Lurker > red sox 777

MalcolmMasher posted...

OK. So you acknowledge that people can be less religious, or more religious. But what they actually believe in, and whether they believe in it or believe in not-it, is irrelevant to whether they are more or less religious.

Bluntly, I think your definition sucks. According to you, all people are religious. That makes the term rather useless. It isn't entirely useless, because you do at least retain the ability to distinguish between weak and strong beliefs, although I find that words like "zealous" suffice for that.

However, I also think that your definition differs enough from the typical definition that it will impair your ability to communicate with other English speakers. That if you were to say say "only religious people can make moral decisions", the rest of the world will not hear "all humans can make moral decisions". Do you agree that this is a potential conversational pitfall?

I don't see how I would ever make that statement. If any expression of moral judgment is religious, then it would be tautological. If that's not the framework we're using, then it wouldn't be something I believe and I'm not even sure what exactly that statement would mean.

I do understand how some people use it - but the way they use it appears to be an incoherent statement to me. And the people who say that usually are not able to articulate any definition of religion. So, I simply wouldn't say such things. I also don't hear anyone in this topic arguing that "only religious people can make moral decisions."

And, the point of the First Amendment is precisely to avoid differentiating between people based on religion. The government is not supposed to decide who is and isn't religious, or what religions are legitimate religions, and treat them differently depending on that determination. So, if you are saying that my definition does not distinguish between people based on religion - that's exactly right.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

MalcolmMasher posted...

I am not concerned with what they claim; I wish to discern what you believe. Do you think that some people are more religious than other people are?

Obviously. And I am not saying they actually claim to be religious. I'm saying they can claim it. That's my claim.

Given any 2 particular people, I cannot know for sure who is more religious. However, I am fairly certain that some people are more religious than others, because it would be pretty amazing for 7 billion people to all somehow be equally religious.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777 posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?

Of course. And it is fully protected by the First Amendment!

Then is it true that all persons are equally religious?

All persons can claim to be religious. That they all have legitimate claims to being religious doesn't mean they are necessarily equally religious. If my stamp collection has 100 stamps and yours has 1000, you are probably more into stamp collecting than I am.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Ashethan posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Of course.

So is one of your hobbies "not collecting stamps"?

No. A hobby involves some action. A religion involves some belief. In the case of atheism, that is a belief in the absence of God. If by "atheism" you mean a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in the absence of God, then that would not qualify as a religion in my book. Now, a belief that the answer to the question is unknowable is again an affirmative belief in something. A belief that the answer to the question is subjective is again an affirmative belief. A belief that God has some probability of existing is again an affirmative belief.

But if you totally lack affirmative belief on the topic - in the way a rock or a tree does, then yeah, you don't have a religious belief and thus don't have a religion.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

MalcolmMasher posted...

red sox 777: Do you consider atheism to be a religion?

Of course. And it is fully protected by the First Amendment!
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

which to my knowledge is a pre-requisite for religion.

Not to mine. I mean, sure, you could define "religion" that way, but I don't think you have to.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

Im not reading this debate. Is this basically Red Sox trying to argue that morals are equivalent to religion? Thanks in advance

If you can come up with a distinction between them, I'm all ears.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

MalcolmMasher posted...

The idea that compelling others to get insurance is morally okay is a moral judgment.

And you don't need to make that judgment in order to support Obamacare. You can support it out of pure self interest, wanting cheaper bills and less risk of contagion, and never give a thought to whether the onus you place upon society is morally defensible.

If you're going to tell me that "refuse to judge" (or "never even occurred to me to judge") constitutes a judgment, then I don't think your definition of "judgment" is meaningful.

If it doesn't, how is that different from Jeff Sessions wanting to separate children from their parents because it makes him feel good?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.

That's from the Declaration of Independence (and John Locke) not the Constitution! The funny thing is, there is a Supreme Court precedent saying that those things are not in the Constitution and the Declaration is not US law, which hasn't been overruled as to this proposition. The case is.....Dred Scott v. Sandford - yup, the case saying slaves had no rights to sue and effectively, that free states couldn't liberate slaves. A Republican attorney general actually cited it a few years ago for the proposition that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not protected by the Constitution, for which he caught a lot of flak.

"The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of 'life, liberty, or property' without due process of law."

A hospital is not the government and refusing to help is not "denying" in common law unless you've started helping and then stop.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

For example, consider this statement:

I cannot afford to pay for my own treatment, and would prefer not to pay for it. If I am forced to pay the hospital to receive treatment, I will not be able to afford to buy food. Compelling you, who can afford to pay for healthcare, to pay for my healthcare, is therefore in my best interest.

When Congress hears your statement and mine, and it makes a decision regarding what to do, it is inescapably making a moral judgment.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

MalcolmMasher posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

I can pay for my own treatment, but would prefer to pay less than more. If the hospital is forced to treat persons who cannot pay for their own care - which is the case - then they'll charge me more. Compelling those persons to get insurance is therefore to my benefit.

(Also, fewer sick people with contagious diseases means less chance that I personally will get sick.)

The idea that compelling others to get insurance is morally okay is a moral judgment.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.

Morality is a byproduct more than an intention. You're forced to treat a dying patient because life, liberty, and property is guaranteed in our constitution.

That's from the Declaration of Independence (and John Locke) not the Constitution! The funny thing is, there is a Supreme Court precedent saying that those things are not in the Constitution and the Declaration is not US law, which hasn't been overruled as to this proposition. The case is.....Dred Scott v. Sandford - yup, the case saying slaves had no rights to sue and effectively, that free states couldn't liberate slaves. A Republican attorney general actually cited it a few years ago for the proposition that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not protected by the Constitution, for which he caught a lot of flak.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Society should pay the bill. Through progressive taxes on wealth, or if that's not possible, at least on income.

But you are missing Corrik's point. None of the reasons stated make sense if you don't make a moral judgment at some point.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And on a broader level, I think people often misunderstand separation of church and state. It doesn't mean that one can't have influence on the other. No one ever has to give up their religion to take public office.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That's not what you said though, and that's what NFUN was talking about.

No, that's exactly what I said. NFUN presented a hypothetical where just invoking biblical law should strike down common law and I pointed how common law is protected by non-religious rights. The whole point is that if your only defense for law is "religion" then it's not a law worth having.

Your usage of "your" is vague and ambiguous. The original context seemed to refer to Jeff Sessions, so that's what NFUN and I thought you meant. In which case, it really doesn't matter what his defense for a law is. It also doesn't matter what any other particular person uses as their rationale for a law. If, by "your," you mean any conceivable person or any conceivable legislature, then yeah, that would make sense.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.

The argument I'm making is that if you can only cite religion as a reason for a law, it should be struck down. There are a million other reasons why you can cite why Obamacare should be law.

That's not what you said though, and that's what NFUN was talking about.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Similarly, if I created a "religion of climate change," which asserts as an article of faith that humans are causing global warming and this is a sin, and Congress listened to me and ratified the Paris Climate Accords, that would likely be fine. It wouldn't matter if I told Congress that I didn't believe any of the scientific research regarding this topic and came to my conclusions because I had a dream of Florida sinking into the ocean, and every single Congressperson stated on the record that they didn't believe any of the scientific research but found my dream convincing.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Congress from enacting a law based on religion. They simply cannot establish a religion or prohibit free exercise thereof. So, if their new law forced people to practice a religion, or conferred special rights on practitioners of a religion, that wouldn't be allowed. But if they wanted to pass a law that required employers to give employees at least one day off per week? That's probably going to be allowed even if the entirety of the speeches in Congress supporting the bill are that the Bible says that humans need a day of rest.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

TheRock1525 posted...

NFUN posted...

Just because one is incapable of mounting a good defense of something doesn't imply that what they are defending is automatically invalid. It's a really bad sign, sure, but a law could still be fine or even good despite the intentions of the law makers.

We're not talking average schmoe here. We're talking the federal government and lawmakers. They literally have to mount a good defense of their laws because they routinely get challenged and smacked down.

Go ahead and argue "cause religion" in front of the supreme court and see how far it goes.

That's not how it works. If it was how it worked, Jeff Sessions would simply go in front of the Supreme Court and say that the Bible requires Obamacare, and it would get struck down. The validity of the law is based on reasons the government could have for the law, or, possibly, based on the intention of the Congress that passed the law. It's not based on the Justice Department's defense of the law except insofar as their failure to defend a law affects the strength of argument before the Supreme Court.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And, the Bible is full of examples of people righteously resisting unjust laws and unjust rulers being punished for the evil deeds. Lawful neutral is an easy and popular position to take, unfortunately.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

"When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34

I would very much like to see how Jeff Sessions can argue around this one. This seems like a pretty clear command to me.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The passage Sessions used can't justify slavery any more than it can justify any other law. The argument (not really in Romans) is that if something is legal, it must be right. That isn't what it means. If it were, it would kind of eliminate the need for the rest of the Bible. Whatever a government made law would be right.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Sessions is named after the president of the CSA and a CSA general. I guess he could argue that "Jefferson" is after the USA president too, but I'm betting it was the CS president!
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Someone should cite Leviticus 19:33-34 to them.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

charmander6000 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes

The Bushes were big RINOs, that's why they're friends with the Clintons. <emoticon>

But I can't see a solution at this point. I can't see how they can devise a bill that lets illegal immigrants stay without Republicans being afraid it will turn into Democrat votes within one generation. It needn't even actually do that, the fear of it is enough to sink a prospective bill.

