(01-11-2017, 11:16 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: I don't know if even Trump knows exactly what the economic plan is. But going off what he said it seems like whatever it is, to work for the common American group that he appealed to the most it will depend on the benevolence of the richest.
People can take a look at history and make a determination as to how successful that might be.
At this point it's increase spending, cut taxes and hope that enough businesses come back/create jobs to make up the difference.
I'm sure it will work...this time.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-11-2017, 08:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: be that as it may. You're right and I see it the same way - it just remains a pointless game, and it's a game that takes more than one person to play. He wants to play and you - play along.
Or as you rightfully said: That discussion doesn't work. And it will never work. I even threw him a link and he ignored it. So why not leave it at that and treat people like they deserve to be treated - which, in this case, is with ignorance.
Mind, I do not take issue with derailing threads per se, as long as they derail into something funny, entertaining, interesting, substantial or sexy... this current derailment just fulfils none of these criteria to even the tiniest amount. Just my stance, though. Do, of course, as you please. It's a free thread after all.
Have you watched It's a Wonderful Life?
(12-24-2016, 12:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, post for me the studies that you think prove your case, and I will critique them. It's never the case that an extraordinary claim has to be disproven, but rather you have to show the merits of your case - and the more extraordinary the claim typically the more extraordinary the proof. That's the scientific method, in case you were never taught it.
Your failure to link studies can only be assumed to mean you've never read or understood an actual study relevant to this debate. But then that's clear to anyone reading the last several posts.
This guy thinks posting a study of someone else's research on a football message board is a part of the scientific method. Then tells others they don't understand the scientific method. I'm sorry, but I think it is hilarious. And teacher says every time Baby tells someone they don't understand the scientific method a scientist gets his white lab coat complete with pocket protector.
Now he wants to know the exact number of jobs Trump has overseas. It is completely diversionary. Every shirt (for example) made over seas is a shirt not made in the US. Every worker manufacturing Trump shirts overseas is a US worker not making shirts in the US. Is Trump threatening any of the overseas manufacturers of Trump products with increased tariffs? Hell, no.
But, inexplicably, Baby somehow thinks that point is moot if someone can't tell him how many people are employed manufacturing Trump products overseas. That is exactly the type of response I would expect from someone who refuses to show any of us a single study he has read which indicates climate change is a hoax.
I would think a self professed economic whiz kid would have better input in this thread. I'm surprised he hasn't already told us we wouldn't understand any of his economic forecasts already. (First.)
(01-11-2017, 11:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: At this point it's increase spending, cut taxes and hope that enough businesses come back/create jobs to make up the difference.
I'm sure it will work...this time.
There is one difference, this time, that may have an effect.
We will have a president with very little respect for decorum.
He will belligerently lambast and shame any corporations not falling in line.
While he is not highly regarded by all, his comments will still carry enough weight to damage these company's bottom lines.
This thing is a whole different/weird/twisted animal.
(01-11-2017, 01:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: There is one difference, this time, that may have an effect.
We will have a president with very little respect for decorum.
He will belligerently lambast and shame any corporations not falling in line.
While he is not highly regarded by all, his comments will still carry enough weight to damage these company's bottom lines.
This thing is a whole different/weird/twisted animal.
And corporations that know if four years they won't have to deal with him...
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-11-2017, 01:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: And corporations that know if four years they won't have to deal with him...
Oh, I agree any reaction by corporations will be long drawn out lip-service.
However, we all know the economy can be driven by public perception.
If the lip-service is convincing enough, there will be the byproduct of an uptick.
(01-10-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll entertain your BS. I know how many jobs from actual reports I have read. But, you need to post how many jobs in order for me to comment on how many jobs. Would you agree how many jobs Trump has overseas I claim to have read isn't a fact, then the opposite of that would be a hoax? So wouldn't a claim of a "hoax" first require you to prove how many jobs Trump has overseas is a fact? To break it down for you in plain English-I can't prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a hoax until you prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a fact. If the numbers of Trump jobs overseas aren't a thing then the number of jobs Trump has overseas can't be a hoax [Sorry if this is hard to follow??!?!]
Do those numbers you have include people working at his hotels in other countries? Or just jobs in the apparel business?
(01-11-2017, 05:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do those numbers you have include people working at his hotels in other countries? Or just jobs in the apparel business?
No. Trump isn't threatening overseas hotels with tariffs.
(01-12-2017, 02:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You call him a hypocrite for calling out other organizations for moving jobs overseas, so how many US jobs has Trump moved overseas?
He'd have to be a manufacturer to "move jobs". Rather he has his products made overseas instead.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-12-2017, 02:54 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You call him a hypocrite for calling out other organizations for moving jobs overseas, so how many US jobs has Trump moved overseas?
Every job which is created overseas which employs an overseas worker to manufacture a Trump product is a job not created in the US to employ a US worker. Trump's overseas investments include something like 125 companies in 44 countries. Not everyone of those is a manufacturing job which imports a product into the US. But, Trump hasn't threatened to slap a tariff on any of those companies or products. Because the tough tariff talk is just posturing. If the number of jobs is 1,000 or 10,000 or 7,217 how does that affect my point? It doesn't.
(01-10-2017, 06:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So you don't know? Or just ignorant to the difference between SOURCING (which includes almost the entire apparel industry) and actually relocating jobs overseas (i.e. outsourcing)?
Trump's "outsourcing" is mostly private label business that is simply leveraging a brand name (basically what his hotel/real estate business has been the past 20 years). There's no jobs to "bring back" because he's not a manufacturer, he's a middle man just slapping a tag on an item produced by another company. Maybe there are instances where he's built an actual factory overseas, but I don't think those jobs would be a HUGE number.
Trump's business is the Trump brand. The majority of his business the past 20 years or so has been licensing his name. Wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't even actually buy and sell those clothing lines, but simply collects royalties for use of his name.
Let me see if I have your argument straight.
If Nabisco plans to build an Oreo plant in China to save money utilizing cheap foreign labor instead of US workers that is "SOURCING" because no jobs were relocated in order to "bring back" because Nabisco never planned to create those jobs in the US?
But, if Nabisco plans to build an Oreo plant in the US, but then determines it is more cost effective to build that plant in China instead that is "outsourcing" because Nabisco can "bring back" those jobs which were never created in the US anyway?
How is that different to the US worker who doesn't have a job because Nabisco is paying a Chinese worker less than they would a US employee to manufacturer Oreos for US consumers?
Oh, I get it now. If Van Heusen builds a sweat shop in Bangladesh employing 500 foreign workers making shirts for import into the US and slaps a Trump label on them that is called "SOURCING." Because Van Heusen never intended to employ 500 workers in the US.
But, if Van Heusen plans to build a sweat shop in NJ employing 500 US workers for sale in the US and slaps a Trump label on them, but then realizes it is cheaper to build the sweat shop in Bangladesh that is called outsourcing.
Wow, when the company never intended to create the jobs in the US for US workers that is so much ***** different to the unemployed US worker because there aren't any jobs to "bring back." And Nabisco Oreos are bad because they relocated jobs overseas so Nabisco needs to pay a tariff. While Trump labeled Van Heusen shirts are good because they located jobs overseas instead of relocated jobs overseas thus they shouldn't pay any tariff.
(01-12-2017, 03:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Every job which is created overseas which employs an overseas worker to manufacture a Trump product is a job not created in the US to employ a US worker. Trump's overseas investments include something like 125 companies in 44 countries. Not everyone of those is a manufacturing job which imports a product into the US. But, Trump hasn't threatened to slap a tariff on any of those companies or products. Because the tough tariff talk is just posturing. If the number of jobs is 1,000 or 10,000 or 7,217 how does that affect my point? It doesn't.
OK so were those jobs already there and Trump negotiated a deal just to slap his name on the Merchandise and get a cut of the Royalties? Did Trump approach them or did they approach Trump?
Or are you simply saying he should not partner up with some of the best in the business? Dorya International furniture? Serta Mattresses (all were made in the US), Phillips Van Heusen (owns Hilfiger, CK, Speedo, Izod, Kenneth Cole, DKNY, and more big name brands), Elk Lighting (another big International group that has been around for 30+ years).
Lastly, if Trump imposes a tariff on all goods imported from China, then that means his goods that come from China will also be subject to that Tariff, so I don't see how that would "benefit" Trump.
(01-12-2017, 06:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: OK so were those jobs already there and Trump negotiated a deal just to slap his name on the Merchandise and get a cut of the Royalties? Did Trump approach them or did they approach Trump?
Or are you simply saying he should not partner up with some of the best in the business? Dorya International furniture? Serta Mattresses (all were made in the US), Phillips Van Heusen (owns Hilfiger, CK, Speedo, Izod, Kenneth Cole, DKNY, and more big name brands), Elk Lighting (another big International group that has been around for 30+ years).
Lastly, if Trump imposes a tariff on all goods imported from China, then that means his goods that come from China will also be subject to that Tariff, so I don't see how that would "benefit" Trump.
The presidency isn't supposed to benefit Trump. That's why the Ethics Committee is on his ass about conflicts of interests with his businesses.
Effectively, what is the difference between creating jobs overseas and moving jobs overseas to the struggling, unemployed, middle Trump supporter pissed off at the lack of good jobs in the US? None. Because the jobs are overseas. I find it amusing this is your's and JustWinBaby's coup de gras to my point. Oh, those jobs were created overseas to avoid employing American workers so they are expempt from consideration. LMAO
(01-11-2017, 11:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This guy thinks posting a study of someone else's research on a football message board is a part of the scientific method. Then tells others they don't understand the scientific method. I'm sorry, but I think it is hilarious. And teacher says every time Baby tells someone they don't understand the scientific method a scientist gets his white lab coat complete with pocket protector.
Now he wants to know the exact number of jobs Trump has overseas. It is completely diversionary. Every shirt (for example) made over seas is a shirt not made in the US. Every worker manufacturing Trump shirts overseas is a US worker not making shirts in the US. Is Trump threatening any of the overseas manufacturers of Trump products with increased tariffs? Hell, no.
But, inexplicably, Baby somehow thinks that point is moot if someone can't tell him how many people are employed manufacturing Trump products overseas. That is exactly the type of response I would expect from someone who refuses to show any of us a single study he has read which indicates climate change is a hoax.
I would think a self professed economic whiz kid would have better input in this thread. I'm surprised he hasn't already told us we wouldn't understand any of his economic forecasts already. (First.)
You're hilarious. If you want to have a real discussion about the science behind Global Warming, then you should post some. We know you can't because you haven't looked at any of the actual science. So maybe be careful accusing someone else's opinion of being ignorant when you're the one who hasn't read anything on the subject.
If you want to make claims of huge numbers of jobs Trump shipped overseas, gives us some numbers. Something. Anything. Because it's a dubious claim. You don't understand the difference between sourcing and outsourcing, got called on it, and now you dance.
You make a claim and then say prove me wrong. That's not how this works. Show us the data your claim is based on and then we can have a debate.
(01-11-2017, 07:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: You're just bringing this on yourself.
The climate studies you claimed to have read and never produced is just going to keep biting you in the arse when you demand others provide proof and youdon't even share a link.
A study won't "prove" Global Warming doesn't exist - you don't prove a negative. Can you not understand that's not how it works? Provide a study you think is good, that supports the case, and we can discuss.
You guys are all so well read and versed on the subject I expected you had good studies at your finger tips. Because I haven't found any. The constant revising lower of past temperatures, changing models, adding and subtracting factors - and you'll find this pretty readily acknowledged, it's no secret. But that's not consistent with good, settled science.
Let's start with the IPCC. Can you tell me how they arrived at their 95% confidence interval? Then next can you show me a climate model predicting catastrophic warming that's actually demonstrated out of sample power? Their models are bad, and so what does that say about conclusions based on those models?
(01-12-2017, 08:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: But isn't that what you said? That you read studies proving it was false?
Nope. I said I've not seen good research that supports the claim of catastophic global warming. Again, you can't conduct a study that proves global warming isn't happening. The hypothesis you're seeking to prove isn't that man IS NOT causing warming, but rather that he is.
