In yet another bold move in their initial days in office, U.S. President Donald Trump and team have announced their withdrawal from the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
Claiming that Trump “understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade,” the statement on the White House’s website promises to bring jobs and economic prosperity by “rejecting and reworking failed trade deals.” Earlier this month, his team also announced they would instead be focusing on more bilateral trade deals.
“This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers,” the statement reads, then delivers an ultimatum regarding its commitment to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, the neo-liberal wedge used to open up the Mexican market to trade by promising, and failing to deliver, economic prosperity.
What you said was the labels ISIS and Al Qaeda are not used by terrorists, and thus I considered you were talking about terrorists, because of your use of the word terrorists.
If you now want to say when you said terrorists you intended to mean a much wider group and not simply terrorists then you should have said so, or you could have said the group referred to (simplistically) as terrorists.
Go back and read it properly, Digby...
Sadly I did read it, and you said 'My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves' which quite clearly says you're talking about terrorists, and terrorists comes with some specific meanings.
You might have meant something else, but that's for you to know, others can only go on the words you use.
Right, so you stopped reading at that point, didn't notice that I mentioned these terms were also being used to describe anti-Western imperialism combatants who were not terrorist, then jumped into the debate to tell me terrorists are evil people, which basically missed the point entirely.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
In yet another bold move in their initial days in office, U.S. President Donald Trump and team have announced their withdrawal from the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement.
Claiming that Trump “understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade,” the statement on the White House’s website promises to bring jobs and economic prosperity by “rejecting and reworking failed trade deals.” Earlier this month, his team also announced they would instead be focusing on more bilateral trade deals.
“This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers,” the statement reads, then delivers an ultimatum regarding its commitment to the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, the neo-liberal wedge used to open up the Mexican market to trade by promising, and failing to deliver, economic prosperity.
rowan wrote:
Go back and read it properly, Digby...
Sadly I did read it, and you said 'My personal view is that these names, both Al Qaeda and ISIS, are not used by the terrorists themselves' which quite clearly says you're talking about terrorists, and terrorists comes with some specific meanings.
You might have meant something else, but that's for you to know, others can only go on the words you use.
Right, so you stopped reading at that point, didn't notice that I mentioned these terms were also being used to describe anti-Western imperialism combatants who were not terrorist, then jumped into the debate to tell me terrorists are evil people, which basically missed the point entirely.
Which wold only take one onto another point which is we don't describe someone as a terrorist based on whether they have an anti-Western agenda
Also sad news about the trade deal. Yes Donald is right that trade deals could be more in one's favour, but the point there is others tend to respond in kind and we know that the more open deals tend to be mutually beneficial, and we'd also have to question bigger picture how much we want to stop jobs from being created outside the big western economies, especially if those same economies then complain about people wanting to migrate to them.
Z list actress delivers an epic rant about taxes on tampons at this weekend's protest rally.
.
Soros is an inside trading worm (Trump should love that), but criticising the march as not being spontaneous (i.e. not a riot) is disingenuous, at the very least. Planned Parenthood and The National Resource Defense Council are not exactly red flags for a subversive militia. The march in DC has been open knowledge here for weeks. Of course it was planned. The cops knew about it beforehand, so everything would be smooth-smoothie. What is the problem? Were you bottle fed as a child? I too think the Trump media beat ups are overkill, but shit boi, if you act like a misogynist cunt for decades, please do not be shocked if the 50% of the population you have portrayed as toy things for your pleasure decide to exercise a little freedom of speech upon your initiation to the highest office in the land. It's a good thing. Let's him know they are still here.
If this were being organised against a straight up politician (or a reasonably straight up one) I would be somewhat depressed by the need to protest before anything has actually been done. Yet Trump has no right to act defensively when, as you rightly point out, he has acted the cnut for decades and now is well and truly in the firing line for any activist, media outlet or anyone else who has access to the internet.
What completely surprises me is how thin skinned he is. The issue over less people at the inauguration is a massive implosion over nothing. So what? Most political teams would just shrug that off, thankful that the media was focusing on something pretty irrelevant. Yet the Whitehouse spokesman goes on record to tell the media that they are lying (despite photographic evidence) and the media would be held to account in what can only be described as a rant. If such a non-story causes that level of meltdown, I dread to think what an actual crisis will result in.
Len wrote:That Mark Dice guy is a top class twat, Trump train, what a cunt.
That Ashley Judd speech though, WTF is she on? That was barely coherent.
Worlds gone nuts. Comedy gold this.
Yep.
Judd is in with Planned Parenthood. They're worried about losing funding from Trump's administration. Themselves and Soros appear to be the brains behind the "free speech" [ ] demos last weekend. Not that they needed much brains to organise it. There's a plethora of useful idiots in America.
The Don's already signed an executive order prohibiting Septic NGOs from funding and advocating abortion in third world countries.
Len wrote:That Mark Dice guy is a top class twat, Trump train, what a cunt.
That Ashley Judd speech though, WTF is she on? That was barely coherent.
Worlds gone nuts. Comedy gold this.
Yep.
Judd is in with Planned Parenthood. They're worried about losing funding from Trump's administration. Themselves and Soros appear to be the brains behind the "free speech" [ ] demos last weekend. Not that they needed much brains to organise it. There's a plethora of useful idiots in America.
The Don's already signed an executive order prohibiting Septic NGOs from funding and advocating abortion in third world countries.
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
If he does a deal with them that gives them $2.1bn for something else and asks for $1.8bn back to help build a wall and pretends that's wholly independent of the first then he'll be able to claim a victory, now he just needs a way to do that which doesn't go via Congress
I do wonder if Congress will sign off on this in advance, and I'd much rather he'd tried to put all his eggs into the lets invest in infrastructure in the first instance before he starts calling Congress losers
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
In his universe of alternative facts, I expect him to announce that Mexico has indeed paid, although that fact will not be obvious to 99.9% of the human race.
Ive never claimed to like Hillary Clinton, but remind me again how this giant sized Oompa Loompa is in any way preferable?
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
If he does a deal with them that gives them $2.1bn for something else and asks for $1.8bn back to help build a wall and pretends that's wholly independent of the first then he'll be able to claim a victory, now he just needs a way to do that which doesn't go via Congress
I do wonder if Congress will sign off on this in advance, and I'd much rather he'd tried to put all his eggs into the lets invest in infrastructure in the first instance before he starts calling Congress losers
Can't he just cut aid to Mexico? It's not as if humanitarian causes are high on his list and he and his supporters will consider that a win as Mexico will be paying for the wall.
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
In his universe of alternative facts, I expect him to announce that Mexico has indeed paid, although that fact will not be obvious to 99.9% of the human race.
Ive never claimed to like Hillary Clinton, but remind me again how this giant sized Oompa Loompa is in any way preferable?
Must admit I'm a little concerned about May's upcoming talks with the Trumpster. After he initial insistence that she wasn't afraid to challenge Trump if/when he says/does something offensive, she's now coming across as a little desperate for 'friendship'.
I appreciate that trade concerns are kinda high at the moment but it does kinda feel she's going cap in hand.
She also seemed to enjoy taunting Corbyn that he would never have the 'special relationship with the US'.
Still reckons Mexico is going to pay for this wall. Thick cunt.
In his universe of alternative facts, I expect him to announce that Mexico has indeed paid, although that fact will not be obvious to 99.9% of the human race.
Ive never claimed to like Hillary Clinton, but remind me again how this giant sized Oompa Loompa is in any way preferable?
We'd all be dead by now if Hillary was president.
She lost. That's democracy. Get over it. She was a warmonger who would've prolonged the Syrian war just as she destroyed Libya. At least with Trump everyone's getting angry, instead of congratulating themselves on the "first female president." Some of you need to take your own advice, put it behind you - and move on...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Sandydragon wrote:
In his universe of alternative facts, I expect him to announce that Mexico has indeed paid, although that fact will not be obvious to 99.9% of the human race.
Ive never claimed to like Hillary Clinton, but remind me again how this giant sized Oompa Loompa is in any way preferable?
We'd all be dead by now if Hillary was president.
She lost. That's democracy. Get over it. She was a warmonger who would've prolonged the Syrian war just as she destroyed Libya. At least with Trump everyone's getting angry, instead of congratulating themselves on the "first female president." Some of you need to take your own advice, put it behind you - and move on...
WaspInWales wrote:
We'd all be dead by now if Hillary was president.
She lost. That's democracy. Get over it. She was a warmonger who would've prolonged the Syrian war just as she destroyed Libya. At least with Trump everyone's getting angry, instead of congratulating themselves on the "first female president." Some of you need to take your own advice, put it behind you - and move on...
Gold.
Thank you
You're most welcome Remember, I didn't support Trump either, and his ideas about an embassy in Jerusalem, a wall to keep out Mexicans and pissing off the Chinese in their own back yard are both abhorrent and dangerous. But, as I said, at least everyone's getting angry now (after 8 years of gushing over their first African-American leader and his lovely wife and daughters)
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Sandydragon wrote:
In his universe of alternative facts, I expect him to announce that Mexico has indeed paid, although that fact will not be obvious to 99.9% of the human race.
Ive never claimed to like Hillary Clinton, but remind me again how this giant sized Oompa Loompa is in any way preferable?
We'd all be dead by now if Hillary was president.
She lost. That's democracy. Get over it. She was a warmonger who would've prolonged the Syrian war just as she destroyed Libya. At least with Trump everyone's getting angry, instead of congratulating themselves on the "first female president." Some of you need to take your own advice, put it behind you - and move on...
Remember, I didn't support Trump either, and his ideas about an embassy in Jerusalem, a wall to keep out Mexicans and pissing off the Chinese in their own back yard are both abhorrent and dangerous. But, as I said, at least everyone's getting angry now (after 8 years of gushing over their first African-American leader and his lovely wife and daughters)