America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,980 comments
  • 1,694,854 views
I doubt this is clear to me, but for instance how else is a way to be found that ends up with zero tariffs, barriers and subsidies? Is it a negotiation tactic maybe? What else would you expect from what is essentially a big-talking New York playboy?

Countries realize that imposing extra tax on imports from another country pose a net loss to them? Because they realize that trade imbalances are a good thing, and actually want to have imports of goods and services into their country?

Let's say some country, I dunno, the US for example, is considering imposing a tax on steel imports. After doing some analysis, that country (the US in this case) might realize that importing steel is a good thing, because it gets used to actually build things that people want in the US, which enhances all kinds of things from quality of life to technology development. So the US chooses not to impose that tax on steel imports because WE WANT THE CHEAP RESOURCES so that we can actually use it to produce things more efficiently. The dollars leave the country and temporarily create a little deflation while they're out of the country (also good). And if nobody outside the US ever uses those dollars to buy goods and services provided by the US, well then the steel was free.

That's why.


Edit:

I doubt this is clear to me, but for instance how else is a way to be found that ends up with zero tariffs, barriers and subsidies?

...actually I should have responded more clearly. Here's a more clear response. They'll do it for the same reasons we should do it. Because the US is not the only country in the world that experiences economics and has the capacity to understand it.
 
Last edited:
More than 2 decades after allegedly raping multiple women and getting his cigars given a special treatment by at least one intern, Bill Clinton has finally decided that times have changed and the norms as to what you can do to women "against their will", have changed too.
 
More than 2 decades after allegedly raping multiple women and getting his cigars given a special treatment by at least one intern, Bill Clinton has finally decided that times have changed and the norms as to what you can do to women "against their will", have changed too.
Gee, that's some rather evocative language from someone who has criticized the "social lynching" of individuals over mere allegations. I guess it's okay when it's someone you don't like.
 
Gee, that's some rather evocative language from someone who has criticized the "social lynching" of individuals over mere allegations. I guess it's okay when it's someone you don't like.
Which part of it is untrue? The rape is alleged and the affair is admitted.
 
Which part of it is untrue? The rape is alleged and the affair is admitted.
I didn't say anything was untrue. He's fessed up to adultery and those rape allegations are definitely out there.

What I was commenting on was your implication that hypocrisy is at play between what people claim someone's done and what that someone's feelings toward such actual behavior are. You probably shouldn't conflate alleged misconduct with proven misconduct.


Are you also willing to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater?
It seems you are if the baby is a liberal.
 
I didn't say anything was untrue. He's fessed up to adultery and those rape allegations are definitely out there.

What I was commenting on was your implication that hypocrisy is at play between what people claim someone's done and what that someone's feelings toward such actual behavior are. You probably shouldn't conflate alleged misconduct with proven misconduct.



It seems you are if the baby is a liberal.
You're confused. I'm just stating facts and allegations. The only implication is that it sounds like Bill didn't get the whole #metoo message. Pretty sure anything he did to someone "against their will" even 20-30 years ago was illegal and immoral then as it is now.
 
Pretty sure anything he did to someone "against their will" even 20-30 years ago was illegal and immoral then as it is now.
You mean anything he allegedly did to someone "against their will"--again with the conflating. What happened to

lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations
? Does that concern diminish when you don't particularly care about one's life and career?

You're still alluding to a degree of hypocrisy based on alleged actions conflicting with views being made known.
 
You mean anything he allegedly did to someone "against their will"--again with the conflating. What happened to


? Does that concern diminish when you don't particularly care about one's life and career?

You're still alluding to a degree of hypocrisy based on alleged actions conflicting with views being made known.
"Anything he did against their will" could be something or could be nothing. No conclusions inferred or made, especially since I already referred to the incidents as allegations. In light of the #metoo movement though, I'm pretty sure the mismatch of leader of the free world vs. wide eyed intern would be a little concerning for some even if it's consensual.

If he were a Republican there's no doubt he'd be the poster boy for the #metoo movement.
 
In light of the #metoo movement though, I'm pretty sure the mismatch of leader of the free world vs. wide eyed intern would be a little concerning for some even if it's consensual.

If it's consensual then they're both adults who can do what they like. In particular, the wide eyed intern is free to sleep with whoever she likes. That is her freedom as a woman and a human. Or are we back to restricting relationships to those of equal societal class?

If there's undue pressures going on then that's certainly something of concern, but I don't think it makes sense to be concerned over relationships just because there's a mismatch of power or social status. The mismatch of power isn't the problem, the abuse of that power is. Don't get them confused. That's how you start discriminating against entire classes of people simply on the basis of who they are.
 
