Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.
---

Icehawk posted...

A. Do you think there are enough republicans with balls to actually get legislation through that stops trump's tariffs? (No)

lmao

no

B. Do you agree with this article, that the best way to handle trump would be to sanction his own businesses instead of the country at large? I think it makes sense, though I imagine the politics in the home countries would be bad, as it wouldn't be a strong enough response in terms of pure dollars..

Now this I think depends on what the goal is for them. I think sanctioning his own businesses is likely to have the most immediate effect and that it ultimately would probably work. However, they'd have to deal with his whining about it and the slight risk that it entrenches some support for him. They also run the risk of "it gets worse before it gets better" if his immediate reaction is to flail and make things worse first before ultimately caving assuming they don't cave first.

I think that them implementing retaliatory tariffs is probably better from a longer term perspective. Especially since a lot of them are, or at least seem to be, targeted specifically to impact red states or congressmen. This is more likely to depress turnout from his supporters or even flip them as they see the result of his trade war is harming their jobs and livelihoods.

But that the first option is even available just goes to show the possible repercussions of him not divesting from his business interests. It opens up an avenue for foreign (and domestic) powers to influence him.
---

trump should have fucking divested in his businesses for a reason
---

For some reason I get the feeling the meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un went like this:

Trump: Okay! Now, I'm going to give you a great deal! The best deal! Don't listen to everyone else. They're all fake news! Did you hear I won the election? Big time. Have you seen my electoral map? It's yuge! Now, what I want you to do is disarm. Then we can build big hotels! Great hotels! The best hotels. And we'll make the South Koreans pay for them.

Kim Jong Un: Here is my counter. You give me everything I want. You go home, tell everyone you hero. Everyone love you.

Trump: Deal!
---

xp1337 posted...

I think that them implementing retaliatory tariffs is probably better from a longer term perspective. Especially since a lot of them are, or at least seem to be, targeted specifically to impact red states or congressman. This is more likely to depress turnout from his supporters or even flip them as they see the result of his trade war is harming their jobs and livelihoods.

Why would tariffs make Trump's supporters turn on him? They'll just think it's another stupid thing Obama did and that Trump would fix everything if it weren't for the liberal conspiracy holding him back.
---

Some will think that, sure. Some others won't.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

How does it dictate their choice of president? The logic in sanctioning Trump businesses is that Trump doesn't care about how trade wars affect every day Americans. The only thing he cares about is himself. Hurting Trump instead of actual people is the most effective way to get through to him. He is only vulnerable to this because he lied, as always, and did not divest from his businesses.

Getting through to Trump is not the important thing. Getting through to the American people is the important thing.

And if other countries are really going to trade 100 billion in tariffs on them for 10 million in tariffs on Trump businesses, that's a big win for Americans. It's basically putting in tariffs without any retaliation. After "negotiating" a deal that good, Trump could start a donation site and get back more than he lost from the sanctions from Americans happy about what a great job he did renegotiating our trade deals.

I agree that they would have to put the trump tariffs on top of other tariffs. But getting through to trump is the important thing. He is the one with this power. The American people aren't going to feel any sympathy for trump if he gets personally sanctioned. It is his own damn fault.
---

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.
---

Icehawk posted...

The American people aren't going to feel any sympathy for trump if he gets personally sanctioned. It is his own damn fault.

As a whole, no, they won't. But there's a not-insignificant risk that it provides a rallying point for his base that all these foreign countries are out to get him.

If they think, for instance, that a favorable midterm for Democrats means that Congress can be pushed to take back its tariff powers they may not want to rock the boat.
---

Once again, I just don't see that. I don't see people being fired up to PROTECT TRUMP'S MONEY. The stuff that fires these people up are guns and their fear of people different from them coming into the country.
---

i dunno i think you underestimate the ability of trump and the right to whip up their base into a frenzy over this

Again, most people would not care, but this could give another reason for his base to turn out in an election if for no other reason than another way to "own the libs"
---

Icehawk posted...

Once again, I just don't see that. I don't see people being fired up to PROTECT TRUMP'S MONEY. The stuff that fires these people up are guns and their fear of people different from them coming into the country.

And a large part of the reason why they are fired up about guns and people different from them coming into the country is a raging persecution complex. The government wants to take away their guns in order to Agenda 46 them with black UN helicopters and they're perpetually under threat from undesirables so they need guns to protect themselves. Soon white people will be a minority and then the majority minorities will persecute them just as they have been persecuted.

Trump's businesses getting targeted could very well play into their complex.
---

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.
---

Theres also the fact that even if Trump succeeds in bullying other countries into making concessions it still wont help the US because Trump is obsessed with lowering bilateral trade deficits despite the fact that having those deficits is not a bad thing.
---

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

How does it dictate their choice of president? The logic in sanctioning Trump businesses is that Trump doesn't care about how trade wars affect every day Americans. The only thing he cares about is himself. Hurting Trump instead of actual people is the most effective way to get through to him. He is only vulnerable to this because he lied, as always, and did not divest from his businesses.

Getting through to Trump is not the important thing. Getting through to the American people is the important thing.

And if other countries are really going to trade 100 billion in tariffs on them for 10 million in tariffs on Trump businesses, that's a big win for Americans. It's basically putting in tariffs without any retaliation. After "negotiating" a deal that good, Trump could start a donation site and get back more than he lost from the sanctions from Americans happy about what a great job he did renegotiating our trade deals.

I agree that they would have to put the trump tariffs on top of other tariffs. But getting through to trump is the important thing. He is the one with this power. The American people aren't going to feel any sympathy for trump if he gets personally sanctioned. It is his own damn fault.

Trump is not the one with the power. The American people are. This is like offering a lawyer a bribe to sell out his client. Even if you succeed (Trump backs down), his client will just fire him and get a different lawyer who won't be bought. And then you'll get bigger tariffs, borne out of anger as much as desire for gain.
---

red sox 777 posted...

and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.

no need

i can tell you right now that the answer is trump
---

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.

Trump was unhappy with the TPP because it was an Obama deal. I can guarantee you he didnt understand what it did any better than a random poster in this topic.
---

xp1337 posted...

i dunno i think you underestimate the ability of trump and the right to whip up their base into a frenzy over this

Again, most people would not care, but this could give another reason for his base to turn out in an election if for no other reason than another way to "own the libs"

They literally try and whip their base into a frenzy about MS-13, including in places where MS-13 is nowhere even close to be found. I'm not denying that they might use it, but it will go in a pile with all the other dumb stuff they use. There is a very clear enthusiasm gap for the mid terms. The only reason dems might not take the house back is the way the lines are drawn in so many states. (when you can win by 4-5 percentage points and still not take back the house, that is pretty bad). This issue alone isn't going to be the one that fires up struggling working class or middle class people. It's just not.

I saw a news segment (I think Nightly News) about how Trump voters were so FIRED UP to take down Tester because of his role in taking down Ronny Jackson, who was an awful friggin pick to head up the VA. Once again, there are a million of these dumb things they try and use. It'll just be a blip.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.

Trump was unhappy with the TPP because it was an Obama deal. I can guarantee you he didnt understand what it did any better than a random poster in this topic.

How can you guarantee me that? Do you know Trump? Have you spoken with him?
---

Side note, in primary news, the most vulnerable Republican, comstock had an awful performance. Dem turnout way better. She gone.
---

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.

Trump was unhappy with the TPP because it was an Obama deal. I can guarantee you he didnt understand what it did any better than a random poster in this topic.

How can you guarantee me that? Do you know Trump? Have you spoken with him?

He's been asked about it a dozen times, and never once sounded like he knew wtf he was talking about.
---

Weve all seen Trump display his ignorance on every topic under the sun 24/7 for the past two years. We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money. We know that he has an extremely small attention span and gets most of his information from Fox News rather than the vast government apparatus he has at his disposal. Its possible that he knows a tiny bit about it (which is why I said a random person in this topic rather than a random American), but I really doubt it.
---

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.
---

I will say Trudeau's popularity is surging because of his resistance. Canada is on board with not backing down even if it hurts in the short run.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money.

He most certainly does not think this. Give credit where it's due - the man knows a lot about debt. Having a trade deficit corresponds to paying another country money. It is in some sense the opposite of owing a country money. The country receiving the money owes the country paying it.

Trump thinks receiving money is good, and paying it is bad. Now, it's not that simple, because you receive something of value when you pay money - but then the question is whether you are paying more than you could to obtain what you are getting.
---

xp1337 posted...

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.

If they want tariffs lifted they can offer to lift their tariffs on the US, conditional on it being a binding treaty that the US president can't revoke on his own.
---

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.

If they want tariffs lifted they can offer to lift their tariffs on the US, conditional on it being a binding treaty that the US president can't revoke on his own.

Unnecessary. I have no doubt in my mind they would win such a showdown.
---

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money.

He most certainly does not think this. Give credit where it's due - the man knows a lot about debt. Having a trade deficit corresponds to paying another country money. It is in some sense the opposite of owing a country money. The country receiving the money owes the country paying it.

Trump thinks receiving money is good, and paying it is bad. Now, it's not that simple, because you receive something of value when you pay money - but then the question is whether you are paying more than you could to obtain what you are getting.

In a free market both buying and selling things are good. If you have a trade deficit because youre not selling, thats bad. If that same trade deficit exists just because youre buying a bunch of stuff (as you might expect a rich country like the US to do) its not.

Bilateral trade deficits are even more meaningless in a globally linked economy.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.

If they want tariffs lifted they can offer to lift their tariffs on the US, conditional on it being a binding treaty that the US president can't revoke on his own.

Unnecessary. I have no doubt in my mind they would win such a showdown.

Why? Why would they outlast the US on this? Do you think the US electorate will give in after an election or 2?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money.

He most certainly does not think this. Give credit where it's due - the man knows a lot about debt. Having a trade deficit corresponds to paying another country money. It is in some sense the opposite of owing a country money. The country receiving the money owes the country paying it.

Trump thinks receiving money is good, and paying it is bad. Now, it's not that simple, because you receive something of value when you pay money - but then the question is whether you are paying more than you could to obtain what you are getting.

In a free market both buying and selling things are good. If you have a trade deficit because youre not selling, thats bad. If that same trade deficit exists just because youre buying a bunch of stuff (as you might expect a rich country like the US to do) its not.

Bilateral trade deficits are even more meaningless in a globally linked economy.

You are glossing over the impact of trade barriers on different groups of people with a blanket statement that trade is good. Trade is good for the people doing the trading, by definition in Economics (although not in a wider sense - I'd argue that the opium trade in China was bad for the people in China who wanted to buy the opium from Britain). But trade can be bad for third parties who aren't trading, like manufacturing workers in America.
---

Trade is a gain on the aggregate. If we minimize barriers to trade and then redistribute wealth through a robust social safety net everyone can come out ahead.

If youre saying that we could do a better job on that second step then I agree!
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trade is a gain on the aggregate. If we minimize barriers to trade and then redistribute wealth through a robust social safety net everyone can come out ahead.

If youre saying that we could do a better job on that second step then I agree!

In theory, we could. But that is not realistic, because people don't want to be kept out of poverty by a social safety net. They want to succeed through their own work, and get more than someone who doesn't work. People are proud.

Trump offered them a situation where they are kept afloat apparently by their own work, but really through their votes for the Republican Party. And I will submit that even if people see through this, they would still prefer to receive money through voting Republican than from a safety net.
---

Trumps tariffs dont even accomplish that if he unemploys five auto workers to save one steel worker (Im making up numbers, but I remember reading reports that put the tradeoff well into the negatives)
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trumps tariffs dont even accomplish that if he unemploys five auto workers to save one steel worker (Im making up numbers, but I remember reading reports that put the tradeoff well into the negatives)

If the other countries give in and lower their tariffs, his plan would likely succeed. And it may take years. Maybe they'll never give in. I will say that the biggest target, China, already looks to be compromising. Which makes sense, because China stands to lose the most of any country from losing American trade.
---

The US risks other countries working together, lowering their reliance on the US. Which is good overall IMO, but not if you want the US to be the best.
---

Apparently, Virginia nominated Corey Stewart (a nazi sympathizer) to run for Senate against Tim Kaine.

I wonder how many Republicans will denounce him, and how many will tie themselves to him.
---

"oh boy"

Stewart came within two points of winning the gubenatorial nomination last year and caused Gillespie's sickening spiral of pandering to the racists to get votes. Kaine should have no problem taking him out, but I doubt very many Republicans will be denouncing him.
---

Why does Trump's approval rating increase after he insults America's allies and cozies up to dictators?
---

"Appearance of strength"
---

Also what exactly happened with North Korea? Republicans seem to be boasting about Trump being a peacemaker but is it really that easy?
---

The North Koreans agreed to absolutely nothing concrete beyond holding followup meetings

I guess you could view it positively in that we're not imminently going to war with them??
---

Good riddance.

And again, Trump's approval rating INCREASES. What is this madness?
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Good riddance.

And again, Trump's approval rating INCREASES. What is this madness?

Continued vows to denuclearize. As of now, the thoughts are all positive from all parties concerned besides democrats who want Trump to crash and burn.

Someone told me Maher on air the other day said he hoped America would go into a recession again and that he knew it would hurt Americans but it was the best way for Trump to lose election.

The scorched Earth policy many democrats are hoping and wishing for it just flat out weird.
---

Corrik posted...

Continued vows to denuclearize. As of now, the thoughts are all positive from all parties concerned besides democrats who want Trump to crash and burn.

I want it to work out, but there's really no reason to think it will beyond wishful thinking. We have gotten absolutely nothing concrete from North Korea, only vague and undefined promises.

Compare Trump's "deal" to the Iran deal he just tore up, which had Iran give up a ton of its nuclear capabilities while subjecting them to a robust inspection scheme. It's insane to think that the the former is better than the latter, but here we are!
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

Continued vows to denuclearize. As of now, the thoughts are all positive from all parties concerned besides democrats who want Trump to crash and burn.

I want it to work out, but there's really no reason to think it will beyond wishful thinking. We have gotten absolutely nothing concrete from North Korea, only vague and undefined promises.

Compare Trump's "deal" to the Iran deal he just tore up, which had Iran give up a ton of its nuclear capabilities while subjecting them to a robust inspection scheme. It's insane to think that the the former is better than the latter, but here we are!

You are talking about a finalized deal to a non finalized deal. You don't finalize a deal in a day. Obama's took years and ended up being deeply flawed. .
I said prior I am skeptical, but you would have to be blind to see a large swath of democrats are hoping for it to fail because they don't want Trump to accomplish anything.

Why anyone would not be hopeful at this point is beyond me.
---

I don't trust Trump and I don't trust Kim. Why would I be hopeful?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting him to accomplish anything. I do want North Korea denuclearized regardless of who accomplishes it.
---

But why are people fine with Trump alienating America's allies? Is it because they think said allies have done nothing to benefit the States? Sure.
---

Corrik posted...

The scorched Earth policy many democrats are hoping and wishing for it just flat out weird.

Hey guys, i found someone who has the memory of a single-celled organism.
---

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

Continued vows to denuclearize. As of now, the thoughts are all positive from all parties concerned besides democrats who want Trump to crash and burn.

I want it to work out, but there's really no reason to think it will beyond wishful thinking. We have gotten absolutely nothing concrete from North Korea, only vague and undefined promises.

Compare Trump's "deal" to the Iran deal he just tore up, which had Iran give up a ton of its nuclear capabilities while subjecting them to a robust inspection scheme. It's insane to think that the the former is better than the latter, but here we are!

You are talking about a finalized deal to a non finalized deal. You don't finalize a deal in a day. Obama's took years and ended up being deeply flawed. .
I said prior I am skeptical, but you would have to be blind to see a large swath of democrats are hoping for it to fail because they don't want Trump to accomplish anything.

Why anyone would not be hopeful at this point is beyond me.

Well, you see, we've spent the last year and a half watching Trump's style of negotiation, and watched his actions. His entire mindset seems to be twofold: one, Obama bad/Trump good, thus destroying anything Obama either did or supported, no matter how much better it is than Trump's alternative. Two, enrich himself as much as possible. Neither of these mindsets shows any signs of doing what's best for America. I don't WANT America to fail, because obviously I'm an American and these things affect my life. But I just don't think Trump is working in the best interests of America. I think he's working in the best interests of Donald Trump.

This whole NK thing just seems like optics to paint Trump in a positive light for gullible voters. Sure, the U.S. gave up a lot in exchange for very little, but hey, don't think about that! Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un! Isn't he awesome?!
---

Inviso posted...

Corrik posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Corrik posted...

Continued vows to denuclearize. As of now, the thoughts are all positive from all parties concerned besides democrats who want Trump to crash and burn.

I want it to work out, but there's really no reason to think it will beyond wishful thinking. We have gotten absolutely nothing concrete from North Korea, only vague and undefined promises.

Compare Trump's "deal" to the Iran deal he just tore up, which had Iran give up a ton of its nuclear capabilities while subjecting them to a robust inspection scheme. It's insane to think that the the former is better than the latter, but here we are!

You are talking about a finalized deal to a non finalized deal. You don't finalize a deal in a day. Obama's took years and ended up being deeply flawed. .
I said prior I am skeptical, but you would have to be blind to see a large swath of democrats are hoping for it to fail because they don't want Trump to accomplish anything.

Why anyone would not be hopeful at this point is beyond me.

Well, you see, we've spent the last year and a half watching Trump's style of negotiation, and watched his actions. His entire mindset seems to be twofold: one, Obama bad/Trump good, thus destroying anything Obama either did or supported, no matter how much better it is than Trump's alternative. Two, enrich himself as much as possible. Neither of these mindsets shows any signs of doing what's best for America. I don't WANT America to fail, because obviously I'm an American and these things affect my life. But I just don't think Trump is working in the best interests of America. I think he's working in the best interests of Donald Trump.

This whole NK thing just seems like optics to paint Trump in a positive light for gullible voters. Sure, the U.S. gave up a lot in exchange for very little, but hey, don't think about that! Trump shook hands with Kim Jong Un! Isn't he awesome?!

What did USA give up and what was the little Korea gave up?
---