The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
Pray tell - do you have any actual data points to support this claim? if so, provide em...
You do realize Germany has production facilities within the United States? There is this thing called local production. It has been en-vogue for a few decades now. Many manufactures now manufacture within the country in which they sell the product.
No, German cars are cheap in Germany. Farmers drive Mercedes sedans around the farm. Mercedes trucks are used for postal delivery and construction.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
There are several sites on-line where you can get specific information including anecdotal from in country consumers.
For a more general global view see:
http://www.dutycalculator.com/popular-import-items/import-duty-and-taxes-for-cars/
I had set that link to large luxury automobiles------you can adjust it down to small cars if you like.
Meanwhile, though the uSA only has a 2.5% Tariff on automobiles, we do have a 25% tariff on light trucks.
I suspect that if Trump tries raising tariffs as a bargaining ploy(which should get american manufacturers drooling), we(the consumers) should expect to pay more.
(kinda like another hidden tax passed on to the consumer)
Crazier than "unfunded mandates"?
That's kinda the whole point of tariffs. Goods become more expensive.
That is terrifying to read...
And yet, even though tariffs on outgoing US auto's aren't that high... they still don't sell well abroad. Wonder why that could be (probably because they suck? Ford is the only one to be worth a damn lately... but I'll still take my Nissan or Subaru over anything from a "US" manufacturer... ironic, since both vehicles were actually assembled here in the US!)
What allegation? Persecution complex?
Yet I have far more, and far more recent, experience job hunting than you do. Your personal anecdotes are obsolete, at best.
LOL! You just did it again, e.g. "seeking employment is a full-time job", which implies that those not making it a full-time job aren't job hunting. False dilemma. 40hrs/wk is the most common definition of full-time. Look it up. If you're disputing that, you're just equivocating.
LOL! Really? You actually believe that burger flippers can save enough money to take a year off work?
You're ridiculous and obviously out of touch with the reality of the current work environment, where people are no longer lifers, who retire from working one job their whole life, but usually only stay at a job is about 4 years before moving on. The median number of years that wage and salary workers had been with their current employer
was 4.2 years in January 2016, down from 4.6 years in January 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm
was 4.2 years in January 2016, down from 4.6 years in January 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm
When people are leaving job at the frequency, job hunting becomes much easier. It's no like you're waiting for someone to retire anymore. But go right ahead a believe that your experience from 40 years ago has any bearing.
Says the guy with zero recent experience.
Yet you can't seem to be bothered to quote this supposed "more to the conversation". If you want to call discussing a WHOLE POST cherry-picking, then you need to let people know what other specific things you're referring to. Or maybe you just believe in psychics.
And accusations of moving the goal post are merely red herrings unless you can bothered to show how. Or maybe just vagaries of your perceptions.
Yes, you clearly made a straw man of what I'd said by changing:
""Drawing on Social Security" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-8#post-3431883
to:
"Drawing down on Social Security" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-8#post-3431890
No doubt you don't have the minimum intellectual honesty to admit that much, while I at least can admit my mistakes.
I have Foxtel and have been watching the news about Trump for a few months most on CNN and Fox and a little on the English Sky news
As I understand it the Woman's March was mostly concerned about women's ability to control their own bodies.
It was also to be all inclusive but it seems that prolife groups were not welcome
Trump has apparently signed an executive order stopping federal funding being applied to abortion
Abortion is still legal just not funded by Government
On the moral side I see this as pandering to the prolifers
On the medical side I find it disturbing that medical decisions are being hampered by funding issues
On the laughable side I find it strange that women march and rally against politicians for control of their bodies when I am sure a number of them appear to be content with religious leaders issuing does and don'ts about what they should and shouldn't do in the bedroom
And where are the men's marches demanding control of their bodies and the right to wear condoms
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone over such a serious matter as abortion but if religious beliefs alignment fits well alongside political power any hope for a sensible resolution is doomed
As I understand it the Woman's March was mostly concerned about women's ability to control their own bodies.
