Quantcast
The US Politics |OT|

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

I think there are a whole basket of reasons why that comparison is bad.

First off, this stuff that Trump said he wanted wasn't just something he said to Xi, it is something he said to the American people. Some people voted for him because they thought that he would bring in a radical reshaping of our trade policies. He has not. In politics, you have to be mindful of the people you are representing. If you oversell as a "negotiation tactic", you aren't just playing businessman, you are lying to your constituents.

And second, I honestly don't buy for a second that it was all a negotiation tactic. You have to take into account exactly how we got here. The radical steps, the trade wars, the billion dollar bailouts for farmers, the hit taken to our GDP and the damage done to the global economy. You don't set the bridge on fire for a small nod. If you do, you are an idiot. Like I said before, this is the type of deal that could come out of a good negotiation without the self-inflicted wounds. To only get this out of it, it demonstrates to me that Trump realized he was in too deep and pulled out because he needed a win and realized that his over-the-top measures weren't working. He basically hobbled across the point where he started and pointed at how far he had come, when really 99% of that journey was just climbing back up the cliff he threw himself off...

Yes, Trump at times acts like he's greater than God, performing miracles. Everyone knows that's B.S, but it does project confidence and strength, which works for many. Nobody, or very few possibly, backing Trump, actually believe he's going to completely change the system. At best he's going to be able to get the train back on the tracks, and maybe make some headway if he get's a second term, maybe.

It likely is. I'm looking for a clip I saw quite a while back but can't find it. I thought it was McConnell, yet I'm having trouble finding it because it maybe it wasn't him, but it's definitely of somebody who's around Trump, and they talk about Trumps negotiation tactics and that he always goes a little overboard so that he actually get's what he wants in the end, which has been working for him. You let the other side think they've beaten you down to a point you're finally willing to take the much lesser amount they want to give you, when really that's exactly what you wanted in the first place.

You also initially said you have a hard time seeing this as a win for Trump, yet you just said it was a win for Trump. So is it a win or not?

This isn't the clip but I watched it around the same time as the other so think I'm getting close. Trump first off won't admit he's asking for a little too much but if you read into what he says, he is implying he's asking for a little too much. The fact he says he won't just make a deal shows that China is just a tough negotiator and Trump is below the threshold for where he actually wants the deal to end up.

This clip is from August 2019, so odds are good based on the latest news, that Trump finally got China to give up a little more, which put him where he wanted to be. No point in continuing and trying to take too much. Make a reasonable deal and move forward.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

You also initially said you have a hard time seeing this as a win for Trump, yet you just said it was a win for Trump. So is it a win or not?

I am not saying that it was a win in reality, I am saying that Trump is going to sell it as if it were one. Same as many of his "win"s. He creates a problem, solves that problem (or makes it worse), and sells it to his supporters as if he just did something amazing. He is a snake oil salesman. Nothing more.

This deal isn't worth the trouble we went through to get there, and it sure as shit isn't what he has been selling the American people. Stop saying "Thank You" when he lies to your face. The excuses people make for his bullshit are too much. He is lying, and he has been lying since day one. Nobody is even trying to deny that fact anymore. Demand better or bullshit is all you will ever get.



sundin13 said:
Overall, my take on the recent trade deal announcements (China deal and new NAFTA) is that both of them are positive steps, but they fall miles short of the radical re-imagining of economic systems, or the economic relationship between countries that Trump seemed to be aiming for. There will likely be small scale positive effects in specific areas of the US economy, but it is unlikely to significantly alter the economy at large. It seems predictions related to growth have largely remained in place, with many economists stating that the most significant change is a decrease in uncertainty and a decrease in tariffs (both solving problems that Trump created) while the actual text of the deal seems to be expected to have a much more minor impact.

I struggle to see this as a win for Trump. We went into this trade war with some fairly largely demands, and what we received at the end is a step towards normal in return for some minor agreements that wouldn't be surprising to see in the absence of this whole debacle.

I have to point out that this "debacle" has been largely positive as it allowed American companies to diversify their supply chains out of China. These tariffs are the reason countries like India are stepping up their manufacturing game, allowing China to monopolize industrial production has been terrible for all countries, not just the USA. 

Why would you want to allow one country to withhold all the manufacturing power of our most used devices? That's a recipe for disaster, the whole world was willingly allowing Beijing to become their sole provider of their most used goods because of greed, something had to be done about it.

It's good for the tariffs to continue and for other countries with cheap labor to step up so that the competition for manufacturing is resuscitated, and you can't just simply say "it would've happened anyway" because as far as most politicians are concerned, it was a non-issue to continue to concede to China because they wanted that sweet cheap access to their sweatshops. 

Make no mistake, China was hit by the trade war and it's not over, if they want tariffs to be lifted they have to make more concessions in Phase two, and time isn't on their side as other countries will slowly replicate their successful formula, which would be the best case scenario because competition is good.

Not to mention, so far the consumers haven't been negatively affected by these tariffs despite the extreme and the continuous warnings issued by mainstream media outlets. So the longer phase two takes, the more diversified supply chains will become which is better for everyone. 



LurkerJ said:
sundin13 said:
Overall, my take on the recent trade deal announcements (China deal and new NAFTA) is that both of them are positive steps, but they fall miles short of the radical re-imagining of economic systems, or the economic relationship between countries that Trump seemed to be aiming for. There will likely be small scale positive effects in specific areas of the US economy, but it is unlikely to significantly alter the economy at large. It seems predictions related to growth have largely remained in place, with many economists stating that the most significant change is a decrease in uncertainty and a decrease in tariffs (both solving problems that Trump created) while the actual text of the deal seems to be expected to have a much more minor impact.

I struggle to see this as a win for Trump. We went into this trade war with some fairly largely demands, and what we received at the end is a step towards normal in return for some minor agreements that wouldn't be surprising to see in the absence of this whole debacle.

I have to point out that this "debacle" has been largely positive as it allowed American companies to diversify their supply chains out of China. These tariffs are the reason countries like India are stepping up their manufacturing game, allowing China to monopolize industrial production has been terrible for all countries, not just the USA. 

Why would you want to allow one country to withhold all the manufacturing power of our most used devices? That's a recipe for disaster, the whole world was willingly allowing Beijing to become their sole provider of their most used goods because of greed, something had to be done about it.

It's good for the tariffs to continue and for other countries with cheap labor to step up so that the competition for manufacturing is resuscitated, and you can't just simply say "it would've happened anyway" because as far as most politicians are concerned, it was a non-issue to continue to concede to China because they wanted that sweet cheap access to their sweatshops. 

Make no mistake, China was hit by the trade war and it's not over, if they want tariffs to be lifted they have to make more concessions in Phase two, and time isn't on their side as other countries will slowly replicate their successful formula, which would be the best case scenario because competition is good.

Not to mention, so far the consumers haven't been negatively affected by these tariffs despite the extreme and the continuous warnings issued by mainstream media outlets. So the longer phase two takes, the more diversified supply chains will become which is better for everyone. 

What I am trying to figure out is what exactly did this actually solve.  Will this decrease the trade deficit which Trump touted as one of his main points. Does this solve China backing their companies and low balling products into the marketplace.  This trade deal actually solves none of the things we went into the war for and it smells exactly like the deal made with North Korea where Trump was touting that one but end up being garbage.  The only thing we really get out of this is that China will go back to buying soybeans another other commodities they already was buying from us.  The fact that this deal was put on the table a long time ago by China and Trump turned it down multiple times only means he accepted it now because it election time.  He needed a win which is basically nothing but he will sell it to you as if he climbed a mountain while he was just giving scraps from the table.  This deal changes nothing between China and the US and it definitely doesn't change anything in how Chian operate.



I leave this thread for a while and come back and Eric is trying to make some of the most babbling garbage statements from Trump seem normal and ok. I have to give it to you Eric, there isn't to many people on this planet who are willing to tackle that job.



LurkerJ said:

I have to point out that this "debacle" has been largely positive as it allowed American companies to diversify their supply chains out of China. These tariffs are the reason countries like India are stepping up their manufacturing game, allowing China to monopolize industrial production has been terrible for all countries, not just the USA. 

Why would you want to allow one country to withhold all the manufacturing power of our most used devices? That's a recipe for disaster, the whole world was willingly allowing Beijing to become their sole provider of their most used goods because of greed, something had to be done about it.

It's good for the tariffs to continue and for other countries with cheap labor to step up so that the competition for manufacturing is resuscitated, and you can't just simply say "it would've happened anyway" because as far as most politicians are concerned, it was a non-issue to continue to concede to China because they wanted that sweet cheap access to their sweatshops. 

Make no mistake, China was hit by the trade war and it's not over, if they want tariffs to be lifted they have to make more concessions in Phase two, and time isn't on their side as other countries will slowly replicate their successful formula, which would be the best case scenario because competition is good.

Not to mention, so far the consumers haven't been negatively affected by these tariffs despite the extreme and the continuous warnings issued by mainstream media outlets. So the longer phase two takes, the more diversified supply chains will become which is better for everyone. 

Evidence that China was hurt by the trade war is not evidence that the US benefited. While global diversification would be a fairly small positive, it would not in any way make up for the real damage done to the American economy over the last several years (relative to how the economy could have been in the absence of the trade wars). That said, I struggle to find much evidence that there was actually much in the way of a global diversification.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/why-the-us-china-trade-war-has-not-helped-india-analysis/story-bQ74UotjHLBpHmRsoZc2xJ.html

This piece by the Hindustan Times examines in particular why India hasn't really benefited from the trade war, which largely goes against your assertion. It points out several key facts, including that the US/China trade volume wasn't greatly affected by the trade war. Beyond that, it points out that many countries simply don't have the infrastructure to handle this volume. The trade war is very uncertain. These changes would take years to make and many businesses don't really see the benefit in making a huge long term investment that may not even pay off until after the trade war has ended. A much better option would be to directly diversify by building bridges with diverse manufacturing sectors, not by burning the bridges that are in place.

Further, China wasn't the only country that Trump picked a fight with. Many other areas which may have picked up some of the slack were also targeted by the Trump administration (or threatened, which creates uncertainty and hampers investment). These areas include Canada, Mexico, the EU and...India. Yes, one of the reason that the Trump trade war didn't heavily benefit India is because Trump was also picking a fight with India.

And again, even if this diversification occurred, it would not negate the negative impacts of the trade war. Billions of dollars were spent on a bailout for farmers, with many losing significant portions of their crop due to the inability to sell, prices increased for consumers, American companies had to eat a lot of the costs, business investment has been severely hampered and US manufacturing was in a recession in 2019, with large manufactures blaming the trade war and these issues will continue to be a problem as long as these tariffs remain in place.

The strategy seems like it was far too scattershot. Positive effects were nullified by what seemed like a complete absence of any strategy or cooperation between countries...



the-pi-guy said:

EricHiggin said:

So if two people have an understanding just by body language, like in a fight, but nobody else who's watching in the area does, is that communication incoherent or not? Is that fight nonsense because those others don't understand why it happened?

How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? How much positive vs negative pushed coverage is there of Musk vs Trump?

No they thought they understood something but were incorrect. Yet they keep arguing with me, even though they, or we, don't understand each other.

You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.

Want to guess who wins the argument?

>You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.


It's pretty clear you still have no clue what you're talking about.  Coherence has nothing to do with simply not understanding what is being said.  

I can read what Trump is saying in his answer above.  That doesn't mean it follows any kind of logic structure.  It doesn't mean he doesn't go off on tangents.  

>How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? 

You only need a few minutes of each to understand their intelligence or lack thereof.  Musk has plenty of negative coverage.  Trump has plenty of positive coverage if you go back far enough.  

Like usual, you're trying to argue through examples that you think are relevant, but they just show that you don't understand what issues are being brought up.  

Trump isn't speaking Chinese.  He's speaking English.  The problem is he's jumping from thought to thought mid-sentence.  Here's his most famous example.  

Doesn't finish his thought about having Nuclear, even though that could be made into a couple of paragraphs worth of sentences.

He interjected that thought about how he has good genes because of his Uncle.   And he interjects that thought with partisanship.  Interjecting that thought with some very incomplete thoughts about his uncle.  Interjecting again about how he has to give his credentials.  

Almost looks like he's returning to his thoughts about the nuclear, only to interject about the prisoners.  

This single sentence has like 40 different sentence fragments.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93B_LGWFD1Q

32:17



the-pi-guy said:
EricHiggin said:

So if two people have an understanding just by body language, like in a fight, but nobody else who's watching in the area does, is that communication incoherent or not? Is that fight nonsense because those others don't understand why it happened?

How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? How much positive vs negative pushed coverage is there of Musk vs Trump?

No they thought they understood something but were incorrect. Yet they keep arguing with me, even though they, or we, don't understand each other.

You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.

Want to guess who wins the argument?

>You've got and Englishman and a Chinaman arguing and neither speaks the other language.


It's pretty clear you still have no clue what you're talking about.  Coherence has nothing to do with simply not understanding what is being said.  

I can read what Trump is saying in his answer above.  That doesn't mean it follows any kind of logic structure.  It doesn't mean he doesn't go off on tangents.  

>How much Musk history is available vs Trump history? 

You only need a few minutes of each to understand their intelligence or lack thereof.  Musk has plenty of negative coverage.  Trump has plenty of positive coverage if you go back far enough.  

Like usual, you're trying to argue through examples that you think are relevant, but they just show that you don't understand what issues are being brought up.  

Trump isn't speaking Chinese.  He's speaking English.  The problem is he's jumping from thought to thought mid-sentence.  Here's his most famous example.  

Doesn't finish his thought about having Nuclear, even though that could be made into a couple of paragraphs worth of sentences.

He interjected that thought about how he has good genes because of his Uncle.   And he interjects that thought with partisanship.  Interjecting that thought with some very incomplete thoughts about his uncle.  Interjecting again about how he has to give his credentials.  

Almost looks like he's returning to his thoughts about the nuclear, only to interject about the prisoners.  

This single sentence has like 40 different sentence fragments.  

in·co·her·ent - 1. (of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.

---
If Trumps history is positive, then how would looking at his history prove he's an idiot who says smart things sometimes? The media paints those things in a good light do they? Doesn't sound like the media and their coverage to me.
You suggested history was evidence, and then implied Trumps history is plenty positive, so why then suggest he's always been an idiot who says smart things at times?
---
Not sure what's so confusing about it. Based on your explanation of what he says, you understand what he's saying, you just don't like the way he's saying it, and you're unhappy you didn't get a full answer. Just because someone gives you an answer that isn't complete doesn't make it incoherent, it makes it incomplete.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 19 January 2020

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Machiavellian said:
I leave this thread for a while and come back and Eric is trying to make some of the most babbling garbage statements from Trump seem normal and ok. I have to give it to you Eric, there isn't to many people on this planet who are willing to tackle that job.

Not to mention doing so with the lack of kind uplifting compliments like this, that are so very missed. Not everyone works for free, but someone's gotta do it.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Runa216 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Let me add this in here. 

Elon is a smart person who at times may not be the smoothest person while talking.  But the thing is you can always tell that there's thought behind what he says.  

With Trump, it's pretty much the opposite.  He might be able to get words out, but they sound more like incoherent babbling half the time.  

It's shocking how few people accept this fact as reality. I don't know a lot about Elon's ethics or morals, all I know is that he's clearly brilliant. And Dutch. And a billionaire. Listening to him talk, reading about what he says and does, and knowing his impact on the world, it's clear he's smart. He might not always have the most tact and he can sometimes go a little too far into theoretical possibility for the average person, but he's clearly a genius. 

With Trump it's like he doesn't know anything about anything but is convinced he knows everything and has somehow managed to convince people of this. He can't form a coherent sentence (Something most people learn to do before the age of 5), lies about everything, and is wrong about everything else. Yet, becuase he speaks with confidence and a lack of self-awareness, he has a devoted following. Confidence speaks louder than intelligence with his followers. 

At least Elon has an excuse. English is his second language and he speaks it volumes better than trump and has the brain to back it up. I genuinely do not know how anyone could possibly compare the two. 

Yeah that is sadly how people react on politics and i'm not only talking about trump's following.

Someone like Elon in the position that he is in is a rarity in this modern society,people like that are the new pioneers of humanity imo.