Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And unless Trump backs down, or by some miracle China backs down, then Trump will be entering the 2020 elections with a failing economy. This means he will be extra likely to lose.

The trade war is intended to balance the trade deficit with China. The more likely scenario is that it shifts Chinese jobs to other parts of Asia. In the unlikely scenario we bring some of these jobs back to America, many of them will be automated within a few decades.

Any trump supporters wanna try to explain why this trade war is a good idea?

blah, blah, blah... bullshit. Trump should never, ever backdown. Period. The days of the chinese screwing us over w/out us retaliating are long over, dude.


I salute our great president for what he's doing with China and no amount of scare propaganda from you or anyone else is gonna change my mind on it.

Well if it happens...Bill Maher will be happy, and I expect he won't be alone either(assuming it plays a role in costing Trump the election).

Originally posted by Surtur
Well if it happens...Bill Maher will be happy, and I expect he won't be alone either(assuming it plays a role in costing Trump the election). I don't want a recession. I think he is going to lose either way.

Apparently what's actually worse than Trump's policies leading the US into a recession, is some "Libtards" saying "fine, let it happen then."

And never back down to China even if it plunges the world's economy into a recession and accomplishes nothing in terms of a more balanced trade deal. Trump supporters are straight up cult members at this point. They'll follow the guy right off any cliff his erratic brain decides to jump off.

People like Scaramucci are now abandoning him. Walsh is going to primary him for Republican ticket. His own white House is constantly trying to clean up after him. The Republican politicians who are still towing the line are just scared of coming into his cross hairs. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The guy is going down and he's destroying the republican party in the process.

Originally posted by Robtard
Apparently what's actually worse than Trump's policies leading the US into a recession, is some "Libtards" saying "fine, let it happen then." I do think Maher is an elitist ******* for rooting for a recession though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Apparently what's actually worse than Trump's policies leading the US into a recession, is some "Libtards" saying "fine, let it happen then."

Nobody said that, it's just anyone wishing for a recession is a piece of shit with TDS

You implied it and here's how:

Thread is about Trump's trade war policies potentially leading the US into a recession; you chose to not comment on that and instead grip about a comedian saying something. YW, Surt.

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied it

Nope. Move on.

Originally posted by mike brown
And never back down to China even if it plunges the world's economy into a recession and accomplishes nothing in terms of a more balanced trade deal. Trump supporters are straight up cult members at this point. They'll follow the guy right off any cliff his erratic brain decides to jump off.

People like Scaramucci are now abandoning him. Walsh is going to primary him for Republican ticket. His own white House is constantly trying to clean up after him. The Republican politicians who are still towing the line are just scared of coming into his cross hairs. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The guy is going down and he's destroying the republican party in the process. Sad but true.

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied it and here's how:

Thread is about Trump's trade war policies potentially leading the US into a recession; you chose to not comment on that and instead grip about a comedian saying something. YW, Surt. Surt will never learn.

Originally posted by mike brown
And never back down to China even if it plunges the world's economy into a recession and accomplishes nothing in terms of a more balanced trade deal. Trump supporters are straight up cult members at this point. They'll follow the guy right off any cliff his erratic brain decides to jump off.

People like Scaramucci are now abandoning him. Walsh is going to primary him for Republican ticket. His own white House is constantly trying to clean up after him. The Republican politicians who are still towing the line are just scared of coming into his cross hairs. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. The guy is going down and he's destroying the republican party in the process.

Then people need to *stop* focusing on the petty bullshit. Forget the dumbass tweets, forget the gaffes, people need to stop crying about stupid shit all the time if the situation is that dire.

Or we'll continue to plummet while people get super triggered over meaningless things.

Surt will never learn. It's painful sometimes to watch.

Maybe the whole plain in electing Trump was to demolish the Republican party.

Do wonder how many Trumpers will claim that after 2020.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe the whole plain in electing Trump was to demolish the Republican party.

Do wonder how many Trumpers will claim that after 2020. haha, we have Trumps mini me now in the UK.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
haha, we have Trumps mini me now in the UK.

While still a ridiculous man, Boris Johnson doesn't come off as genuinely moronic and unhinged like Trump though.

Do wonder if a lot of it is an act on Boris' part.

For me it really depends. I'm a huge fan of free trade, and not a fan of protectionist trade policy. But I could concede to the utility of some trade war shit if it secures better trade deals in the long run, the problem is I don't know nearly enough about foreign policy and diplomacy to make that kind of judgment.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Surt will never learn. It's painful sometimes to watch.

Irony overload.

Originally posted by Surtur
Irony overload. bait successfully taken

Originally posted by Putinbot1
bait successfully taken

Celebrate the pretend victory

Originally posted by mike brown
And unless Trump backs down, or by some miracle China backs down, then Trump will be entering the 2020 elections with a failing economy. This means he will be extra likely to lose.

The trade war is intended to balance the trade deficit with China. The more likely scenario is that it shifts Chinese jobs to other parts of Asia. In the unlikely scenario we bring some of these jobs back to America, many of them will be automated within a few decades.

Any trump supporters wanna try to explain why this trade war is a good idea? Britain will leave the EU and do trade deals with USA Canada Australia New Zealand.,.most of the commonwealth and east Asia including China. So ye China will be fine.

Originally posted by mike brown
I don't want a recession. I think he is going to lose either way.


Sure, just like he was gonna lose in 2016, right?


Nah, Trump's already got the win in the bag.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Sure, just like he was gonna lose in 2016, right?


Nah, Trump's already got the win in the bag. but Colbert told us he won't be president. :O

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Surt will never learn. It's painful sometimes to watch.


Nah, it's you constantly triggered snowflake lefties who'll never learn.

Keep calling Trump "Hitler" and freaking out over every little thing he does... keep repeating Trump has no chance to win in 2020 (just like you all did in 2016)... Trump will still be re-elected despite all of y'alls crybaby b*tching and whining lol... guaranteed.

Originally posted by Surtur
Celebrate the pretend victory


Yeah, they're really good at pretend winning because they've had so very much practice at it lol.

Originally posted by Blakemore
but Colbert told us he won't be president. :O


So did looney George Clooney, Nancy Pelosi (she even said "take it to the bank" lol), and pretty much everyone else on the left including the lefties on this forum (many of whom conveniently disappeared right after Trump won and haven't been seen from again lol).


Oh, but THIS TIME they're right though that he'll never win in 2020.

We have to trust them this time.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Sure, just like he was gonna lose in 2016, right?


Nah, Trump's already got the win in the bag. I actually predicted in 2015, when the republican party and fox news was treating him as a joke, that he was a legit contender for 2016

That being said, he won by a very narrow margin and has fulfilled virtually none of his promises, while at the same time just making things worse than they already were and giving the appearance that he's mentally unstable and unfit to hold office. He will lose in 2020. I will bump this post when he does to remind you of your blind cult-like stupidity.

Originally posted by mike brown
I actually predicted in 2015, when the republican party and fox news was treating him as a joke, that he was a legit contender for 2016

That being said, he won by a very narrow margin and has fulfilled virtually none of his promises, while at the same time just making things worse than they already were and giving the appearance that he's mentally unstable and unfit to hold office. He will lose in 2020. I will bump this post when he does to remind you of your blind cult-like stupidity.

At this point I think it's silly to say for sure if he'd win or lose. People did that last time and it backfired. I was sure he'd lose in 2016, he didn't.

We can point to all the factors we want right now to justify our attitudes of "he's definitely gonna win" or "he's definitely gonna lose". Truth is, none of us are even close to knowing for sure. It's a guessing game, and no guess is better than the other at this point.

It's the Democrats to lose...

But they're good at that.

Hard to say though cos there's 2 competing factors. On the one hand they don't have anyone running with the same animosity towards them as Clinton had. But the DNC also already seem to be favouring the candidates they think are "entitled" to be President, just like they did last time, instead of picking the person that would have the best chance of winning

Nah, it's Trump's election to win or lose. If he is sick and tired of all the BS that comes along with him being president (which would certainly be understandable) then he'll probably lose on purpose. If he truly wants to win though, no way he's losing sorry to burst your little bubble, bro.

I think you're too confident about this China thing eThneoLgRnae

It could potentially work out, but it's a gamble.

From a non-American who has lived in America quite a good chunk of his life, I feel that the trade war with China was inevitable. The question was when. China aggressively wants to be the dominant economy in the world and it has little qualms about what it has to do in order to achieve it.

The questions now are: Can you win it? And what's going to be the cost of fighting it?

If anything, this trade war has given me a bit of respect for Trump. He's got balls if he's willing to do this. Of course, I'm not an economist. I know wars are bad. But some are inevitable. Why wait til China is much stronger?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think you're too confident about this China thing eThneoLgRnae

It could potentially work out, but it's a gamble.


Meh.. pretty much everything has some element of risk to it. I fully trust Trump's judgment though when it comes to economics and trade.

Us consumers don't have to buy things made by the chinese. I've already decided to avoid buying stuff from China when it can be helped. It's not always so easy though to find an alternative. When I shop for electronic equipment on Amazon, for example, I usually have to search for several pages to find a product not made in China that is to my liking. It can be very annoying and time-consuming.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think you're too confident about this China thing eThneoLgRnae

It could potentially work out, but it's a gamble.

And if we're in such dire straits over China I think maybe folk should focus on that and not stuff like..."Look at how Melania is looking at Justin Trudeau in this photo!".

This wasn't just stuff TDS sufferers here were posting about that lol. I saw articles about it on CNN, etc.

Originally posted by Surtur
And if we're in such dire straits over China I think maybe folk should focus on that and not stuff like..."Look at how Melania is looking at Justin Trudeau in this photo!".

This wasn't just stuff TDS sufferers here were posting about that lol. I saw articles about it on CNN, etc.


That is indeed funny but I don't undersrtand why you watch CNN and/or read their articles in the first place? Just doing it to get a laugh, I guess? Surely you don't actually take them seriously, do you?

