So I know we're not supposed to talk politics - Presidential Election - Poll

It will all blow over and things will go back to normal, it always happens.

Thats the point . Masttubation at its finest. Still, in other countries you go to jail for getting excited en mass.

I see the women's marches both here in the U.K. and in the states and just wonder who is making all the sandwiches?

There are going to be some messy kitchens this weekend.

 

Just when I thought I couldn't get any harder

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inauguration-d...rosecutors-say/

The protests are fantastic...

I hope they never stop....

 

I also have it on good authority, they may have inspired our friend Abe Froman to write a song....

Geez! I understand rational concerns from all sides.. but this is just becoming a circus. As you said Kinnsella these washed up brainless celebs are not helping the cause. They should be grateful they made the $ they did and fade into the shadows

 

 

 

 

They probably just want to be relevant.

 

 

Just when I thought I couldn't get any harder

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inauguration-d...rosecutors-say/

 

 

If you want to run around and destroy property and generally act like an ass, enjoy the job hunt with that FELONY on your record.

I agree. She is a terrible pick. After hearing her at the senate confirmation hearing im 100% convinced she's the wrong person for the job.

 

Why is the phrase "and swearing in ceremony for" crossed out? I can understand the last word, but why the others?

Why is the phrase "and swearing in ceremony for" crossed out? I can understand the last word, but why the others?

 

 

Just guessing, but I think it's because it's redundant. The inguration and swearing-in ceremony are the same thing. Just a guess...

The protests are fantastic...

I hope they never stop....

 

I also have it on good authority, they may have inspired our friend Abe Froman to write a song....

 

Maybe the forum could write one too. Here I'll start it:

 

Donald Trump was elected president

An election result that drove liberals insane

So a bunch of women threw a protest, so that they could cry and complain

Too long, did not read... j/k

Yeah sorry about that it's just that communicating in this way in a meaningful manner requires a bit more detailing than a casual conversation and considering the way above average level of the audience and discussion I feel compelled to step up, small talk is not something I enjoy engaging in. I learned a lot on here over the years, and I'm just trying to return the favor for those interested. I'll try to be more concise and to the point, though.

 

The problem with demanding the European nations step up their defense spending is a few-fold IMO:

1) Most do not have the money to do so without making significant social welfare state cuts, which will not be politically viable

2) Without leadership on the part of the U.S., you end up with a bunch of smaller countries all trying to defend the continent, which means that nothing may get done, or get done quickly enough. Someone has to assume command (Germany?)

3) It isn't enough for the EU nations to step up their individual defense spending; rather, they need to do it as a group, so as to have the same economies of scale that the United States has when it comes to purchasing vehicles, equipment, spare parts, etc...if it's instead a bunch of smaller individual militaries, those economies of scale are going to lack

4) Prior attempts to set up European rapid-reaction forces have not worked from what I understand

5) Russia is IMO far less likely to try invading any part of Europe if there is a U.S. presence. If they invade and they're at war with the European nations, their attitude may be, "Big Deal," but if they invade and have to kill U.S. soldiers in the process, it's a wholly different ballgame. The Soviet Union used to push for the U.S. to withdraw from Western Europe for this reason. The U.S. presence also is what helped check any possibility of a Soviet invasion. The same is true for the U.S. presence in South Korea.

6) If the Europeans are responsible for defending their own continent from Russia and war happens, it will probably cause a repeat of what happened in World Wars I and II where the U.S. got pulled in anyhow.

 

AHA!! So that is the real reason you defend Greece so much, you are Greek! (j/k)

 

Also didn't know that Opel and Vauxhall are GM brands.

 

1. Of course they do. It's not that big of a deal, idk the average but I'm guessing they now spend an average of 1.5-1.7 % of GDP. Nato agreements require a minimum of 2%, the US spends 3.8% or so, it can be done without too much pain. But why do it when the US offers to foot the bill?

 

2&3. EU army on the cards, Brits have always been against it and even after their Brexit vote they still threatened to veto it. As far as this issue is concerned good riddance UK! They're a nuisance. Talks on this issue have been restarted and will proceed once the UK goes. I support this and think it is a great idea, it will also make it easier for the US to pressure EU countries to step up spending on military which I also support. An EU military with a central command will make it a lot easier to defend borders, which is a point that has been insisted on by many countries. The burden won't fall only on Greece, Italy and other border countries, which is fair.

 

4. Wasn't done properly, was severely limited, and had a different purpose than proper military integration, the ongoing discussions start from a different premise, it will be done right this time around. After economic integration, military is the next logical step.

 

5&6. We've got nukes too. Russia is unable to sustain a large scale conflict for too long, please understand Russia is not as powerful as it seems, or as it wants others to think, lots of smoke and mirrors amplify the perception, but objectively it's not the case. They also depend heavily on oil&gas exports to the EU, and also depend on food imports they can't afford to kill the golden goose, gas prices are now quite low compared to past years to keep Euro countries from investing in shale gas production. Poland&Romania have enough shale gas reserves to sustain EU consumption for at least 100 years, just not viable at current prices but if SHTF the situation can be addressed. The US is also gearing up for gas exports, why buy from them and empower a rival and potential enemy when we can buy from you, who are our cousins, friends and allies? They know this too.

 

I'm not trying to defend Greece, if it sounded like that, it wasn't my intention, just trying to show you all sides of the argument.

 

 

The whole "Benzes in NYC, no Chevys in Berlin" is silly and shortsighted, and Trump can't be saying things like that and expect to be taken seriously.

 

People buy what they want to buy, period. Outside of some DOT regs excluding certain cars (usually very high end) from some countries, companies will sell cars wherever they can.

I've heard Volvo and Saab dominate the Swedish roadways more so than the typical German and other Euro offerings.

BTW, Supercar Ace....here's an Opel on American shores:

 

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

 

GM sold Saab, and Volvo belonged to Ford which it also sold. They now belong to Chinese companies, Volvo is going through a renaissance of sorts these days, Saab not so much but I understand they will be repositioned as an exclusively electric vehicle manufacturer to rival Tesla.

 

Chevrolet sold cars in Europe, up until 2013, but they were in fact rebadged Daewoos (which is a south Korean manufacturer that is owned by GM). They were absolute rubbish, (just search for Chevrolet Nubira or Spark and you will see what I mean) which is why they withdrew from Europe. They are still sold in Russia though. American Chevrolets that are officially sold in Europe are the Camaro and Corvette, and they sell quite well, but the SUVs and trucks are simply not good enough to perform in this market, and are only available as grey imports with little to no dealer support. Cadillac is a boutique brand, and imo their products are good enough to compete but they are not adapted to EU markets. No diesel engines, very small dealer network, and GM seems generally uninterested in promoting Cadillac over here, which is a shame imo. They seem to be content with their boutique brand status and eccentric customer base.

 

Fiat-Chrysler sells the Jeep Grand Cherokee and it's a bit hit, dealers can't keep them on the lots. Great value for money, diesel engine, big dealer network because they are serviced by Fiat dealers and I understand more cars are to be developed and sold under FCA brands. If they build good cars they will sell them, there is no bias against American cars, just competition.

Ameer, thanks for the update on the American car scene in Europe.

Why is the phrase "and swearing in ceremony for" crossed out? I can understand the last word, but why the others?

 

Redundant like this nominee.

https://www.facebook.com/zondagmetlubach/vi...55295904562149/

Netherlands 2nd?

Redundant like this nominee.

 

The redundancy complaint seems like nitpicking to me, but I can understand on the grammar I suppose.

I cant understand abortion law. It is very backwards.

Looks like the xl pipeline is on again. Native americans prepare to get the shaft!!

https://www.facebook.com/zondagmetlubach/vi...55295904562149/

Netherlands 2nd?

 

 

That's was hilarious.

Looks like the xl pipeline is on again. Native americans prepare to get the shaft!!

2,500,000 miles of gas pipelines in the US but this one's going to give them the shaft ?

 

2,500,000 miles of gas pipelines in the US but this one's going to give them the shaft ?

 

I never got that. Pure pandering.

2,500,000 miles of gas pipelines in the US but this one's going to give them the shaft ?

 

 

I dont think the pipeline itself is going to give them the shaft. More so that they were given land to live on and now its being taken away again when big oil wants to build a pipeline.

I dont think the pipeline itself is going to give them the shaft. More so that they were given land to live on and now its being taken away again when big oil wants to build a pipeline.

Are you under the impression that "big oil" can just build pipelines through tribal land without the approval of the native elders that end up cutting deals with the companies and get paid to have their property leased? Or that most the time just like with the standing rock pipeline, they make deals with private landowners and circle around the native lands to intentionally avoid building on tribal land?

I dont think the pipeline itself is going to give them the shaft. More so that they were given land to live on and now its being taken away again when big oil wants to build a pipeline.

 

Its nowhere near them.

I guess I'm wrong then. Build away.

I cant understand abortion law. It is very backwards.

 

Pro-life conservatives who do not want their tax dollars going to fund overseas abortions.