A brits view on Trump

[HaggisShuu]

The media coverage on Trump is hardly favourable in Europe. While I think his anti-woke efforts are commendable. I'm not able to wrap my head around what's going on. 
 

The tariffs, attempts of slashing of foreign aid, the bluster over annexing the Panama canal, Greenland, Gaza and Canada, the generally unpopular view of how he is attempting to force a peace in Ukraine and the unanswered question of how he plans to handle Taiwan and distancing himself from NATO, in my view, leads to a diplomatically isolated USA, and a shattered American hegemony. America is really the only global rival to China, and it feels like Trump is handing China the win. I'm no economist, but his tariffs are leading to retaliation tariffs, meaning importing and exporting will become less feasible over time and history shows autarky's rarely work out for the best. 
 

What's the angle here? Do you believe this is best for your economy? Is this what you voted for? 
 

I don't have a hate for Trump, I don't froth at the mouth when I hear his name, I just don't understand his game plan here. 

Edited March 6 by HaggisShuu

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

The media coverage on Trump is hardly favourable in Europe. While I think his anti-woke efforts are commendable. I'm not able to wrap my head around what's going on. 

Trump actually thinks several steps ahead.  Just take a look at what happened with Zelensky.  He could have easily stopped the meeting and gone behind closed doors.  Instead, he let it run out.  Zelensky stormed out.

And then Trump did something that has not been made public which caused Zelensky to come back to the table.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

The tariffs

This really should be a no brainer.  They're reciprocal tarriffs.  We just want fair trade.  If you charge us, we charge you the same percentage.  That's the policy.  Why is this controversial?  It seems like common sense.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

attempts of slashing of foreign aid

It's a given that things are in flux currently.  Eventually, I think you'll be surprised at how little foreign aid is actually cut when all is said and done.  He's mainly focused on the aid that doesn't make any sense, and is more-than-likely being used for liberal programs and funnel money back to Democrat campaign and political agendas.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

the bluster over annexing the Panama canal

The canal is a strategic facility that was supposed to facilitate our naval and shipping activity throughout the world.  But Panama decided to give priority and much control over to China.  This was a violation of the treaty which was attached to their stewardship of the canal.  It preventd us from doing what we built it to do.

Most Americans (who were paying attention) were absolutely livid when Pres Carter just "sold" it for $1.

But because of the violation of the treaty, we have a leg to stand on when we say we're taking it back.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Greenland

It is rich in resources, oil being one of them.  The location is a key strategic location for arctic travel/shipping/warfare.  There are a lot of reasons we would want it.  But he's not going to "conquer" it.  He wants to win them over.  And there is a political path for Greenlanders to elect to cut ties with Denmark and become a US Territory, which is what the leaders of Greenland have said they want.  But the people are still discussing.

FYI: a Territory has a lower status than a State.  But they get two advantages: US military protection (and commerce) & No federal income tax on residents of a territory.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Gaza

If you're pro-Gaza, I've got nothing that I can tell you that you'll accept.  The lines are drawn.  No one moves.

As far as Trump, two things: 1) He's pro-Israel.  2) We still have several US citizens who are hostages in Gaza.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Canada

I have no idea.  I can see the strategic value of having all that area under our control.  But I just don't think it is worth it.  But it may be something beyond what the lay-person considers.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

force a peace in Ukraine

I know most Europeans don't quite get this.  But Trump really hates the idea of sending troops into battle.  That's why he's been so reticent to use more graphic language when speaking with Hamas, Zelensky, Putin, Ping, or Kim.

For all the financial and military aid we've given to Ukraine, we aren't getting anything out of it.  Why are we doing this?  Many in the west think that Ukraine is our ally.  And, I guess, kinda-sorta...  But the fact is that they have laundered money to the Democrats for the past four years in return for that aid.  They've also sold half of our missiles and other military equipment to drug cartels and terrorists who are now working against the US.

It's this whole cycle that Trump is looking at, not just one piece.

No, he didn't like Putin starting that war.  But he absolutely disapproves of how things are going right now.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

and the unanswered question of how he plans to handle Taiwan and distancing himself from NATO, in my view, leads to a diplomatically isolated USA, and a shattered American hegemony.

This is an interesting take from you.  Many Americans tend to believe that the rest of NATO hates Americans meddling in everything and "forcing" them to go to war when it has nothing to do with them.  

If our impression is true, then please make up your mind.

Trump's policy has always been "Americans should be America First.  British should be British First. French should be French first."  That is not isolationist.  It's just common sense.  Nothing about that says that we can't be part of an alliance.  But NATO has been sucking America dry without keeping up their part of the military burden. 

So, yeah, you get to be under our protection.  What do we get out of the deal?  Why would we necessarily want to be the Hegemon?  Why would you want us to be the Hegemon?

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

America is really the only global rival to China, and it feels like Trump is handing China the win. I'm no economist, but his tariffs are leading to retaliation tariffs, meaning importing and exporting will become less feasible over time and history shows autarky's rarely work out for the best. 

Again, the reciprocal tarriffs are just to make things even.  

And China needs us a whole lot more than we need them.  It may take some growing pains to bring more manufacturing to the US.  But as we settle in, our economy could double what it is now.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

What's the angle here? Do you believe this is best for your economy? Is this what you voted for? 

Like all things: Some of it, yes.  Some of it, no.  Overall, I approve.  And his HIGH approval ratings are at 44%.  Overall approval ratings at 69%.

The economy will see a dip this year because of growing pains.  But if he can continue his agenda, the economy will be like nothing I've seen since Clinton or Reagan -- and probably better.

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

I don't have a hate for Trump, I don't froth at the mouth when I hear his name, I just don't understand his game plan here. 

Well, I've explained it.  But I have a feeling that your European, socialist mindset is probably going to blind you with how market forces really work.  Not an insult.  I just find that Europeans simply think in socialist terms rather than capitalist terms.  And whether you like it or not, human beings will always gravitate toward capitalist principles when it comes to individual choices (like what I buy at the store).

Edited March 6 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But I have a feeling that your European, socialist mindset is probably going to blind you with how market forces really work.

That was uncalled for. We know nothing about his politics.  Wait until he tells us his view on economics before you assume he’s a socialist. For all you know he could be a devotee of Margaret Thatcher. 

Edited March 6 by LDSGator

[zil2]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

I'm not able to wrap my head around what's going on. 

Let me sum it up for you:

TL;DR: US government is beyond corrupt, deep into secret combination land. US money is going everywhere but to help America.  Real Americans are sick of it.

Rant most people will think is insane:

Americans pay way too much in taxes and get nothing back from our federal government because all our money is being sent overseas - most of that is not being used for the claimed purpose, but rather is being laundered into the pockets of the people who "oversee" the programs.  Some of it is being used to start and continue wars that didn't need to happen - again, so that folks can make lots and lots of money off it - partly by Zelenskyy (a coked-up puppet, illegally installed by the US government) selling arms to drug cartels and terrorists rather than actually arming his soldiers so they can fight.  As long as the war continues, Zelenskyy and others make lots of money.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Americans are living in tents because the federal emergency management folk won't do a thing - like fix roads - and the Amish have to come in to build and furnish small houses (for free!) because our government bureaucrats and politicians are busy lining their pockets and having sex chats on government servers (NSA). (For the record, those Amish are headed straight for heaven when they die.  Trump sent the Army Corps of Engineers and roads are finally getting fixed.)

Meanwhile, criminals and crazy people are pouring over our southern border and destroying our country with horrific crimes and by taking government money for nothing (more than any citizen could get), and buying houses subsidized by government and corrupt realtors / builders (who are intentionally selling to illegals and keeping citizens out) - this one right here in good old Utah - which is soon to be the headquarters of Secret Combination, Inc., if it's not already.

(Trump brilliantly declared cartels terrorist organizations so he could send the army to help secure the border.)

Are you getting the idea?  Americans are sick of it.  We elected Trump (and yes, Musk, too) to clean it up - or at least put a temporary stop to it - or maybe just expose the deep state to some light.  Whether they can is a whole other question - unless congress pass and revoke laws to help make it permanent, it'll last only as long as they do and will be limited by the power of the executive and the corruption of judges (hmm, Book of Mormon, anyone?).

(And to those waiting in the wings to call me nuts - you're watching the wrong news.)

[Phoenix_person]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(And to those waiting in the wings to call me nuts - you're watching the wrong news.)

Not nuts, but missing a huge piece of the federal spending picture. And it's one that I haven't really seen addressed in DOGE's cuts. On the contrary, I think Elon is about to become America's biggest welfare recipient. He'd have to, because his shareholders at Tesla are going to revolt if things keep going the way they are for them. 📉📉📉

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0#:~:text=This study tallies corporate welfare,year on aid to businesses.&text=The federal government runs a,taxpayers and undermine economic growth.

A lot of the stuff I'm organizing around at the state level in Minnesota centers on getting corporations off the government teet so that ordinary people who need government assistance can have access to better support resources. 

[zil2]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Not nuts, but missing a huge piece of the federal spending picture. And it's one that I haven't really seen addressed in DOGE's cuts. On the contrary, I think Elon is about to become America's biggest welfare recipient. He'd have to, because his shareholders at Tesla are going to revolt if things keep going the way they are for them. 📉📉📉

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0#:~:text=This study tallies corporate welfare,year on aid to businesses.&text=The federal government runs a,taxpayers and undermine economic growth.

A lot of the stuff I'm organizing around at the state level in Minnesota centers on getting corporations off the government teet so that ordinary people who need government assistance can have access to better support resources. 

I despise websites (such as the one you linked) that won't show me squat unless I give their javascripts access to my computer.  This one is claiming my computer "may have malware" - because I won't let their scripts run - they think this means I'm not a human.  Idiots.  The reason I don't have malware is because I decline to let unknown sites run scripts in my browser.  Sorry, @Phoenix_person, you'll have to summarize or something.

[Phoenix_person]

32 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I despise websites (such as the one you linked) that won't show me squat unless I give their javascripts access to my computer.  This one is claiming my computer "may have malware" - because I won't let their scripts run - they think this means I'm not a human.  Idiots.  The reason I don't have malware is because I decline to let unknown sites run scripts in my browser.  Sorry, @Phoenix_person, you'll have to summarize or something.

FWIW, CATO could most accurately be described as Libertarian, though I find that their economic analysis tends to be overall very balanced and well thought-out. Generally speaking, the conservative playbook is to cut spending programs that benefit the poor to enable tax cuts for the wealthy, the leftist playbook is to do the exact opposite, the liberal playbook is to try to subsidize both classes, and the libertarian playbook is to subsidize neither and eliminate taxes altogether.

[Ironhold]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

The media coverage on Trump is hardly favourable in Europe. While I think his anti-woke efforts are commendable. I'm not able to wrap my head around what's going on. 
 

The tariffs, attempts of slashing of foreign aid, the bluster over annexing the Panama canal, Greenland, Gaza and Canada, the generally unpopular view of how he is attempting to force a peace in Ukraine and the unanswered question of how he plans to handle Taiwan and distancing himself from NATO, in my view, leads to a diplomatically isolated USA, and a shattered American hegemony. America is really the only global rival to China, and it feels like Trump is handing China the win. I'm no economist, but his tariffs are leading to retaliation tariffs, meaning importing and exporting will become less feasible over time and history shows autarky's rarely work out for the best. 
 

What's the angle here? Do you believe this is best for your economy? Is this what you voted for? 
 

I don't have a hate for Trump, I don't froth at the mouth when I hear his name, I just don't understand his game plan here. 

Here in the United States, it's become a bone of contention how most NATO member nations have not kept their charter agreement to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. At least as far back as the 1990s, when it was revealed that the US was doing something like 50% of the air strikes in Bosnia, folks started asking if Europe was taking advantage of us militarily. You'll even hear some people try to argue that the "free" health care so many European nations have in place is somehow at America's expense because these nations have not been spending what they ought to. Thus, there are indeed folks who are cheering at the fact that the NATO members are now finally having to step up like they should have been in the past. 

For Canada, I've spoken with actual Canadians and a lot of them want Trudeau gone for various reasons. They don't want any sort of economic war between the two nations, but most of them have felt that the initial pain would be worth seeing Trudeau and his crew depart hence. 

Ukraine is a financial sinkhole, the result of Biden dithering on whether or not to provide the level of aid they needed when it would have been the most beneficial for them to receive it and so only sending in material at a time when it's the least effective and there's the least level of accountability for where the money and resources are actually going. This is on top of various controversies, allegations, and conspiracies regarding whether or not Biden's son Hunter was getting paid off by various business entities in the country and whether or not Biden himself took money from the deal and/or used his influence to force Ukraine to halt an investigation. Couple this with Zelensky actually cancelling the scheduled national elections because of the war, and a lot of folks here in the US don't want a single American boot on the ground until such time as either Zelensky resigns or we have a full accounting of what our money is actually doing over there. 

I think Trump's Gaza proposal was a bit of game theory, as if you'll recall within about 72 hours of his making his proposal Egypt emerged with one of theirs. 

Even back in 1987 famed businessman Lee Iacocca was arguing that the United States had unsustainable trade deficits and an unsustainable level of federal spending. Trump's actions with DOGE and encouraging US companies to return to domestic production appear to be him finally responding to those concerns nearly 40 years later, even if his efforts are alarmingly clumsy in this regards. 

China has been trying to take control of the Panama Canal through various proxies, and so Trump's efforts in that regards are actually him countering them. 

For Greenland, the United States has actually had military bases on the island for some time now, meaning a person could try to argue we're doing more to secure it than Denmark.  

[Carborendum]

48 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0#:~:text=This study tallies corporate welfare,year on aid to businesses.&text=The federal government runs a,taxpayers and undermine economic growth.

A lot of the stuff I'm organizing around at the state level in Minnesota centers on getting corporations off the government teet so that ordinary people who need government assistance can have access to better support resources. 

Wow.  We agree.  Coolness.  Let's have a bud.

[HaggisShuu]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

And there is a political path for Greenlanders to elect to cut ties with Denmark and become a US Territory, which is what the leaders of Greenland have said they want.  But the people are still discussing.

I don't know if I agree to this being true. News coverage seems pretty comprehensive that leadership just want independence, not becoming a US territory. 

 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Trump's policy has always been "Americans should be America First.  British should be British First. French should be French first."  That is not isolationist.  It's just common sense.  Nothing about that says that we can't be part of an alliance.  But NATO has been sucking America dry without keeping up their part of the military burden. 

I don't disagree. Other NATO members should put more into military spending. For example British military currently has more admirals than warships, and more horses than tanks. Which I think is a disgrace. But the solution should not be to jeopardise the alliance. I'm not trying to suggest America is seeking isolation, like pre-great depression. I'm suggesting the overwhelming bad optics will lead to more distance. There has to be a more productive path forward. 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The canal is a strategic facility that was supposed to facilitate our naval and shipping activity throughout the world.  But Panama decided to give priority and much control over to China.  This was a violation of the treaty which was attached to their stewardship of the canal.  It preventd us from doing what we built it to do.

Most Americans (who were paying attention) were absolutely livid when Pres Carter just "sold" it for $1.

But because of the violation of the treaty, we have a leg to stand on when we say we're taking it back.

By this logic England should invade Egypt to reclaim the Suez canal, but when we tried that, there was no global backing, and I assume the same will be the case for any American attempts to reclaim the panama canal. The English golden age is long gone. The UK is simply not a world power these days, that privilege belongs to America and China. China's global soft power is magnificent and Xi Jinpin is an absolute genius. China basically owns Australia water supply, all of European shipping, huge swathes of manufacturing and construction, resource rights all over Africa. I honestly think China will be just fine with America out of the way, and I think Trump is allowing it. If I'm had to pick, I'd rather be an American puppet than a chinese one. 

 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you're pro-Gaza, I've got nothing that I can tell you that you'll accept.  The lines are drawn.  No one moves.

As far as Trump, two things: 1) He's pro-Israel.  2) We still have several US citizens who are hostages in  

I have unique position on Israel Gaza. I think this is a self made issue by Israel by forcing its entire Muslim population into 3 ungoverned zones, in a geopolitical area that hates your existence. It's just asking for foreign state sponsored terrorist organisation to rise up. That said, Hamas, Hezbollah and all the rest are pure evil, and Israel was well within its rights to retaliate to rescue the hostages and now Hamas is being unnecessarily stubborn by refusing to hand them back over. But here is what will happen, some day Hamas will be forced  into a position where it can no longer retain the hostages. Israel will withdraw, and neglect its Islamic ghettos, a new terror group will pick up steam, more attacks will happen. I fully support the Israeli war against Hamas, but it's their own fault in the first place, and the innocent, needless loss of life on both sides is tragic. 

 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I've explained it.  But I have a feeling that your European, socialist mindset is probably going to blind you with how market forces really work.  Not an insult.  I just find that Europeans simply think in socialist terms rather than capitalist terms.  And whether you like it or not, human beings will always gravitate toward capitalist principles when it comes to individual choices (like what I buy at the store).

I personally wouldn't describe myself as a socialist, more a capitalist who believes in a strong welfare state. Unfortunately the UK economy is in the shitter, and the welfare aspect is a mess too. 

Edited March 6 by HaggisShuu

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

who believes in a strong welfare state

*cough* socialist! *cough*

[HaggisShuu]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*cough* socialist! *cough*

That's not what socialism is and you know it! 

[HaggisShuu]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*cough* socialist! *cough*

Socialism is high levels of state ownership and regulation, with capitalism being the opposite. I generally think, put a businessman or a government man in charge of an institution and 9/10 the businessman will do a better job. The businessman needs to find the successful method or he goes broke. The government man just needs to avoid falling out with his government friends to keep his job. 

Although the UK rail network is an interesting case study as to why there are exceptions. When it was state owned it was reliable, the second they privatised it, everybody started striking, and now you hardly get to a train on time. Private prisons are also a good example, far higher rates of assault. These are exceptions, and I generally believe a highly privatised economy to be a good thing. 

People should be entitled to free healthcare/affordable healthcare, childcare and financial assistance in case they can't support themselves. But when I say strong, I don't just mean readily available, I mean willing to bat away those trying to take advantage. Of which there are plenty. 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

That's not what socialism is and you know it! 

Hence the dancing banana.

That being said.... socialism, as a theory, has a lot in common with the ideas behind the gospel principles of all things being common, and if could be applied without state control and voluntarily (which it cannot be without a truly righteous populace) would be great. It's the "state" part (and the associated removal of freedoms) that I actually have issues with. Socialism, as a theory, is less egregious to me as a welfare "state". A socialist "state" is just as egregious to me. But it's really the "state" part I have issues with. Welfare and the common regulation of goods isn't so much the issue to my thinking.

Edited March 6 by The Folk Prophet

[HaggisShuu]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hence the dancing banana

I intended my response in jest too. Hard to convey humour over the internet. 
 

I always found early implementation of the law of consecration fascinating also. Giving up everything, and receiving your share. I wonder what the church would look like if it wasn't driven out of Missouri, I'm sure internet leninists would be signing up in droves. 

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Hard to convey humour over the internet. 

Actually...it's super easy.

Here's a basic tutorial:

And to be super-duper humorous:

[zil2]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

45 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

Hard to convey humour over the internet.

Actually...it's super easy.

Here's a basic tutorial:

And to be super-duper humorous:

Sorry, TFP, but this is a fail.  You demonstrated humor.  @HaggisShuu was talking humour.  (I think that's some French thing, but I'm afraid to google it. )

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, HaggisShuu said:

I always found early implementation of the law of consecration fascinating also. Giving up everything, and receiving your share. I wonder what the church would look like if it wasn't driven out of Missouri, I'm sure internet leninists would be signing up in droves. 

I don't know how the United Order would even work in a virtual currency and technology based economy. If everyone were producers of physical goods, sure...but how many are any longer? None. Even if one has a job producing goods, one isn't the producer of that good. One is an employee of the producer of that good, for which one gets a salary. And that's not even considering the fact that robots are the primary producer of goods now. And if the producers of goods gives it to the church to divide up evenly...the ability to produce those goods gets destroyed. The simple fact is that capitalism was the means of creating the cell phone, computer, or whatever you and I are communicating on. Without capitalism, these things would not exist. Capitalism has done more for prosperity than any other system. Yes...it allows for evil. But it also creates immense wealth and technology that benefits all. Without it, we'd all be farmers still.

And maybe that's fine. It's interesting to consider. But I sure like my computer. And my lightbulbs. And my TVs. And my cars. And my heater and A/C. And my etc., etc.... all thanks to capitalism.

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Sorry, TFP, but this is a fail.  You demonstrated humor.  @HaggisShuu was talking humour.  (I think that's some French thing, but I'm afraid to google it. )

I believe humour references a woman's um....moon cycle?

 

Edit: I forgot to add this to the above comment: 

Edited March 6 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

2 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

I think this is a self made issue by Israel by forcing its entire Muslim population into 3 ungoverned zones, in a geopolitical area that hates your existence.

FTR, this is not even close to true. Muslims can live anywhere they want in Israel (there may be laws about Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter--not sure), and there are thousands who profess Islam but who nevertheless identify as Israelis.

Admittedly, there are vanishingly few Muslims in the IDF; nevertheless, there are millions of Muslims around the world who recognize e.g. Hamas as the terrorist organization that it is. And Arabs and their governments are becoming increasingly willing to say it out loud.

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget-0#:~:text=This study tallies corporate welfare,year on aid to businesses.&text=The federal government runs a,taxpayers and undermine economic growth.

A lot of the stuff I'm organizing around at the state level in Minnesota centers on getting corporations off the government teet so that ordinary people who need government assistance can have access to better support resources. 

Hey, we've got common ground!

The article defines 'corporate welfare' as "a broad definition of corporate welfare, which includes direct cash subsidies and indirect industry support"

That's a more sane definition than I'm used to.  The '80's and '90's and 2000's were full of Dems claiming that not-taxing-corporations-as-much-money-as-we-used-to was included in that definition.    It was easy to refute.  No, leaving an entity with more of it's own money, is NOT the same thing as the government giving money to that entity.

I guess the devil's in the details.  What's "indirect industry support"?  Is that a reference to the military-industrial-complex?

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

Is this what you voted for? 

For me, Trump is a mix of things I've hoped for since the 1980's, and stuff that worries the crap out of me.   

 

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

FTR, this is not even close to true. Muslims can live anywhere they want in Israel (there may be laws about Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter--not sure), and there are thousands who profess Islam but who nevertheless identify as Israelis.

Bingo. 
 

Close to 20% of Israel is Muslim. 

https://www.allmep.org/resources/the-muslim-population-in-israel-2024-israel-central-bureau-of-statistics/#:~:text= At the end of,(2.2% in 2022).

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Although the UK rail network is an interesting case study as to why there are exceptions. When it was state owned it was reliable, the second they privatised it, everybody started striking, and now you hardly get to a train on time.

Errrr...maybe that's because you need to modify your strike laws.

[LDSGator]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

For me, Trump is a mix of things I've hoped for since the 1980's, and stuff that worries the crap out of me.   

 

That might be the description of Trump that I’ve ever heard