Maybe if Republicans focus on conservative values without putting down non-white people they'll make some head way. This is one of the reasons why the turn-out rate for immigrants are low.

Romney tried that and managed the worst showing Republicans have ever gotten with minorities. Trump did better with minorities, so that's probably the direction the GOP will go....
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And I know Trump is big on DACA for the wall

Didn't the Democrats call his bluff on that? IIRC at one point they offered a significant amount of wall funding and Trump and the GOP balked.

Could be recalling wrong though because there were like 9 different proposals.

I think Trump withdrew his offer, yeah. Actually, that deal could be attractive for Republicans, IF it got no Democrat support. But if it looks like the Democrats are getting DACA and Republicans are getting the wall, it makes Dems look compassionate and Republicans look mean.

Now, usually, a few Trump tweets is enough to get Democrats to oppose anything, but it didn't happen in this case. A rare spot of good thinking from congressional Dems.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And I know Trump is big on DACA for the wall, but he isn't going to be running in 20 years. The wall reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Act.....confers little in benefits upon the people who wanted it, but looks amazingly bad and will turn public opinion against its supporters.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.

Before Trump, wasnt the Republican stance on immigration a lot more tolerant?

Some form of amnesty was very favored by people like the Bushes

The Bushes were big RINOs, that's why they're friends with the Clintons. <emoticon>

But I can't see a solution at this point. I can't see how they can devise a bill that lets illegal immigrants stay without Republicans being afraid it will turn into Democrat votes within one generation. It needn't even actually do that, the fear of it is enough to sink a prospective bill.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And "it's Biblical to enforce the law" is a terrible misreading of the Bible. That passage was about obeying Roman civil laws, like paying taxes. It was not about the morality of the government enforcing the laws.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If McConnell or someone starts calling it out, there might be action but Graham and McCain are effectively Democrats on this issue.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Graham and McCain have been RINOs on immigtation for 13 years.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I've been saying it for years. The first principle of the modern Republican Party is the end justifies the means. Now the envelope is pushed farther and farther.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

So my question is, say you are a parent. If you offer to leave with your kids, will they let you leave into Mexico or where you came from?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Panthera posted...

Would you really be okay with Trump not taking questions about North Korea at all or would you think it was a sign of him hiding something?

yeah, perhaps not giving any interviews at all is impossible, but did he really need to go on fox to give this particular interview? it seems like he's seeking out the media to gush about all the things he likes about kim. that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If you look at Trump statements in the past he literally only gushes or criticizes. There is no middle ground. He doesn't do nuance. Kim would take equivocation as suspicious, and he'd be right to do so given Trump's record.

At the same time, we should also look at that same record and understand not to take what Trump says literally. At this point it's pretty much a reading comprehension issue.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

China is instructive on this subject. They are repressive, but keep it as invisible as possible. If you defy the government you get invited for tea with some party officials. The warning is there and if you ignore it after being taken out for tea you may be locked up.....but you and your family won't be sent to a labor camp just for being suspected of sedition. And if you are a foreigner in China doing business, you can feel safe.

This isn't ideal, obviously, but it's a whole lot better than the situation in NK. Now, some people will argue that China's human rights situation is still unacceptable, and we shouldn't be satisfied with NK turning into another version of that, because it's more stable than NK's current situation and may make it harder to get rid of the human rights abuses entirely......but it's a whole lot better than what it is right now, and I think President Trump or anyone is entitled to see making NK more like China as a good thing.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Panthera posted...

I'll actually assume the best of Trump for a change (I don't know why I am doing this given his track record, but whatever) and say he's worried he can't actually condemn North Korea beyond the generic "they've done bad things but who hasn't" line without risking offending Kim and derailing the whole peace discussion.

if he's worried about offending kim he shouldn't be giving interviews during this period at all tbqh. going on a fox show to gush about how "tough and smart" kim is and downplaying his atrocities is extremely tasteless.

Knowing these two part of the deal they reached might have been that the leaders will personally make gushing statements about each other to the media.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Quite honestly, condemning North Korea hasn't worked. KJU and his father have done what they thought they needed to do to stay in power, which, in their case, has been extreme repression.

If the hotels and condos start getting built in North Korea, the human rights situation will change. KJU will have something positive to offer his people for a change - prosperity. And it's gonna be a lot easier to attract investment into North Korea if it isn't the terrifying place it is now.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

charmander6000 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

charmander6000 posted...

If the article is correct Southern California would drop to around Georgia's level of GDP per capita. Not good, but not terrible.

But probably with much higher living expenses than Georgia. Maybe with double the housing cost?

Would it though? I imagine housing is cheaper there already compare to those that would be in "new" California.

New California would probably be at about 4x Georgia housing costs. These are rough figures based on me living in Socal (as defined currently) and occasionally looking at houses in Georgia.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Red Shifter posted...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

And, once again, Trump's ratings INCREASE. What in the world is happening?

Apparently people prefer even dictators over the left now?

Above all other things, Republicans wish to be ruled with an iron fist.

By someone who SAYS they believe what they believe, their actual beliefs aren't relevant.

What matters is the laws they pass and enforce, not what they believe or say they believe.

And Republicans want liberals to be ruled with an iron fist. Not their fellow Republicans.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

charmander6000 posted...

If the article is correct Southern California would drop to around Georgia's level of GDP per capita. Not good, but not terrible.

But probably with much higher living expenses than Georgia. Maybe with double the housing cost?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trumps tariffs dont even accomplish that if he unemploys five auto workers to save one steel worker (Im making up numbers, but I remember reading reports that put the tradeoff well into the negatives)

If the other countries give in and lower their tariffs, his plan would likely succeed. And it may take years. Maybe they'll never give in. I will say that the biggest target, China, already looks to be compromising. Which makes sense, because China stands to lose the most of any country from losing American trade.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Trade is a gain on the aggregate. If we minimize barriers to trade and then redistribute wealth through a robust social safety net everyone can come out ahead.

If youre saying that we could do a better job on that second step then I agree!

In theory, we could. But that is not realistic, because people don't want to be kept out of poverty by a social safety net. They want to succeed through their own work, and get more than someone who doesn't work. People are proud.

Trump offered them a situation where they are kept afloat apparently by their own work, but really through their votes for the Republican Party. And I will submit that even if people see through this, they would still prefer to receive money through voting Republican than from a safety net.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money.

He most certainly does not think this. Give credit where it's due - the man knows a lot about debt. Having a trade deficit corresponds to paying another country money. It is in some sense the opposite of owing a country money. The country receiving the money owes the country paying it.

Trump thinks receiving money is good, and paying it is bad. Now, it's not that simple, because you receive something of value when you pay money - but then the question is whether you are paying more than you could to obtain what you are getting.

In a free market both buying and selling things are good. If you have a trade deficit because youre not selling, thats bad. If that same trade deficit exists just because youre buying a bunch of stuff (as you might expect a rich country like the US to do) its not.

Bilateral trade deficits are even more meaningless in a globally linked economy.

You are glossing over the impact of trade barriers on different groups of people with a blanket statement that trade is good. Trade is good for the people doing the trading, by definition in Economics (although not in a wider sense - I'd argue that the opium trade in China was bad for the people in China who wanted to buy the opium from Britain). But trade can be bad for third parties who aren't trading, like manufacturing workers in America.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.

If they want tariffs lifted they can offer to lift their tariffs on the US, conditional on it being a binding treaty that the US president can't revoke on his own.

Unnecessary. I have no doubt in my mind they would win such a showdown.

Why? Why would they outlast the US on this? Do you think the US electorate will give in after an election or 2?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

xp1337 posted...

My argument is that it's probably safer for them to see what happens in the midterms before resorting to something like that.

If their sole goal is to have the tariffs lifted as soon as possible and they are committed to not caving, then yes, that's probably the fastest way. It seems we just disagree on the potential for side-effects.

If they want tariffs lifted they can offer to lift their tariffs on the US, conditional on it being a binding treaty that the US president can't revoke on his own.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

We know from how he talks about them that he thinks that a trade deficit corresponds to a country owing another country money.

He most certainly does not think this. Give credit where it's due - the man knows a lot about debt. Having a trade deficit corresponds to paying another country money. It is in some sense the opposite of owing a country money. The country receiving the money owes the country paying it.

Trump thinks receiving money is good, and paying it is bad. Now, it's not that simple, because you receive something of value when you pay money - but then the question is whether you are paying more than you could to obtain what you are getting.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.

Trump was unhappy with the TPP because it was an Obama deal. I can guarantee you he didnt understand what it did any better than a random poster in this topic.

How can you guarantee me that? Do you know Trump? Have you spoken with him?
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Icehawk posted...

How does it dictate their choice of president? The logic in sanctioning Trump businesses is that Trump doesn't care about how trade wars affect every day Americans. The only thing he cares about is himself. Hurting Trump instead of actual people is the most effective way to get through to him. He is only vulnerable to this because he lied, as always, and did not divest from his businesses.

Getting through to Trump is not the important thing. