Trump

[morepork]

He is replaced by a former coal industry lobbyist. Oh well. I'm sure Scotty-poo has accrued enough shares and directorships to make sure he and his cuntish relatives will not want for much. Ever. He did a lot of damage during his tenure. Science will have to battle through the bullshit laid down by this fuckrod for a long time.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754

Plans to fly a giant inflatable figure depicting Donald Trump as a baby over London during the US president's visit have been approved.

Mr Trump is due to meet Theresa May at 10 Downing Street on 13 July.

Campaigners raised almost £18,000 for the helium-filled six-metre high figure, which they said reflects Mr Trump's character as an "angry baby with a fragile ego and tiny hands".

London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave permission for the balloon to fly.

The White House has been approached for comment.

On Twitter former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the plan was "the biggest insult to a sitting US President ever".

...

[WaspInWales]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44732754

Plans to fly a giant inflatable figure depicting Donald Trump as a baby over London during the US president's visit have been approved.

Mr Trump is due to meet Theresa May at 10 Downing Street on 13 July.

Campaigners raised almost £18,000 for the helium-filled six-metre high figure, which they said reflects Mr Trump's character as an "angry baby with a fragile ego and tiny hands".

London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave permission for the balloon to fly.

The White House has been approached for comment.

On Twitter former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the plan was "the biggest insult to a sitting US President ever".

...

What are the odds that US fighter jets are scrambled from Welford with the briefing to take down the 'hostile foreign object' over London on the 13th July, just minutes before Trump sees them?

It sounds bizarre, massively unlikely and even batshit crazy, but something like that could happen and May would just announce an inquiry will take place and 'move on, nothing to see here' kinda thing.

It would not surprise me in the least.

[WaspInWales]

I wouldnt but i would not consider her rantings accurate or credible either. That is exactly my point though... open yourself up to understand another facet of the situation, accept that it may have merit and then form your own opinion or delve in a little further. You might surprise yourself. It is really okay to have an opinion that differs from others. That is what opens up healthy dialogue and ideas that lead to mutual understanding. Things tend to get resolved when there is mutual understanding.

That comes across as incredibly patronising Coco...

Strangely enough, my opinions are formed from gathering information from various sources. I can then determine the provenance of the information and work out which are likely to be more accurate, reliable and objective.

My apologies Wasp... that was not my intention.

No harm, no foul Coco

[kk67]

Trump is claiming Germany is being 'controlled' by Russia because they are buying large amounts of natural gas from Gazprom.

It seems to me that the characterization of the war in Syria basically being Gazprom v Halliburton is very, very accurate. No doubt the Qataari's and the Saudi's will be delighted at this latest protectionist rubbish.
Phew,....what a wanker.

[Which Tyler]

Has Trump actually accused someone of something he isn't guilty of yet? This seems like just another example of his accusations demonstrating his own guilt

[kk67]

I was impressed by his claim a few weeks ago that he couldn't possibly be impeached because he's the supreme leader.

We need to introduce psychometric testing for prospective elected representatives. Nevermind the US, we need it over here as well.

[Buggaluggs]

Well, there you go

[Which Tyler]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-bab ... &r=US&IR=T
"I used to love London as a city," Trump said. "I haven't been there in a long time. But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?"

It's almost like... that's the point of it?

[kk67]

The US made huge financial gains from both World Wars.

[Digby]

That doesn't mark them out, and they hardly avoided steep cost too

[Which Tyler]

I'm loving some of the placards out in London

[Which Tyler]

[SerjeantWildgoose]

The US made huge financial gains from both World Wars.

That doesn't mark them out, and they hardly avoided steep cost too

It does mark them out, Digby. The US is unique in being the only major participant to have profited from the world wars - and while every other belligerent was driven (Or drove) to the point of bankruptcy, the wars of the 20th Century drove America's industrial boom.

There are cemeteries in Normandy that remind us of the terrible cost in American lives, but given that Trump is all about the financial cost to America for protecting Yurp against aggression, he is quick to forget that the US only entered the First World War when the U-Boats began to make a complete mess of their profiteering in 1917, only entered the Second World War when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on them and used Germany as a proxy battleground for its war of ideology during the Cold War.

Contrast this with the British who fought the First World War against German hegemony and defence of Belgian neutrality - admittedly these were both causes to Britain's advantage, but their prosecution of the war brought Britain close to bankruptcy and put the US in an unassailable position as the leading economic power based on the profits it made selling stuff to the Allies. Britain fought the Second World War against Germany from the off and was the only power to do so right through to the finish. What the Great War started by way of sending Britain down the road to financial ruin, the Second World war finished; and again the principal beneficiary was American industry and its profiteering.

Don't let's fool ourselves into believing that Trump gives a shit about dead American soldiers or the facts of American profiteering. America became the industrial giant it is off the back of wars it only sent its own soldiers to fight when compelled to do so. Trump didn't invent America First; it has always been that way.

Neither did Trump invent being a cunt, but give him due credit he's raised it to new heights.

[Digby]

The US made huge financial gains from both World Wars.

That doesn't mark them out, and they hardly avoided steep cost too

It does mark them out, Digby. The US is unique in being the only major participant to have profited from the world wars - and while every other belligerent was driven (Or drove) to the point of bankruptcy, the wars of the 20th Century drove America's

Too simplistic imo, we all had gains and losses

[Sandydragon]

Tangerine wankmaggot!

[canta_brian]

The US made huge financial gains from both World Wars.

That doesn't mark them out, and they hardly avoided steep cost too

It does mark them out, Digby. The US is unique in being the only major participant to have profited from the world wars - and while every other belligerent was driven (Or drove) to the point of bankruptcy, the wars of the 20th Century drove America's

Too simplistic imo, we all had gains and losses

It may seem too simplistic if you stopped reading after the paragraph you just quoted.

[Mikey Brown]

Who coined “the toxic orange nightmare”? To me that is the one that should really stick. I’m pretty sure I read that on here.

I’ve found most of the superficial, real-world-meme, comedy protest stuff really unfunny and to mostly be missing the point over what an awful, danger to the world he is, but there have been some funny moments in fairness.

[Digby]

It does mark them out, Digby. The US is unique in being the only major participant to have profited from the world wars - and while every other belligerent was driven (Or drove) to the point of bankruptcy, the wars of the 20th Century drove America's

Too simplistic imo, we all had gains and losses

It may seem too simplistic if you stopped reading after the paragraph you just quoted.

You don't consider that in the first instance the US economy wasn't set to grow anyway, and in the second whilst one can of course cite huge central investment we'd also need to keep in mind that lurch toward a command economy limited a lot of the growth. Fwiw I've written papers on this area, they might even still have been in use but for all they were well argued the research was lacking owing to beer and laziness

[Mellsblue]

Too simplistic imo, we all had gains and losses

It may seem too simplistic if you stopped reading after the paragraph you just quoted.

You don't consider that in the first instance the US economy wasn't set to grow anyway, and in the second whilst one can of course cite huge central investment we'd also need to keep in mind that lurch toward a command economy limited a lot of the growth. Fwiw I've written papers on this area, they might even still have been in use but for all they were well argued the research was lacking owing to beer and laziness

The fact you dont understand basic economics and certainly didn’t gain a degree in economics means the papers, if they even exist, are worthless. You neo-capitalist pig.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

The US economy was growing at the turn of the 20th Century - and faster than the British - but it cannot be denied that its agriculture and industry expanded to fuel the Allies's demand for food, raw materials and manufactures in both wars. The 'neutrality' of the US did not prick its conscience to the point of refusal to sell and ship the goods needed to sustain a war in either the First or the Second World Wars. The post war rebuilding of Europe, particularly the Marshall plan was intended to ensure that economies bled-dry by war were propped up in order to ensure that there were still markets for American exports. No other country on the planet was capable of propping up anyone else in 1945.

I am sorry, Digby, but gains and losses all add up to some form of net sum and both history and economics mark the US out as the only country to profit from the wars of the 20th Century.

[Digby]

The US economy was growing at the turn of the 20th Century - and faster than the British - but it cannot be denied that its agriculture and industry expanded to fuel the Allies's demand for food, raw materials and manufactures in both wars. The 'neutrality' of the US did not prick its conscience to the point of refusal to sell and ship the goods needed to sustain a war in either the First or the Second World Wars. The post war rebuilding of Europe, particularly the Marshall plan was intended to ensure that economies bled-dry by war were propped up in order to ensure that there were still markets for American exports. No other country on the planet was capable of propping up anyone else in 1945.

I am sorry, Digby, but gains and losses all add up to some form of net sum and both history and economics mark the US out as the only country to profit from the wars of the 20th Century.

They could have made more still. And there are other ways to turn a profit , ask Switzerland. Even we in effect laid groundwork for economic recovery during the war, so whether we made a profit depends how you measure and indeed what you measure. and of courseit's not like the USA didn't have models to follow on how to turn a profit

[SerjeantWildgoose]

If you are interested in gaining a more developed understanding of the argument, I can't recommend Adam Tooze's The Deluge: The Great War, America and The Remaking of the Global Order 1916-1931 highly enough. It goes together nicely with the same author's The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy and together the two books look at the impact of the 20th Century's great wars on global economies.

Tooze wrote, "When all is said and done, ... the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese [leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security. … Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order.

This was even more true in 1946 than it was in 1920 and while it is true that the US economy may have grown even further and faster had it not been for the shaping of global markets by war (Though I doubt it), the original point stands: that America’s stands out as the economy which most clearly profited from the wars.

[Digby]

Would or wouldn't it, turns out they're confusing in their similarity

[morepork]

Whatevs. Just thank fuck we have the figurehead of that economy diving like a Brazilian footballer when confronted with a stiff diplomatic breeze. Here is the new paper anchor, and it is resplendent in hues of orange than run like a bitch. Fuck me.