Because a nation that has never had any involvement with terrorism is precisely the same as a country that is one of the leading state sponsors of terrorism on the planet.
Qatar is very friendly with Trump - they’re a country we should aim to have great relations with. They’re also rich and stable - great things in a country anywhere, let alone in the Middle East.
Qatar is a state sponsor of terrorism. One of the leading state sponsors of terrorism on the planet.
Muslims are evil. Weren't you around for 9/11, chicken brains?
You weren’t around for the Troubles when evil Christians were bombing civilians, bigot. And yet you think that Bella Hadid is evil because of what a handful of people from Saudi Arabia did.
Are Catholics evil because the ones in Croatia killed over 300,000 people in their quest to make an entirely Catholic Croatia?
Wrong. The Catholic attacks on Croatia are just one of thousands of reasons that Catholics are malfeasorists. Biden was Catholic, if you need a data point of reference.
The Protestants defeated the Catholics in the "alleged" Troubles. The Protestants had the moral weight of Biblical authority on their side. It was the Catholics that did all the bombing of innocents and ultimately had to high tail it back drunken Ireland after getting run out of Ulster by the Protestants.
That just seems unprofessional, spiteful and childish by Vance (Hammel). There are thousands of opportunities to take biff shots at Warren's Indian claims. Why do it today in response to her sincere humanitarian post about freedom for Israeli hostages? I think Vance looks worse than she does.
Donald Trump’s trade war with China hinges on a conviction that China’s challenge to US economic and geopolitical dominance can be stifled by choking its access to America’s vast consumer market. That belief is being rapidly undermined. China’s latest trade data showed surprising resilience - indeed, it confounded expectations. Exports accelerated in September, rising 8.3 per cent over the same period last year, to $US328.6 billion ($502 billion). That was substantially better than the broadly forecast 6 per cent increase, and a big lift from the 4.4 per cent growth experienced in August. Donald Trump’s trade war with China was built on a false assumption.Credit:AP Exports to the US did take a hit from Trump’s tariffs, which average at about 40 per cent on imports from China, falling a further 27 per cent to $US34 billion in September after a 33 per cent dive in August. At the same time, imports from the US fell 16 per cent to $US11.5 billion. Trump thought his trade war would shrink China’s exports to America, damaging its growth and economic ambitions, helping him revive domestic manufacturing in the US and providing the leverage to force greater access for US companies to China’s markets. He only got that half right, at best. Yes, China’s trade with America has shrunk. Before Trump’s first trade war with China, in 2018-19, the US market accounted for about 20 per cent of China’s exports. By last year, its share of China’s exports had fallen to about 14 per cent, and it’s now running at about 10 per cent. It could be argued that China, in winning new markets and new friends, is losing less than America. Instead of destabilising China’s export-driven economic model, however, the trade wars appear to have, if anything, strengthened it. China’s patterns of trade have changed, but it looks on track for another record trade surplus of about $US1 trillion, and probably above. As its exports to the US have been diminished by the Trump tariffs, China has – far more rapidly than could have been anticipated – shifted its trade flows to other markets. Advertisement The September data showed that even as exports to the US slumped, those to the European Union rose 14.2 per cent. Exports to South-East Asian economies were up 15.6 per cent, while to Latin America they climbed 15.2 per cent and to Africa (off a modest base) they surged 56 per cent. China’s exports have been re-routed, demonstrating that Trump’s thesis that China’s export-oriented economy made it over-dependent on the US market was flawed. In 2018, when the first of Trump’s tariffs on China were imposed, exports to the US accounted for about 3.5 per cent of China’s GDP. Last year, that percentage was 2.8 per cent. It will be significantly lower this year. Trump’s tariffs can damage, and are damaging, China’s economy, but the country’s exposure and vulnerability to them is reducing rapidly. Now, America - while still an important destination for Chinese goods - is part of a far more diversified global market for Chinese companies, one fortified by massive investments by China in economies other than the US that are also gradually shifting their geopolitical relationships away from America. Trump’s tariffs on everyone are aiding that process. While there are some signs of pushback against the flood of cheap exports from China in Europe, Latin America and even Africa, there’s nothing occurring of the scale and breadth of the US tariff regime to stem them. Very few of those economies dealing with the Trump tariffs would want to open a new front by initiating a trade war with China. Related Article Opinion Critical minerals In the rare earth dispute between US and China, Australia may be the winner Peter Hartcher Political and international editor What Trump may have underestimated was the rest of the world’s – and America’s – reliance on China’s cheap goods and China’s dominance of key industrial technologies and their supply chains. There are no instantly available and competitively priced substitutes for many of its key exports. There’s also no market for some of America’s agricultural products bigger than China. It was notable that China’s imports of soybeans in September were up 4.8 per cent to 12.9 million tonnes. American farmers are now harvesting a near-record crop, none of which has been pre-purchased by China, which now sources most of its soybeans from South America. Last week’s significant tightening of export restrictions on rare earths, magnets and batteries, which caused Trump to threaten China with a 100 percentage point hike in the tariff rate, also highlighted China’s own leverage in the trade stoush, and how it is amplified by US financial markets, which went into a meltdown on Friday and would’ve played a role in Trump’s backing away from his initial aggressive response. Trump used to boast that trade wars were good and easy to win. Experience of the Trump tariffs says that they aren’t good for anyone, and no one wins. The September trade data showed that China’s exports of rare earths were down 31 per cent from August and were about half the volumes China was exporting mid-year. It would appear that China had started squeezing the market for rare earths, a market it absolutely dominates, even before the announcement of the new export restrictions. Wall Street recovered some of their losses on Monday after Trump adopted a far more conciliatory tone. The growth in China’s exports shows how dynamic its companies are. Some of that growth will reflect an arbitraging of tariff rates, with goods being trans-shipped to their eventual destination, America, but there’s also an organic appetite for cheap Chinese goods in the developing economies that China has been building relationships with for years through its Belt and Road initiative. The growth is coming at a cost, with export volumes significantly higher than their value. China’s companies are operating in sectors with substantial excess capacity and fighting torrid price wars in their domestic markets. They have slashed export prices to absorb that excess capacity, which has caused increased tension with China’s non-US trade partners even as their profits have kept falling. It’s also led to deflation and weaker growth in an economy that has never fully recovered from a downturn in its property market that is now in its fifth year, although a 7.4 per cent rise in China’s imports in September, to $US238.1 billion, could suggest the domestic economy is faring a little better than most forecasters have predicted. Beijing has responded with a campaign against what it calls “involution,” or excess capacity and continuing cycles of price competition, which should see some consolidation of industries and some companies exiting markets. China’s broader economic data for September is due to be released next week, which will provide a better insight into the toll the trade war and China’s domestic settings are taking on an economy which is over-exposed to trade. Related Article Opinion Trade wars As tensions rise, is the TACO trade still alive? Stephen Bartholomeusz Senior business columnist Also next week, the most important meeting of China’s leaders for the year – the “Fourth Plenum” – will start, with hundreds of the country’s senior officials reviewing the government’s next five-year plan for the economy and society. To date, Beijing has resisted any large-scale effort to stimulate the domestic economy to dilute its reliance on exports - but there will be significant interest from external observers in whether there are plans to boost consumption over the remainder of this decade, and whether there will be more done to address the structural imbalances and the degree of unproductive capital within the economy. Trump used to boast that trade wars were good and easy to win. Experience of the Trump tariffs says that they aren’t good for anyone, and no one wins. At this point, however, it could be argued that China, in winning new markets and new friends as Trump’s tariffs cause even long-standing allies to re-evaluate their relationships with America, is losing less than America.
Trump’s approval rating takes another downturn to 39%. I figured the peace deal would have given him a slight bump, but it turns out needlessly harassing the population with armed invasions of American cities is wildly unpopular.
Anecdotally, the neighborhood lost another Trump sign this weekend. Is MAGA having a “quiet quitting” moment?
Add to that Rogan, Theo, MTG, and Tim Dillon as some notable (that pains me to say) figures who have recently decided MAGA has lost its mind. People whose opinions should not have had the sway they do, but directionally positive nonetheless.
And Curtis Yarvin is already fashioning his eject button.
I'm aware of that. I specifically said she can't handle her firewater. And maybe Marlon Brando will be there by the fire. We'll sit and talk of Hollywood and the good things there for hire. And the Astrodome, and the first teepee. Marlon Brando, Pocahontas and me.
Heading back home to a very safe and beautiful Washington, D.C. Accomplished so much today in Israel and Egypt. A lot of work, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. It was an experience like no other! Now, all of those Great Countries that have fought so long and hard for the Region have to come together and, GET THE JOB DONE! Gaza is only a part of it. The big part is, PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
Hunter Biden: Georgetown undergrad and Yale Law. Lawyer and businessman. MAGA feverishly claimed he was unqualified to serve on the board of a natural gas company. Barron Trump: Dropped out after one semester at NYU. MAGA thinks he’s qualified to be on the board of TikTok.
Hunter Biden: Georgetown undergrad and Yale Law. Lawyer and businessman. MAGA feverishly claimed he was unqualified to serve on the board of a natural gas company. Barron Trump: Dropped out after one semester at NYU. MAGA thinks he’s qualified to be on the board of TikTok.
Hunter Biden obviously wasn't a DEI admit. That being said, do you really think he'd have been able to transfer into Yale law (he began at Georgetown) if his last name wasn't "Biden"?
Burisma was also one of the most corrupt companies in one of the world's most corrupt countries to ever exist.
The New Yorker: "In speeches, Biden rarely talks about Hunter. But news outlets on the right and mainstream media organizations, including the Times, have homed in on him, reprising old controversies over Hunter’s work for a bank, for a lobbying firm, and for a hedge fund, and scrutinizing his business dealings in China and Ukraine. There is little question that Hunter’s proximity to power shaped the arc of his career, and that, as the former aide told me, “Hunter is super rich terrain.”"
The long read: While the conflict with Russia heats up in the east, life for most Ukrainians is marred by corruption so endemic that even hospitals appear to be infected. Can anyone clean the country up?
Hunter Biden: Georgetown undergrad and Yale Law. Lawyer and businessman. MAGA feverishly claimed he was unqualified to serve on the board of a natural gas company. Barron Trump: Dropped out after one semester at NYU. MAGA thinks he’s qualified to be on the board of TikTok.
Hunter Biden obviously wasn't a DEI admit. That being said, do you really think he'd have been able to transfer into Yale law (he began at Georgetown) if his last name wasn't "Biden"?
Burisma was also one of the most corrupt companies in one of the world's most corrupt countries to ever exist.
The New Yorker: "In speeches, Biden rarely talks about Hunter. But news outlets on the right and mainstream media organizations, including the Times, have homed in on him, reprising old controversies over Hunter’s work for a bank, for a lobbying firm, and for a hedge fund, and scrutinizing his business dealings in China and Ukraine. There is little question that Hunter’s proximity to power shaped the arc of his career, and that, as the former aide told me, “Hunter is super rich terrain.”"