Surprised the talk is about Bill Clinton today with the historic event that just happened in Singapore. I hope for a lasting peace between the US and North Korea and that this summit is used as a building block to improve relations even further. The denuclearization of North Korea is of paramount importance to maintain security in the region and abroad.

It starts with officially recognizing the DPRK as a country, this may seem like such a small thing but it's not. The US needs to connaturalize North Korea, only then will NK receive the validation that they have been seeking for over 40 years. This isn't optional and it needs to happen immediately for any hope of a successful outcome.

And finally, Trump deserves some credit whether people disagree with him, dislike him, hate the man's guts, or not. Sure this is a major foreign policy victory for Trump, and that might sting a little for some people, but it's more than that, this is a victory for peace and everyone and I do mean EVERYONE, should be excited about this breakthrough. In some ways it feels like the last of the Cold War is finally being swept away, and this should be viewed explicitly in a non-partisan way.
 
Surprised the talk is about Bill Clinton today with the historic event that just happened in Singapore. I hope for a lasting peace between the US and North Korea and that this summit is used as a building block to improve relations even further. The denuclearization of North Korea is of paramount importance to maintain security in the region and abroad.

It starts with officially recognizing the DPRK as a country, this may seem like such a small thing but it's not. The US needs to connaturalize North Korea, only then will NK receive the validation that they have been seeking for over 40 years. This isn't optional and it needs to happen immediately for any hope of a successful outcome.

And finally, Trump deserves some credit whether people disagree with him, dislike him, hate the man's guts, or not. Sure this is a major foreign policy victory for Trump, and that might sting a little for some people, but it's more than that, this is a victory for peace and everyone and I do mean EVERYONE, should be excited about this breakthrough. In some ways it feels like the last of the Cold War is finally being swept away, and this should be viewed explicitly in a non-partisan way.

I came in here looking for the same talk before I realized it was happening in the NK thread.
 
"Anything he did against their will" could be something or could be nothing.
Yeah...the problem with that is, at this point, it's nothing more than allegations--so it really can't be either/or. "Anything he did," which is to specifically omit the all-important "allegedly," points very much to the something of it all.

In light of the #metoo movement
You mean the one toward which you've expressed disdain because of "lives and careers being destroyed by unsubstantiated allegations"? Gotcha.

If he were a Republican there's no doubt he'd be the poster boy for the #metoo movement.
But he wasn't because he's not? Who is the poster boy for it? Surely Harvey Weinstein is of significant importance to it gaining traction.
 
Surprised the talk is about Bill Clinton today with the historic event that just happened in Singapore. I hope for a lasting peace between the US and North Korea and that this summit is used as a building block to improve relations even further. The denuclearization of North Korea is of paramount importance to maintain security in the region and abroad.

It starts with officially recognizing the DPRK as a country, this may seem like such a small thing but it's not. The US needs to connaturalize North Korea, only then will NK receive the validation that they have been seeking for over 40 years. This isn't optional and it needs to happen immediately for any hope of a successful outcome.

And finally, Trump deserves some credit whether people disagree with him, dislike him, hate the man's guts, or not. Sure this is a major foreign policy victory for Trump, and that might sting a little for some people, but it's more than that, this is a victory for peace and everyone and I do mean EVERYONE, should be excited about this breakthrough. In some ways it feels like the last of the Cold War is finally being swept away, and this should be viewed explicitly in a non-partisan way.

It's reasonable to be skeptical of the summit and I think calling it a victory for peace is premature. Generally, I think the approach of recognizing DPRK is correct (though, who am I to say) but I think we are a long ways away from anything concrete.
 
A relative who lived in Canada posted about this today in response to the US putting tariffs on Canada using Security concerns as justification.

I must confess I'd forgotten about it, but its a good reminder that Canada has stepped in, at its own risk and expense when the US was at arguably its more need in modern times.

Operation Yellow Ribbon saw over 30,000 passengers and crew from 238 flights diverted to Canadian airports on 9/11. A the time no-one knew the status of these planes or any potential risk they posed.

Simply landing them was arguably the easy part, Canada then had to then take care of these passengers until flights resumed and border crossings re-opened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellow_Ribbon
 
A relative who lived in Canada posted about this today in response to the US putting tariffs on Canada using Security concerns as justification.

I must confess I'd forgotten about it, but its a good reminder that Canada has stepped in, at its own risk and expense when the US was at arguably its more need in modern times.

Operation Yellow Ribbon saw over 30,000 passengers and crew from 238 flights diverted to Canadian airports on 9/11. A the time no-one knew the status of these planes or any potential risk they posed.

Simply landing them was arguably the easy part, Canada then had to then take care of these passengers until flights resumed and border crossings re-opened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellow_Ribbon

I don't think it's even necessary to point out individual things like this. Canada is like our wing man, they go along with whatever we do....however foolish.
 
I don't think it's even necessary to point out individual things like this. Canada is like our wing man, they go along with whatever we do....however foolish.
In the past that is indeed true, however what the future holds who knows.
 
I don't think it's even necessary to point out individual things like this. Canada is like our wing man, they go along with whatever we do....however foolish.
Not always. We didn't go to Iraq in 2003. We didn't agree on Vietnam. We've been enjoying Cuban cigars for a long time. Usually we agree on the major stuff like most western nations but not always.
 
We didn't go to Iraq in 2003.

Still supported it strongly though, just didn't name itself as a coalition partner. Perhaps not with a large number of boots on the ground but the considerable naval presence was left in place and was very active.

03OTTAWA747 - Wikileaks
While Canada intends to leave its 1280 military personnel, ships and aircraft in the region to continue to contribute to the campaign against terrorism, as the Prime Minister stated today in the House of Commons, it will not be a member of the military coalition against Iraq

We didn't agree on Vietnam.

Perhaps not, but Canada furnished the Southern alliance very thoroughly and had about 10,000 citizens fighting there.
 
6swwzUJ.gif
 
Still supported it strongly though, just didn't name itself as a coalition partner. Perhaps not with a large number of boots on the ground but the considerable naval presence was left in place and was very active.


Perhaps not, but Canada furnished the Southern alliance very thoroughly and had about 10,000 citizens fighting there.
Your lack of knowledge shines when you mention Canada and a "considerable navel presense" in the same sentence. :lol::lol:. A couple of frigates and maybe a destroyer patrolling in the Gulf is hardly what I'd call considerable anything. The men fighting in Vietnam were private citizens fighting for another country, something free men are able to do. Don't conflate that with Canada going to war.
 
Your lack of knowledge shines when you mention Canada and a "considerable navel presense" in the same sentence. :lol::lol:.

I like to think I'd never ever write "navel presense", whatever it means :D

Four frigates isn't inconsiderable, surely? Nor is a Canadian officer being in command of 30,000 troops, Canadian fighters flying escorts for refuelling missions, Canadian transport squadrons "seasoning" with supply missions to support US troops, Canadian hardware being sold to US combat outfitters, Canadian depleted uranium tipping US shells. Canada may have avoided putting its name to a coalition but it certainly went to war in Iraq. That isn't the way that a neutral country operates in any war.

As for Vietnam, you're surely aware that the 1937 Foreign Enlistment Law would allow a certain (arguably large) amount of lassitude from Canada for such numbers to enlist in US forces? It is not an automatic right for "free men" by any means. You could look at the later struggles of the Canadian veterans to see how that illegal action affected them... but at the time there was little effort from Canada to stop them joining when arguably such an effort should have been made.
 
Told y'all they had it in for Trump...
One reason why I don't be studying y'all...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rom-becoming-president-ig-report-reveals.html
All two of them, who were later reassigned. Not sure how this provides evidence of widespread anti-Trump FBI bias. If you're not going to study "us all" then please at least read your own sources.

Fair And Balanced Fox News
Bloomberg News, which also reported the new Strzok message, said Horowitz’s report says investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence [in the Clinton case] that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”
 
Last edited:
All two of them, who were later reassigned. Not sure how this provides evidence of widespread anti-Trump FBI bias. If you're not going to study "us all" then please at least read your own sources.
Actually, the number seems to be a moving target, as Fox now reports 5 FBI employees referred for investigation. Additionally, it is reported that numerous FBI persons have retired, resigned, or are under internal disciplinary actions for inappropriate political bias in official conduct. Peter Strozk remains the apparent exception!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tigation-over-hostile-political-messages.html
 
All two of them, who were later reassigned. Not sure how this provides evidence of widespread anti-Trump FBI bias. If you're not going to study "us all" then please at least read your own sources.
I'm not suprised coming from a non-American you see nothing.
When they finish reading the 550+ page IG book of a report you'll see it's deeper.
 
I'm not suprised coming from a non-American you see nothing.
When they finish reading the 550+ page IG book of a report you'll see it's deeper.
"Wait and see" isn't exactly incontrovertible proof but as an American I imagine you'll be familiar with the whispering campaign of the forties and fifties which led to the establishment of HUAC. Thanks, however, for reading the report for me.
 
Last edited:
Back