Originally posted by mike brown
And unless Trump backs down, or by some miracle China backs down, then Trump will be entering the 2020 elections with a failing economy. This means he will be extra likely to lose.

The trade war is intended to balance the trade deficit with China. The more likely scenario is that it shifts Chinese jobs to other parts of Asia. In the unlikely scenario we bring some of these jobs back to America, many of them will be automated within a few decades.

Any trump supporters wanna try to explain why this trade war is a good idea? China will cave. Sorry you don't like it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So did looney George Clooney, Nancy Pelosi (she even said "take it to the bank" lol), and pretty much everyone else on the left including the lefties on this forum (many of whom conveniently disappeared right after Trump won and haven't been seen from again lol).


Oh, but THIS TIME they're right though that he'll never win in 2020.

We have to trust them this time. this place still has butthurt Robbie and bash tho

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That is indeed funny but I don't undersrtand why you watch CNN and/or read their articles in the first place? Just doing it to get a laugh, I guess? Surely you don't actually take them seriously, do you?

It's important to see what the opposition is saying.

CNN is a full on propaganda network now. A guest on there claimed Trump is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao with no pushback from the host Brian Stelter. A real news network would have pushed back, a propaganda network would not.

Originally posted by Surtur
At this point I think it's silly to say for sure if he'd win or lose. People did that last time and it backfired. I was sure he'd lose in 2016, he didn't.

We can point to all the factors we want right now to justify our attitudes of "he's definitely gonna win" or "he's definitely gonna lose". Truth is, none of us are even close to knowing for sure. It's a guessing game, and no guess is better than the other at this point. Put it this way... If I had to bet my money is against him.

If the economy is poor then the only advantage he has is being the incumbent. The fact that he's being primaried from the right while being the incumbent is yet another sign of how unpopular he is.

He just playing to his racist base. That's not a winning strategy this time around. It worked last time in part cause blue collar workers and farmers in the rust belt thought he would bring their jobs back. After his policies not only fail to do this but actually make things worse for these industries, his path to victory becomes increasingly unlikely.

Originally posted by mike brown
Put it this way... If I had to bet my money is against him.

If the economy is poor then the only advantage he has is being the incumbent. The fact that he's being primaried from the right while being the incumbent is yet another sign of how unpopular he is.

He just playing to his racist base. That's not a winning strategy this time around. It worked last time in part cause blue collar workers and farmers in the rust belt thought he would bring their jobs back. After his policies not only fail to do this but actually make things worse for these industries, his path to victory becomes increasingly unlikely.

You could be right, but I will note Joe Walsh is cray cray.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think you're too confident about this China thing eThneoLgRnae

It could potentially work out, but it's a gamble. The only way it will work is if China caves and agrees to respect intellectual property, open up Chinese markets, etc. That will not happen. They will wait him out. Either he will cave and we might then mitigate some of the damage being done to the economy, or he will not cave and things will just continue to get worse.

The Chinese know very well how stupid it is to pull this stunt going into an election. They will let him sink his own ship, even if it hurts them short term. Then they'll just deal with the next president the same way they have been dealing with the US for decades.

Originally posted by Surtur
You could be right, but I will note Joe Walsh is cray cray. Walsh won't win the nomination. Neither will any of the other people contemplating running against him in the primary. But historically speaking, when you get primaried as the incumbent it takes a lot of the wind out of your sails and you lose the general.

Yeah but we aren't in normal times. I don't know if someone with TDS pulling a stunt like this will have that big an impact.

Originally posted by Blakemore
China will cave. Sorry you don't like it. Yeah cause Trump is a great negotiater right? lol

Remember his brilliant negotiating tactic of shutting down the govt to get his wall built? Thank God he never caves on his crazy policies or else we wouldn't have such a beautiful border wall.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but we aren't in normal times. I don't know if someone with TDS pulling a stunt like this will have that big an impact. It always has an impact when people on your own side run against you as the incumbent.

*shrugs* We're in strange times.

It's also not some crazy stunt based on TDS. The Republicans that are abandoning him see the writing on the wall for their party. They're trying to salvage what is left of their party's image before it's completely destroyed by a sociopath with no principles other than perpetual self-aggrandizement.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's also not some crazy stunt based on TDS. The Republicans that are abandoning him see the writing on the wall for their party. They're trying to salvage what is left of their party's image before it's completely destroyed by a sociopath with no principles other than perpetual self-aggrandizement.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a thing. It is an attempt by Trump supporters to pathologize all criticism of Trump, so they do not have to defend his indefensible actions.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's also not some crazy stunt based on TDS. The Republicans that are abandoning him see the writing on the wall for their party. They're trying to salvage what is left of their party's image before it's completely destroyed by a sociopath with no principles other than perpetual self-aggrandizement.

Nope, it's TDS. Listen to his radio show dude.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a thing. It is an attempt by Trump supporters to pathologize all criticism of Trump, so they do not have to defend his indefensible actions.

Wrong, TDS is definitely a thing. It can sometimes be misdiagnosed, but it is a thing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a thing. It is an attempt by Trump supporters to pathologize all criticism of Trump, so they do not have to defend his indefensible actions.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's also not some crazy stunt based on TDS. The Republicans that are abandoning him see the writing on the wall for their party. They're trying to salvage what is left of their party's image before it's completely destroyed by a sociopath with no principles other than perpetual self-aggrandizement.

No long term sustainability in the trumpers deranged mindset.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, it's TDS. Listen to his radio show dude. I'd rather not.

But he's far from the only one turning on Trump from the right. He's not even the only one who has floated the idea of running against him in the Primary.

nmlsPw_ExJY

Jon Kasich (some CNN interview) has shadow hinted that if Trump's popularity drops enough among Republicans, he would consider challenging Trump and running in 2020 for the spot.

I hope so, he's one of the better Republicans and he's never supported Trump, didn't vote for him in 2016. He'd not be one of the sinking-ship rats bailing when it's convenient.

dp

Originally posted by mike brown
I'd rather not.

But he's far from the only one turning on Trump from the right. He's not even the only one who has floated the idea of running against him in the Primary.

nmlsPw_ExJY

Well if you did you know he has TDS lol.

Great retort as always.

It's true, the guy has TDS. This is not the yuge thing people think it is. At least not when it comes to Walsh. If you wanna talk about others okay, but with Walsh? It's TDS.

Cling to it. I get that you need this narrative.

You can't even address his point, Surt. There's been a high Republican turnaround since Trump was elected and yes, Trump is a reason.

Like I said: cling to the narrative, I know you need it and I'll allow it

Originally posted by Surtur
Like I said: cling to the narrative, I know you need it and I'll allow it

https://media.tenor.com/images/dd7aea1a8e8c1fea82f65780b1665efd/tenor.gif

Says the guy who characterizes all criticism of Trump as derangement, because he cannot defend it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media.tenor.com/images/dd7aea1a8e8c1fea82f65780b1665efd/tenor.gif

Says the guy who characterizes all criticism of Trump as derangement, because he cannot defend it.

I don't characterize all criticism of Trump as TDS. Best not to lie again

Originally posted by Surtur
Like I said: cling to the narrative, I know you need it and I'll allow it

So the Republican departures in 2018 and now has nothing to do with Trump. Okay; whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm just saying no this isn't some guaranteed sign he'll lose. Period. If you disagree so be it, your opinion is noted.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just saying no this isn't some guaranteed sign he'll lose. Period. If you disagree so be it, your opinion is noted.

Who said "Trump will lose guaranteed"?

We're also not talking about Trump winning or losing, but the Republican party turnaround since Trump took office...

Pretty sure mikebrown was implying it. The whole shit started by him trying to bring up Walsh as if it meant shit. Walsh isn't the example to use.

Originally posted by Surtur
Pretty sure mikebrown was implying it. The whole shit started by him trying to bring up Walsh as if it meant shit. Walsh isn't the example to use.

No, he implied that he believes Trump will lose, that's what the "if I had to bet" sentiment means. It's still a gamble and not guaranteed.

Walsh was just one example he noted...

Now, do you really believe Trump has nothing to do with Republican loses since he took office?

Yep and I'm saying again: it's not the example to use. Best to be avoided in the future if there are other examples. It sullies the whole thing including someone with TDS. Best to avoid it.

Re:

Originally posted by Robtard

Now, do you really believe Trump has nothing to do with Republican loses since Trump took office?

In the same way Obama had to do with the dems losing, sure

Okay then.

Originally posted by Surtur
Pretty sure mikebrown was implying it. The whole shit started by him trying to bring up Walsh as if it meant shit. Walsh isn't the example to use. Oh, I'm more than just implying it. And not based just on the fact that he might be the first incumbent to be primaried for quite some time. That's one reason in a list of many.

Obviously there's no guarantee he will lose, just like there's no guarantee a sports team will beat another sports team. But there are matches where you can pretty easily guess the likely winner. The only real response I've heard to this is "strange times" and "polls were wrong in 2016."

As I've said, he just barely won in 2016. Don't mistake an anomaly for the new rule in politics.

So indeed I was correct and rob was wrong. Nice, but not unexpected.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep and I'm saying again: it's not the example to use. Best to be avoided in the future if there are other examples. It sullies the whole thing including someone with TDS. Best to avoid it. lol... No

Whatever you think Walsh's motives are, having someone primary you from your own party as an incumbent has always been politically damaging. It's actually irrelevant what his motives are in this case.

It's the same sort of reason 3rd party campaigns that skew left can hurt the Democrats and vice versa. The incentive to back the incumbent from your own party is so over whelming and obvious that only extreme examples of trying to control the direction the party is going will warrant such an action. That's why it looks bad for the incumbent and that's why it's yet another weakness in the Trump 2020 campaign.

Lol yes, I was correct that you were implying it was guaranteed.

I've been doing some reading about this stuff and there is one thing that is certain:


This trade war with recession will plunge us right into China. And you know what's in China? The Chinese.


https://i.imgur.com/yPqPtt8.gif

Me chinese, me play joke, me go pee pee in your coke.

It seems you didn't read the post I was responding to in my last post, if that is directed at me

And for clarification, I'm not implying it's guaranteed. I'm saying straight up he's going to lose.

I did acknowledge there's no such thing as a guarantee. It's my best guess. I'm more than willing to stand by it.

Originally posted by mike brown
It seems you didn't read the post I was responding to in my last post, if that is directed at me

And for clarification, I'm not implying it's guaranteed. I'm saying straight up he's going to lose.

I did acknowledge there's no such thing as a guarantee. It's my best guess. I'm more than willing to stand by it.

Right so you think it's a for sure thing. Did you wanna spend another page playing semantics or can we move on?

You can move on.

We both should be able to.

Originally posted by mike brown
You can move on. Surt needs permission. He is grateful you allowed him to.

Originally posted by Surtur
So indeed I was correct and rob was wrong. Nice, but not unexpected.

^ This is a lie, Mike B said:

"I did acknowledge there's no such thing as a guarantee. It's my best guess. I'm more than willing to stand by it." -Mike Brown

Honestly though this is a pointless pissing match that's why I agreed to move on.

The important thing is that we all agree Trump is guaranteed to lose.

Originally posted by mike brown
Honestly though this is a pointless pissing match that's why I agreed to move on.

The important thing is that we all agree Trump is guaranteed to lose.

This isn't really about you mike, I have no problems with you, but I feel you basically proved me right. Basically. If you're not saying guaranteed it seems like you're saying "all but guaranteed".

Originally posted by Surtur
This isn't really about you mike, I have no problems with you, but I feel you basically proved me right. Basically. If you're not saying guaranteed it seems like you're saying "all but guaranteed". He gave his opinion you supported it. Move on.

Originally posted by Surtur
This isn't really about you mike, I have no problems with you, but I feel you basically proved me right. Basically. If you're not saying guaranteed it seems like you're saying "all but guaranteed". I'm basically saying he's going to lose. Knowing I could technically be wrong. But it seems likely enough that I'm willing to go out on a limb so I can cite the prediction later on when it comes true.

You're wrong there, while I think he's going to lose in 2020, been saying it for a long time now. There's people (and people here) who both want him to win in 2020 and believe he will win in 2020.

Originally posted by mike brown
Honestly though this is a pointless pissing match that's why I agreed to move on.

The important thing is that we all agree Trump is guaranteed to lose.


YAWN.

Just like all of you morons on the left were so certain he'd lose in 2016. It was "guaranteed" then as well lol.

It's gonna be so nice though enjoying all of y'alls wittle crybaby tears again as history repeats itself.


Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
YAWN.

Just like all of you morons on the left were so certain he'd lose in 2016. It was "guaranteed" then as well lol.

It's gonna be so nice though enjoying all of y'alls wittle crybaby tears again as history repeats itself.


Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it Do you really believe you are a beacon of wisdom?

Originally posted by mike brown
Honestly though this is a pointless pissing match that's why I agreed to move on.

The important thing is that we all agree Trump is guaranteed to lose.

Pointless pissing matches are what Rob does. I clearly captured the jist of what you were implying, but he still had to make an issue out of it anyways. It was completely unnecessary, added nothing to the conversation, etc. Which is fine, but it is what it is.

And nope I don't think he's guaranteed to lose or win.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
YAWN.

Just like all of you morons on the left were so certain he'd lose in 2016. It was "guaranteed" then as well lol.

It's gonna be so nice though enjoying all of y'alls wittle crybaby tears again as history repeats itself.


Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it I wasn't sure he would lose in 2016. There was a rise in populist sentiment and he appealed to even some former Obama supporters with his promise he would bring their jobs back. Even then, he barley won in many the key states he relied on for a victory. His approval rating in those states today is not at all promising. And his national approval rating has never been particularly good.

Given how shitty he is as a President, and how instead of bringing back American blue collar jobs he's hurting those industries with his silly tariffs, I believe he's ****ed in 2020. In fact I'll probably put money on it if we see the same sort of betting we did last election.

XVxxxc8D2jA

Originally posted by mike brown
XVxxxc8D2jA

This was a very well done video. However, it did get a bit too much "appeal to emotion" logically fallacious at times.

I don't care about their feelings or opinions. I care about the bottom-line.


For example, boat guy, if his total boat cost for a median boat he produces goes up in cost by $2, that's negligible.

If it goes up by $2,000 and the total cost is $120,000, that's significant.

I don't want to hear the Steal Plant CEO's whining. I want numbers.


Also, I think free trade is not the answer, as well. I would rather talk to an economist about that. Or 7 of them.

The fact that the industries are interconnected and so targeting China will hurt more than just China isn't an appeal to emotion. What is an actual appeal to emotion is the idea that Trump is going to stand up to China who is screwing American industry.

It taps into the Us vs them tribal mindset of people, and makes unrealistic promises on that basis.

Originally posted by mike brown
The fact that the industries are interconnected and so targeting China will hurt more than just China isn't an appeal to emotion. What is an actual appeal to emotion is the idea that Trump is going to stand up to China who is screwing American industry.

It taps into the Us vs them tribal mindset of people, and makes unrealistic promises on that basis.

Actually, yes it is.

You just made the same mistake. You used the word "hurt." I want actual facts. Do you have them?

Trump's idea is not an appeal to emotion. It's based on facts: trade-deficit to the tune of half a trillion dollars. The appeal to emotion parts are how he wants to go about it.

Appeal to emotion uses emotionally charge language devoid of facts to make an argument. "Hurt", "terrible", "outrageous", etc. Stick with facts and be wary of bullshit logical fallacies. That video is very well done and interviews industry relevant people. But did you hear a single fact about their companies on how it actually harmed their bottom line? I didn't. That's a red flag. While the video is dressed up in super fancy impartiality and high quality production, if you look a bit closer, you can see the bias.

yawn

Trump's trade war will cause USA in recession.
Brexit will cause GB recession.

What's a special alliance?
What's a commonwealth?
What is Greenland?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, yes it is.

You just made the same mistake. You used the word "hurt." I want actual facts. Do you have them?

Trump's idea is not an appeal to emotion. It's based on facts: trade-deficit to the tune of half a trillion dollars. The appeal to emotion parts are how he wants to go about it.

Appeal to emotion uses emotionally charge language devoid of facts to make an argument. "Hurt", "terrible", "outrageous", etc. Stick with facts and be wary of bullshit logical fallacies. That video is very well done and interviews industry relevant people. But did you hear a single fact about their companies on how it actually harmed their bottom line? I didn't. That's a red flag. While the video is dressed up in super fancy impartiality and high quality production, if you look a bit closer, you can see the bias. Saying that a policy can "hurt" a company or industry is no more emotionally charged than you asking how it "harms" their bottom line. They basically mean the same exact thing.

I thought the most interesting facts presented were how the products China is exporting are often comprised of parts manufactured elsewhere (including the US). So the trade deficit is a very misleading metric to user in such an intertwined global market.

Most of the manufacturing jobs in China will not be coming back here. They will sooner go to Vietnam or if they did come back here they will be automated away. The old 20th century model of an American economy based on industrial manufacturing is gone.

Originally posted by mike brown
Saying that a policy can "hurt" a company or industry is no more emotionally charged than you asking how it "harms" their bottom line. They basically mean the same exact thing.

Wrong. I want facts. Me asking for facts is the opposite of the fallacy. I even gave you an example. When I ask for bottom-line figures but I'm given "hurts", that's lame as f*ck.

Originally posted by mike brown
The old 20th century model of an American economy based on industrial manufacturing is gone.

LSS practitioner, here. You're wrong. The most efficient and cost effective method is to have all of it done in one location close to your materials sourcing.

Everything else is a less optimal state. The cost to reach the optimal state also can be prohibitive so most companies struggle along with less than optimal states making compromises here and there to obtain the most cost effective efficiencies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong. I want facts. Me asking for facts is the opposite of the fallacy. I even gave you an example. When I ask for bottom-line figures but I'm given "hurts", that's lame as f*ck. You want facts what, though? The specific extent to which the bottom line was hurt in these companies in the video? I don't have any facts on those companies other than what was in the video.

I think they were being used to
1) put a human face on the problem
2) give some examples of how interdependant different manufacturers from different countries are on one another
3) give some examples of how the tariffs are impacting costs

It wasn't about the specific details of any given company, it was an illustrative example of the logic that can be used to decipher how putting tariffs on one Country can affect companies in other countries.

The facts part of it was more like how they broke down how much of the manufacturing cost of building an IPhone goes to China, or that something like 60% of the companies exporting from China are American.




I'm not saying manufacturing in general is ****ed, I'm saying it's not going to be the backbone of economy it once was. Not for the working man, anyway. Automation will eventually replace foreign labor, but trying to force manufacturing back to the United States will speed up that process. We need to start looking for a new and better backbone for our economy.

Originally posted by mike brown
You want facts what, though? The specific extent to which the bottom line was hurt in these companies in the video? I don't have any facts on those companies other than what was in the video.

I think they were being used to
1) put a human face on the problem
2) give some examples of how interdependant different manufacturers from different countries are on one another
3) give some examples of how the tariffs are impacting costs

It wasn't about the specific details of any given company, it was an illustrative example of the logic that can be used to decipher how putting tariffs on one Country can affect companies in other countries.

The facts part of it was more like how they broke down how much of the manufacturing cost of building an IPhone goes to China, or that something like 60% of the companies exporting from China are American.

You did not present a single fact towards my question.

Here's why: you don't have it. Neither do the people who made that video. I don't either.

Go back to the drawing board and find some facts. I don't want to read about what hurts, capisci?

I can deal with "2% cost increase for an average boat price hike of $2,000." I can deal with, ".4% price hike with an average increase of $100 per ton of industrial steel" is another fact I can deal with.

I'll get you started with making your argument (yes, I'm legitimately and genuinely trying to make your argument for you):

Start here:

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodities


Steel is there.

Here is the price of industrial steel over time (warning, big image):

https://i.imgur.com/7uUXsIw.png

So what conclusion can we make? The tariff seems to have greatly dropped the price of steel. WTF? This doesn't even come close to fitting the narrative being presented. It seems the opposite of what you are saying, as well.

Dude...wtf?


Originally posted by mike brown
I'm not saying manufacturing in general is ****ed, I'm saying it's not going to be the backbone of economy it once was. Not for the working man, anyway. Automation will eventually replace foreign labor, but trying to force manufacturing back to the United States will speed up that process. We need to start looking for a new and better backbone for our economy.

You just said it but don't realize it. Bringing more automated, AI driven, manufacturing back to the United States is a great move for American companies. We just so happen to be strong in AI and robotics. There will be some efficiencies gained if they move those operations back to the United States especially if the cost of "entry" now has a digestible opportunity cost (due to the tariffs). WEEEEEE!




Alright, so, where is this discussion, now? What came of it? What was accomplished?

How is the blue collar worker going to benefit from bringing manufacturing jobs that are going to be filled by robots?

Originally posted by mike brown
How is the blue collar worker going to benefit from bringing manufacturing jobs that are going to be filled by robots?

Let me understand your question, better. I need to frame and clarify what you're asking.

Because a bunch of AI, robotics, and software engineering jobs (and the business management and administration positions to go around those, of course) could come to the US, you're wanting to know how the currently nonexistent blue collar jobs are going to benefit?


Is that what you're asking?

So, is this at least going to screw rich people in both countries as it screws over working class people?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me understand your question, better. I need to frame and clarify what you're asking.

Because a bunch of AI, robotics, and software engineering jobs (and the business management and administration positions to go around those, of course) could come to the US, you're wanting to know how the currently nonexistent blue collar jobs are going to benefit?


Is that what you're asking? I'm asking for the formerly employed blue collar worker is going to benefit.

You know, the guys that Trump appealed to when he said he was going to bring their jobs back from China.

Yeah I don't think ddm has grasped that former blue collar workers have spent time at home learning software on the internet whilst being out of work......

.......And he is one......

It's a joke to think the average factory worker is going to become a techie, lol.

Not only are there way fewer jobs managing those robots than there were when it was people doing the menial work, most people who fall into a menial job for a long term career don't have the capacity to be good tech worker even if they wanted to.

Originally posted by mike brown
I'm asking for the formerly employed blue collar worker is going to benefit.

You're asking if new tech jobs, unrelated to the blue collar workers who are seemingly laid off in your scenario, are going to work in white collar jobs that didn't previously exist and for which they are not qualified to work?

Originally posted by mike brown
You know, the guys that Trump appealed to when he said he was going to bring their jobs back from China.

You can take those arguments up with Trump. I haven't talked about that. But nice try on moving the goal posts.




Originally posted by Blakemore
Yeah I don't think ddm has grasped that former blue collar workers have spent time at home learning software on the internet whilst being out of work......

.......And he is one......

I seriously don't understand what it is you're trying to say. I'm a pansy. I never worked "blue collar."

My point is these nonexistent blue collar workers are not going to be working in the, currently, nonexistent (not nearly enough professionals ready to meet the demand) white collar jobs.

He's proposing a nonsensical hypothetical because he wants to push the conversation towards Trump instead of working in reality.

Originally posted by mike brown
It's a joke to think the average factory worker is going to become a techie, lol.

Right. But about the strawman you just did, here...

Where did I say or even come close to implying that blue collar workers were going to become AI Software Engineers, software development managers/directors, business development professionals, etc.? Can you at least try to be slightly honest? Just a bit? A tiny bit?

Originally posted by mike brown
Not only are there way fewer jobs managing those robots than there were when it was people doing the menial work, most people who fall into a menial job for a long term career don't have the capacity to be good tech worker even if they wanted to.

I think you think most humans are dumb as rocks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can take those arguments up with Trump. I haven't talked about that. But nice try on moving the goal posts.
I wasn't saying you did. I was just asking, since one of his big objectives is to get our manufacturing base back.

It goes back to what we were talking about earlier. Manufacturing jobs used to be one of the biggest ways for lower and middle class workers to make a decent living. Those days aren't coming back. If it's not cheap foreign labor replacing you, it's a robot. I'm sure the average worker in the rust belt isn't going to be nearly as excited to bring a manufacturing plant back to their town if it's still not going to employ them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. But about the strawman you just did, here...

Where did I say or even come close to implying that blue collar workers were going to become AI Software Engineers, software development managers/directors, business development professionals, etc.? Can you at least try to be slightly honest? Just a bit? A tiny bit?
That was in response to Blake, who seemed to be suggesting you were and example of someone who went from blue collar to the tech sector. If I misunderstood him then my bad. But I certainly wasn't straw manning you, especially since I wasn't even responding to you.


No. I think a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs aren't really up for something like coding though.

Ddm could do software jobs...

Originally posted by mike brown
That was in response to Blake, who seemed to be suggesting you were and example of someone who went from blue collar to the tech sector.

Then my bad, homie. I was wrong.


Originally posted by mike brown
No. I think a lot of people who work those kinds of jobs aren't really up for something like coding though.

I have more faith in humans being able to adapt to the changing world than you do. However, if they aren't working, now, then these hypothetical cutting edge technology jobs won't be for them. Still. Nothing will change for them. But young up and coming people will have the opportunity to change the world.


The eventual goal is to create things that check the box for the self-replicating machines. They can do all the agriculture, maintenance, and resource collection needed to sustain themselves and humans. Then this concept of money is stupid.


XYZ knows more about this idea than I do: he's a proponount of a no-money system.

I went to a community college and sat side by side with perfectly competent blue collar workers struggling to grasp basic coding. I've seen it first hand. Anecdotal, I know. But that's been my experience.

When I was at Walmart I literally had a cashier pull out her phone and type in 25 - 5 = .... To figure out the correct change .

How well have the job displaced writers and journalists picked up coding, I wonder?



But to hear them talk, saying that is offensive. When it happens to someone else, everything is a joke.

E40saY1jxoo

Originally posted by mike brown
E40saY1jxoo


I see your anecdotal appeal to emotion story that clearly has hidden the actual problems and I raise you the facts of the overall American Farming outlook and income:

https://www.fb.org/market-intel/usdas-early-look-at-2019-farm-income

Year over year, farming is up $6.3 billion.




"Reshoring" is up and manufacturing is up:

https://www.industryweek.com/economy/reshoring-rise-what-it-means-trade-debate

But manufacturing is up for different reasons. The US tops the chart for manufacturing production because of increased investments in automation and computer sciences:

US is also gaining greater shares of the market total, as well.

Primary takeaway: digital technologies in the manufacturing industry are improving the US's position in the world economy:

https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2017/nov/perspectives-on-manufacturing-industries-vol-12/manufacturing-in-a-changing-world/bringing-manufacturing-jobs-back-to-the-US.html



So let's bring this back around: we should not seek to replace displaced blue collar workers. We should continue to do what we are doing and simply automated the utter living shit out of everything with the world's best minds. While we are at it, continue to gain market share and increase our output WHILE reshoring our manufacturing.


This was a very long roundabout discussion where I asked you questions to lead you down the path of the facts. The facts of reality for what was already happening. If you played along, honestly, instead of trying to take jabs at Trump, you would have made the conclusion on your own and I wouldn't have said much. It would have been your idea, you would have found the facts, and you would be better for it.


We don't need 15,000 Foxconn blue collar Chinese assembly-line workers. We need a few industrial precision robots that can do 5x the work that 15,000 people can while doing so at much lower costs. Humans cannot compete with these economies of scale or robotic precision and speed. The trick is to reshore the work due to the reshoring market entry.

Tell me what you think about this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/08/30/amid-trump-tariffs-farm-bankruptcies-and-suicides-rise/

There's a lot of facts in there. I know you like facts.

One of those facts is:

It's kinda of to bad that a President who wants people to make informed choices is so hated by the media who wants to have people listen to information.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
It's kinda of to bad that a President who wants people to make informed choices is so hated by the media who wants to have people listen to information.

Speak correctly.

Originally posted by mike brown
Tell me what you think about this

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/08/30/amid-trump-tariffs-farm-bankruptcies-and-suicides-rise/

There's a lot of facts in there. I know you like facts.

One of those facts is:

What do I think about the increase of sales of US agriculture products after the economic slump they were experiencing?

Good. Sounds great.

Or are you asking about the farmers who went out of business because of natural disasters? That's bad. Can't readily predict the weather. But, overall, they are in an upswing according to the facts.

Your wrong Rob and you know it which makes it worse.
Before the Trump election democrates wanted the Republicans to spend money.
Donald Trump agreed at the start for us to spend money even to the point of offering Russia a fix at our expense.
He spending more than any Democrate ever did.
And the world knows it.
All for America. Don't we even deserve 16 years.

How is Trump getting 16 years? By bribing father time?

Well we might get lucky and get 24 years if Mike Pence picks the Secretary of State
as his V.P.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

The problem is the bailouts do not even cover the losses.

Pfft, who needs to worry bout that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE

The problem is the bailouts do not even cover the losses.

Pfft, who needs to worry bout that. Trumpsays it isoj so the trumpers believe him.

This thread Didnt age well but then it again it was made by a dummy

There are a number of things that are very useful for the USA as long as China actually fulfills its end of the deal:

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/US-China-Agreement-Fact-Sheet.pdf

That's isn't an interpretation but the document from the govt website.

I also thought that this was an important aspect of the agreement that popped out at me:

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
This thread Didnt age well but then it again it was made by a dummy