Lets Get Political

[Gromnir]

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It's possible he may not have intended to go through with it in violation of the trade deal he negotiated himself. This may have all been brinkmanship on his part. In that case he got something for nothing. Kudos to him I guess. 

except you have now undercut the faith current and potential trade deal partners have in the US to maintain obligations. 

regardless, am thinking once trump saw the growing revolt in his own party, including core supporters, he had to cave on tariffs, but he needed some kinda token to show he won... something. wh has declared victory. let's wait a month and see how dramatic the illegal immigration numbers drop before hanging out kudos.

...

admitted, with trump lies, am gonna be dubious if immigration numbers sudden do drop.  is the problem with constant lying-- nobody believes you even when you tell the truth. well, nobody save for sharp one, wherever he may be, and the ~30% o' undereducated folks from america's heartland who don't realize their hero screwed 'em with taxes, tariffs and deregulation o' commercial farms.

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

7 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Wow. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

You do have a point that it did happen. I graduated HS in 1989 and there were shotguns and rifles on racks in cars driven by students. We went shooting after school more than once. But you cannot even draw a straight line between the two times through any one cause.

And I didn't. I'm writing posts on a forum, not dissertations mate. Sure it's not a single thing that caused the problem, but I think the change in approach on raising kids had an impact, don't you think? And I'm a little annoyed by the guys claiming that they in US have the answer on how to deal with youth around the globe given how youth in US behave this days.

[injurai]

For the record. The claim was not that the US is a shining beacon, It was to contrast non corporal solutions which are far more effective. Kids still fall through the cracks, but you wouldn't use violent punishment to course correct them onto the limited path of success. Those issues have to be solved by other means.

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

except you have now undercut the faith current and potential trade deal partners have in the US to maintain obligations.

OK. Name one.

It's rather funny how the coverage of Trump in last few weeks in Europe and in US have been so polar opposites. There is no enmity between any US partners and Trump.

As for the deal with Mexico the problem seems to be that the narration will be carried out by the WH. It seems Trump base don't believe a thing media and Dems are trying to say about Trump. Probably  because it's the problem with constant lying-- nobody believes you even when you tell the truth.

It seems surprising that left leaning media and Dems think they will win in 2020 by pondering more to the same base. They already lost and the only way they can win is take away Trump voters in states Trump won. But they seem to think like Hillary in 2016 that they can win with better popular vote not the electoral college and go for more votes in California. Funny.

[Gromnir]

Mexico Tariffs Make China-U.S. Deal Less Likely, Analysts Say

Factbox: Tariff wars - duties imposed by Trump and U.S. trading partners

In Search for Leverage, Trump May Be Undercutting His Own Trade Deals

sharp needs to quit relying so heavily on breitbart.

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

4 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Mexico Tariffs Make China-U.S. Deal Less Likely, Analysts Say

Factbox: Tariff wars - duties imposed by Trump and U.S. trading partners

In Search for Leverage, Trump May Be Undercutting His Own Trade Deals

How are the articles from April and May relevant analysis of something that happened in June? 

So the newest article says how Mexico tariffs make deal less likely...but the tariffs are out since there is a deal with Mexico. So the predictions are no longer valid. 

The thing is US media and Gromnir here seem to think Trump does the negotiations behind closed doors in the same way he handles his Twitter. And they all seem to think that "Oh there is no way that he will make a deal with X after Twitting Y". And as a person who actually had experience in some high level negotiations I can tell you nobody pays attention to this stuff.

I assure you guys if Sadiq Khan had to make a deal with Trump he would meet with him and struck a deal no matter how short or stupid Trump would call him on Twitter. 

On the other hand I do understand the frustration. They threw everything at the guy for nearly 4 years. Treason, mental problems, far right connotations, racism, misogynism, homphobia, adultery, going after his wife, his children, his money etc. And nothing sticked. That must hurt. But now after they lost all the ammunition they seem to throw paper balls and that's just sad.

[Skarpen]

45 minutes ago, injurai said:

For the record. The claim was not that the US is a shining beacon, It was to contrast non corporal solutions which are far more effective. Kids still fall through the cracks, but you wouldn't use violent punishment to course correct them onto the limited path of success. Those issues have to be solved by other means.

Ok. But the other means seems to not work or worse have the opposite effect. The kids who fallen through the crack before seemed to hold themselves, behavior wise, to a higher standard than kids that didn't fall nowadays. And corporal solutions might not be the answer but we have to find something that works or there might be trouble in next few generations.

[Gromnir]

2 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

How are the articles from April and May relevant analysis of something that happened in June? 

 

you clear didn't read the articles. end tariffs didn't change the reason why prospective and threatened tariffs (is why articles from early is valid to present discussion... duh) hurt potential deals regardless o' whether a few o' the threats is rescinded. 

"The European Union gave final approval Monday for a formal mandate to carry out trade negotiations with the United States, but it was not without controversy. France and Belgium both opposed the move, an unusual step given such mandates are traditionally approved unanimously.

"President Emmanuel Macron of France said he objected to negotiations because the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris climate agreement in 2017, but relations have been strained for other reasons. Last week, the Trump administration threatened the European Union with tariffs in a fight over plane subsidies, and Mr. Trump tweeted that the bloc was “a brutal trading partner with the United States, which will change.”"

yeah, is from april, so if the reason for disquiet from euros is instability and trump threatening o' tariffs, then recent spats with china and mexico make such fears diminish or increase? 

sheesh.

and your assurances is 'bout as convincing as were sharp's swan song.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[Skarpen]

9 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

"The European Union gave final approval Monday for a formal mandate to carry out trade negotiations with the United States, but it was not without controversy. France and Belgium both opposed the move, an unusual step given such mandates are traditionally approved unanimously.

See. This is what I talk about. The deal was made and yet some seek some minor detail like Macron's temper tantrum about climate agreement that no one cares about now. 

I don't have to sound convincing to you good sir. After all Hillary sounded convincing when she said she will win 2016, Obama sounded convincing when he joked about magic wand, Dems seemed convincing when they sayd Muller will indict and so on, and so on. In the end they weren't right. And I think that matters more than sounding convincing. 

[Gromnir]

why don't you read the stuff you respond to? 

you asked us to "name one." said there were no evidence o' any enmity.

so we give multiple examples.

then you suggest the timing o' the articles makes 'em irrelevant as the tariffs 'gainst mexico has been, for now, dropped... even though obvious the articles were talking 'bout current tensions resulting from possible tariffs. so trump actual goes so far as to threaten monthly tariffs 'gainst mexico and you somehow see concerns as being lessened?

article talks 'bout euro and south american and asian fears regarding trump and his seeming unplanned tariffs schemes and how such is undermining confidence in trade agreements. france and belgium even went so far as to oppose negotiations for an eu trade deal with the us. all sharp takes from the article is the breitbart echo box silliness that media is overreacting to marcon tantrum regarding trump exit from paris agreement.

how sharp must the point for it to penetrate?

HA! Good Fun! 

 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

why don't you read the stuff you respond to? 

you asked us to "name one." said there were no evidence o' any enmity.

so we give multiple examples.

No, you didn't gave examples, you posted articles. Articles that speculate what can or can't happen. These articles don't work on quotes from the actual people making the deals. Therefore they might be interesting but their weight on what is happening is nothing more than a simple speculation.

You seem to confuse reality with media coverage. A dire mistake of anyone who deals in politics. For example EU doesn't work like described in the article. NY Times seems to confuse numerous things either by lack of knowledge or on purpose. First of all they claimed Belgium opposed the deal, which is a straight up lie. Their representative was absent to to other duties. And absent representative doesn't count as opposed they are abstained from the vote . Second of all this was a meeting of Council of the European Union which is a gathering of ministers for certain areas yet NYT quotes Macron who is a member of the different body - European Council. That alone make the article not honest at best. Third the unanimous vote is again something that must be done in European Council, not Council of the European Union which requires qualified majority for most cases. Council of the European Union very rarely passes anything unanimous. Again NYT article author is either uninformed or biased to the point of actual lying.

This would be a far better coverage of the event:

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-backs-start-of-trade-talks-with-us/a-48327245

P.S. Please try to avoid personal insults, there is no necessity to be hostile towards people with better understanding and experience.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Skarpen
adding P.S.

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

No, you didn't gave examples, you posted articles.

true enough. the articles did provide multiple examples. need hand holding? fine. how 'bout additional sources?

'course your own linked article notes french resistance,and observes,  "The EU currently has a tense trade relationship with Washington, with Donald Trump threatening to levy tariffs on car imports and other European products."

do you even bother to read stuff you link?

http://fortune.com/2019/05/07/us-eu-trade-talks-agriculture/

"Then there are the tariffs that are still in place between the two sides—the U.S. metals tariffs and the counter-tariffs that followed—plus the tariffs that Trump keeps threatening to levy on European cars—and the tariffs the EU is threatening to introduce in response."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-30/u-s-eu-trade-talks-stumble-threatening-new-trade-war-front

"European officials have blamed a Trump administration that has had little time for dealing with a bureaucracy in Brussels already held in low regard by many in the U.S. president’s orbit. Distracting Trump has been a breakdown in talks with China and a need for a quick deal with Japan to assuage American agricultural interests.

"“I don’t think the U.S. is ready to start on the tariff negotiations,” Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU’s trade commissioner, told reporters in Paris earlier this month after meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer."

and

"In talks in Washington and Paris this month the two sides again made little progress. As if to highlight the distance between the two sides, U.S. officials during the Washington meetings at one point brought out a binder containing a 150-page text negotiated with China and showed it off, according to people familiar with the events.

"That leaves the most likely paths either for more muddling through or for a sharp escalation.

":EU officials have made clear any auto tariffs would be met with retaliation, as were steel and aluminum duties introduced on similar national security grounds last year. The EU said in January that it would hit 20 billion euros of U.S. products should Trump impose auto tariffs.""

your willingness to misread and misrepresent has not changed since your miraculous resurrection.

so, no enmity?

also am noticing how you did not respond to your wacky timeliness criticism. the complete unreasonable and illogical assumption that trump ending tariff threat would erase concerns presented in articles from BEFORE he imposed such tariffs is kinda amusing, no? am not thinking you yet grasp the complete wackiness o' such a suggestion. concerns from europeans and asia and central and south america is, mongst many issues, the unreliability o' wh position and their willingness to throw tariff threats into any conflict regardless o' pre existing trade deals. mexico, occurring AFTER a couple linked articles were published thus constitutes evidence illustrating such concerns is legit. nevertheless, you read complete bass ackwards. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps the emphasis on "sharp" 'bove in the quoted material were added by Gromnir.  will continue to add a sharp angle when appropriate. and as to your ps, we did get a momentary chuckle regarding the irony, though likely unintended.

 

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

OK. Name one.

It's rather funny how the coverage of Trump in last few weeks in Europe and in US have been so polar opposites. There is no enmity between any US partners and Trump.

You'd do better to say that there's no enmity between US partners and the US itself. That's not absolutely true of course, Turkey at this point is close to fundamentally disliking the US itself for example, but it is mostly so.

Towards Trump there's massive enmity from pretty much everyone except the Saudis, Israel, and one or two European countries, like Poland, and Australia whose foreign policy for 75 years has been to ask the US where to jump and how high. You won't find foreign leaders stating their dislike publicly precisely because Trump is an erratic monomaniac who acts on whim and the belief that he can leverage the US's dominant position limitlessly and without consequence. Of those who like him Israel and Saudi only like him because he's so very easy for them to manipulate/ bribe.

The problem with constantly threatening to or pulling out of treaties is that you fundamentally devalue any treaty you subsequently make and any negotiations that follow. Trump has got one major deal out of all of his tirades, NAFTA 2.0, and within a year he's threatening to tear it up because the US cannot control its borders. The default position is to call his bluff, and wait in the hope that Trump gets voted out next year. Yeah, Europe will talk about deals etc because Trump might not get voted out, but if you think their default hope isn't status quo ante after Biden or whoever get elected you're simply wrong.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

29 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

 

 Trump has got one major deal out of all of his tirades, NAFTA 2.0, and within a year he's threatening to tear it up because the US cannot control its borders. 

and even that deal hasn't received Congressional approval yet as the mexico tariff threats put the process on hold in spite of a end-o'-june wh deadline.  will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple weeks regarding nafta replacement.

trump's tariff threats have angered his own party and in spite o' the hostile polarization characteristic o' this Congress, he managed to forge a seeming rare moment o' bipartisan agreement. so, congrats to trump on finally bringing 'bout consensus in the legislature? is this the vaunted art o' the deal brand o' stable genius trump claimed to possess? 

HA! Good Fun!

ps Mexico Agreed to Take Border Actions Months Before Trump Announced Tariff Deal

The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s deal was an expansion of a program to allow asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their legal cases proceed. But that arrangement was first reached in December in a pair of painstakingly negotiated diplomatic notes that the two countries exchanged. Ms. Nielsen announced the Migrant Protection Protocols during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee five days before Christmas.

And over the past week, negotiators failed to persuade Mexico to accept a “safe third country” treaty that would have given the United States the legal ability to reject asylum seekers if they had not sought refuge in Mexico first.

Mr. Trump hailed the agreement anyway on Saturday, writing on Twitter: “Everyone very excited about the new deal with Mexico!” He thanked the president of Mexico for “working so long and hard” on a plan to reduce the surge of migration into the United States.

It was unclear whether Mr. Trump believed that the agreement truly represented new and broader concessions, or whether the president understood the limits of the deal but accepted it as a face-saving way to escape from the political and economic consequences of imposing tariffs on Mexico, which he began threatening less than two weeks ago.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

You get the government you deserve

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

and even that deal hasn't received Congressional approval yet as the mexico tariff threats put the process on hold in spite of a end-o'-june wh deadline.  will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple weeks regarding nafta replacement.

trump's tariff threats have angered his own party and in spite o' the hostile polarization characteristic o' this Congress, he managed to forge a seeming rare moment o' bipartisan agreement. so, congrats to trump on finally bringing 'bout consensus in the legislature? is this the vaunted art o' the deal brand o' stable genius trump claimed to possess? 

HA! Good Fun!

ps Mexico Agreed to Take Border Actions Months Before Trump Announced Tariff Deal

The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s deal was an expansion of a program to allow asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their legal cases proceed. But that arrangement was first reached in December in a pair of painstakingly negotiated diplomatic notes that the two countries exchanged. Ms. Nielsen announced the Migrant Protection Protocols during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee five days before Christmas.

And over the past week, negotiators failed to persuade Mexico to accept a “safe third country” treaty that would have given the United States the legal ability to reject asylum seekers if they had not sought refuge in Mexico first.

Mr. Trump hailed the agreement anyway on Saturday, writing on Twitter: “Everyone very excited about the new deal with Mexico!” He thanked the president of Mexico for “working so long and hard” on a plan to reduce the surge of migration into the United States.

It was unclear whether Mr. Trump believed that the agreement truly represented new and broader concessions, or whether the president understood the limits of the deal but accepted it as a face-saving way to escape from the political and economic consequences of imposing tariffs on Mexico, which he began threatening less than two weeks ago.

So, basically Trump tried to save himself from shooting himself in the face and shot himself in the foot instead? Though really, I don't think he has metaphorical legs left to shoot himself in since he does it so much.

 

43 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

 

You get the government you deserve

FYI, not everybody here voted Trump

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

You'd do better to say that there's no enmity between US partners and the US itself. That's not absolutely true of course, Turkey at this point is close to fundamentally disliking the US itself for example, but it is mostly so.

Towards Trump there's massive enmity from pretty much everyone except the Saudis, Israel, and one or two European countries, like Poland, and Australia whose foreign policy for 75 years has been to ask the US where to jump and how high. You won't find foreign leaders stating their dislike publicly precisely because Trump is an erratic monomaniac who acts on whim and the belief that he can leverage the US's dominant position limitlessly and without consequence. Of those who like him Israel and Saudi only like him because he's so very easy for them to manipulate/ bribe.

The problem with constantly threatening to or pulling out of treaties is that you fundamentally devalue any treaty you subsequently make and any negotiations that follow. Trump has got one major deal out of all of his tirades, NAFTA 2.0, and within a year he's threatening to tear it up because the US cannot control its borders. The default position is to call his bluff, and wait in the hope that Trump gets voted out next year. Yeah, Europe will talk about deals etc because Trump might not get voted out, but if you think their default hope isn't status quo ante after Biden or whoever get elected you're simply wrong.

It's no surprise that he treats them like real estate deals and thinks he can threaten and/or pull out of them without consequence.

As for NAFTA 2.0, last I heard, Pelosi was waiting on Mexico to fulfill their part of the deal with new labor laws, which they are still in progress of doing. So, even without this whole tariff BS, it's not 100% guaranteed to pass.

[smjjames]

And of course, it's just the latest in a long line of using the same tactic. This is the other danger with constantly doing bluffs and then not acting on them is that nobody is going to take you seriously, then what happens when you do something bluff-like and nobody is taking that seriously? Really though, by all appearances, Trump threw a tantrum and economic uncertianity+chaos for no reason at all.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, Trump is basically using the old negotiating tactic of demanding the highly unreasonable in the hope the other part will fold and accept an unreasonable deal as being a 'compromise', and in the belief that ratcheting up the pressure will force compliance. That doesn't really work well with international relations unless the other party is desperate or you have a very, very good idea of what their bottom lines are and are willing to work around them/ not rhetoric yourself into a corner.

DPRK is a good example, I think about the only person who (seems to) believe that they'll give up their nukes is Donald Trump. It doesn't really matter what you threaten- or even what inducements you offer- if the other side simply will not budge because they see it as an existential issue. Same for the so called 'Deal of the Century' with Israel /Palestine. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians get in return when you've already gone over their existential red lines and made it clear you see them as the enemy.

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

true enough.

So you do understand the point that it's better to formulate your own opinions, yet you will still flood the conversation with posting articles. Ok, not everyone can formulate their own opinion and need parroting what other people say. fair enough, but I don't find those particularly interesting. 

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The default position is to call his bluff, and wait in the hope that Trump gets voted out next year. Yeah, Europe will talk about deals etc because Trump might not get voted out, but if you think their default hope isn't status quo ante after Biden or whoever get elected you're simply wrong.

That's a good one. I don't know which is better that Trump will be voted out next year or that Biden will defeat him. 

[Gromnir]

funny. we posited trump's mercurial and punitive use o' tariffs would hurt trade deals. you asked for evidence o' such. we have provided. heck, your own linked source provide support for Gromnir's argument, which you would have realized if you bothered to actual read your sources. not a single trade deal completed by trump yet... in more than two years? should also be pretty compelling evidence that the art o' the deal guy is having difficulty brokering deals. and seeing as folks (again, your own links) keep complaining 'bout trump mercurial use o' tariffs, so...

links were support for the initial proposition which were, admitted, axiomatic. woulda' illustrated further, but again, axiomatic.

converse, sharp's only unique argument were how abandoning mexican tariffs would alleviate concerns o' trading partners, an argument for which he has provided no support whatsoever.

am not sure you got a handle on this stuff. 

nevertheless, while is unlikely trump bothered to read dune, he is channeling his inner baron harkonnen.

“one must always keep the tools of statecraft sharp and ready. power and fear – sharp and ready.” 

unfortunate for trump, the baron were a meticulous planner and trump is... not. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html

Times claims most of the agreement was set before hand.  I guess it's good PR regardless, in any event.

[smjjames]

11 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

funny. we posited trump's mercurial and punitive use o' tariffs would hurt trade deals. you asked for evidence o' such. we have provided. heck, your own linked source provide support for Gromnir's argument, which you would have realized if you bothered to actual read your sources. not a single trade deal completed by trump yet... in more than two years? should also be pretty compelling evidence that the art o' the deal guy is having difficulty brokering deals. and seeing as folks (again, your own links) keep complaining 'bout trump mercurial use o' tariffs, so...

links were support for the initial proposition which were, admitted, axiomatic. woulda' illustrated further, but again, axiomatic.

converse, sharp's only unique argument were how abandoning mexican tariffs would alleviate concerns o' trading partners, an argument for which he has provided no support whatsoever.

am not sure you got a handle on this stuff. 

nevertheless, while is unlikely trump bothered to read dune, he is channeling his inner baron harkonnen.

“one must always keep the tools of statecraft sharp and ready. power and fear – sharp and ready.” 

unfortunate for trump, the baron were a meticulous planner and trump is... not. 

HA! Good Fun!

Eh, I wouldn't compare Trump to Baron Harkonnen, nowhere near the level of sadism that Baron Harkonnen and his clan exhibited in the books. Trump is barely even using the tools of statecraft, he's just repeatedly using the same increasingly failed method.

9 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/us/politics/trump-mexico-deal-tariffs.html

Times claims most of the agreement was set before hand.  I guess it's good PR regardless, in any event.

Good PR for who? Not Trump......

[Gromnir]

baron harkonnen quote were referencing the channeling o' power and fear, not necessarily trump and the baron is brothers from different mothers. we did distinguish trump as self defeating mercurial, no?

regardless, point were to get a "sharp" into the response.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[smjjames]

Trump is certainly fearmongering, but I'm not so sure about the channeling power part. He's certainly channeling power insofar as he actually has said power, but it's one thing to channel such power competently and another to thrash it around in unproductive ways.

[Gromnir]

am clear not communicating this. 

do a board search for "max shreck."

"sharp" references in the present context may make more sense.

HA! Good Fun!