like here, isn’t it with the likes of ‘self-employed’ delivery drivers not counted, although they are often on pitiful ‘wages’.0 -
I imagine that US policy towards SA will switch very quickly indeed once the US becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels. That moment is not far away now, and is another reason why - like it or not - we need to get fracking in the UK.daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.0 -
If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be0 -
Wonder how he’ll get on with his ‘draining the swamp’? After all, he’s got quite a lot of hangers on himself!0
-
Bit strange the protestors attacked Starbucks - well not actually, they were the usual anti-capitalists idiots who turn up for every vaguely left wing protest and try and turn it into a riot.
Starbucks donated a pile of money to Hillary as did the owners... Mind you, I very much doubt that Bank of America was full of Trumpistas either (see Robert's comments on international trade).0 -
A thought for the day....
"This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them."0 -
The electric car revolution is coming. The interesting point will be when the takeup of electric vehicles, plus the on-going world-wide increases in fuel efficiency(*) cause a drop in the usage of oil, rather than the traditional expansion.Sandpit said:
I imagine that US policy towards SA will switch very quickly indeed once the US becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels. That moment is not far away now, and is another reason why - like it or not - we need to get fracking in the UK.daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
At that point - probably with 15 years - you will see a real collapse in the price of oil.
An interesting aside - I was discussing this future with a classic progressive some little while ago. She was horrified by the idea that Saudi Arabia would collapse in wealth - kept suggesting ways that we should give them money. When I got down to root causes, it was the idea that the West would benefit(**) and that a non-Western nation would not, that she found appalling.
(*) This is an example of real "trickle down" effects - first world designs, in all areas of technology, filter down to the rest of the world. The third-world is behind, yes, but they are using what we had a decade or 2 back.
(**) Non-oil producing third world nations get screwed over by the oil prices when they jump, of course...0 -
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
0 -
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.Jonathan said:
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
0 -
What part of "America First" makes you think such a deal would benefit the United Kingdom?Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be0 -
America first is clearly bollocks. He claims to put American jobs first as president, not something he did in business.SouthamObserver said:
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.Jonathan said:
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
WRT the UK. I agree. The Tories can currently do what they like, limited only by their internal contradictions and small majority. Won't last forever, but they can do a lot of hsrm whilst it lasts.
0 -
Sounds like Income Tax to meMalmesbury said:To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100724033906/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis1.htm
0 -
The UK needs NATO to protect the peace in Europe, a continent we are part of and to which we sell close to 50% of our exports. Trump doesn't. No US administration in living memory has pursued policies that are so diametrically opposed to the UK's interests.CarlottaVance said:
Or Trump says 'ask the EU', they're your neighbours......viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
Remember in 1982 the Americans had a plan to give the Falklands to Argentina......
0 -
Russia isn't an ally.daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
Thank goodness the warmonger HRC wasn't inaugurated yesterday.0 -
There will NOT be an early trade deal with UK. UK will be well down his list of priorities for sure. That was all wishful thinking on UK part as antidote to Hard Brexit, just wishful thinking.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be0 -
Its quite likely that the recent gains in the polls for the Tories are from working class Labour people, especially those revolted by terrorist appeasement, and who also like the cut of May's jib on the EU.SouthamObserver said:
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.Jonathan said:
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
It seems to be a constant theme with the educated left, especially the Guardianistas, they they feel they are beset by too many of the great unwashed who don't properly appreciate how evil the Tories are and how they should be using their vote.... alternatively maybe they do understand it and either want it, or at the very least see it as the worst of two evils.0 -
We'll all be driving crap American cars by 2020. Sell the Audi by a Buick.0
-
Following hard Brexit, the EU will not be an ally. The EU will be determined to punish the UK for its insolence, whatever the economic cost.logical_song said:
Russia isn't an ally.daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
Thank goodness the warmonger HRC wasn't inaugurated yesterday.
Russia, the only other major European power, then becomes a potential ally, but one should always remember to handle the bear with care.
0 -
Amicus meus, inimicus inimici meilogical_song said:
Russia isn't an ally.daodao said:"Radical Islam (and its backers such as Saudi Arabia) is the number one threat and China is number two. Russia is a potential ally."
I agree - and this applies to the UK too post Brexit. Trump is spot on.
Thank goodness the warmonger HRC wasn't inaugurated yesterday.0 -
Could Trump deliberately pick a fight with some part of the federal bureaucracy, perhaps claiming its infested with Democrat partisans who are deliberately frustrating his policies? A lot of his supporters would probably cheer him on, and blame the enemy within for Trump's failure to deliver his promises.0
-
Super article by David Herdson.
I hope Downing Street has a good collection of long spoons. Britain is going to need them.0 -
We could become the 51st State. Now we're Billy no mates it might be our best chance.DecrepitJohnL said:
What part of "America First" makes you think such a deal would benefit the United Kingdom?Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
We could offer Donald a golf course on the Mall with a very fine club house......0 -
Obviously, you will believe what you want to believe about how people on the left view the world. If it comforts you to see people like me as remote elitists that hold ordinary voters in contempt, so be it. I am happy for you to wallow in your prejudice. The reality is that like most people in the 1960s I was born into a solidly working class family. Thanks to the welfare state, which Labour helped to frame, I got opportunities denied to my predecessors and, again like many others, I was the first in my family to go to university - something that opened up a world to me that had been completely unavailable to my grandparents. My life experience tells me that a strong, redistributionist state works; and that, even if it is not in power, a strong Labour party can play a big part in shaping the national debate. Why do I hold Corbyn and his followers in such contempt? Because he opens the way to Tories who want to dismantle everything that made what I managed to achieve possible. People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.AlsoIndigo said:
Its quite likely that the recent gains in the polls for the Tories are from working class Labour people, especially those revolted by terrorist appeasement, and who also like the cut of May's jib on the EU.SouthamObserver said:
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and demanding to rewrite NAFTA such a deal is unlikely to be one that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.Jonathan said:
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
It seems to be a constant theme with the educated left, especially the Guardianistas, they they feel they are beset by too many of the great unwashed who don't properly appreciate how evil the Tories are and how they should be using their vote.... alternatively maybe they do understand it and either want it, or at the very least see it as the worst of two evils.
0 -
Given what's at stake, begs the question, again, what are we going to do about it.SouthamObserver said:
Obviously, you will believe what you want to believe about how people on the left view the world. If it comforts you to see people like me as remote elitists that hold ordinary voters in contempt, so be it. I am happy for you to wallow in your prejudice. The reality is that like most people in the 1960s I was born into a solidly working class family. Thanks to the welfare state, which Labour helped to frame, I got opportunities denied to my predecessors and, again like many others, I was the first in my family to go to university - something that opened up a world to me that had been completely unavailable to my grandparents. My life experience tells me that a strong, redistributionist state works; and that, even if it is not in power, a strong Labour party can play a big part in shaping the national debate. Why do I hold Corbyn and his followers in such contempt? Because he opens the way to Tories who want to dismantle everything that made what I managed to achieve possible. People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.AlsoIndigo said:
Its quite likely that the recent gains in the polls for the Tories are from working class Labour people, especially those revolted by terrorist appeasement, and who also like the cut of May's jib on the EU.SouthamObserver said:
We can get on it by taking the trade deal the US offers us. Given Trump is pulling out of the TPP and that works to the UK's advantage. America First is pretty self-explanatory. However, a totally deregulated, low tax economy in which public services are stripped to a bare minimum has been the Tory right's wet dream for decades. They will happily abandon the working class voters they claim to care about to achieve it and with Labour irrelevant and unelectable the short term political cost could be easily manageable.Jonathan said:
Not sure how the UK can or should get on the America First bandwagon.Big_G_NorthWales said:If Trump is true to his word and concludes an early trade deal with the UK and at the same time shuns the EU how long before EU companies re-locate to UK to benefit from the UK's trade deal
And how ironic that would be
It seems to be a constant theme with the educated left, especially the Guardianistas, they they feel they are beset by too many of the great unwashed who don't properly appreciate how evil the Tories are and how they should be using their vote.... alternatively maybe they do understand it and either want it, or at the very least see it as the worst of two evils.0 -
Complete morons on Sky News this morning. They've got two Americans reviewing the papers and have just told us that Le Pen is ahead in the polls and is heading for victory. They should stick to talking about America as they clearly know nothing about the rest of the world.0
-
I can understand Labour voters who are disenchanted with the marxist tit, staying at home, what I am questioning is why voters are switching to the Tories. Incidentally my parents come from the Whitehawk Estate in Brighton, and were the first of their family to go to university, mother is now one of Tezzie's blue rinsersSouthamObserver said:People will not vote for someone who winces in the presence of the Union Jack and will not give time to a party led by someone who does. That's why May is so far ahead. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
0 -
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
You have opinions about AGW.RobD said:
That would be convenient timing, as it would counter any anthropogenic warming! On the whole I think I am in the same boat as you. The climate changes naturally, and I think we'd be fools to think we can control it as some seek to do with geo-engineering.Pagan said:
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue
Luckily there are serious people who rely on science and measurements to continually refine what is actually happening.
Luckily also there are governments that take notice of the science.