It was also to be all inclusive but it seems that prolife groups were not welcome
Trump has apparently signed an executive order stopping federal funding being applied to abortion
Abortion is still legal just not funded by Government
On the moral side I see this as pandering to the prolifers
On the medical side I find it disturbing that medical decisions are being hampered by funding issues
On the laughable side I find it strange that women march and rally against politicians for control of their bodies when I am sure a number of them appear to be content with religious leaders issuing does and don'ts about what they should and shouldn't do in the bedroom
And where are the men's marches demanding control of their bodies and the right to wear condoms
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone over such a serious matter as abortion but if religious beliefs alignment fits well alongside political power any hope for a sensible resolution is doomed
The pronouncements of religious leaders aren't legally binding.
Mostly men make the laws, so it's not an issue.
No, do you? You are obfuscating again.
I can understand why that would be the case. And it doesn't change the facts here. Just because I was unemployed once decades ago, that doesn't mean I don't know what it takes to look for jobs. Your premise here is a no sequitur. Just because I haven't been unemployed doesn't mean I haven't applied for jobs. Additionally, I have been for most of my life an employer of others. I hired people. I've fired people. I know what they go through. I've provided outplacement services. If you have only flipped burgers or done something equivalent, then no one has ever offered you outplacement services.
But hey, that's just another example your overly simplistic, naive, thinking.
Yeah, I did it again. Contrary to your assertion, when you are unemployed, seeking employment is a full-time job. It implies nothing. It's a straight out statement of fact. One can job hunt, without job hunting becoming a full-time job. I've done it, but I wasn't unemployed. This gets down to that logic thingy which continues to vex you. The only false dilemma here is the one between your ears. If you are unemployed, you have no earned income, and that's a problem for most people. So your number one priority is the hunt for employment, because there is a limit to your unemployment insurance and your personal resources. A rational person, a responsible person, would make job hunting their full-time job.
No if you want to be a bum, and be irresponsible, as you seem to do. Well that's your choice. But you shouldn't be surprised when you wind up penniless and homeless or living with your family.
LOL! Really? You actually believe that burger flippers can save enough money to take a year off work?
It doesn't take much money to take a year off work. Go under a freeway underpass in any major city, it's full of folks who have taken a year or many years off work.
That's nice, but really not relevant. We are talking unemployment, not the average tenure of workers. You do realize that just because people change jobs, it doesn't follow that a period of unemployment always ensures between changing jobs? If your stories are true, you should know that. Again, this is just so typical of your naive simplistic thinking.
When people are leaving job at the frequency, job hunting becomes much easier. It's no like you're waiting for someone to retire anymore. But go right ahead a believe that your experience from 40 years ago has any bearing.
Again, this isn't relevant. We are talking about unemployment, not changing jobs.
Except that simply isn't true.
Yet you can't seem to be bothered to quote this supposed "more to the conversation". If you want to call discussing a WHOLE POST cherry-picking, then you need to let people know what other specific things you're referring to. Or maybe you just believe in psychics.
And accusations of moving the goal post are merely red herrings unless you can bothered to show how. Or maybe just vagaries of your perceptions.
Yes, you clearly made a straw man of what I'd said by changing:
""Drawing on Social Security" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-8#post-3431883
to:
"Drawing down on Social Security" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-8#post-3431890
No doubt you don't have the minimum intellectual honesty to admit that much, while I at least can admit my mistakes.
Except none of that is true either. Facts matter mate.
Agree but being threatened with eternity in hell leads to those of the religious bent a powerful incentive to comply
I do have problems with those same people not only complying but trying, and sometimes succeeding in having such beliefs made laws which are enforceable
Again agree and even if made law would be 1/ unenforceable 2/ ignored
LOL! Who ever said you should be OK with lying?
Granted, it's a good strategy. While the media was generally complicit in the Obama administration lies, and Trump would never get such considerations, Trump could have the media screaming "Lie!" so much that it loses all impact. Just like the accusations of racism no longer seem to mean much.
Can't obfuscate what you refuse to define.
Just keep telling yourself whatever you need to to make yourself feel better, buddy.
Sure, most people live paycheck to paycheck, but "number one priority" doesn't magically equate to "full-time job". Seems you're trying to hedge your bets and backpedal a bit.
I guess it would make sense to you that a bum wouldn't draw unemployment benefits, huh? Just the kind of mental gymnastics you need so you can feel like your arguments actually work.
It doesn't take much money to take a year off work. Go under a freeway underpass in any major city, it's full of folks who have taken a year or many years off work.
[sarcasm]Sure, buddy. I'm under a freeway during the winter, on my Alienware laptop with free wifi. [/sarcasm] Not sure where you'd get power, but you seem chock full of magical thinking.
That's nice, but really not relevant. We are talking unemployment, not the average tenure of workers. You do realize that just because people change jobs, it doesn't follow that a period of unemployment always ensures between changing jobs?
Again, this is just so typical of your naive simplistic thinking.
Who said anything about "a period of unemployment"?!
Higher employee turnover just means there is a constant supply of job opening, hence easier job hunting. But just go right ahead and deny any data that doesn't fit your decades old experience. Of course you wouldn't understand the simple relationship between the two.
Hey, you're the one who said the last time you were job hunting was decades ago.
Except none of that is true either. Facts matter mate.
I already cited the links that prove it. So you're just hoping a big enough lie will be believed by someone. Sad and pathetic.
Sail Away
Click because doors are never open to a child without a trace of sin.
Well, what was your point?
It's a weird, non sequitur, utterly detached ... something. A fallacy, I think, because it seems like you're building a straw man of some sort, but Spidergoat is exactly correct: Just because Trump supporters are okay with his lies doesn't mean the rest of us should be.
Indeed, if you think "people act as if they're surprised he's still lying", you're clearly missing the point.
Don't worry; you have plenty of company―pretty much everybody gets what's going on except Trump supporters and their non-Trump-supporting-fellow-Trump-supporting-talking-point-reciters. And, well, there were enough of those people this time 'round to elect a president, so, yeah, you have plenty of company in the make-believe bazaar.
Seriously, though, what was your point?
Because Donald Trump is exactly everything his Obamanoiac and Clintonoiac supporters claimed to fear. It's true the societal mainstream was a little slow to pick up on that contrast, but they can either be forgiven or not―depending on one's inclination―the increasingly naïve pretense that antisocial indecency is neither so common nor admired among their neighbors as the fact of Republicans and their supporters, including the ridiculously abysmal non-conservative conservatives like the pretentious faux-liberal posuers and wannabe provocateurs who pretend to be some manner of participating Democrat or liberal or leftist even though the best they can manage any day is to advocate right-wing talking points while presenting Republican mockery of Democrats and liberals as their bona fides, would, as living results, indicate. No, really, not so long ago in my lifetime it was impolite to presume so lowly of our neighbors; now it is requisite. And there really is nothing new about the scum-scraping gutter ethic of two-bit conservative advocates who have played their pretense of righteous ignorance for so damn long they've come to believe it, themselves, and, seriously, in the end when everyone else throws up their hands and rolls their eyes and then looks at each other and says, "I told you so!" even though they didn't because it was impolite to be making the point to each other like that, what respectability will you have left?
At each threshold, Donald Trump has failed to seek reality. Everything Republicans ever complain is wrong about corrupt, evil Democrats is coming true in Donald Trump's administration. Yet, you know, this is a Republican administration and Congress, so it's rather quite astounding what conservatives will support. Except it really, really isn't. Which brings us back to the main point: Syne, why do you have to make shit up in order to pretend to have an argument?
Nobody's really surprised. But at some point the rest of society will stop bothering with the pretense that it is rude to think so lowly of such people as to expect such sleaze on the grounds that they have, over time, demonstrated without question they are just that kind of people.
And look how easily their feelings are hurt. Poor Donny Smalls! Poor Angry Spice! Poor Kellyanne! I mean, really, Syne, do you know how funny it is to see a family values advocate like Kellyanne Conway rejecting Christ in order to serve Donald Trump? (Hint: It's only "funny" because the alternative is that it is in fact sickening witness.)
And Republicans will play along because that's just the kind of people they are.
Seriously, why else would they play along with all this stuff they otherwise complain about?
Because that's just the kind of people they are.
At various points, I've been expected to believe that the Heritage Foundation is a liberal organization, and that Bob Dole is a Nazi. Why? Because that's what Republicans wanted me to believe. Not that I'm going to believe them, but that's just the kind of people Republicans are. And, honestly, those points are important to rejecting ironic chuckles about Democrats defending the individual mandate while Republicans bawl about a lack of bipartisanship. No, really, that's why we're supposed to believe the Heritage Foundation's plan was a liberal plan, and why supporters of the individual mandate are Nazis. Well, that's not the only reason we're supposed to believe the Nazi bit, but, yeah, calling Bob Dole a Nazi is just the kind of people Republicans are.
So, no, nobody's really surprised to find you strawmanning the discussion. You know, speaking of things that aren't surprising.
Click because doors are never open to a child without a trace of sin.
Well, what was your point?
It's funny. Trump lied throughout the primary, and now people act as if they're surprised he's still lying.
I guess a sucker's born every minute.
It's a weird, non sequitur, utterly detached ... something. A fallacy, I think, because it seems like you're building a straw man of some sort, but Spidergoat is exactly correct: Just because Trump supporters are okay with his lies doesn't mean the rest of us should be.
Indeed, if you think "people act as if they're surprised he's still lying", you're clearly missing the point.
Don't worry; you have plenty of company―pretty much everybody gets what's going on except Trump supporters and their non-Trump-supporting-fellow-Trump-supporting-talking-point-reciters. And, well, there were enough of those people this time 'round to elect a president, so, yeah, you have plenty of company in the make-believe bazaar.
Seriously, though, what was your point?
Because Donald Trump is exactly everything his Obamanoiac and Clintonoiac supporters claimed to fear. It's true the societal mainstream was a little slow to pick up on that contrast, but they can either be forgiven or not―depending on one's inclination―the increasingly naïve pretense that antisocial indecency is neither so common nor admired among their neighbors as the fact of Republicans and their supporters, including the ridiculously abysmal non-conservative conservatives like the pretentious faux-liberal posuers and wannabe provocateurs who pretend to be some manner of participating Democrat or liberal or leftist even though the best they can manage any day is to advocate right-wing talking points while presenting Republican mockery of Democrats and liberals as their bona fides, would, as living results, indicate. No, really, not so long ago in my lifetime it was impolite to presume so lowly of our neighbors; now it is requisite. And there really is nothing new about the scum-scraping gutter ethic of two-bit conservative advocates who have played their pretense of righteous ignorance for so damn long they've come to believe it, themselves, and, seriously, in the end when everyone else throws up their hands and rolls their eyes and then looks at each other and says, "I told you so!" even though they didn't because it was impolite to be making the point to each other like that, what respectability will you have left?
At each threshold, Donald Trump has failed to seek reality. Everything Republicans ever complain is wrong about corrupt, evil Democrats is coming true in Donald Trump's administration. Yet, you know, this is a Republican administration and Congress, so it's rather quite astounding what conservatives will support. Except it really, really isn't. Which brings us back to the main point: Syne, why do you have to make shit up in order to pretend to have an argument?
Nobody's really surprised. But at some point the rest of society will stop bothering with the pretense that it is rude to think so lowly of such people as to expect such sleaze on the grounds that they have, over time, demonstrated without question they are just that kind of people.
And look how easily their feelings are hurt. Poor Donny Smalls! Poor Angry Spice! Poor Kellyanne! I mean, really, Syne, do you know how funny it is to see a family values advocate like Kellyanne Conway rejecting Christ in order to serve Donald Trump? (Hint: It's only "funny" because the alternative is that it is in fact sickening witness.)
And Republicans will play along because that's just the kind of people they are.
Seriously, why else would they play along with all this stuff they otherwise complain about?
Because that's just the kind of people they are.
At various points, I've been expected to believe that the Heritage Foundation is a liberal organization, and that Bob Dole is a Nazi. Why? Because that's what Republicans wanted me to believe. Not that I'm going to believe them, but that's just the kind of people Republicans are. And, honestly, those points are important to rejecting ironic chuckles about Democrats defending the individual mandate while Republicans bawl about a lack of bipartisanship. No, really, that's why we're supposed to believe the Heritage Foundation's plan was a liberal plan, and why supporters of the individual mandate are Nazis. Well, that's not the only reason we're supposed to believe the Nazi bit, but, yeah, calling Bob Dole a Nazi is just the kind of people Republicans are.
