Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[rambo919]

Who said it did? But a market crash would affect the economy. Do you think Trump has the right to unilaterally order US companies to not do business with China?

Actually technically he kinda does yeah....

 

[cerebus]

Actually technically he kinda does yeah....

Based on what?

 

[rambo919]

Based on what?

Standard trading politics no different than it was a thousand years ago?

 

[cerebus]

Standard trading politics no different than it was a thousand years ago?

...what??

 

[rambo919]

...what??

Sometimes a, few wars are also involved.... global free market has never been a guaranteed fact.... we don't even really have it now people just think we do.

 

[cerebus]

Sometimes a, few wars are also involved.... global free market has never been a guaranteed fact.... we don't even really have it now people just think we do.

That's just nonsense. The president doesn't have any constitutional powers to dictate how businesses should trade.

 

[rietrot]

That's just nonsense. The president doesn't have any constitutional powers to dictate how businesses should trade.

Then just challenge the trade terrifs with China in any constructional court.

 

[rambo919]

That's just nonsense. The president doesn't have any constitutional powers to dictate how businesses should trade.

If need be he can just pass a Executive order actually, it VERY easy to block off trade especially in current murica when national security is an issue..... plenty of laws have been passed giving the sitting president plenty of powers. He can also just increase tariffs until doing business with a certain country guarantees a loss. Technically he can do whatever he wants at least temporarily when it comes to trade really as long as he has enough support for it.

But back to my original point.... blocking off all trade or only allowing conditional trade is hardly a new thing in politics.

 

[cerebus]

If need be he can just pass a Executive order actually, it VERY easy to block off trade especially in current murica when national security is an issue..... plenty of laws have been passed giving the sitting president plenty of powers. He can also just increase tariffs until doing business with a certain country guarantees a loss. Technically he can do whatever he wants at least temporarily when it comes to trade really as long as he has enough support for it.

Trump "ordered" US companies out of China. Despite claiming otherwise, he can’t do that.

Trump says the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows him to order companies to leave China. But the act doesn’t work that way.

www.vox.com

The president is not correct in this assertion. The Economic Powers Act allows the president of the United States to regulate commerce during a national emergency. It does not allow a president to order companies to close their factories in foreign countries, however. And as there has not yet been a national emergency declared with respect to Chinese trade, Trump’s present abilities to govern economic interactions with China are limited to measures like tariffs.

 

[rambo919]

Trump "ordered" US companies out of China. Despite claiming otherwise, he can’t do that.

Trump says the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows him to order companies to leave China. But the act doesn’t work that way.

www.vox.com

The president is not correct in this assertion. The Economic Powers Act allows the president of the United States to regulate commerce during a national emergency. It does not allow a president to order companies to close their factories in foreign countries, however. And as there has not yet been a national emergency declared with respect to Chinese trade, Trump’s present abilities to govern economic interactions with China are limited to measures like tariffs.

Actually technically murica has been in a state of national emergency ever since the first executive order was signed decades ago, executive orders are only temporary measures and go poof as soon as the country exits said emergency.....

also vox..... they seem to have a very limited understanding of legal limits (or reality really) in genaral but that's just my opinion.

 

[konfab]

That's just nonsense. The president doesn't have any constitutional powers to dictate how businesses should trade.

You know, other than the first Messiah, his lordship Barak H Obama.

To give one tiny example:
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/barack-obama-pushes-for-profit-colleges-to-the-brink-119613

 

[konfab]

Then just challenge the trade terrifs with China in any constructional court.

Trump derangement syndrome has leftists defending state rights and business rights.

 

[cerebus]

Trump derangement syndrome has leftists defending state rights and business rights.

You don't think ordering all US businesses to stop doing business with China would have disastrous unforeseeable consequences to the economy?

 

[konfab]

You don't think ordering all US businesses to stop doing business with China would have disastrous unforeseeable consequences to the economy?

"Disastrous unforeseeable consequences" is an oxymoron. If something is unforeseeable, then you can't know whether the consequences of it will be disastrous or not.

Off the bat, I don't think the government should interfere with business at all. That includes taxes and regulation, so I am very much against this. I am curious though as to why you now think that government regulations and control is a problem. If you say it is because it is Trump, then you are simply deluded as Obama and the EU do exactly the same sorts of things.

Honestly, this type of thing is quite easily reversible when it turns out to be a f__kup, Trump just has to say they will trade again and things will be pretty normal again in a few months.
This is because free trade is the norm for human beings, deviation from that norm is what causes all economic problems (ala the People's Republik of South Africa).

The type of thing that isn't reversible is the f__kup that is lurking in the background called unfunded liabilities, which is a hole the size of $210 trillion dollars that cannot be filled without a complete reform in government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...ies-our-government-cant-fulfill/#7382d7ef65b1

 

[rambo919]

Off the bat, I don't think the government should interfere with business at all. That includes taxes and regulation, so I am very much against this. I am curious though as to why you now think that government regulations and control is a problem. If you say it is because it is Trump, then you are simply deluded as Obama and the EU do exactly the same sorts of things.

One must here differentiate between internal and external business, in general politicians should probably only have power over external matters. But then only when it comes to politics itself because no government that has ever tried to micro-manage economy has ever done it successfully. It's like trying to catch wet soap using oily hands, no grip leads to expected results.

 

[cerebus]

"Disastrous unforeseeable consequences" is an oxymoron. If something is unforeseeable, then you can't know whether the consequences of it will be disastrous or not.

It's not an oxymoron. It would be disastrous, AND it would be impossible to fully predict the ramifications on business.

Off the bat, I don't think the government should interfere with business at all. That includes taxes and regulation, so I am very much against this. I am curious though as to why you now think that government regulations and control is a problem. If you say it is because it is Trump, then you are simply deluded as Obama and the EU do exactly the same sorts of things.

Honestly, this type of thing is quite easily reversible when it turns out to be a f__kup, Trump just has to say they will trade again and things will be pretty normal again in a few months.
This is because free trade is the norm for human beings, deviation from that norm is what causes all economic problems (ala the People's Republik of South Africa).

The type of thing that isn't reversible is the f__kup that is lurking in the background called unfunded liabilities, which is a hole the size of $210 trillion dollars that cannot be filled without a complete reform in government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...ies-our-government-cant-fulfill/#7382d7ef65b1

How is it reversible? Businesses can't just flip around and make new trade agreements. Even the tariffs are causing business losses that aren't going to be reversible if Trump removed the tariffs. For instance China is already starting to source imports like soybeans from other countries.

US soybean farmers say they feel suppressed by Trump’s tariffs

President Trump tweeted a bullish message regarding U.S. farmers touting the $16 billion in spending intended to offset the tariffs.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[konfab]

It's not an oxymoron. It would be disastrous, AND it would be impossible to fully predict the ramifications on business.

Sorry bucko, that isn't how it works.
It will be disastrous, just like every other government intervention in the market (lets call this premise 1)

How is it reversible? Businesses can't just flip around and make new trade agreements. Even the tariffs are causing business losses that aren't going to be reversible if Trump removed the tariffs. For instance China is already starting to source imports like soybeans from other countries.

Oh right you are a statist, obviously nothing can happen without the government, let me explain.

Trumpenfuherer gets rid of tarrifs. US farmers want to sell to China who already have a supplier. US farmers then sell their beans at a rate that Chinese businesses want. Chinese businesses act in their own self interest and realise that they can make more money by buying US soy beans. If China forbids this from happening, they screw over their own economy because of premise 1).

Private business acts very quickly. Price changes reflect economic conditions instantly.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I disagree, but okay. Give me some policy proposals that you think are good ideas.

Currency based in units of energy rather than fiat, voting systems that use blockchain so as to make voter fraud nigh impossible.

How is asking you what you think of policy issues and goals baiting you into virtue signalling?

Because you don't seem to be asking the same thing of anyone else in this thread, and the vast majority of your posts are snarky in orientation where you try to report what you see to be discrediting information about the Reps.

Truly, it would be terrible if the US were to degenerate into a hellscape like Australia, New Zealand, or Denmark.

Because it could neeeeeever happen that the globalists end up implementing the China model with its Big Brother surveillance nightmare, right?

This is why trying to talk to you is a joke, and why the only thing you are good for is pointing and laughing.

Nope, and the slippery slope fallacy about what marriage equality would lead to remains just as false as it always has.

This isn't a slippery slope about marriage, this is what happens when you have activists whose worldview is grounded in demolishing every norm that ever existed because they're seen as authoritarian and oppressive. Otherwise known as cultural Marxists. You might have seen the latest example of these fsckwits acting when "Derrida team" at Google decided to deceive the whole world by deleting the meaning of covfefe in an attempt to make Trump look stupid.

So how would you enforce it?

I was asked to stipulate why conservatives would wish to preserve an institution like marriage. You've now shifted the goalposts.

And either way, this is still absurd logical and moral reasoning. Discriminate against rafts of people on all sorts of issues (including issues unrelated to marriage) because you're trying to keep marriage an exclusive club.

You're ignoring the fact that all sex outside marriage was frowned upon. This discriminates against ordinary heterosexuals, too. The fact that some minorities might suffer disproportionately does not detract from the fact that overall the institution was a net positive to society.

Do you have a citation for that? Welfare institutions actually do pretty well. Better than anything else tried.

Welfare institutions do not reduce poverty, they create dependents upon the state who can then be leveraged by duplicitous politicians to undermine more and more personal freedoms as the welfare state becomes an ever bigger portion of the budget.

This is exactly what is happening in South Africa as we speak, the ANC are in the process of looting and demolishing the country. Everybody is getting poorer as a result.

Marriage Is an Important Tool in the Fight Against Poverty

Marriage is no “panacea for poverty,” according to a Center for American Progress (CAP) report by Shawn Fremstad released last week. “Marriage Won’t Cure Poverty,” read the Atlantic headline for an article by Rebecca Rosen spotlighting the CAP report. And, a few years ago, a prominent study by...

ifstudies.org

Specifically, being married is associated with a reduction in a family’s likelihood of poverty of between 41 and 80 percent, compared to a non-married family. Indeed, in a multivariate statistical model, data from the 2015 Current Population Survey indicate that marital status surpasses race, ethnicity, and age as a predictor of family poverty, and is about as important a factor as education. So, no panacea here, but marriage sure looks like a potentially important tool in any effort to fight poverty.

Second, child poverty is much lower in communities with lots of married families, even taking into account other factors—education, race, and local employment rates, for instance—that influence rates of child poverty. My research with the economists Robert Lerman and Joseph Price, for instance, indicates that states with higher shares of married parents have markedly lower rates of child poverty. Moreover, by our estimate, if states enjoyed 1980-levels of married parenthood, child poverty would be 17 percent lower and family median income would be 10 percent higher.

It's not hard to google for a citation yourself if you actually want to become informed about something.

Although empowering women generally goes hand in hand with that.

A single man used to be able to earn enough to keep an entire family, with the woman staying at home. So far as I can tell, women as a whole prefer to stay at home with the kids than to go off to work each day. But hey, screwing over both men and women economically for the sake of ensuring "equality" is all to the good, right?

Single motherhood is at the lowest point in 50 years. Sex outside marriage has always been the norm.

No, sex outside marriage has not always been the norm, you are talking crap, and the fact that single motherhood is like 2-3% off its worst reports inside the US is not actually something to pontificate about. It does nothing to change the argument.

And if you want to limit unwanted pregnancies, provide better access to education, healthcare, birth control, and legal abortion. All things conservatives oppose or stymie.

Right, because murdering the unborn is better than them being born poor.

Nope. You shifted the goalposts by trying to ring-fence the discussion to marriage equality for some reason.

Lol?

OD:

What do you think the reason is that conservatives have never actually supported that in practice and have always pushed for discriminatory legislation?

Me:

Because marriage as a social institution has to be respected if it is to be effective. It no longer is, btw, the value of the institution has become deleterious in the eyes of many men. See the recent thread for what this looks like in action. You can't have the norm without the discrimination, but you are blind to the value of discrimination in this regard.

OD:

So conservatives in practice have discriminated against people, for example by denying marriage to a whole class of people, instead of assuring equal rights for all... in an effort to 'respect' marriage?

Not to mention the discrimination went (and still goes) way beyond marriage.

I'm not going to turn a conversation about what motivates conservatives into a general e-peen contest about how discriminatory they are. Get rekt. And until someone shows me what a normative system sans discrimination looks like, your complaints are hollow.

 

[Emjay]

The type of thing that isn't reversible is the f__kup that is lurking in the background called unfunded liabilities, which is a hole the size of $210 trillion dollars that cannot be filled without a complete reform in government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnma...ies-our-government-cant-fulfill/#7382d7ef65b1

If I had kids, this would keep me up at night. When that entire house of cards comes tumbling down, the entire world economy is going to be in for a rough ride.

 

[noxibox]

Sorry bucko, that isn't how it works.
It will be disastrous, just like every other government intervention in the market (lets call this premise 1)

Oh right you are a statist, obviously nothing can happen without the government, let me explain.

Trumpenfuherer gets rid of tarrifs. US farmers want to sell to China who already have a supplier. US farmers then sell their beans at a rate that Chinese businesses want. Chinese businesses act in their own self interest and realise that they can make more money by buying US soy beans. If China forbids this from happening, they screw over their own economy because of premise 1).

You'll need to demonstrate that premise 1 is a fact.

Private business acts very quickly. Price changes reflect economic conditions instantly.

Some do, some don't. In the real world things often don't work the way the economic hypotheses say they will.