Donald Trump set for state visit in June. Watch

z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Prussianxo)
I think Britain should distance themselves from America, especially following Trump's retweeting of Britain first tweets.
Would that be economically wise?
1
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Prussianxo)
I think Britain should distance themselves from America, especially following Trump's retweeting of Britain first tweets. We should show that we have some backbone and not just follow America just to stay on their good side. I don't think this would ever happen under a Tory government or a new labour one but hey one can hope
What were the tweets again?
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by z-hog)
Would that be economically wise?
probably not I think we trade 2nd or 3rd most with USA (which is why I said it probably wouldn't happen). But I do feel America has too much influence on British politics, just look at the Iraq war. If it did damage relations and we did lose trade deals with the US I don't think it would be too difficult to trade with other countries but I'm not 100% sure, I'm not an expert on trade deals.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Andrew97)
What were the tweets again?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...001.html%3famp
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Themysticalegg
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
The UK’s influence on the world is waning and we need all the allies we can get even if he doesn’t do things for our best interest. (Such as his proposed trade deal which sifts their c*** onto us.) that being said I will lick his shoes to keep the US at least kinda on our side.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Prussianxo)
probably not I think we trade 2nd or 3rd most with USA (which is why I said it probably wouldn't happen). But I do feel America has too much influence on British politics, just look at the Iraq war. If it did damage relations and we did lose trade deals with the US I don't think it would be too difficult to trade with other countries but I'm not 100% sure, I'm not an expert on trade deals.
The economic links between the two are huge, I'm in the middle of a read on the wartime Lend and Lease program that kept this island afloat and the economic bailout that Keynes had to go negotiate cap in hand after it ended. Apparently, we finished paying off the loan in 2006. Britain was bankrupt by the end of the war and was probably the biggest loser of all in economic terms, it was also the main beneficiary of the Marshall program where the US injected money into Europe to save it from famine and bankruptcy. Followed by a potential full Soviet takeover, we'll never know thanks to the US. It's a very large picture, the UK can't afford to distance itself from the US in economic terms.
Last edited by z-hog; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Prussianxo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by z-hog)
The economic links between the two are huge, I'm in the middle of a read on the wartime Lend and Lease program that kept this island afloat and the economic bailout that Keynes had to go negotiate cap in hand after it ended. Apparently, we finished paying off the loan in 2006. Britain was bankrupt by the end of the war and was probably the biggest loser of all in economic terms, it was also the main beneficiary of the Marshall program where the US injected money into Europe to save it from famine and bankruptcy. Followed by a potential full Soviet takeover, we'll never know thanks to the US. It's a very large picture, the UK can't afford to distance itself from the US in economic terms. Europe owes the US big time.
yeah I know about how important the Marshall plan was in helping rebuild the UK economy but honestly that's all in the past it was all paid off in 2006. We probably helped the USA more with the amount of interest that was on that loan, basically helping them become the superpower they are now.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Prussianxo)
yeah I know about how important the Marshall plan was in helping rebuild the UK economy but honestly that's all in the past it was all paid off in 2006. We probably helped the USA more with the amount of interest that was on that loan, basically helping them become the superpower they are now.
The UK is the single largest investor in the United States. British companies have invested more than $480 billion in the U.S., accounting for more than 15% of all inbound foreign direct investment (FDI).

The U.S. is also the largest investor in the UK. American firms have invested nearly $600 billion in the British market, nearly a quarter of their total investment in Europe, and more than 12% of all U.S. FDI worldwide.
https://www.uschamber.com/internatio...nvestment-ties

In the end, these are the realities that can't be ignored because it is economics that determine how idealistic we can afford to be.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Dez)
The BBC is not a state broadcaster.
Of course it is, it's owned and funded by the State/Us. If you mean it's not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the government that is something we can all agree on, as well as agreeing they mustn't be one for the Opposition either. With Trump's visit and the ER demonstrations (for they demonstrate something indeed), the BBC go out of their way to voice everyone making noises against the state. With Austerity, the Radio 4 luvvies and Panorama are constantly attacking a state policy and they don't even care about the full facts: they go out looking for bodies to make the case they want to make, not to report on what they find. That's not journalism, it's political activism.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by z-hog)
Of course it is, it's owned and funded by the State/Us.
It is owned by the state, and it is funded (partially) by the state. However, it is not a state broadcaster. It's a subtle thing, but because the BBC is governed by royal charter rather than the actual government, it is still an independent broadcaster, at least on paper. There are still plenty of external influences on what they do, of course.

(Original post by z-hog)
If you mean it's not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the government that is something we can all agree on, as well as agreeing they mustn't be one for the Opposition either.
It should be a mouthpiece for everyone, within reason.

(Original post by z-hog)
With Trump's visit and the ER demonstrations (for they demonstrate something indeed), the BBC go out of their way to voice everyone making noises against the state.
A meager 21% of the UK population have a positive opinion of the Trumpanzee, 67% negative, 12% neutral[1]. If the BBC is supposed to represent public opinion, then this kind of reporting is totally on the mark.

(Original post by z-hog)
With Austerity, the Radio 4 luvvies and Panorama are constantly attacking a state policy and they don't even care about the full facts: they go out looking for bodies to make the case they want to make, not to report on what they find. That's not journalism, it's political activism.
I don't see what this has to do with Trump's visit?
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
A meager 21% of the UK population have a positive opinion of the Trumpanzee, 67% negative, 12% neutral[1]. If the BBC is supposed to represent public opinion, then this kind of reporting is totally on the mark.
It's a safe bet that such poll wasn't carried out outside Broadcasting House, nobody would dare to express any sympathy for Trump even if they felt that way. Yeah, did You Gov get it right on Brexit? Probably not.

Look, what do you expect to achieve when joining the Trumpophobe march? Nobody cares, you guys do it only to feel self-righteous about yourselves but that is about it. It doesn't make anymore difference to anything than the climate hysteria, it's all about yourselves and the rest of the world just wishes you'd go and do it in a quiet corner so we could get on with our lives. What do you think is likely to change as a result?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by z-hog)
It's a safe bet that such poll wasn't carried out outside Broadcasting House, nobody would dare to express any sympathy for Trump even if they felt that way. Yeah, did You Gov get it right on Brexit? Probably not.
Typical. I go out of my way to provide actual data sources, and you dismiss the data mindlessly. And yet here you are championing Donald "Fake news" Trump, one of the biggest liars in US political history. :rolleyes:

(Original post by z-hog)
Look, what do you expect to achieve when joining the Trumpophobe march? Nobody cares, you guys do it only to feel self-righteous about yourselves but that is about it. It doesn't make anymore difference to anything than the climate hysteria, it's all about yourselves and the rest of the world just wishes you'd go and do it in a quiet corner so we could get on with our lives. What do you think is likely to change as a result?
I don't presume to know the reasons why people would attend an anti-Trump protest, but my main guess would be that they don't agree with the UK government's pandering to a tinpot lunatic (and a global warming denialist to boot, since you brought that up). People can protest for what they want and they don't need your validation or approval to go ahead with it.
3
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Dez)
Typical. I go out of my way to provide actual data sources, and you dismiss the data mindlessly. And yet here you are championing Donald "Fake news" Trump, one of the biggest liars in US political history. :rolleyes:
Typical indeed, turning assumptions into facts only because they suit you and deride anyone who disputes them. Do you have any idea of how well Gallup predicted Trump's win, or the rest of pollster world? That's why when reality hits you guys can't deal with it, based on all of those fuzzy assumptions. Russia!

Also, the numbers you provide don't for one second mean that people who don't like Trump agree with street protests. You're conflating those things to make a case for the BBC going on about how controversial his visit is, I'd say that the majority disagree with street protests and the flying of their blimps.

I have the type in the neighbourhood, they wouldn't miss an anti-Trump rally for anything. If they weren't acquaintances, I'd ring Social Services to come and have a look at their kids. Weren't they Oxbridge material and such beautiful people and they'd have been taken away ages ago.
Last edited by z-hog; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by z-hog)
Typical indeed, turning assumptions into facts only because they suit you and deride anyone who disputes them. Do you have any idea of how well Gallup predicted Trump's win, or the rest of pollster world? That's why when reality hits you guys can't deal with it, based on all of those fuzzy assumptions. Russia!
If you have any better sources to provide, do so. Otherwise, bog off with this stupid rhetoric please. If you wish to refute a source you need to provide evidence for it, not just dismiss it based on some completely unrelated information.

