Well, every cloud has a silver lining.
Should UK forces ever be involved in action with their US counterparts, they can protect themselves better from some trigger-happy Iowa farm boy in a jet if they join the group chat in advance.
A point I will be making on Xitter shortly when I will (inevitably) be fed some shill defending the indefensible again.
Either Starmer will grow some backbone, and refuse to engage in trade deal talks until Trump withdraws his bullying and damaging approach. Maybe some retaliation.
Or he'll carry on trying to play nice to get a deal. If he gives an inch to the orange buffoon he's just reinforcing that bullying works and sends totally the wrong message.
I guess this probably should be on the Starmer thread before this one gets derailed.
Trump just hit the world with a 25% tariff on all non US made cars. Yes, that includes us. No exemptions.
The economist on Newsnight just said that’s £5-6 bn of annual exports to US impacted. An awful lot of UK jobs will be affected. Grim.
Brexit benefit 💪
Go on then, explain what Trump's actions have to do with Brexit...
Well (and at the risk of derailing the thread), Trump's MO seems to be to identify weakness in an opponent and then use that and threats to get the best deal for him. Brexit showed the world how divided the UK was and successive leaders/'leaders' have demonstrated how utterly willing they are to debase themselves for any deal that can make up for the loss of the previous trade agreements the UK had with the EU.
Trump can, and will, exploit the living shit out of this to force a deal beneficial to the US on the UK. I honestly doubt that _any_ deal the UK does during a Trump presidency will have a benefit to the UK; it will be US only, or Trump and the US.
Because Brexit was sold as leaving a trading block to get better arrangements with countries outside it, especially the USA. Not going well that. If it wasn’t clear before why we’d be better off acting together as a block (Europe including the UK that is) it should be now.
My big fear here is that the UK government is now strong armed into a new trade deal with the USA that is detrimental to UK owned companies and we become subservient to USA companies, with a side helping of it being made more difficult to rebuild our position in our local markets.
Well (and at the risk of derailing the thread), Trump's MO seems to be to identify weakness in an opponent and then use that and threats to get the best deal for him.
I think you give him too much credit - I don't think he identifies weakness, he's just pushing buttons and hoping for the best.
so will we be putting 25% tariffs in Teslas? if not, why not?
For those that we import from the US, they're already doing a pretty good job with US tariffs. BHP (Aus) nickel, Ganfeng (China) lithium, Glencore (Africa, Aus, Canada, Norway) cobalt, CATL (China) batteries, LG and Panasonic (Japan) batteries
The US mixes Canada in as N.American production, so a chunk of the "US" 55% of a model X will be from Canada
There's a more comprehensive list here https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/who-are-teslas-tsla-main-suppliers.asp
It doesn't hurt in the circumstances to hold our tariffs back until needed so that we don't annoy our other allies
My big fear here is that the UK government is now strong armed into a new trade deal with the USA that is detrimental to UK owned companies and we become subservient to USA companies, with a side helping of it being made more difficult to rebuild our position in our local markets
That was always going to be the case. It was just a case of when, not if. The UK, alone in the world and desperate, was always going to getting bent over by all and sundry
Its obvious now to even the hardest of thinking that the trade deal we have with the EU is terrible. They basically said ‘take it or leave it, we don’t really care’ and Johnson signed. That’s understandable given the size and economic clout of the European, but even the Australians ran rings around morons like Frost to get a deal that’s hugely beneficial to themselves which shafts UK farmers.
Trump, as an experienced rapist himself, must be dying to go in dry on the UK. In the words of the Jesus in the Big Lebowski “are you ready to be ****ed, man?”
other allies
Interesting turn of phrase. There's a strong case to suggest that the US is rapidly losing ally status. So that could possibly just read 'allies'.
Not that the US has to give a toss about an isolated UK's opinion, obviously.
Starmer is hoping our Brexit 'freedom' will allow him and us to perform the role of a bridge between the US and EU. Two problems with that:
1. It is an unofficial 'role' and the UK was able to fulfil it absolutely fine when we were in the EU in any case - probably just as much about common first language etc.
2. Trump is an utter **** and views negotiations simply as a transactions between two parties. He sees post-Brexit Britain as an isolated victim to be bullied. He views the EU the same, just not as isolated and thus not as easily bullied. International relations are a series of duels to him, not a web of support and considerations.
To re-emphasise - he is a total ****ing ****.
The FT thinks Trump has a point here. The 25% tariff merely balancing the advantage EU carmakers get by exporting cars VAT free while US carmakers sell into the EU paying VAT.
https://www.ft.com/content/1de4d6b6-834e-48ef-bb56-049ab58b336c
TBH I thought they did sales tax on cars in in the USA depending on the state where you register it.
In December 2024, Trump settled a defamation case with ABC News after anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated that the jury found Trump liable for rape in the case. ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to Trump's presidential library and $1 million for his legal fees, as well as issue a public apology.
We’ll have to have a whip round for Binners at least enough to buy a book for Trumps library.
It's pretty clear that Trump uses tariff announcements as a negotiating tactic, and it seems to work.
He has done more than announce them. He’s added 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum products entering the USA.
"TBH I thought they did sales tax on cars in in the USA depending on the state where you register it.
"
In addition, All but 5 states also continue to charge tax on used cars. So effecttively every time a car is sold again, it generates tax. This is all state/county level sales tax though, not "federal" tax.
The FT thinks Trump has a point here. The 25% tariff merely balancing the advantage EU carmakers get by exporting cars VAT free while US carmakers sell into the EU paying VAT.
That FT article is behind a paywall but what's the logic behind their argument? Irrespective of locality of manufacture, all car sales to (non-business?) end users are charged VAT....
Do the US charge sales tax of vehicles they export out of US?? If so, that's something within their control...??
The 25% tariff merely balancing the advantage EU carmakers get by exporting cars VAT free while US carmakers sell into the EU paying VAT.
Surprised that's in the FT. Can't read the article today, but all carmakers selling in the EU face VAT being charged on their product... French, German, British... it's not something for USA carmakers only... it's not an import duty... it's not biased against USA production.
No idea what the AG really is all about but dignity and objectivity aren’t in the job description…
“What we should be talking about is, it was a very successful mission.”
Bondi also said: “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”
Thanks. Still makes no sense.
Which bit, why US car manufacturers are at a disadvantage? The paragraph below explains it
Take a $100 good for example. European producers can sell it domestically at about $120 after VAT but export it free of the tax at $100. US exporters to European markets must compete against domestic companies, paying VAT locally while also bearing embedded domestic US taxes. That might be one reason there are a lot more BMWs sold in the US than Cadillacs in Europe.
Still makes no sense. If EU countries stop charging VAT on cars, how does that remove any disadvantage for USA built cars? They still face the same taxes back home, and would still face the same levels of sales tax as EU built cars when selling in the EU. No advantage gained.
Bondi also said: “If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home. Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”
Can we talk about the boxes and boxes of classified documents in Trump's bathroom?
Which bit, why US car manufacturers are at a disadvantage? The paragraph below explains it
Take a $100 good for example. European producers can sell it domestically at about $120 after VAT but export it free of the tax at $100.
But the European producer doesn't get the $120? They get $100 and their government gets the $20 VAT. The producer gets the same whether they sell domestically or export, no?
Jaguar / Land Rover are big Exporters to the USA.
Have to admit, I'd forgotten about them. And Mini, another big exporter apparently.
Ford and GM both have manufacturing plants in Europe. If there's an advantage to doing this, then they can choose to export European made cars to the US but they (presumably) have done the math and figured out it doesn't make financial sense. So that FT piece sounds like bollocks...
But the European producer doesn't get the $120? They get $100 and their government gets the $20 VAT. The producer gets the same whether they sell domestically or export, no?
Yes the European producer gets the same but US manufacturers are at a disadvantage because they pay US and European taxes.
So that FT piece sounds like bollocks...
FT readers should perhaps cancel their FT subscriptions and register on STW instead, it might make more financial sense!!
FT readers should perhaps cancel their FT subscriptions and register on STW instead, it might make more financial sense!!
On that, we can all agree 👍 😉
US manufacturers are at a disadvantage because they pay US and European taxes.
So the US gov. is putting extra taxes on their own manufacturers and that's the fault of the Europeans 🤔
I'm going to agree with the "FT article is b*llocks" theory!
So the US gov. is putting extra taxes on their own manufacturers and that's the fault of the Europeans 🤔
Where does it say that it's the fault of Europeans? The article simply points out that US car manufacturers are at a disadvantage and offers a remedy.
I am not sure that describing it as "bollocks" is appropriate. Which bit is bollocks, the bit about US car manufacturers being at a disadvantage or the solution being suggested?
I found the last paragraph interesting :
Trump has identified a genuine imbalance in trade with Europe that has vexed US policymakers for decades. Although he may not hold a PhD in economics, his economic advisers like National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett and Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran do. Their advice will translate Trump’s instinct for fairness into practical trade policy.
Edit : I wonder how much effect the 25% tariff on car imports from the UK will have. My understanding from the BBC news is that the volume isn't huge but the total is about £9bn per year (I think) because they tend to be very high end luxury vehicles such as Jaguars, Aston Martins, Bentleys, and Rolls-Royce. I would imagine most American buyers of these vehicles are extremely wealthy and probably prepared to pay an extra 25%
For your inciteful political commentary, I recommend the Marsh Family from Faversham...
So the US gov. is putting extra taxes on their own manufacturers and that's the fault of the Europeans 🤔
Where does it say that it's the fault of Europeans? The article simply points out that US car manufacturers are at a disadvantage and offers a remedy.
I am not sure that describing it as "bollocks" is appropriate. Which bit is bollocks, the bit about US car manufacturers being at a disadvantage or the solution being suggested?
I found the last paragraph interesting :
Trump has identified a genuine imbalance in trade with Europe that has vexed US policymakers for decades. Although he may not hold a PhD in economics, his economic advisers like National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett and Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran do. Their advice will translate Trump’s instinct for fairness into practical trade policy.
Ok, I won't describe it as bollocks, I'll describe it as cloud ****ing cuckoo land pie in the sky bollox,
and as for this "Their advice will translate Trump’s instinct for fairness into practical trade policy."......
ha....ha....ha....ha.....ha.....I hope trump has a very debiilating stroke that leaves him dribbling and every member of his cabinet and sycophantic team suffer a slow painful death
Take a $100 good for example. European producers can sell it domestically at about $120 after VAT but export it free of the tax at $100. US exporters to European markets must compete against domestic companies, paying VAT locally while also bearing embedded domestic US taxes. That might be one reason there are a lot more BMWs sold in the US than Cadillacs in Europe.
Soooooo......because of US taxes it's not fair that US producers pay the same tax in Europe as european producers? That's the logic of a toddler who already ate his ice cream but is crying because his brothers now got one and he cant have another to make it "fair". Total shite.
and as for this "Their advice will translate Trump’s instinct for fairness into practical trade policy."......
I think you will find that the author of the article is a Trump supporter, there are quite a few of them in the United States, Trump did after all get more than 50% of the vote.
Personally I think that Trump is a narcissist psychopath but that isn't the issue being discussed here, it's the thinking behind the tariffs being slapped on car imports from Europe.
The commentary piece in the FT explains it, even if it is from the perspective of a Trump supporter. Which is presumably why the FT felt it was worth publishing.
Not every position that Trump takes is wrong, even if it might be taken for the wrong reasons. Personally I think Trump is absolutely right about rejigging the United States role in defending Europe. Why the **** should American taxpayers pay for the defence of European countries and in effect subsidize the public spending of European governments? There are up to a hundred thousand US troops in Europe wtf?!? These aren't poor European countries who can't afford to defend themselves.
You have got be trolling now Ernie.
Maybe that's it. You can decide.
Take a $100 good for example. European producers can sell it domestically at about $120 after VAT but export it free of the tax at $100. US exporters to European markets must compete against domestic companies, paying VAT locally while also bearing embedded domestic US taxes. That might be one reason there are a lot more BMWs sold in the US than Cadillacs in Europe.
Soooooo......because of US taxes it's not fair that US producers pay the same tax in Europe as european producers?
Point out in the bit which you quoted where there is any mention of "fairness". Personally I can't see it. Just an explanation of how US car manufacturers are disadvantaged with regards to US-European motor trade
For your inciteful political commentary, I recommend the Marsh Family from Faversham...
At least they know they'll be getting a prior warning via WhatsApp if Hegseth or Waltz are sending the boys around.
Knowing the US military they'd probably hit Hackney Marshes in any case.
Why the **** should American taxpayers pay for the defence of European countries and in effect subsidize the public spending of European governments?
That's a fair(ish) point. However, in the context of the Houthis and keeping the Suez canal open for business, Vance (IIRC) was complaining that Europe should be "paying" for this action. However, this conveniently overlooks the fact the the US propping up Israel is the root cause of a lot of the shit in the first place.
It also conveniently overlooks the Europe spends a LOT of money of US military matériel. And an awful lot of that money ends up in Republican states and, no doubt, Republican PACs.
Im hoping more countries pivot away from US arms - that'll learn them.
However, this conveniently overlooks the fact the the US propping up Israel is the root cause of a lot of the shit in the first place.
Maybe, but the Trump administration would argue that it isn't really their problem, ie according to them only 3% of US trade goes through Suez whilst 40% of European trade does, so Europeans can deal with the problem. Especially as France and Britain have significant military assets in the region. Plus they can argue, quite correctly, that most European countries, certainly France, Britain, and Germany, fully support the United States backing of Israel.
Btw, I am not sure if it has been mentioned on here but the targeting of the Houthis has seriously spilt Trump's Republican base. You don't get many more loyal Trump supporters than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene but this what she had say :
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1901811749482860851
So the pressure is on Trump to cease targeting the Houthis.
It also conveniently overlooks the Europe spends a LOT of money of US military matériel.
I don't know what the figures involved are but I have no doubt that European nations will still be spending a lot of money buying arms from the United States even if the US no longer subsidies European defence and pulls 80-100,000 troops out of Europe.
Almost half of the world's arms export market comes from the United States, European countries won't start buying their arms from Russia and China anytime soon.
I do agree that it is time for European nations to become more self-reliant though. Trump will be gone in less than four years time but this should be treated as a wake-up call to what can happen.
Btw, I am not sure if it has been mentioned on here but the targeting of the Houthis has seriously spilt Trump's Republican base. You don't get many more loyal Trump supporters than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene but this what she had say :
She also has this to say, along with every other lump of bile that emanates from her shite filled brain
https://youtube.com/shorts/LuLeipizBS0?si=AoMIwcpd75_9HwnF
Yes she is regarded as loyal far-right supporter of Trump. Which makes her criticism of Trump's decision to target the Houthis significant.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia congresswoman and one of MAGA’s most loyal footsoldiers, also posted an indirect message that seemed to suggest her disapproval of threatening war with Iran.
In a previous interview, Greene said Trump’s promise to end “never-ending foreign wars” was a major reason why she supported him.
Yes she is regarded as loyal far-right supporter of Trump. Which makes her criticism of Trump's decision to target the Houthis significant.
Only if anyone treats anything that MTG says with any sort of seriousness, which is about at the same level of seriousness that people treat the things that Mark François says, ie little to none.
Saw this on FB this morning from Charlie Kelly, yes THAT CK , kind of sums up the situation 🙄
Almost half of the world's arms export market comes from the United States, European countries won't start buying their arms from Russia and China anytime soon.
There is, however, South Korea/Taiwan and indeed Europe to provide those arms instead. The US doesnt "subsidise" EU spending but instead benefits heavily from it. Hence the bribes and political pressure to have EU countries buy US arms vs from local manufacturers.
EU countries might have a lower military spend per gdp but it gets rather complicated given how the US military spend includes a lot of state sponsorship/subsidy of key industries (plus states for that level just look how carefully the big firms have factories/suppliers in key states) and also a massive welfare program which in the EU doesnt get counted as military spend.
The US would find pulling those 100k troops out rather inconvenient since a fair proportion of those troops are used for US interests in the ME and Africa. The airforce bases such as Ramstein and Fairford are used for logistics,airstrikes and surveillence of ME/Africa.
The naval facilities in Greece and Italy are important for for US navy operations in ME and Africa as well. For example the US navy cant currently reload many of its missiles, both air defence and strike, at sea and so have to go to a port to reload. Not having European ports available would complicate that massively.
Maybe, but the Trump administration would argue that it isn't really their problem, ie according to them only 3% of US trade goes through Suez whilst 40% of European trade does, so Europeans can deal with the problem. Especially as France and Britain have significant military assets in the region. Plus they can argue, quite correctly, that most European countries, certainly France, Britain, and Germany, fully support the United States backing of Israel.
The last time Britain and France wanted to take back control of “our canal “ the yanks got all uppity about it.
Make your ****ing minds up.
Only if anyone treats anything that MTG says with any sort of seriousness, which is about at the same level of seriousness that people treat the things that Mark François says, ie little to none.
Well somebody elects the likes of François, Greene, Fabricant, Gullis and all the other ludicrous figures who, for whatever reason, are politically far right.
I feel you are giving the electorates concerned too much credit.
🙂
When the auto tarifs and unfairness were evoked above people forgot that the US already has a 25% pickup tax and US built vehicles tend to be pickups hence the protectionist tax.
I'm not sure how these tarifs are going to help US makers as I can't see them lasting long enough for the local factories to respond, would you invest on the basis of a whim tax ? The big US auto firm stocks are down on the news except Tesla which is flat (a pause in the recent decline perhaps). IMO it'll just shrink the US economy (and world economy a bit with it). As with any tax too much tax kills tax revenue so Trump's claim that he'll use the cash to pay down debt is unlikely to be met. There will just be fewer Mitsus and Hyundis sold.
The auto winners yesterday were the Chinese and small US companies, and the big losers Japanese and South Korean:
https://www.onvista.de/aktien/finder?idBranch=1
No idea how Tata/JLR came out of it as I can't see it on the list but other UK auto makers are down on the news except Nissan.
I sold 80% of my share portfolio last week (25/03/25), the high risk I see wasn't the only factor but the timing was entirely down to Trump. I don't need the cash today but will within the next year and it seemed a good day to jump off.
Play with fire and you risk getting burnt Mr trump.
There is, however, South Korea/Taiwan and indeed Europe to provide those arms instead. The US doesnt "subsidise" EU spending but instead benefits heavily from it. Hence the bribes and political pressure to have EU countries buy US arms vs from local manufacturers.
Sure, but have you got any figures? I have no idea how much worse off financially the United States would be if it were to disengage from its European defence commitments. The US would presumably still sell vast amounts of arms to European countries. I have no idea how much of the world's arms exports come from Taiwan but apparently 43% comes from the US, which is 7 times more than China.
Edukator makes a good point - if US businesses invest on the back of Trump’s whimsical tariffs then they could be very exposed if he changes his mind, or loses the (assumed) next election. You can't plan beyond 3-4 years.
Anyway, he's now come for the intellectuals...
BBC News - Trump targets 'anti-American ideology' at Smithsonian museums
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjy1jmvvwzo
Just had a good chuckle at the list of top 25 cars sold in the US in 2024. Blimey, there's going to be some seriously teed off motorists. It'll be interesting to see what it does to the second-hand market.
Carney: "The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over."
I can't see that it can be described as "over" whilst the United States remains a member of Five Eyes. As a minimum Canada needs to stop sharing intelligence with the US.
And not simply because Canada should now see the US as potentially a hostile power, which is presumably the sentiment behind Carney's comment, but also because only this week an unprecedented security breach proved that they can't be trusted with sensitive intelligence!
I have no idea how much worse off financially the United States would be if it were to disengage from its European defence commitments
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically. Again the US interest in Europe is heavily based around supporting its own interests and removing those bases would create significant issues and delays. Germany was essential during the "war against terror" for providing a logistical midpoint. They could work around it but it would be extremely hard.
The US would presumably still sell vast amounts of arms to European countries
Thats a big presumption. They do currently because it was effectively part of the alliance (plus a shitton of bribes). Now the USA are deciding it doesnt apply why shouldnt other countries go elsewhere.
Aside from anything else it doesnt make sense to buy from a state which is either directly potentially hostile or increasingly supportive of hostile states. In the latter case you risk them providing technical information about the weapons which will disadvantage you. See exocets and the French provision of technical information to the UK during the Falklands.
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically.
This is absolutely not something to be viewed in terms of finance/costs. It is about strategic security. Whether that's having actual US military support, access to supplies of kit and spares, or trusting them to keep Intelligence securely.
If Putin invaded Poland next, would Trump's America step under Article 5? I genuinely no longer think they would.
And there is your first mistake using "financially" rather than strategically.
Sorry how is it "my" mistake? The United States is currently evaluating the financial cost of its contribution to European defence, if that is a mistake it isn't my mistake it's theirs.
I have no idea if the strategic advantages make the financial costs worthwhile, that's for them to decide based on judgement. But whether they would be financially worse off is more dependent on figures, I don't know how the figures stack up.
Not that I care either......I more than happy to see the United States hegemony weakened! 🙃
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if King Charles unfortunate reaction to his chemo means the invite for Trump's state visit has to be withdrawn?
I'd much sooner we just told him we didn't want him, but there you go.
Wouldn't it be unfortunate if King Charles unfortunate reaction to his chemo means the invite for Trump's state visit has to be withdrawn?
I'd much sooner we just told him we didn't want him, but there you go.
An even better message would be to let him meet Prince Andrew instead 🤣
Although they'd actually probably have a great time reminiscing about their good pal Jeffrey and all the sex crimes they did together 😕
An even better message would be to let him meet Prince Andrew instead 🤣
you think they’re not old pals already?
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear, or perhaps his plane will fall from the sky.
I started writing a post about Vance’s trip to Greenland… and then realized just how angered by it I am… so I’m going to leave it to others and crack open a beer instead…
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear, or perhaps his plane will fall from the sky.
I’ve decided he has the type of face and demeanour that deserves to encounter a Ryan Reynolds “Drive” elevator scene
There’s still a chance that he gets mauled by a polar bear
What on earth have polar bears done to you which means one of them deserves such an unpleasant experience?
I can’t believe how disrespectful Vance’s dress code was for his Greenland address. Doesn’t he own a suit?!!
Send a message to trump at comments@whitehouse.gov outlining your displeasure at the orange muppet, I guess its fair to say after my message that I'll never be allowed to set foot in the U.S ever.
(not that I could in my condition anyway)
Just watched your attack dog, I believe his name is Vance give his speech in Greenland........Jesus ****ing christ.....you lot are ****ing idiots for voting and allowing this shitshow
Sociapath goth grifter. Disgusting.
Yes it's absolutely disgusting how USA are positioning to invade and take Greenland.
And I'm sure the MAGA are believing the reasons given - to protect from China and Russia.
China don't invade foreign countries - they just strategically acquire them. And USA are practically best buddies with Russia now so that's just as absurd.
Maybe Greenland/Denmark sign some mutual economic agreement with Canada instead.
Nothing to do with threats from China and Russia, trump just wants to rip the natural resources from the place... Mineral and oil removed link
Trump pardon for Nikoli
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/28/politics/trump-pardon-trevor-milton-nikola/index.html
The pardon, which will spare Milton from serving time in prison, would also allow him to avoid court-ordered payments to compensate shareholders.
In his remarks Friday, Trump suggested Milton’s case was unfairly moved to New York from Utah. And he alleged — without evidence — that he was targeted for being a Trump supporter.
“They say the thing that he did wrong was he was one of the first people that supported a gentleman named Donald Trump for president. He supported Trump. He liked Trump. I didn’t know him, but he liked him,” he said during an otherwise unrelated event.
“There are many people like that,” he added later. “They support Trump, and they went after him.”
Hmm not that he was playing a little lose with the truth
On September 10, 2020, short seller firm Hindenburg Research released a report[33] accusing Nikola of being "an intricate fraud" perpetrated largely by Milton. Further verification by Financial Times and Research Enquirer[34] confirmed the report's claim regarding a showcased Nikola One rolling down a gradual slope with no onboard propulsion and instead by using the force of gravity.[35] The stock fell by 10% that day while the stock of GM, which had made an agreement with Nikola days earlier, fell by 4%. By September 12, Nikola stock had fallen by 36%.[36][37]
(Wikipedia)
Latest Gallup polls appear quite depressing; as of 27th March Trump still had 45% approval rating in US slightly more than the 42% he had at same point first time around. However, they show some reassuring signs elsewhere with a 59% disapproval rating of how he is managing the economy and 58% disapproval of his relations with Russia. Plus 55% disapproval of his approach to foreign affairs and Ukraine situation.
Every time the Greenland issue pops up I am reminded of the technate of america movement and their map, and one of their former members who was chased out of Canada and settled in southafrica
I think about that whenever the Canada issue pops up as well. Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
Latest Gallup polls appear quite depressing; as of 27th March Trump still had 45% approval rating in US slightly more than the 42% he had at same point first time around. However, they show some reassuring signs elsewhere with a 59% disapproval rating of how he is managing the economy and 58% disapproval of his relations with Russia. Plus 55% disapproval of his approach to foreign affairs and Ukraine situation.
The problem is that the Democrats haven't got a figurehead to unite behind to offer an alternative
Hmm not that he was playing a little lose with the truth
That article misses out one rather important detail.
He and his wife donated 1.8 million dollars to the Trump campaign in November.
Dodges prison and avoids having to pay back a far larger sum. Its amazing how cheap Trump is to buy. Perhaps Greenland should take that approach?
The problem is that the Democrats haven't got a figurehead to unite behind to offer an alternative
Look what uniting behind a figurehead gets you.
Anyway, combining this thread and a comment on the "disproportionately cross" thread about estate agents photos on sale boards, we passed this board today which appeared to feature JD Vance. If they can't get Greenland, they are coming for Sutton Bonnington!
I think about that whenever the Canada issue pops up as well. Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
Surely Greenland, Denmark and Canada can come to some agreement.
Was Trump spouting all this stuff about taking over Greenland and Canada before Musk got onboard? I don't recall that he did.
He definitely talked about buying Greenland during his 1st term in office which was branded as 'absurd' by the Danish prime minister, leading to Trump cancelling a state visit to Denmark. This time he seems to be planning on just taking over Greenland one way or another