Trump's Second Term

steenkh said:
Isn’t the problem also that Republicans fear for their seats if they go against Trump, but the Tories would lose their seats if they didn’t oust Truss?
Click to expand...
I just read an article in my local newspaper Politiken where a republican senator anonymously said that he feared for his life and the safety of his family if he said anything that went against Trump.
 
arthwollipot said:
I didn't think it was exclusively Australian. If something is "on the nose" it means that it stinks. In context, psionl0 is saying that the voting public felt that a particular PM has been around too long and has started to go off.

Which was not the case with Julia Gillard, in my opinion, but Abbott had certainly made himself pretty unpopular.
Click to expand...
It must be an Australian thing. I have only ever heard it used as meaning something exactly right, often an exact amount of money or time:
"Her description of the event was on the nose."
 
EU has imposed counter tariffs on the USA as tariffs on the EU start today.

In response Lutnick says the tariffs are worth it even if they lead to a recession.

"These policies are the most important thing America has ever had, the only reason there could possibly be a recession is because the Biden nonsense that we had to live with.
These policies produce revenues. They produce growth. They produce factories being built here."
 
Andy_Ross said:
It must be an Australian thing. I have only ever heard it used as meaning something exactly right, often an exact amount of money or time:
"Her description of the event was on the nose."
Click to expand...

That's the meaning I know, though interestingly I've mostly heard it used as part of a phrase suggesting something (usually of an artistic nature) is too obvious and unsubtle: "It's a little too on the nose".
 
psionl0 said:
You make it appear as if one slight misstep and the PM's gone.[snipped]
Click to expand...

If so then that wasn't my intention, and I'm not arguing that the Parliamentary system is a bad thing, just trying to look at both sides of the issue.

I'm not familiar with the Australian political environment but here in the UK the Conservative Party, which spends the majority of the time in power has lost two PMs to elections, one to resignation (due to Brexit) and three to being ousted by their own Parliamentary Party since 1990. Labour have , so far, not shown the same fratricidal tendencies so far. Yes, the ability of MPs to change leader got rid of Johnson & Truss, but it's also what brought them into power (Johnson won an election as incumbent and might well have been able to get himself elected into office, Truss, meh, less likely), and Theresa May who most people, including people like me who don't support the Tories, thought would be competent and 'a safe pair of hands' was a disaster which is generally put down to having to appease the right of the Party which was organising to remove her from day one.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Reporter: “Have you ever paid a tariff? They get charged on the importers.”

Leavitt: “It’s Insulting you are testing my knowledge of economics, and the decisions of the president. I regret giving a question to the Associated Press."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899519033365373435
Click to expand...

See my previous post on the subject of legitimate media reporters attending these clown sessions.
 
arthwollipot said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...
Julia Gillard might have been an exception (she was railroaded by Kevin Rudd) but surely you are not arguing that the others could still have won an election?

arthwollipot said:
In context, psionl0 is saying that the voting public felt that a particular PM has been around too long and has started to go off.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not! It means that the PM has made himself unpopular with the voters and is unlikely to win the next election.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Greenland votes overwhelmingly for a party that campaigned on remaining with Denmark. They're talking about a 'reverse Drumpf effect'.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, Demokraatit does favour independence from Denmark, but they prefer a more cautious pace rather than leaving virtually overnight. All parties were pretty much in agreement trump's talk of buying or taking Greenland by force was completely out of the question.
 
I guess at least someone is in the gov't office to send me my SS check. Until Musk converts it into Trump Coin
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Tuesday to
avert a partial government shutdown and fund federal agencies through September, providing critical momentum as the measure now moves to the Senate, where bipartisan support will be needed to get it over the finish line.

Republicans needed overwhelming support from their members to pass the funding measure, and they got it in the 217-213 House vote. Just one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the measure. And just one Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, voted for it.
Click to expand...
AP News
 
Andy_Ross said:
So the Commerce Secretary, like Trump thinks tariffs produce revenues?
Click to expand...

But don’t they? For example, if a 10% tariff is placed on Chinese imports, don’t those funds go into the U.S. treasury as revenue?

Absolutely NOT saying they’re a good idea, though they may be if targeted surgically. Nor that they don’t have offsetting negative effects, some major, since those funds are paid directly into the treasury by the importer, and most likely passed on to the consumer as an indirect tax on imported goods. But technically they are revenue, right?
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
But don’t they? For example, if a 10% tariff is placed on Chinese imports, don’t those funds go into the U.S. treasury as revenue?

Absolutely NOT saying they’re a good idea, though they may be if targeted surgically. Nor that they don’t have offsetting negative effects, some major, since those funds are paid directly into the treasury by the importer, and most likely passed on to the consumer as an indirect tax on imported goods. But technically they are revenue, right?
Click to expand...
Some math here. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-revenue-will-trumps-tariffs-raise
But all of it will be paid in some manner by the consumers. You don't buy steel, but the American washer you buy will cost more. Billionaiers do not buy things that have tariffs. They buy old things: buildings, golf courses. By the time the billionaires suffer, Trump II will be over.
 
Lutnick: "The best way to actually merge the economies of Canada and the United States is for Canada to become our 51st state ... Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom