PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on June 26, 2018, 04:33:56 PM
-
I like what Trump is trying to do with international trade. But I don't like the way he is going about it.
It is well known that China doesn't "play fair", but neither do the Europeans and our other allies. In the past, we just rolled with the punches because "we could afford it", and it wouldn't really hurt us for years. That approach sucks.
But what Trump is doing wrong, in my opinion, is trying to change things without first "educating" the American public as to what he is trying to change. Before slapping new tariffs on all these countries, he should first make a case to the American and the Europeans about what he claims is unfair. Most Americans I speak to don't know (and the liberals don't want to know) just how one-sided the trading is. European tariffs on American goods are not only more ubiquitous than the other way around, but their regulations as to what is allowed to be imported are much more stringent too.
He should have made that case publicly while calling for negotiations. After that failed (and it most certainly would), THEN he should have started levying tariffs.
-
Somebody needed to spit in the face of the totalitarian assholes of the EU. trump didn't bow like the pussy obama, he bulled.
And he went after the right things, instead of the diplomatic shit that the prior administrations have bent over for.
As with everything else he does, the people who matter will figure it out and his poll numbers will continue to be stronger than the traitor, or the clowns before him.
-
We have been in a Trade War, with the EU, and Asia, and LOSING since WWII. It is time we stand up to these turds. Trump knows we have the leverage in our markets, and worldwide power. He is using it. Finally, a President that understands negotiation, and business. Effff the EU.
-
I agree with both of you. I just think he would be better served if he made his case in front of the whole world first, rather than just charging in and going on the attack. I think it would put him in a stronger negotiation position.
-
I agree with both of you. I just think he would be better served if he made his case in front of the whole world first, rather than just charging in and going on the attack. I think it would put him in a stronger negotiation position.
I think he has made his case. Problem is the MSM and the progressives then twist it around in yet another lame attempt to make him look bad.
He's addressing the problem from the top and taking these countries to task.
Righting the problems that so many have left unchallenged and ignored is a long hard process.
-
I think he has made his case. Problem is the MSM and the progressives then twist it around in yet another lame attempt to make him look bad.
He's addressing the problem from the top and taking these countries to task.
Righting the problems that so many have left unchallenged and ignored is a long hard process.
I don't think he has made his case. I know a lot of people that have no idea of the various restrictions to US products being imported into other countries. "But they are our FRIENDS" they say.
A letter to the editor in our paper made the case that we already have free trade and he proved it by listing all of the things he has and wears that were made in other countries. He didn't realize he was making Trump's point for him, and other liberals just believed him.
-
I don't think he has made his case. I know a lot of people that have no idea of the various restrictions to US products being imported into other countries. "But they are our FRIENDS" they say.
A letter to the editor in our paper made the case that we already have free trade and he proved it by listing all of the things he has and wears that were made in other countries. He didn't realize he was making Trump's point for him, and other liberals just believed him.
And that just proves what I’ve stated. The msm will go to massive lengths to keep people from the truth.
Just look at the immigration debate.
-
I don't think he has made his case. I know a lot of people that have no idea of the various restrictions to US products being imported into other countries. "But they are our FRIENDS" they say.
A letter to the editor in our paper made the case that we already have free trade and he proved it by listing all of the things he has and wears that were made in other countries. He didn't realize he was making Trump's point for him, and other liberals just believed him.
As nations, there are no "friends", only temporary allies that spy on each other constantly and will take every advantage.
-
As nations, there are no "friends", only temporary allies that spy on each other constantly and will take every advantage.
I hope you realize I was paraphrasing misguided liberals. That wasn't my statement.
-
I like what Trump is trying to do with international trade. But I don't like the way he is going about it.
It is well known that China doesn't "play fair", but neither do the Europeans and our other allies. In the past, we just rolled with the punches because "we could afford it", and it wouldn't really hurt us for years. That approach sucks.
But what Trump is doing wrong, in my opinion, is trying to change things without first "educating" the American public as to what he is trying to change. Before slapping new tariffs on all these countries, he should first make a case to the American and the Europeans about what he claims is unfair. Most Americans I speak to don't know (and the liberals don't want to know) just how one-sided the trading is. European tariffs on American goods are not only more ubiquitous than the other way around, but their regulations as to what is allowed to be imported are much more stringent too.
He should have made that case publicly while calling for negotiations. After that failed (and it most certainly would), THEN he should have started levying tariffs.
There's more than just education, though I agree that's part of it. There's also the WTO, which we are a member of. We agreed to play by the rules, which includes giving us the right to lodge a complaint. If we've been taken advantage of all these years, why not go through the process that we agreed to abide by? I've been derided for saying that on this board before, but I don't recall a clear explanation as to why we shouldn't play by the rules we agreed to (willing to be corrected since I can't remember).
-
There's more than just education, though I agree that's part of it. There's also the WTO, which we are a member of. We agreed to play by the rules, which includes giving us the right to lodge a complaint. If we've been taken advantage of all these years, why not go through the process that we agreed to abide by? I've been derided for saying that on this board before, but I don't recall a clear explanation as to why we shouldn't play by the rules we agreed to (willing to be corrected since I can't remember).
Because like always happens in these international agreements, we agreed to a pile of shit. The WTO doesn't even claim to be a "free market" organization, and has always been biased against "rich" nations, and since we are among the richest, it has ruled against us at almost every turn. It is an organized method of international wealth redistribution. That is another thing that needs to be exposed, otherwise, naive people will point to it as an alternative to tough negotiations between countries.
Now, if the WTO were indeed committed to free, fair and open trade, then you might have a point.
-
Because like always happens in these international agreements, we agreed to a pile of shit. The WTO doesn't even claim to be a "free market" organization, and has always been biased against "rich" nations, and since we are among the richest, it has ruled against us at almost every turn. It is an organized method of international wealth redistribution. That is another thing that needs to be exposed, otherwise, naive people will point to it as an alternative to tough negotiations between countries.
Now, if the WTO were indeed committed to free, fair and open trade, then you might have a point.
I'll have to look up the statistics on the amount of cases ruled against the U.S. Either way, your answer is still not a valid justification to just ignore what we agreed to. If it's truly a bad deal then Congress needs to remove us from it.
-
Given recent history with the way Trump likes to operate, he's not a fan of intl agreements. I suspect he considers the US to be a truly sovereign nation, and he's even more cowboy than Reagan. We just walked away from some UN council made up of all totalitarians. I would opine that he doesn't give much of a damn what the WTO thinks about the US trade agreement is. Heck, maybe he had a sec send them a note, or a protest, but nothing like a negotiation which could take from 2-35 years, and end in the US being found responsible. Screw em.
-
Given recent history with the way Trump likes to operate, he's not a fan of intl agreements. I suspect he considers the US to be a truly sovereign nation,
Huh?
And you don't?
-
Huh?
And you don't?
I do. Always have.
However, sovereign nations sign international agreements, like the Paris Accord. We also signed a UN charter on human rights, and how to apply for asylum. We also extend most of our constitutional protections to all people, regardless of citizenship. Hence, the current liberal meltdown over 'due process' for 'immigrants'.
Frankly, I tend to agree with due process for all people. I think a good solution would be a large panel of exclusively immigration judges, placed at the detention facilities. The 'immigrants'(illegal aliens) would get their 'day' in court(more like 10 minutes) to prove to the judge they are political refugees, and not economic migrants. Once that farce is over, they are adjudicated, put on a bus, and hauled to a work detention facility in Barstow/Coalinga where they get to work off their court costs, and legal fees, after which they are put on another bus, which makes its next stop in the middle of town square of Tuxtla Chiapas Mexico.
All I was pointing out is that unlike BO - who was an avowed globalist, Trump takes his nationality seriously, and makes policy based on his citizenship and not his affiliation with the UN, EU, NATO, NAFTA, and a bunch of other acronyms.
Happy now?