Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Sounds good but it would effect Canada more. The US exports electricity to Canada as well and would respond in like manner. Canada also relies heavily on the money from those exports. Canada exports more electricity but the US exports a lot as well.I think if I were Canada, I'd be tempted to cut off the electricity for 24hrs or so, just to show the sort of real world effects that can result if countries break their agreements. It's winter, so a good time to do that. Let 'em freeze in the dark for a bit.
The US, being the more diverse market, would adjust the most easily. Therefore it would hurt Canada the most and it not a good idea.
Trump's tariffs aren't a good idea in the first place, of course.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Even though I wouldn't attempt to handle any issues in the heavy-handed way that Trump does, I do find it interesting that very few here approach any of these issues in a considered way.
With most issues you should be able to extend the benefit of the doubt and analyze what the other group is trying to do and consider what could possibly happen to make that work.
You may feel that Trump only has a 20% chance of reducing illegal immigrants and of reducing Fentanyl coming into the US. Maybe some look at it as having a 50%. Most discussions here seem to imply 0% and don't even break-down what he is trying to do (whether it's ill considered or not).
The US has the larger and more diverse economy so whatever he does can be managed more easily over the short-term than in the other country. Money does generally talk so even though Mexico and Canada may be trying to cooperate regarding border issues, reducing their money derived from the US will likely make them try harder. That's usually just the way things work in general.
If that is the case, the tariffs will go away and "if" it all plays out like that, it would be a "win". That's never considered here. Why?
The conversation, in general, during the Reagan Patco controller's strike was the same. "Reagan is an idiot, a 2nd class Hollywood actor, a cowboy, it would be dangerous to let the controllers go" was the common view.
Yet, he warned them, they went on strike illegally, he fired them all, never changed his mind and never hired any of them back, the supervisors took over, hired and retrained more controllers and the danger never materialized and "surprise" there have been no more Patco strikes.
I agree more with the way Reagan handled that situation than with the way Trump is handling this one because I think Trump is like a bull in a china shop and a more negotiated approach would be better. We still would have the stronger negotiating position but it is entirely possible that the tariffs will work if used temporarily to get more changes regarding illegal immigration and Fentanyl.
The bit about the trade balance, bringing jobs home, being self sufficient, being anti-global trade, I have a hard time taking any of that seriously but I guess I could see a 5% chance that it works out well. That would be generous however because it's just not a good idea.
I have managed to have a discussion without bringing up his orange skin color so that's impressive, right?
With most issues you should be able to extend the benefit of the doubt and analyze what the other group is trying to do and consider what could possibly happen to make that work.
You may feel that Trump only has a 20% chance of reducing illegal immigrants and of reducing Fentanyl coming into the US. Maybe some look at it as having a 50%. Most discussions here seem to imply 0% and don't even break-down what he is trying to do (whether it's ill considered or not).
The US has the larger and more diverse economy so whatever he does can be managed more easily over the short-term than in the other country. Money does generally talk so even though Mexico and Canada may be trying to cooperate regarding border issues, reducing their money derived from the US will likely make them try harder. That's usually just the way things work in general.
If that is the case, the tariffs will go away and "if" it all plays out like that, it would be a "win". That's never considered here. Why?
The conversation, in general, during the Reagan Patco controller's strike was the same. "Reagan is an idiot, a 2nd class Hollywood actor, a cowboy, it would be dangerous to let the controllers go" was the common view.
Yet, he warned them, they went on strike illegally, he fired them all, never changed his mind and never hired any of them back, the supervisors took over, hired and retrained more controllers and the danger never materialized and "surprise" there have been no more Patco strikes.
I agree more with the way Reagan handled that situation than with the way Trump is handling this one because I think Trump is like a bull in a china shop and a more negotiated approach would be better. We still would have the stronger negotiating position but it is entirely possible that the tariffs will work if used temporarily to get more changes regarding illegal immigration and Fentanyl.
The bit about the trade balance, bringing jobs home, being self sufficient, being anti-global trade, I have a hard time taking any of that seriously but I guess I could see a 5% chance that it works out well. That would be generous however because it's just not a good idea.
I have managed to have a discussion without bringing up his orange skin color so that's impressive, right?
Last edited:
What did you elect him to do?
Do you habitually refer to a person's race when you comment on their behaviour, Seattle?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I don't. Do you? Why do you ask?
Given that Trump has disbanded the US International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs team, a reasonable outcome would be that fentanyl smuggling from other countries increases.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This presumes Trump is a rational actor and will behave well if appeased. He isn’t and he shouldn’t be. He admires only power and force and if appeased will just take more and more. He’s already shown that. He can’t be trusted to abide by any agreement.
There is more at stake here than mere money. A gesture is needed to make him sit up. One that causes real pain to the US, however briefly, to make the point, to him and his supporters, that Canada won’t be pushed around.
Last edited:
Seattle:
You started off by suggesting:
My claim is that is this is a racist slur. Your claim was that, for "most people", it is not, since you claim it is used to reference "behaviour" and not the colour of a person's skin.
Then you wrote:
I asked:
You're telling me that when you use the the term, you use it to be racist, but you're confident that when other people use the term, they aren't being racist.
What makes you confident that all those other people don't use the term in the racist way that you would use it?
You started off by suggesting:
The "DN" here, as you are well aware, was short for "dumb ni**er".Seattle said:
My claim is that is this is a racist slur. Your claim was that, for "most people", it is not, since you claim it is used to reference "behaviour" and not the colour of a person's skin.
Then you wrote:
In other words, in context, your claim is that when somebody refers to another person as a "dumb ni**er", mostly they aren't being racist, but are referring to that other person's behaviour and not the colour of their skin.Seattle said:
I asked:
Your reply was:James R said:
I take it, then, that when you use the term "dumb ni**er", you are out of step with the majority that you claim exists, who use "dumb ni**er" to refer to behaviour and not skin colour.Seattle said:
You're telling me that when you use the the term, you use it to be racist, but you're confident that when other people use the term, they aren't being racist.
What makes you confident that all those other people don't use the term in the racist way that you would use it?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
A reasonable outcome might be that they weren't very effective but who know, eh?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
So, in your opinion, there is zero chance that any plan of his will result in positive outcome?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
No, you linked to comments as if I did as well. DN is obviously a slur. "Most people" don't use DN and for those that do most are probably referring to behavior and not skin color which is why I referenced the Chris Rock routine.
The rest of your comment is blatant libel and not worthy of reply. If there were any rules here you would get a warning for implying that I'm racist but that's not how it works here is it? Trump has less "control" than you do here and the traffic (lack of) reflects that.
Seattle:
Once again, let is consider what you actually wrote:
Will you retract that silly claim now?
P.S. Before you try to get cute with me and claim that "dumb ni**er* is referring to a "subset", in that it refers not to people of colour in general but only to stupid people, realise that you're going to have to try to explain away the word "ni**er*, which you have already agreed is a slur.
Think about why a (white) person would use the term "dumb ni**er* rather than "dumb person" or similar. The point of the use of the slur is that it is a pointedly racist slur.
Do you agree with this, or not?
Once again, let is consider what you actually wrote:
Your claim here is clearly that the term "dumb ni**er* is "never about race".
Will you retract that silly claim now?
P.S. Before you try to get cute with me and claim that "dumb ni**er* is referring to a "subset", in that it refers not to people of colour in general but only to stupid people, realise that you're going to have to try to explain away the word "ni**er*, which you have already agreed is a slur.
Think about why a (white) person would use the term "dumb ni**er* rather than "dumb person" or similar. The point of the use of the slur is that it is a pointedly racist slur.
Do you agree with this, or not?
Last edited:
I'm trying to confirm whether you're racist or not. Your replies should be sufficient to confirm that, one way or the other. Will you try to excuse racism, again, or will you speak out against it?
You have an unfortunate record on this forum when it comes to stuff like this, but maybe you've learned a few things in the past couple of years and have changed your views. We'll see.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I didn't make a "claim" but the slur may be about a sub-set behavior and not necessarily about the race (skin color).
In other words the one doing the slurring is slurring inner-city criminal behavior and not his black next-door neighbor. I'm not condoning the behavior or choice of words but they may not be referring to the whole race. What do you think?
Ignorant people often speak in a less than perfect way. It's usually better to not read every comment in the worse possible light unless virtue signaling is the main reason for responding.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Have you become more condescending over time or less so? We'll see if you've learned anything.
I make no apologies for speaking out against racists.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You are truly irrelevant (and annoying).