"As Mr Trump ponders pulling out of the UN climate deal, China, India, Germany, the EU and the UK have all reaffirmed their promise to curb CO2 emissions."
"As Mr Trump promises to boost jobs by scrapping President Obama's clean energy plans, China is pushing on with a $361bn (£293bn) investment in renewable energy by 2020."0 -
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.Dura_Ace said:
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
It wont last. US companies will have a massive competitive advantage by not having to follow those regulations, the EU will have to either follow suit, or watch all its business founder.logical_song said:
You have opinions about AGW.RobD said:
That would be convenient timing, as it would counter any anthropogenic warming! On the whole I think I am in the same boat as you. The climate changes naturally, and I think we'd be fools to think we can control it as some seek to do with geo-engineering.Pagan said:
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue
Luckily there are serious people who rely on science and measurements to continually refine what is actually happening.
Luckily also there are governments that take notice of the science.
"As Mr Trump ponders pulling out of the UN climate deal, China, India, Germany, the EU and the UK have all reaffirmed their promise to curb CO2 emissions."
"As Mr Trump promises to boost jobs by scrapping President Obama's clean energy plans, China is pushing on with a $361bn (£293bn) investment in renewable energy by 2020."0 -
Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....0
-
I meant Britain would do nothing. Poland would fight for the Baltics because they'd be next if they didn't. The Russian capacity for nurturing a grudge is such that the 1610 sack of Moscow by the Poles is still an issue of some currency in the Rodina. Germany would fight for Poland and France would fight for Germany if it came to it.AlsoIndigo said:
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.Dura_Ace said:
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
Excellent article today by David.....0
-
Indeed. And VERY astute to sign an Ex Order to stop agencies fining those without insurance. Surely the most objectionable tenet of Obamacare? At least the main objection I've heard in voxpops.MarqueeMark said:Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
0 -
Good morning all. An early conversation with my Mum has led to a bombshell of cosmic proportions.
She really admires Mrs May and has completed her long trek from Labour to Tory. It only took 80 years. Congratulations Messrs Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, you have achieved something I would have hitherto thought impossible.0 -
America is one country. If its companies want to export to other countries they may find they have to comply with regulations that those countries set. The long-term consequence of Trump could well be to bring the rest of the world closer together.AlsoIndigo said:
It wont last. US companies will have a massive competitive advantage by not having to follow those regulations, the EU will have to either follow suit, or watch all its business founder.logical_song said:
You have opinions about AGW.RobD said:
That would be convenient timing, as it would counter any anthropogenic warming! On the whole I think I am in the same boat as you. The climate changes naturally, and I think we'd be fools to think we can control it as some seek to do with geo-engineering.Pagan said:
Yes, I dont necessarily disbelieve there is agwRobD said:@Pagan I guess it all depends on what was happening at the time. There could have been a feedback mechanism preventing a runaway event that may not occur next time. Still, the prospect of a Venus seems far less likely than a snowball earth, which has actually happened before.
what I do question is how much of current climate change is down to us, how much we can do to stop it and even whether on the whole it will even be detrimental if it did occur, yes there would be losers but there would also be winners and on balance I am not convinced it wouldnt be positive on the whole.
However sadly my suspicion is we are about to head into another ice age in any case we are certainly overdue
Luckily there are serious people who rely on science and measurements to continually refine what is actually happening.
Luckily also there are governments that take notice of the science.
"As Mr Trump ponders pulling out of the UN climate deal, China, India, Germany, the EU and the UK have all reaffirmed their promise to curb CO2 emissions."
"As Mr Trump promises to boost jobs by scrapping President Obama's clean energy plans, China is pushing on with a $361bn (£293bn) investment in renewable energy by 2020."
0 -
Learnt a new acronym. AIUI... Quite like it.Sandpit said:
AIUI the unemployment figure in the US is pretty much meaningless, there are a lot of people looking for work who aren't counted as officially unemployed for one reason or another. Agree that the median wage is another important measure.rkrkrk said:
Unemployment is less than 5% - historically that's quite low.... I think the problems are more around the need to raise median wages.Sandpit said:Day 2 of Trump, and as my wife just said to me, at least he hasn't hit the big red button yet!
A good article David, as usual. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next couple of years, the new President didn't hold back in his inauguration speech, so the question now is what can he deliver in the next couple of years before the midterms. He has his own party controlling Congress, so can throw them some red meat on things like healthcare reform, tax cuts and SC judge nominations to get things he wants through, such as infrastructure building and trade deal
The sticking points will be issues like pharmaceutical monopoly reforms and military spending programmes, where the interests of the entrenched position are very well represented on Capitol Hill. If he really wants to drain the swamp he might try and get term limits in Congress, but he'll need an awful lot of political capital for that one!
