Can Trumps economic plan work?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-12-2017, 11:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh I didn't realize we were talking about the conflict of interest side. I thought we were talking about the number of jobs Trump moved outside of the US.

Bait and switch often?

I wasn't talking about the numbers of jobs.  I was talking about how Trump's tough talk on tariffs is posturing because he isn't threatening to apply tariffs to imported Trump products.

The number of jobs which manufacture imported Trump products doesn't change the fact he hasn't threatened any companies that make and import Trump products.

No bait and switch, just red herrings and strawman arguments.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Has Trump warned a single company to stop avoiding taxes by moving their corporate headquarters overseas?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-13-2017, 01:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I wasn't talking about the numbers of jobs.  I was talking about how Trump's tough talk on tariffs is posturing because he isn't threatening to apply tariffs to imported Trump products.

The number of jobs which manufacture imported Trump products doesn't change the fact he hasn't threatened any companies that make and import Trump products.

No bait and switch, just red herrings and strawman arguments.

Again, if he applies an across the board tariff on Imports from China as he's threatened, then it will affect his business partners that he sell his brand as well. So he's not attempting to exempt himself from it as you claim.

[GreenDragon]

Trump has an economic plan?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-13-2017, 12:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again, if he applies an across the board tariff on Imports from China as he's threatened, then it will affect his business partners that he sell his brand as well. So he's not attempting to exempt himself from it as you claim.

That is a tariff specific only to China which is one of the 44 countries Trump has investments. That is a completely different tariff than the tariff I referenced in my original comment. 

[JustWinBaby]

(01-12-2017, 10:30 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Posting smiley faces isn't an excuse for being ignorant. But it is a typical response for someone in over their head. That post wasn't unclear, unless you struggle with English.

And, by the, just to clarify in case you actually don't understand grammar (which I know isn't true).....When I say "I get that from studies I read", I mean my opinion that the case hasn't been made is based on [flawed] studies I read. That is why, again, I ask you to post studies that created your belief.

And when I say I've not seen good research supporting the case that's completely honest - that's why I asked for good research otherwise. I think it's entirely fair to be a skeptic and ask for research that should convince me otherwise. And it's entirely clear that you and others here haven't scrutinized any of the research, either from choice or inability....and it would be a complete waste of time, in either case, to attempt to debate you.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-13-2017, 01:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have already told you I haven't read any studies on global warming.

Oh, I guess I missed that.  So I see you're just ignorant and intend to remain so. 

When you decide to learn how science actually works, and start reading actual science...then perhaps we can have an intellectual discussion. But, as we all probably guessed, you aren't capable of discussing the science and instead hoped to debate blog posts written by, typically, people with no training or background in science.

Until then, realize you're only trolling yourself. You're opinion can't be based on science because you haven't read any. Leave it at that, and refrain from calling people with an opinion different than yours anti-science, at least until the day you decide to....ummm...actually read actual science.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-13-2017, 01:22 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The scientific method does not, I repeat does not, involve posting a published research conducted by someone else on a message board.

Me asking you for studies that led you to your conclusion has nothing to do with the scientific method.  You can't even follow a simple argument it's no wonder you're in over your head on statistics and hypothesis testing.


Look, I'm done with this argument until you post a study, any study, that contributes to your belief of catastrophic man-made global warming.  Or just acknowledge that you're a sheeple incapable of an intellectual discussion on the topic.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-13-2017, 01:22 AM)oncemoreuntotheji Wrote: I don't know the exact number of jobs, never claimed to know the exact number of jobs, doubt Trump knows.  The number of jobs is a red herring.  If the number is 423 or 10,819 it doesn't matter if I can or can't tell you the number because we both know the jobs are overseas and why.  And the exact number doesn't change my point.

I claimed Trump's tough tariff talk is posturing.  Numbers don't affect that claim.  When he slaps a tariff on an imported Trump product then it won't be posturing.

That post had nothing to do with tariffs or sourcing and mentioned neither - you responded like someone who had just swallowed a meme.  That's why I asked you, because it looked like an ignorant post.  Just admit you parroted a VOX or HuffPo article you didn't understand and/or didn't fact check and got called on it.


At least you finally admit you don't know the number, instead of demanding that I refute you by posting a number that can't exist because Trump didn't outsource jobs (that I'm aware of).  And FINALLY we start to understand why making an extraordinary claim requires proof and there's nothing to reject or refute until evidence of that claim is provided.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-15-2017, 03:49 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Me asking you for studies that led you to your conclusion has nothing to do with the scientific method.  You can't even follow a simple argument it's no wonder you're in over your head on statistics and hypothesis testing.


Look, I'm done with this argument until you post a study, any study, that contributes to your belief of catastrophic man-made global warming.  Or just acknowledge that you're a sheeple incapable of an intellectual discussion on the topic.

Once again, I never claimed I believe in man made global warming. I have never claimed I don't believe in it, either. I've claimed I have an open mind and am witholding judgement until I can make an informed opinion. I've asked you to provide the studies you have read which lead you to believe man made global warming is junk science. You're just too drunk to remember. 

I have degrees in Biology and Physician Assistant Studies. There's not a doubt in my mind I have more science training than a business or economic major like yourself. Not only is it important to know what you do know, but it is also important to know what you do not know. I know two things about meteorological science; Jack and shit. I'm not ashamed to admit it. But, unlike you I'm not pretending to be a climate change expert that can't produce one of the actual studies you have read. You're so obviously completely full of shit the only one you're fooling is yourself. 

My apologies to hollo. I tried to steer him back to the other thread many posts ago. Probably another blackout. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-15-2017, 04:04 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That post had nothing to do with tariffs or sourcing and mentioned neither - you responded like someone who had just swallowed a meme.  That's why I asked you, because it looked like an ignorant post.  Just admit you parroted a VOX or HuffPo article you didn't understand and/or didn't fact check and got called on it.


At least you finally admit you don't know the number, instead of demanding that I refute you by posting a number that can't exist because Trump didn't outsource jobs (that I'm aware of).  And FINALLY we start to understand why making an extraordinary claim requires proof and there's nothing to reject or refute until evidence of that claim is provided.

Look here . . . 

(01-10-2017, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US. 

When you're not blackout drunk read my original comment again. Whether companies shift jobs overseas or create new ones overseas is esoteric because Trump says he intends to apply tarrifs to both. 

[hollodero]

(01-15-2017, 08:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: My apologies to hollo. I tried to steer him back to the other thread many posts ago. Probably another blackout. 

Oh that's ok. Free country, free threads, free derailing. Along the way I stopped caring if you guys think Trumps economic plan can works anyways. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2017, 06:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh that's ok. Free country, free threads, free derailing. Along the way I stopped caring if you guys think Trumps economic plan can works anyways. 

Seems like a metaphor for the election. 

[GMDino]

(01-15-2017, 03:32 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Posting smiley faces isn't an excuse for being ignorant.  But it is a typical response for someone in over their head.  That post wasn't unclear, unless you struggle with English.

And, by the, just to clarify in case you actually don't understand grammar (which I know isn't true).....When I say "I get that from studies I read", I mean my opinion that the case hasn't been made is based on [flawed] studies I read.  That is why, again, I ask you to post studies that created your belief.

And when I say I've not seen good research supporting the case that's completely honest - that's why I asked for good research otherwise.  I think it's entirely fair to be a skeptic and ask for research that should convince me otherwise.  And it's entirely clear that you and others here haven't scrutinized any of the research, either from choice or inability....and it would be a complete waste of time, in either case, to attempt to debate you.

And you were asked to share the "flawed studies" (which was not what you wrote the first time) so we could see what was wrong about them through your amazing understanding of the subject.

Works both ways.

And in the words of my grandfather:  Put up, shut up, or just go away and quit pretending you're smarter than you are.

[hollodero]

(01-16-2017, 07:23 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Seems like a metaphor for the election. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1500VJ?client=safari

Quote:"If you want to build cars in the world, then I wish you all the best. You can build cars for the United States, but for every car that comes to the USA, you will pay 35 percent tax," Trump said in remarks translated into German.

So Trump will charge a tariff on German cars manufactured in Germany by German manufacturers.

Still not a peep about products manufactured overseas with a Trump label. 

[Benton]

(01-20-2017, 05:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1500VJ?client=safari


So Trump will charge a tariff on German cars manufactured in Germany by German manufacturers.

Still not a peep about products manufactured overseas with a Trump label. 

good. Although it might have been better to note companies like vw which are already investing in communities like Tennessee, although they might not have thanks to lawmakers there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Quote:"From this day forward it’s going to be only America first. America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”

When are those overseas jobs making Trump products going to be moved to America to benefit American workers?

[Vas Deferens]

(01-22-2017, 04:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: When are those overseas jobs making Trump products going to be moved to America to benefit American workers?

Ask the slickbacks running the company without daddy's best interests in mind.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-15-2017, 08:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Look here . . . 


When you're not blackout drunk read my original comment again. Whether companies shift jobs overseas or create new ones overseas is esoteric because Trump says he intends to apply tarrifs to both. 

Someday you might learn to read English....You said Trump had "shifted" jobs overseas, I asked you for the number of jobs Trump had "shifted" overseas. No need to get into your fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to "create" jobs. That's what made your statement laughable partisan BS, and what prompted the question. Pages later, you finally admit you were talking out of your ass the entire time (a recurring theme with you).

I think we're done here.