So, no, nobody's really surprised to find you strawmanning the discussion. You know, speaking of things that aren't surprising.
It was the other way around, of course, in real life.
That was a result of deliberate media efforts to undermine the terms.
The simple reporting of lies and racism as lies and racism was punished, mocked, slandered, and parodied, by Republican media.
The simple reporting of fact was abused as partisan lies and described as abuse of a race ("white") by that same media - to the point that Scientific American was treated as a partisan (leftwing) publication, for example.
And the terms became largely meaningless in any public discourse involving Republican voters as participants - quite possibly not only the obvious destination but the conscious goal of the media influencers involved.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I agree. And?
So if Trump, who became a Republican a few minutes ago, espouses something I've believed for years, I'm tantamount to being a Trump supporter? Is that really the ideologically motivate mental contortions you have to go through to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with you?
Just seems to be an amount of incredulity that really should be old hat by now. For example, Bells certainly seemed gobsmacked (liked by ElectricFetus, Kittamaru and joepistole) that I could possibly be making an argument that would directly refute one of Trump's lies. As if there weren't conservatives and Republicans screaming about all his lies throughout the primary. But maybe you didn't pay any attention to that at the time.
So not non sequitur or fallacious at all. Just an observation. One you're free to deny.
Again, we agree. And?
Wow, you're even busy making enemies out of Democrats. I'll leave you to it then.
Actually Syne I think you have made a good point.
Trump is not a member of any party except his own Trumpettes. This is not about making America great again it is about making Trump great again.
It just so happens that the Republican agenda allows Trump to capitalize on their enthusiasm under the crafted disguise of being a "Republican" president.
The USA has yet to witness the full potential of what Trump has in mind ( at the moment he is only setting the stage). Not only for the USA but also for the world generally.
The way it works is this:
The more angry he makes the people the more they think of him. The more they think of him the more he possesses them.
In parapsychology it's called "invocation" or "emulation" by default.
In psychology it's "becoming what you hate about yourself"
So you can expect more seemingly irrational actions not only deliberately from Trump but compelled and uncontrolled by others.
Now tell me, is what I have just written any crazier than what has and is and probably will happen in the USA today?
There is one thing that stands out for me in Trumps language use, that can be used to demonstrate my point. One consistent contradiction that is worth taking note of ( amongst many contradictions) if any one is interested I will post it here if not I will keep it to my self.
Trump is not a member of any party except his own Trumpettes. This is not about making America great again it is about making Trump great again.
It just so happens that the Republican agenda allows Trump to capitalize on their enthusiasm under the crafted disguise of being a "Republican" president.
The USA has yet to witness the full potential of what Trump has in mind ( at the moment he is only setting the stage). Not only for the USA but also for the world generally.
The way it works is this:
The more angry he makes the people the more they think of him. The more they think of him the more he possesses them.
In parapsychology it's called "invocation" or "emulation" by default.
In psychology it's "becoming what you hate about yourself"
So you can expect more seemingly irrational actions not only deliberately from Trump but compelled and uncontrolled by others.
Now tell me, is what I have just written any crazier than what has and is and probably will happen in the USA today?
There is one thing that stands out for me in Trumps language use, that can be used to demonstrate my point. One consistent contradiction that is worth taking note of ( amongst many contradictions) if any one is interested I will post it here if not I will keep it to my self.
Yes, really.
Which you can verify by taking a look at that "lie of the year" - that wouldn't even count as a lie, from a Republican politician. It was a fact that nothing in Obamacare prevented anyone from keeping their health insurance, doctors, etc - the worst you can say about that claim was it was an incorrect prediction.
And when shit like that is presented as an example of Obama lying,
and the amount of hyperventilated and amplified repetition that claim of supposed "lying" got - including nomination by the media as "lie of the year", by the way - is presented as Obama getting a pass,
and media that piled on the bullshit bandwagon, in that and fifty others like it, are described as complicit in his "lying",
there's something pretty obviously wrong with the perceptions of whoever is trying to sell me that line. What do you suppose it is?
Last edited:
- Status