Again, CO2 is known greenhouse gas with known properties, and no one really questions man is responsible for the increase. I don't think there's even a single practical alternative theory. But catastrophic warming is not based on CO2 alone, but rather as a catalyst for a bunch of other stuff that's not well understood to magnify it. That's where the empirical data and research start to fall apart.
Every time reality fails to align with their forecasts, they go back and revise data and backfit their models again...and again...and again. If that gives you confidence in their doomsday predictions then there really is no arguing with you. In other fields they call that data mining to fit a pre-determined conclusion.
(01-12-2017, 06:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The presidency isn't supposed to benefit Trump. That's why the Ethics Committee is on his ass about conflicts of interests with his businesses.
Effectively, what is the difference between creating jobs overseas and moving jobs overseas to the struggling, unemployed, middle Trump supporter pissed off at the lack of good jobs in the US? None. Because the jobs are overseas. I find it amusing this is your's and JustWinBaby's coup de gras to my point. Oh, those jobs were created overseas to avoid employing American workers so they are expempt from consideration. LMAO
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.
(01-12-2017, 07:16 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're hilarious. If you want to have a real discussion about the science behind Global Warming, then you should post some. We know you can't because you haven't looked at any of the actual science.
I have already told you I haven't read any studies on global warming. I have an open mind. Therefore, I don't have any preconceived notions about whether climate change is legitimate or a hoax. So I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I've only asked to read the studies you have read so I can be as informed as you.
Quote:So maybe be careful accusing someone else's opinion of being ignorant when you're the one who hasn't read anything on the subject.
You have called people (plural) ignorant of the scientific method because they haven't posted a study to "prove" something. The scientific method involves testing a hypothesis with experimentation and or observation. The scientific method does not, I repeat does not, involve posting a published research conducted by someone else on a message board. From your accusations of ignorance, I know you don't know the first damn thing about the scientific method. So I am being careful when I call you ignorant of the scientific method.
If any of us were to prove anything regarding climate change we would need to test our hypothesis. Again, you do that by experimentation and/or observation. Not by posting a link to an article.
If the actual studies you have read indicate climate change science is junk then post the actual studies so I can read them. If you don't want to explain why it is junk, fine. I didn't ask you to explain anything. If you want to explain why it is junk, fine. I don't care one way or the other.
Regarding proving a negative. Andrew Wakefield's research linking a certain type of MMR vaccine to autism was proven wrong (proving a negative) because the results weren't reproducible and thus proven false. So enough with the can't prove a negative smoke and mirrors bullshit.
Quote:If you want to make claims of huge numbers of jobs Trump shipped overseas, gives us some numbers. Something. Anything. Because it's a dubious claim. You don't understand the difference between sourcing and outsourcing, got called on it, and now you dance.
I didn't claim Trump shipped huge numbers of jobs overseas. I claimed Trump's tough talk on tariffs was posturing. First you started with a red herring (tell me the number of jobs) and now you've switched to a strawman (trying to get me to defend a claim I never made.) Now why do I believe the tariff talk is posturing? Because Trump isn't talking tough about applying a tariff to any imported Trump products.
You have already admitted Trump labeled products are made overseas and imported. There is no need for me to prove it. You already know the jobs are located overseas.
Let's review what I wrote that has your panties all in a bunch, "the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US."
At best, you have an esoteric argument about sourcing and outsourcing based upon my use of one word, "back." Whether the jobs were sourced or outsourced has no bearing on the basis of my claim the tough tariff talk is posturing. The jobs are overseas. The jobs employ overseas workers. The jobs do not employ US workers. The only way to employ US workers in those jobs is to move the jobs. Move them where? Move the jobs to the US or move the jobs "back" to the US. That's how silly your argument is.
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.
Quote:You make a claim and then say prove me wrong. That's not how this works. Show us the data your claim is based on and then we can have a debate.
That's how you think it works when it comes to you. I wrote to prove me wrong because I was mocking someone's asinine logic. I'm not surprised you don't understand that, either. If climate change science is junk show me why. You've read the actual studies so it should be simple for a science guru such as yourself to show why the science is junk.
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.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
be that as it may. You're right and I see it the same way - it just remains a pointless game, and it's a game that takes more than one person to play. He wants to play and you - play along.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
