Under the administration of president Mauricio Macri, the relation between Argentina and the US has entered a new dynamic phase and somehow those close links could be affected if the Republican candidate wins on Tuesday, said foreign minister Susana Malcorra. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
I am not a diplomat but even I could have made this declaration! It doesn't take much knowledge to become the Argentine Foreign Minister!Nov 08th, 2016 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse -1
You are such a f---- hypocrite, typical Anglo.Nov 08th, 2016 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse -5
These kind of vague, diplomatic statements are the stuff ANGLO governments are always known for. We would like to have better relations with Argentina, always heard from the British.
My cat could also make the same declaration.
When the British government makes such statements, you guys love to claim it is a sign of diplomacy, maturity, even-keeledness, and cold-objective anglo-saxon thinking.
When an Argentine government uses the same language to keep the doors open to dialogue with all nations, you INSULT Argentina's supposed IQ to run the country.
When KFC was in power, you all insulted Argentina for having such an abrasive, anti-diplomatic, confrontational diplomacy.
With you British it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. Then you wonder why I see you with such a dim view!
These kind of vague, diplomatic statements are the stuff ANGLO governments are always known for.Nov 08th, 2016 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1
I was just thinking she sounded a lot more sensible than the previous government. That explains it. ;)
Susana, still working on those UN resolutions?Nov 08th, 2016 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse +3
Baloney....Nov 08th, 2016 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
Troll boyNov 08th, 2016 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
Actually we don't wonder why...your just a typical Argie so we take it forgranted.
@CapiTrollNov 08th, 2016 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
You sound more revolted than usual, today....do you see the Anglos with such a dim view because perhaps you are dim ?
Getting back to Malcorra, admittedly, it doesn't require much brain to say the right thing, especially after being told to be diplomatic and to keep it impartial...but at least she kept focused, she didn't once mention the Falklands ; could that be a sign of progress ?
But does she mean a brake as in slow down or is it a break as in fractures / broken?Nov 08th, 2016 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
So much for the clarity of Espanol. Spanish / Espanol: why use eight English words to describe an idea perfectly when 50 Espanol ones won't! © ChrisR 2014
What's it got to do with Spanish? It's in English that the words are homophones! Perhaps you should look up her speech in Spanish if you want to know which it was.Nov 08th, 2016 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Hahaha, now we can laugh of both the UK and US for taking over the role of banana republics run by politicians on the back of POPULIST, short-sighted, please the masses policies. Because that is exactly what the UK and US have become.Nov 09th, 2016 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse -4
Interesting role reversal. It will be Argentina asking for free trade, greater democracy, civil discourse, and the UK and US will be screaming proteccionism, tariffs to protect the workers, list of foreigners in the country, and a jingoistic foreign policy against allies and enemies.
This will be fun, so much to poke fun at from now on!
Baloney.... you'll find out for sure later in the week....Nov 09th, 2016 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Troll boyNov 09th, 2016 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1
Interesting comment. Please the masses. In my simplistic mind I thought that the population - the masses- voted for someone who would do what THEY wanted-”please them. It's called democracy.
It may not suit your lofty ideals and your conceit that you know better than the unwashed masses. What you advocate is a dictatorship...look where that got your country !
Trump is President! DOOM for Argentina!Nov 09th, 2016 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse +2
TRUMP WINS THE PRESIDENCY!Nov 09th, 2016 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
At least the liar and crook that is Hillary won't be able to stand again: she'll be dead before the next chance.
I doubt if Trump will even BOTHER with Argentina, he has the shit storm from Obumma to overcome first.
@ Clyde15Nov 09th, 2016 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Making policies to please the masses is what people are always accusing eg the Kirchners of doing. Handing out money to the poor, creating non-productive jobs and protectionism to try and grow local industry.
Or as it might be: building a wall to keep out immigrants, returning jobs to America where manufacturing is currently not economically viable, and protectionism to try and grow local industry.
Trollboy does have a point. And the people talking about conspiracies and the Establishment stealing the election sound pretty similar to communists shouting about imperialism and enemies of the people to me.
I read an interesting comment, that Trump basically studied PERON and took his campaign manual. Peron ran his 1946 campaign on the dual track of appealing to the non-college industrial descamisado who at the time had almost no protections in the factories and were often laid-off, and linking their problems to the idea that the elites (especially the established parties like the Radicals), ignored their plight. And he won the election and the rest is histrory.Nov 09th, 2016 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
I was ONLY pointing out that you CANNOT get elected UNLESS you appeal to the masses---they have the majority vote.Nov 09th, 2016 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What happens then is conjecture.
I remember decades ago hearing an US Senator being interviewed by Alistair Cook.
It was put to the Senator that he had reneged on ALL the promises he made before he was elected.
His reply...I lied
@CapiTrollNov 09th, 2016 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I read an interesting comment, that Trump basically studied PERON .......appealing to the non-college industrial “descamisado” ...
Well, considering that those so-called descamisados” make up most of the work-force , or those that are productive - contrary to the spongers - it makes sense that they should be listened to. As to similarities, I think they end there.
@ Clyde15Nov 09th, 2016 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Of course you are right. But normally we hope for policies that will actually be good as well as sound good. The masses in Brazil were happy with Rousseff's policies until recently, and Venezuela is almost literally a country where people voted themselves money until the country went broke.
As for not keeping their promises; remember when Boris said we could stop immigration and still stay in the single market? Some promises just can't be kept.
Seems unlikely, I can't see Trump actually studying anything. They both used populist rhetoric but I don't think their actual policies were very similar.
KepiTroll: ..... that Trump basically studied PERON and took his campaign manual......Nov 09th, 2016 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
There is no known evidence that Trump has any idea who Perón was, let alone studied him.
On the other hand, during Trump's crusading he did correctly make wholly negative references to Argentina as an example of what one ought not to do or become.
In past months the international media have been appropriately full of comparisons between a vindictive prostitute called María Eva Duarte de Perón, and a similarly repugnant criminal known as Hillary Clinton.
Bollocks it was. That's way too obscure and they have almost nothing in common. Links or it didn't happen.Nov 09th, 2016 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As usual Marti Llazo's sanity collapses under the weight of his huge inferiority complex towards a certain nationality. He contradicts himself even within the same same sentence he has no idea who you are, but he talked about you several time in the negative.Nov 09th, 2016 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
WTF? Seriously man, what drugs are you on?
Trump is a 80% Peron, you will see. That's who NorthAmoans voted for: end NAFTA (the Mercosur of North America), decreasing trade with the rest of the world, tax all money going overseas (also known as a soft corralito or exchange controls), manipulate the currency (currency controls), protecting the national industry with barriers and subsidies, ditching diplomacy and badmouthing all those who disagree with you...
REMIND YOU OF ANYONE??
KepiTroll, perhaps you produce some serious evidence to support your silliness about Trump having studied Perón. Or is this just another of your endless inventions?Nov 10th, 2016 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3
Oh surely Trump did not study Peron, but they do have some things in common.Nov 10th, 2016 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse +1
I'd almost think Trump is karma for all the crap the USA pulled in Latin America, except that he's going to screw up the rest of the world just as much.
Why don't you give some for your silly suggestions first?
The power of the USA is being vastly overstimated. There are centers of world economic activity in Europe and East Asia. Secondary world centers in Australia, southeastern south America, India, and southeast Asia.Nov 10th, 2016 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse -2
If and when the USA fucks itself they will be the biggest losers, others will be dragged along but the world isn't dependent on one region anymore.
As for Argentina, whatever happens in the USA is a minor headwind. If we survived 15 years with no capital market access, some of those years with no capital inflows period, and we have survived an economic depression in Brazil, and we did ok through the 2008-2012 U.S. and EU economic crisis... i am pretty sure we will be ok. Our trade with the USA is small fraction of GDP.
Nostrils, possibly you are correct, Argentina will be ok. After all its one of the biggest land masses in the world bulging with a wealth of natural resources. And, its got a small population, so plenty to go around.Nov 10th, 2016 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse +2
Question is, why is tbe place a basket case? Could it have something to do with the population?
Basket case? From 1865 to about 1960 it was in the top 10 in economic GDP size and per capita... historically speaking that is a basket case?Nov 10th, 2016 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse -2
I don't think he's talking about 50 or 100 years ago Capi. But maybe you are right and Argentina will be okay. Mexico won't be. Canada won't be. Asia won't be. Europe may be okay economically but we currently have a Russia problem, and the Middle East would probably be screwed either way.Nov 10th, 2016 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1
..a brake for the Argentina/US dynamic relation,... is just poor translation of the sort that Mercopiss made famous. What Malacara said was ..si gana Trump podemos entrar en un parate. ..Nov 10th, 2016 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Not a brake but a parate which in this context is more typically translated as a breakdown. As in breakdown in negotiations...
@ChrisRNov 10th, 2016 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I'm waiting with baited breath for Malcorra to mention the Malvinas Myth to Trump. Being a businessman he'll say Get me the history on the place.(Like he would for real estate deals).Then he'll see the facts. Glad there is someone who appreciates want the UK has done to assist the USA, in the White House. Can't see him asking the UK to negotiate with the Dark Country about Falklands sovereignty. But I still hope Malcorra asks.Winter is coming and I want a laugh.
@ MartiNov 10th, 2016 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
So I was right, it was clear in Spanish. What a shock that it was just due to poor translation.
Since his pension is worth a lot less now, maybe ChrisR could get a part time job as copy-editor for Mercopress. Although really that would be a shame, the Engrish just adds to its charm.
Nostrils, as you well know a basket case right now. The British presence made Argentina rich, then it steadily declined as British influence waned. Then you embraced left wing policies and it became the basket case it is today. Comprende?Nov 10th, 2016 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
The Voice,Nov 10th, 2016 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
British presence in Argentina isn't as simple as you state. Argentina became rich only for a few. Peronism came to power by blaming workers' exploitation solely ob British interests, which was not the case, as that abuse was mainly the responsibility of local elite.
This pattern brought not only Peron to power, it also worked for Hitler, Chavez and last but not least, it is what got Trump elected.
So it was middle class/working class folks that decided the election? Nothing to do with the democrats having put up the worst possible candidate?Nov 10th, 2016 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I kept waiting for Clinton to blame some sort of vast right-wing conspiracy.
In retrospect, it looks like Hillary was her own worst enemy, plus the fact that the blue-collar workers and the 'rednecks' - representing a good portion of the silent majority - finally got pissed-off enough with BO's destructive socialist policies, to get off their arses and vote.Nov 10th, 2016 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ Marti LlazoNov 10th, 2016 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Do you think the Democrats should have chosen Bernie then? Perhaps he could have been the change that people clearly wanted.
The fact she did not blame a conspiracy speaks well of her though, even if nothing else does.
@ Jack Bauer
Which socialist policies do you mean? I don't remember Obama nationalising any industries, or increasing benefits for the poor. He was pro-free trade as well. Really he seemed mostly neo-liberal economically, the kind of thing the true socialists in Latin America love to denounce.
DT ...Democrats should have chosen Bernie then? Nov 10th, 2016 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
History will likely continue to regard Clinton as their worst possible candidate for this election. That opinion was hardly uncommon even from democrats, many of whom long ago suggested that had they put up anyone other than Clinton, beating Trump would have been a doddle. The way Bernie was treated by the democratic machine harkened back to how that party behaved in the summer of 1968, and no doubt soured and alienated a lot of potential supporters. I am not convinced that Trump won on his merits; rather, Clinton lost the election by providing them with a package of negatives: a terribly unpopular, smug, and suspect elitist candidate perceived as a logical follow-on to a profoundly disliked Obama government that was protecting her from legitimate prosecution. Those were the perceptions that prevailed; the substance may have differed. For better or worse, Bernie probably represented a break from the Obama mould and generated a lot of non- to anti-establishment energy. It was heartbreaking for many to see Bernie turned into a neutered Clinton lapdog after the primaries.
So now what do they have now in the US: a country that has not been this divided and angry since the Viet-Nam War era.
@DTNov 10th, 2016 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I include in 'socialist' policies, the failed Obamacare, which by itself disrupted hundreds of thousands of jobs - the lies about how you 'can keep your original health plan', how 'you can keep your doctor', and 'the premiums will be far cheaper' - exactly the opposite occurred ; the attempt to remove all guns - while I agree on background checks and no need for people to own assault rifles - I think he went about it the wrong way, blaming those who have guns - legal guns - for the various massacres by deranged idiots, when the truth is, it is easy to buy a gun on the illegal market ; the gi-normous increase in welfare recipients - when he took over in 2008, there were 23 million, now, close to 47 million - is this how he intended to 'spread the wealth' ?...by taking from the rich and distributing to the poor ? I've seen this policy first-hand in Brazil...the so-called 'Bolsa Familia', just rotten to the core with fraud, not to mention its use as a tool to garner votes...
His divisionary tactics at emphasizing 'white on black crime', while totally ignoring 'black on black crime', responsible for more than 90% of black deaths, due to crime. He managed to ressuscitate racism, to levels unheard of until he arrived....clearly by the above, you see I'm focusing on social issues, social relations, which only got worse during his 8 years in office; His wife's statement, shortly after he was elected, for the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American, to me, set the tone. Why d'you think that the working middle-class (blue-collar workers, farmers, reacted so strongly ? because they had gotten poorer under BO and it appeared that this was his intention all along. Make no mistake, I support free-trade and in this sense he did fine, but my dislike of BO stems from his effort - not very clear to most - to pull the US down, and screw it as we know it from better times...(during and right after Reagan's two terms).
MLNov 10th, 2016 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Of course hindsight is twenty-twenty - it was far from obvious at the beginning of the campaign that she might be considered that.
How was Bernie treated by the Democrat machine? I wasn't following the primaries too closely, but I thought the candidate was elected by that party's voters, and that although the contest was close, they eventually chose Clinton?
The other thing I have noticed about Americans is how strikingly right wing many of them are. I think there is a large segment of the population who would never have voted for any candidate labelled socialist, which Bernie most certainly would have been. IMO if Bernie had been the Democratic nominee then today people would be blaming the Democratic voters for choosing an unelectable candidate, and saying any establishment candidate would easily have beaten Trump.
As for the US, I don't know how or if they can put their country back together. I'm just very, very glad I don't live there, even though the rest of the world is hardly immune if the US implodes.
If government health care and banning guns are socialist then you must think the UK Tories are far to the left of Obama, as they support both those policies and in a form he would never have dreamed of enacting.
Was the increase in welfare because he increased the people entitled to receive it or mostly a side effect of the anaemic economy? This is interesting:
I have never heard Bush blamed for increasing welfare spending.
Now I agree he was different from the Republicans on social policies, but the Republican ones frankly scare me. I am very glad I live in a country where there aren't a high percentage of religious people trying to take away my freedoms and make me or my friends into second class citizens.
As for the racism, I think the truth is that is was there all along, it has just come out more into the open now.
Trump said it:Nov 11th, 2016 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Nafta with Canada and Mexico is dead, the Pacific trade deal dead, South Korean free trade dead. The still not finalized Trans-Atlantic trade deal with EU (including UK) dead.
Expect the volume of trade of the US to drop significantly in the next two years.
Products will be scarcer in the US, leading to inflation.
Possible replacements will also be more expensive, further adding inflation.
This will ignite a wave of mininum wage hike, stoking further inflation.
He said he will want to weaken the dollar against other currencies or force the other nations to strengthen theirs, adding to inflation.
All CFK policies that the hypocrites here in this forum blasted her and Argentines for being so dumb in supporting (isolationism, national industry, closed trade with the rest of the world)... all the while praising Chile, Peru, Colombia.
Yet now those same people here are lauding Trump who stands for the same foreign and trade policy as CFK. He is even just as loud-mouthed.
Again, the hypocrisy is incredible.
Just wait for those trade an inflation numbers out of the US... hahaha. Then the IMF will chastise the USA and predictably Trump will tell them to go f--- themselves.
The Trumpists here will cheer on... and by doing so completely abjuring their years of anti-CFK rhetoric by ultimately suppporting her policies being implemented by Trump in the United States.
What an ultimate irony it will all be.
The same sort of expert predictions and veracity that explained why Clinton had a 90 percent chance of winning by a massive landslide.Nov 11th, 2016 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
That's weak Marti. Face it, your 'civilised countries' aren't any more. All it took was the bad times going on a little too long and the establishment ignoring people's problems.Nov 11th, 2016 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1
@DTNov 11th, 2016 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
To me, socialist measures are those that affect one's life, usually negatively, without having a say in the matter ; the universal health care concept is fine, but Obamacare has nothing in common - besides the brazen lies about how good it would be, it took its toll on the workers, causing unemployment and pushing many into part-time jobs, with lower salaries. The Law was rammed down people’s throat, unilaterally, while not even the legislators who approved it, knew what was in it. Time took care of that, when they found out the hard way.
Re gun control, sure I'm in favour of it - thorough background checks should be carried out, and what comprises a ‘self-defense’ firearm should be defined - ‘sports’ rifles , OK, but obviously not an AK-47. The problem here is that BO wanted to simply take all the legal guns from their owners, interfering with the rights of law-abiding citizens, while the criminals would continue to have access to any weapon they want.
While welfare did not become a problem 'only' under BO, he definitely ‘promoted’ it and took it to extremes. I recall democrat organizations in NYC going to the streets to enlist anyone they could, regardless of whether they needed food stamps or not. It drew so much negative attention, and because the recipients 'would be stigmatized' if identified as such, they changed the name to SNAP…it's far easier than creating jobs, and wins votes.
My values are more conservative, more traditional, I’m not at all fond of liberal, socialist policies that encourage people to sit on their arses and expect to be supported by someone else.
I’ve been going to the US regularly since 1980, having been to over 30 States, many of them multiple times, and have seen a lot - but never have I seen social tension as during BO's last 4 years. When he’s bothered to go public and condemn any particular crime (only 'white on black'), he's always coated his statements with a good dose of underlying racism.
@ Jack BauerNov 11th, 2016 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
By your definition Brexit is a socialist measure. It has already affected my life negatively, and I had as much say as the Americans did about Obamacare; we both had a vote. By your definition almost any policy could be considered socialist, for example raising VAT, or increasing the school leaving age.
As for gun control, I don't know if Obama wanted to take all legal guns from their owners, but he never said so and he never tried to.
You said you support background checks. Do you think gun dealers on the internet should be able to pretend to be private sellers in order to evade the requirement to perform background checks? In January Obama made a law to close this loophole, and two prominent Republicans said “Barack Obama is obsessed with undermining the second amendment,” and “You don’t just shove these things down their throat”.
The people saying Obama wants to ban all guns are exactly the same people who want AK-47s to be legal and no background checks to be performed.
As for conservative values, they don't seem much in evidence right now. In both the UK and USA, people blamed their low pay and difficulty finding a job on immigrants willing to work for less. Not one of them was willing to look at themselves and ask why employers preferred hard working Poles or Mexicans over lazy Brits or Americans. Instead they voted to remove the competition, in the hope that they could have better jobs and pay without having to retrain or work any harder.
About condemning crimes, I recall Obama condemning Sandy Hook, the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the San Bernardino shooting, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and many more. None of those were 'white on black' crimes.
I can believe that social tension has increased, but Obama did not start the 'Black Lives Matter' movement. Ordinary people did, who wanted their voices heard. What has Obama said that is racist in your opinion? How does that compare to what Trump has said?
SOME GOOD NEWS FOR ARGENTINESNov 11th, 2016 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
The Federal Chamber of Commerce of Buenos Aires confirmed this afternoon the prosecution of the Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in the case for the sale of dollar futures at the end of her government, according to the resolution of room II to which Télam agreed.
The examination had been processed in May by federal judge Claudio Bonadio.
According to the magistrate, the operations carried out by the Central Bank could not have materialized without an express decision of the highest authorities of the Ministry of Economy and the National Executive Branch, then headed by Cristina Fernández.
According to the judge, the transactions involved unfaithful administration to the detriment of the State because it was agreed to sell dollars in the futures market at a low price that, after the devaluation, was going to force the Argentine State to pay a big difference to the buyers .
Also prosecuted with the former were ex-Minister of Economy Axel Kicillof and former President of the Central Bank, Alejandro Vanoli.
The picture in El Pais of TMBOA is worth seeing. :o(
JBNov 11th, 2016 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
BO wanted to simply take all the legal guns from their owners, interfering with the rights of law-abiding citizens,
This right” was enshrined in the Constitution in a fledgling country with a citizen's militia.
There was no standing army so armed citizens could be ready at a moment's notice to defend their state or country
It is now 240 years since that point. The USA has a powerful regular army, a reserve National guard and civilian armed law enforcement police.
That argument is facile
The excuse for having a handgun is that I need it for self protection. So does everyone else. Does that make it safer ? I would argue no.
In the UK we banned all hand guns except under exceptional circumstances.
I know that I have very little chance of being shot by any nut case I may happen to meet.
Maybe I have a chance of getting stabbed BUT the perpetrator has to get within arm's length to do so. If he/she is within 50 feet ...no chance.
....The Federal Chamber of Commerce of Buenos Aires confirmed this afternoon the prosecution ....Nov 11th, 2016 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
Chamber of commerce?
I think you (or the less than qualified article writer) probably meant that a Federal Appellate Court approved the continuation of the prosecution, which should now proceed to a hearing (in other words, CFK's appeal motion was denied).
denied appeal - Woot !!Nov 11th, 2016 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
@ Clyde15Nov 12th, 2016 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse +3
I agree with you in principle, and certainly in the case of the UK.
But in the US it would be impossible to ban guns. Firstly because people would not support the ban, and secondly there are so many guns out there already that it would be impossible to enforce. It is pointless and counterproductive to make a law that you can't or won't enforce.
Also in America there are legitimate reasons for having weapons; there is still enough wilderness to make some hunting reasonable, and there are dangerous animals in the less inhabited parts. Some people live in very remote areas too; if it would take the police an hour to reach you then it does not seen so unreasonable to have a gun for self defence.
But of course they could still improve things with more thorough background checks, banning the sort of weapons that belong in an army, not in people's homes, and making laws about storing guns safely (the sort of thing that any responsible gun owner would do anyway).
The problem here is that any time someone suggests such a measure, the gun lobby start screaming They're trying to take away our guns! Government tyranny! They want to criminalise law-abiding citizens! and nothing gets done.
And so people keep on dying.
@ Clyde15Nov 12th, 2016 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse -3
So you are safe now that the seven hags of The Snowdrop committee got short barreled handguns banned, thus covering up the illegal activity going on in the Firearms Section of Northern Constabulary which allowed Thomas Hamilton to obtain handguns?
Try reading the excellent analysis by the University of Sydney and opening your mind.
Maybe I have a chance of getting stabbed BUT the perpetrator has to get within arm's length to do so. If he/she is within 50 feet ...no chance.
So, if we read this for what it states, you RUN AWAY from anybody that gets within 50 feet of you, just in case they have one of the many illegal firearms knocking around Scotland?
That must be amusing to observe.
AND, you clearly have no appreciation of what a trained combat knife fighter is capable of: you wouldn't see it coming and you most certainly wouldn't feel the one and only strike he / she would need to bleed you out to brain shut-down in
Why on earth would a trained combat knife fighter be wanting to attack Clyde...?Nov 13th, 2016 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What are the chances of even coming across one...?
Most folk that you would come across with a knife..have it because they are wee runts that would need one...
Wouldn't deter me an instant from giving them a right slap...
A gun...on the other hand...
@ VoiceNov 13th, 2016 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
I was agreeing with you until you said it wouldn't deter you from giving them a slap. Sounds a little foolhardy to me.
But I think ChrisR is wrong. Guns are much more dangerous than knives. how many random passersby get stabbed during gang fights, compared to people hit by stray bullets?
And compare the recent terrorist attacks in the UK, where they did not have access to guns, to the ones in the US, where they did:
In the UK, using knives:
Lee Rigby murder - 1 dead
The Leytonstone Tube attacker - 3 people injured, 1 seriously
In the US, using guns:
San Bernardino attack - 14 dead, 22 injured
Orlando nightclub shooting - 49 dead, 53 injured
Mr. Voice...Nov 13th, 2016 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Why on earth would a trained combat knife fighter be wanting to attack Clyde...?
Well... I don't know about Lowlander Clyde15..., but some years ago..., on this very pages..., an Anglo trained combat knife keyboard fighter of sorts... threathened me with Cutting my jugular vein with his razor sharp flick knife...
If you can't guess who it was..., you can search MercoPress's archive after...:
Razor sharp flick-knife
Just out of interest.Nov 13th, 2016 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Remind me later
Knife crime in England and Wales up for first time in four years | UK ...
https://www.theguardian.com › World › UK News › Knife crime
16 Jul 2015 - ONS reveals 2% rise in total knife crime offences in year to March as 'two ... Thursday 16 July 2015 07.10 EDT Last modified on Thursday 16 July ... The annual murder rate for England and Wales stood at more than 800 a ...
Homicides in England and Wales up 14% | UK news | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › World › UK News › Crime
21 Jan 2016 - Rise in knife and gun crime brings decade of downward trend in murder ... 2015 - an increase of 14% fuelled by rises in knife and gun crime, ...
A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still ...
17 Jul 2008 - More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.
Knife crime in Britain soars by 15% in one year, new figures show ...
www.standard.co.uk › News › Crime
15 Oct 2015 - Knife crime has soared in Britain, with a 15 per cent rise in attacks, figures ... Martin Bentham, Justin davenport; Thursday 15 October 2015 ...
The 15 teenage victims of knife crime in 2015 | London Evening ...
www.standard.co.uk › News › Crime
1 Jan 2016 - The teenage victims in 2015 were all male, most were from black and minority ... Tragic deaths: The 15 victims of knife crime in London last year ... “One murder is tragic and the numbers we have is not something we want to see .... Good Morning Britain viewers slam Piers Morgan's 'biased' Trump coverage.
1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures ...
www.standard.co.uk › News › Crime
1 Jul 2013 - In the first four months of the year, 11 people were murdered in knife attacks. Four teenagers have been stabbed to
Demon TreeNov 13th, 2016 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Foolhardy perhaps, but I think it depends on the circumstances...
I remember a few years ago a local lassie confronting a gunman outside her home...I've found an extract...
BRAVE MUM CONFRONTED GUNMAN
BRAVE mum Wendy Lewis confronted an armed gunman outside her home last September, when she told him that under no circumstances was he getting inside her house.
James Bryce, 44, of Crossloan Terrace, Govan, Glasgow, appeared at the High Court in Glasgow last week and admitted assaulting Wendy on September 26 by presenting a handgun at her, threatening to shoot her and demanding entry to her home with intent to rob her.
She never let him take her inside as her son, parents and friends were in there...and eventually ran away from the house so there was no chance of it happening....
I don't think anyone needs to do that search to guess who that was..;-))
Do we think he was referring to himself as the trained combat knife fighter. Hahaha.Nov 13th, 2016 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
We do Think he was.... don't we?Nov 13th, 2016 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
Well according to the law of averages...there must be some trained combat knife fighters out there....Nov 13th, 2016 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
I myself, for instance... can twirl a pretty mean baton...
...and I'm a living legend with a French Loaf...
My auld faithful 2.5 in Motosuke Nagao wold slice your French loaf in no time, Mr Voice... ;-)))Nov 13th, 2016 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
:-)Nov 14th, 2016 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse -1
@DTNov 14th, 2016 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
By your definition Brexit is a socialist measure
Hardly ; it was put to the vote - the will of the majority prevailed.
It has already affected my life negatively,...I had as much say as the Americans did about Obamacare; we both had a vote.
Don't doubt yr perception of it, but to say you had as much say as the Americans with Obamacare, is incorrect - Obamacare was rammed down people's throats, no referendum, and you could be fined if you didn't adhere ;
By your definition almost any policy could be considered socialist, for example raising VAT, or increasing the school leaving age.
With all due respect, I think you're stretching it a bit - unfortunately, insufficient space to explain all, however, creating, raising or lowering taxes is an intrinsic function of govt - it can hardly ask the 'people' what they want every time they need to take a decision.. ...besides, you elected yr representatives to do just this; if they don't , get rid of them. Re yr ex. of 'shool-leaving age', if the School Association, or whatever, after profound study, concludes it's best for education, why not ? What I'm saying is not all things can be submitted to popular vote, while a few, specific issues should be. ObCare was highly unpopular long before it was even passed by congress, but the democrats - who pushed it through - couldn't have cared less about public opinion.
As for gun control, don't know if Obama wanted to take all legal guns from their owners..
He sure tried...
Do you think gun dealers on the internet should be able to ... Absolutely NOT.
As I've said, restrict firearm possession to what is truly needed for self-defence. Nothing more.
The people saying Obama wants to ban all guns are exactly the same people....
I can't speak for them, and I don't agree with them.
As for conservative values, they don't seem much in evidence right now.....”
Perhaps...does that mean they should be scrubbed ?
Re W on B crime, BLM, will reply next post.
@ Jack BauerNov 14th, 2016 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
Not all things can be submitted to popular vote, while a few, specific issues should be.
But the US has never had countrywide referendums, they're just not part of its system of government. Not one of the laws made by the US government has ever been submitted to popular vote, so it's a little unreasonable to expect Obamacare to be, no?
In any case, people did have some say in the matter: Obama was elected president by a majority of citizens, after promising to enact Obamacare. If it was so unpopular, why didn't people vote for his opponent? The fact is Obamacare was highly unpopular with a MINORITY of Americans. Should the laws be made to suit the vocal minority? How is that democratic?
As for the Democrats not caring about public opinion, that makes no sense at all. They wanted to be reelected didn't they? They may well have misjudged public opinion, but that is not the same thing.
Now I think I understand your 'socialist measures' even less. Isn't raising taxes (at least on the rich), usually considered socialist? But you say that's a normal function of government.
When the UK created the NHS, was that socialism? What about when they earlier made schooling compulsory and created publicly funded schools for this purpose? How about laws demanding that shops close on a Sunday? This could be inconvenient for customers and also mean that shop owners make less money.
On gun control, how did Obama try to take all legal guns away? Did he try to pass a law doing this? Did he try to get the 2nd amendment repealed? I told you about a law he actually tried to pass, and you agreed with it. What makes you think he doesn't just want to restrict firearm possession to what is truly needed for self-defence, like you? Or supposing he really would rather take all guns away, wouldn't he still be glad to compromise by just getting rid of the most dangerous ones?
I'll have to talk about the conservative values in another comment, these character limits are a pain!
Continue…..Nov 14th, 2016 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
Thanks Elaine.Nov 14th, 2016 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
About conservative values, no, I don't think they should be scrubbed. But things liberals have been saying for years - that people can work hard and still not get rich, that they can lose their jobs and be unable to find another through no fault of their own - conservatives have just admitted these are true.
Because according to them, American workers have lost their jobs because of NAFTA and Chinese imports, and they can't get a pay rise because of illegal immigrants. No one is telling those people they just need to work harder, and shouldn't expect good jobs to be handed to them.
When Thatcher closed the noncompetitive industries in the UK, laying off thousands of workers, it seems that people here approved. When CFK raised tariffs to help industry in Argentina, they condemned her. But isn't that exactly what Trump wants to do? Manufacturing in America isn't competitive, so he wants to put tariffs on imports and cancel NAFTA.
So now I think most conservatives don't really believe in their values at all. From what I have seen you are the only one on this website who hasn't jumped on the Trump bandwagon, and still supports free trade etc.
@DTNov 15th, 2016 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
Even if referendums were part of the US system, one on Obamacare wouldn’t be feasible - simply too complicated an issue for the public - not to mention that even lawmakers couldn’t make heads or tails of it...so, who in their right mind signs off on something they can’t understand ?
BO campaigned on the back of a ‘proposed’ law which he ‘promised’ to implement if elected, supposedly a great improvement for health care ; he struggled to get it through and did so only with the aid of a demo-controlled Senate - despite warnings from the opposition; didn’t take long to discover the ‘fiasco’ it was – didn’t only fail to deliver on BO’s promises, but turned out just the opposite. Don’t think even he understood it.
I said “the democrats couldn’t care less about public opinion” because while most politicians aren’t particularly close to their constituents and rarely truly listen to them, in this case the democrats were no exception - using their muscle in the Senate, they approved a law of the magnitude of Ob’care, without a clue as to what it really was…if that’s “not-caring” about public opinion, what is ? you may call it ‘misjudging’ public opinion, but I don’t think they even considered it.
Creating & raising taxes has been a function of government since long before it was described as socialist, or conservative; obviously this is too complex to explain with a couple of statements, but a govt should respect the individual, and not create laws that defend minorities in detriment of the majority. Excessive social welfare, without necry control, is just one of these socialist measures. But it gains votes.
Sunday rest was imposed for health reasons, but if worked (today), it results in higher pay, plus a weekday off, to rest.
I was wrong about BO wanting to take ALL legal guns away - just military-type weaponry.
On crime, BO emphasizes cases of blacks killed by whites (usually cops), while ignoring 'b on b' crime, responsible for over 90% of black killings.
@ JBNov 15th, 2016 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
I agree that Obamacare isn't a good law. Its basically a series of compromises, trying not to disrupt the existing system too much. In large part this was because he knew only half the people wanted universal health care. It was supposed to allow people who liked their insurance as it was, to keep it, while helping those who couldn't get any because they were too poor, or had pre-existing conditions. Not surprisingly, in trying to please everyone he pleased no one, and it didn't work as promised.
I do think if the Republicans had been willing to compromise, they probably could have made some improvements before the law was passed, but they were always too busy trying to block it completely.
And why do you think the Democrats passed the law, if they didn't think that their voters, at least, would support it? I find it hard to believe that any politician would ignore public opinion completely, since it is so essential to their careers.
Since I read other forums, I have seen plenty of support for the law - as well as opposition - and since it was passed it has been good for some Americans and bad for others. The ones in favour still think it needs reform, but don't want it scrapped completely; however Trump has promised to do just that. Today I have seen people wondering if they and their families will soon have no insurance and no medical care again. One is afraid his mother will not live much longer if she loses her insurance. Those are the sort of people who voted for Obama.
I mentioned the Sunday closing laws because they are not thought of as socialist, but they do affect people's lives and reduce their individual choice. And the NHS and compulsory state funded education are surely socialist, but they are both very popular. It's pretty hard to say what is excessive social welfare, and what is the right amount. Of course people tend to disagree on these things, but few would want to get rid of every law that could affect their lives negatively.
@DTNov 16th, 2016 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
BO may have meant well (when he created Ob'care), but the way it was passed, without even minimum comprehension by those who approved it, it turned into an experiment, a bit like 'trial & error' - but as a law that has such an impact , I think it deserved one hell of a lot more discussion. He sold it as one thing but delivered something else.
Why (mainly) the democrats passed it, despite its uncomprehensible complexity, I think was probably because of just that - they didn't undertand it, yet thought it would be a miracle. When it dawned on people they'd been lied to - making Ob'care unpopular - a lot of democrats who'd fought tooth and nail to push it through (Nancy Pelosi for one), tried to disown it ; but the people sent a clear message to Congress when it voted in a republican Senate. One of the more perverse effects of the law, aside from the immediate realization it didn't work as promised, was that it pushed many full-time employees into part-time jobs, without coverage.
The obligation to close shop on Sunday, end of story - although ostensibly to give people a rest - I would consider arbitrary, and a socialist measure, to the extent that it would have been imposed, based on the will of a minority, against that of the majority.... I say this because, at least here in Brazil (and by what I've seen in the US), commerce has long opened on Sundays, after the Law was eventually altered to allow employers & employees to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements, with due compensation.
Going back to social tension and BLM, it started as a legitimate movement by black communities, to defend blacks, but soon turned political and radicalized, and as we've seen quite a few times, violent. It's no secret that G.Soros now helps fund it, in the same way he does much of the liberal Press and left-wing initiatives...and it has been rumoured that BLM now has ties with the PLO...not a particularly good omen.
Gotta stop, space is ending.
@ Jack BauerNov 16th, 2016 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
Of course it was a bad idea for the senators to pass the bill if they didn't really understand it, but I think the great difficulty they had in passing it had something to do with that. Since the Republicans in the senate were doing their best to block the bill, the Democrats needed agreement from every single one of their senators. With only two parties each has a pretty wide range of viewpoints, so you can imagine trying to please everyone resulted in some messy compromises.
Every new law is somewhat trial and error, as any can have unforeseen consequences, but this one was particularly bad as it had such wide effects. It did do some of what it set out to though, as the rate of uninsured adults dropped from 16% to 9.1%.
IMO one big problem with the law is that it did not really deal with the extraordinary cost of health care in the US. Routine treatment in the US costs strikingly more than in other countries:
Just getting the costs down to something reasonable would make a big difference to most people, including those without insurance.
About the Sunday closing, you think it makes a difference whether the majority of people are in favour of it, or only a minority? Some people would say that even if only a minority want to work, shouldn't they be allowed to? Assuming that no one is forced to work on a Sunday, then those who don't want to can simply choose not to. Why do they need a law to force everyone to do the same?
I didn't know about Soros funding BLM, I'll have to look into it more I guess. Most of what I've seen was on the UK news which probably just shows the highlights. Ties with the PLO do sound like bad news though.
@DTNov 17th, 2016 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
I think we agree on most issues. That said, the info in your link is an eye-opener....to summarize the problem of exhorbitant prices in the US, compared to other countries, this paragraph says it all :
In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
Seems the providers/insurers are nothing more than a cartel, and the government just sits on the sidelines without lifting a finger.
Regarding closing shop on Sundays, the process was interesting : the Commerce Association, supported by the Mayor, decided commerce should close on Sundays, to give people a rest, without considering any other factors. Shop-owners were obviously against it, and so was the majority of consumers, but no-one bothered listening to the employees...surprisingly, when they did, they found most were not only willing, but wanted to work on Sundays, provided they got higher pay and could rest one day during the week...a simple solution which pleased the 3 sides. That's why I believe imposing such a law (close on Sunday), in an arbitrary manner, is not particularly intelligent.
But to answer your question, the law didn't even consider what the majority might want - it was passed and that's was it....so yes, I think that anything that would interfere with the right to chose whether you want to work on Sunday, is a bad idea. Negotiation is the name of the game, a win-win situation.
I've read several reports on Soros and his progressive 'global' ideas, such as doing away with frontiers (which would stimulate uncontrolled immigration) ; he funds many such shady ideas, usually through left-wing and anarchist movements, always keeping a low profile, kind of like a 'silent-revolution'.
@JBNov 17th, 2016 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
I expect there are plenty of things we disagree on, really. But we can hopefully still agree on the facts, discuss things sensibly, and could potentially come to some sort of compromise. All qualities which I think are sadly missing from US politics at the moment. IMO the internet is partly to blame, as it is easy for people to only read news that suits their own leanings, and to only visit forums etc where everyone agrees with them and they are never exposed to any different ideas.
About the health care costs, in the US each insurance company negotiates their own rates for each drug and procedure, and the bigger ones can get better rates. Meanwhile the charge for those with no insurance is vastly higher, both because they have no negotiating power and because hospitals are required to treat people who cannot pay, and they raise their prices to cover this. It is also apparently impossible to find out what the cost will be beforehand, so you cannot even 'shop around' to get a better deal, and the costs are increasing all the time.
I suspect that seeing stats like that, and listening to people who were ill but could not get treatment, must have convinced some of the Democrats that doing anything would be better than doing nothing.
It sounds like Brazil actually did well in finding a solution to Sunday opening that pleased everyone. It's good to know the government can get things right, since we mostly see the bad stuff on here. In the UK they are debating changing the law again, and some workers are opposed to it. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea or not in this case, but in general I think laws should avoid inconveniencing a minority, even if the majority of people would be happy (or vice versa of course), unless there is a good reason for it.
I don't know if I will have time to look into Soros today, but there is now a rather biased article mentioning him so I will certainly be replying there.
@DTNov 17th, 2016 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
Sunday opening, like other simpler issues that can be regulated to attend all, needs to include all parties involved. Usually a compromise can be reached that pleases all, sometimes not, but no harm in trying. Going back a bit, it is obvious many issues cannot be the object of a referendum, however, the government coming forward to explain, in a transparent form, what they intend doing, and why, goes a long way. People will usually agree, if they understand the implications and are convinced that it is necessary for the greater good. A good example is income tax - I have no problem paying high taxes, under the understanding that they'll be used efficiently, towards their official purpose....but unfortunately, here in Brazil you see just the opposite. Hopefully now, with the Lava-Jato, politicians might think twice before stealing ....but quite frankly, I'm not too optimistic.