I say good luck to him, right now he has the benefit of the doubt but let's see how long that lasts.
Trump wants to increase military spening doesn't he? I don't think he will run into any entrenched problems there... I'm sure the beltway lobbyists will be very happy to make suggestions.
Trump wants to increase military capability, as opposed to military spending. He will argue that the failure to understand the difference between these concepts among those in Washington is behind a lot of the problems. He's already criticised the cost of his own replacement executive jet, and the long running saga that is the F35 program, currently $130bn (with a B ) over budget.
The unemployment figure is not meaningless... I think it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that the figure correctly shows Obama has massively reduced unemployment since the recession. That said... You're right that it's complicated with people anting more hours/working part time etc...
When push comes to shove... I think Trump will spend more on military. He is talking about reversing defence cuts and Congress will push him. That said... Will be very funny to see him order a new fighter plane and then just not pay for it!0 -
That's very long, but a really good article about the state of US and specifically Democrat politics.MTimT said:For those who share HYUFD's view that the Dems will take the House in 2018, this is worth a read:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-administration-wilderness-comeback-revival-2146500 -
I ?fear? there will be many people making a similar journey.John_M said:Good morning all. An early conversation with my Mum has led to a bombshell of cosmic proportions.
She really admires Mrs May and has completed her long trek from Labour to Tory. It only took 80 years. Congratulations Messrs Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, you have achieved something I would have hitherto thought impossible.
The question is whether Labour's brand in England is being as comprehensively smashed as it was in Scotland.0 -
I'm sure she's isn't the only one, after the contrast between Team Corbyn's "Relaunch" last week and Mrs May's EU speech this week.John_M said:Good morning all. An early conversation with my Mum has led to a bombshell of cosmic proportions.
She really admires Mrs May and has completed her long trek from Labour to Tory. It only took 80 years. Congratulations Messrs Brown, Miliband and Corbyn, you have achieved something I would have hitherto thought impossible.
The next few opinion polls might make interesting reading, as might the forthcoming by-election results - which in normal times are two easy Labour holds.0 -
Yep, a strong NATO is a much better option. War in Europe would, at a minimum, shatter the UK economy.Dura_Ace said:
I meant Britain would do nothing. Poland would fight for the Baltics because they'd be next if they didn't. The Russian capacity for nurturing a grudge is such that the 1610 sack of Moscow by the Poles is still an issue of some currency in the Rodina. Germany would fight for Poland and France would fight for Germany if it came to it.AlsoIndigo said:
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.Dura_Ace said:
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?
0 -
I want to point out that Europe's reliance on Russian gas is reducing e.g. Lithuania has leased a floating LNG-terminal, and there are LNG terminals all along the North European coast - the world is not short of natural gas. The sole exception appears to be Germany, which may, in part, explain their enthusiasm for Russian sanctions to be lifted or at least eased.AlsoIndigo said:
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.Dura_Ace said:
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?0 -
1 down, 1,460 or so to go.MarqueeMark said:Early days in the Trump Presidency, but the sun has come up again today - in contrast to the perpetual darkness so many feared.....
0 -
Good morning all
Herdson's last paragraph is laughable in many ways:
1. For that reason, I expect Trump to lose in 2020: Herdson never expected him to win in the first place.
2. He only just won this year against a very weak Democrat opponent: Yeh, the opponent everybody, including Herdson, said could never lose.
It may be a bumpy ride, but no one can tell the future: 2016 was the year when the American and World progressive elite knew that the world was theirs for the foreseeable future. They were wrong, and now all around the world, many things are up for grabs.0 -
That was my point really. Poland might fight, but its military is a joke. Germany would look for reasons for as long as it could not to, because most of their gas supply comes from Russia, and its military is also a joke. If France would given assurances would it really get involved ?Dura_Ace said:
I meant Britain would do nothing. Poland would fight for the Baltics because they'd be next if they didn't. The Russian capacity for nurturing a grudge is such that the 1610 sack of Moscow by the Poles is still an issue of some currency in the Rodina. Germany would fight for Poland and France would fight for Germany if it came to it.AlsoIndigo said:
Indeed. The rest of the EU will take a similar view either because their military is a joke, or because they don't want Russia to turn off the gas, or both. NATO and the EU will simultaneously implode as all countries suddenly realise that when push comes to shove they are on their own.Dura_Ace said:
Absolutely nothing. There is no way any British PM would start a war with Russia over Riga.viewcode said:Here's a question.
* Putin invades one of the Baltic states, using the deniable techniques he's used before.
* The Baltic state is a NATO member.
* It asks us for help.
* Trump refuses.
What do we do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics0