(Original post by z-hog)
Also, the numbers you provide don't for one second mean that people who don't like Trump agree with street protests. You're conflating those things to make a case for the BBC going on about how controversial his visit is, I'd say that the majority disagree with street protests and the flying of their blimps.
So? That doesn't mean the protests are not happening. What are the BBC supposed to do, pretend they don't exist? Clearly there is significant negative sentiment towards Trump amongst the UK populace, so that being a fact, the BBC has every right to report on it.

(Original post by z-hog)
I have the type in the neighbourhood, they wouldn't miss an anti-Trump rally for anything. If they weren't acquaintances, I'd ring Social Services to come and have a look at their kids. Weren't they Oxbridge material and such beautiful people and they'd have been taken away ages ago.
Erm, okay then? This is a very weird tangent you've gone off on.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
The Speaker's behaviour is preposterous, everyone who's been around Westminster for a while is incredulous and so is everyone who hasn't been sucked into the Trump hysteria. The man is fast disappearing up his own rear and bringing the post to disrepute like nobody ever dreamt of, it's symptomatic of the dragging of politics to gutter level by design. Trump is here by Royal invitation, why get hysterical like that?

Jezza is snubbing the official banquet in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, he just wouldn't sit at the table with someone like Trump. Shared one with a lot of controversial people in his life, invited the IRA into the Commons a fortnight after they failed to murder Thatcher but Trump is just a step too far. This has all gone beyond the level of a joke, by now.
Last edited by z-hog; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by z-hog)
Of course it is, it's owned and funded by the State/Us. If you mean it's not supposed to be a mouthpiece for the government that is something we can all agree on, as well as agreeing they mustn't be one for the Opposition either. With Trump's visit and the ER demonstrations (for they demonstrate something indeed), the BBC go out of their way to voice everyone making noises against the state. With Austerity, the Radio 4 luvvies and Panorama are constantly attacking a state policy and they don't even care about the full facts: they go out looking for bodies to make the case they want to make, not to report on what they find. That's not journalism, it's political activism.
The BBC were certainly anti austerity at all. In fact they largely supported it.

Economically the BBC are rather centre right.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by z-hog)
The Speaker's behaviour is preposterous, everyone who's been around Westminster for a while is incredulous and so is everyone who hasn't been sucked into the Trump hysteria. The man is fast disappearing up his own rear and bringing the post to disrepute like nobody ever dreamt of, it's symptomatic of the dragging of politics to gutter level by design. Trump is here by Royal invitation, why get hysterical like that?

Jezza is snubbing the official banquet in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, he just wouldn't sit at the table with someone like Trump. Shared one with a lot of controversial people in his life, invited the IRA into the Commons a fortnight after they failed to murder Thatcher but Trump is just a step too far. This has all gone beyond the level of a joke, by now.
He didn't invite the IRA to Parliament.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by DSilva)
He didn't invite the IRA to Parliament.
I stand corrected, he took them in because they told him to. We're not going to get started on JC, Sinn Fein were the political wing of... the IRA.

LLB surpassed all of them by praising the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the October 1984 Conservative Party conference.

The objective had been to kill Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and as many members of her Cabinet as possible in revenge for her refusal to capitulate to the demands of the hunger strikers three years earlier.

Five people died and 31 were injured, some of whom were disabled for life.

The LLB editorial had described it as a "serious political misjudgment", but this was utterly disowned in the next issue by the editorial board - of which Mr Corbyn was now general secretary.

He had already made his feelings clear by flaunting Gerry Adams in the House of Commons as his guest.

"We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of 'violence', because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies," said the LLB retraction.

"Let our 'Iron Lady' know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get."

The only answer was "an unequivocal British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR".
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/o...-35727183.html
Last edited by z-hog; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by z-hog)
I stand corrected, he took them in because they told him to. We're not going to get started on JC, Sinn Fein were the political wing of... the IRA.



https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/o...-35727183.html
At no point did he invite the IRA to Parliament... That's just a fact. Sinn Fein are not the IRA. In the same way that supporters of the Union were not all loyalist paramilitaries.
Last edited by DSilva; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by Glaz)
can the queen actually kill him with a sword or was that just some internet bs
Given how strange English legal structures are, it is no doubt still the case that the Queen can arbitrarily behead people. She might need a hand though, so perhaps Wills & Harry can join in.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has 2019 been so far?

Amazing!!! (38)
5.76%
Fairly positive (216)
32.73%
Just another year... (260)
39.39%
Is it 2020 yet? (146)
22.12%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed