U. S. Allies · Page 2 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#21

I spelled contagious wrong and had to correct it.

During which, I recalled a joke:

During a spelling bee, the teacher asked little Johnny to spell "contagious" and use it in a sentence.

Much to her surprise, Johnny spelled it correctly.
Then he said:
"My girlfriend is so stupid that when I tell a joke it will take the contagious to get it."

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#22

tailgater wrote:

you do know I can never tell that joke, right?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#23

Tail... You have not proven that trump "corrected" something which needed correcting. If you haven't proven that yet, then there's no way to prove it wasn't trump making a fair trade deal unfair for Canada.

Can't base your argument on an unfounded assumption like that.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#24

victor809 wrote:

That wasn't my intent.
I'd have to know a lot more about the intricacies of trades/tariffs, etc to make that claim.

But it's folly to assume the opposite.

Furthermore, the headlines don't care about the effects.
They care about labeling a bully.
And despite the very obvious retaliatory actions by Trudeau, it seems that Trump gets labeled the bully.
And we know why. And it has zero to do with the long term net effect.

This article came across my email this morning.
Thomas.net is a manufacturing-centric marketing organization, yet they are able to do what CNN, the NYT et al were unable: To report what took place, why it happened, and how some predict the impact.

https://news.thomasnet.com/featured/how-retaliatory-tariffs-could-impact-the-united-states-global-response-to-the-new-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs?channel=newsletter&campaign_type=PNA&campaign_name=0618&utm_campaign=0618&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=PNA&tinid=221764277&ni=1&cs=PNA

Is it good? Is it bad?
I guess the reader would have to draw their own conclusion (Gasp!).

No wonder the liberal rags don't report like this.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#25

Trump made the first change.
Without proof that the status quo was bad, then making a unilateral change to it, without negotiating with your trade partners, does make you belligerent.

If you and I had a deal... You claimed it was a bad deal, I claimed it was a fair deal, but neither of us knew whether we were correct... And you just decided to not honor the deal, then you would be the one in the wrong.

To make it funnier... Imagine we have a deal, you claim it's a bad deal I claim its fair. We both have been given sufficient information to assess whether it's fair or not, but I'm the only one who read that information. Then you decide to not honor it.... Without reading it, without identifying why it's bad....

If the idiot wanted a better deal he could have negotiated for it. Negotiating involves stating why your stance is correct and the other is incorrect however... And we know that's too complex for him. So he chose a belligerent (bullying) method of negotiating... By just refusing to honor the current deal. He may get a better deal, but only by throwing his weight around, not by actually pointing out what's fair.

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#26

If I go to buy a car, the salesperson takes their stance and I take my stance. After a little pushing and pulling from both sides, a deal is worked out. If I decide I don't like the deal for whatever reason....not fair,etc….I walk away....or the dealer decides they don't like the deal I want, they will say no and walk away.

Isn't that the way a deal is made? I don't have to take the deal because others think it's a good deal.....if it's not a good deal for me, I'm not buying

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#27

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#28

The deal was made years ago.
Trump added steel and aluminum tarrifs without reopening any negotiations.

To use your analogy, if you bought a car 2 years ago and the dealer came and told you the car was 200$ more and just took the money from your account.

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#29

Weren't these meetings all about the deals and renegotiating them? Trump decided the deal was bad for YOU and me, and decided he didn't want to be part of it anymore, on our behalf.

https://www.internationalrelationsedu.org/what-is-the-g7-its-purpose-and-history-of-influence/

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_the_g8

The original group was intended to provide major industrial powers of the non-communist world a venue in which to address economic concerns, which at the time included inflation and the recession sparked by the oil crisis of the 1970s. Cold War politics also invariably entered the group's agenda soon after its founding.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#30

G7 is different than NATO.

Yes... Also trade... But Trump's beef (at least the one I'm talking about) has been with Canada, which is in both. NATO agreements have been in place for a while. To the best of my understanding, nothing had changed until trump changed things.

While this was at a G7 meeting (which I believe was about climate?) That trump refused to sign an agreement for. But that doesnt have anything to do with us/Canada trade (I don't think).

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#31

victor809 wrote:

G7 would be so much better with Russia, or so I hear.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#32

I dunno... Without Russia it was feeling so fly.. like a g6...

(I'll see myself out)

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#33

I want to make a clarification to my post in 48...
While NAFTA was negotiated years ago, they were "renegotiating". Trump had reopened negotiations because he wanted to increase the % us manufacturing of autos from Mexico or something like that. They were in talks to renegotiate, when he decided to impose the tariffs on steel and aluminum to the world. He made NAFTA exempt for a short period to see if that would pressure them to accept his renegotiation. That apparently didn't work, so he dropped the exemptions for NAFTA.

Yeah... That sure sounds like mean Canada started it....

HuckFinn
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#34

G7 would be so much better with Russia, or so I hear.

frankj1 wrote:

They should vote on it.

Oh wait...maybe not

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#35

Trump made the first change.
Without proof that the status quo was bad, then making a unilateral change to it, without negotiating with your trade partners, does make you belligerent.
.

victor809 wrote:

Yeah.
Everything that isn't broken should never be fixed.

Again. NOT saying it was the right move.
But you ARE saying it was the wrong one.

Because,
...
Trump.

HuckFinn
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#36

G7 would be so much better with Russia, or so I hear.

frankj1 wrote:

Maybe not even necessary. We're there.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#37

Tail... Where did I say it was the wrong move.

I said it was the first move. The one which causes repercussions. You're whining about the media having a biased description of Trump's and Trudeau's actions. I'm telling you one acted first by adding a tariff which appears to violate the spirit of NAFTA, and the others are acting in response.

In a schoolyard fight one person usually throws the first punch. More often than not that's the bully.

HuckFinn
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#38

victor809 wrote:

Maybe try the 'buying a car' analogy?

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#39

In a schoolyard fight one person usually throws the first punch. More often than not that's the bully.

victor809 wrote:

I bet that's not accurate.

Pokes. Prods. Provokes.

But throw the first punch?

I don't know the stats. But I have a feeling the first punch is most often retaliatory.

The Donald accepts your apology.

RMAN4443
Herf-A-Holic

8 years ago

#40

victor809 wrote:

Fixed it 😰

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: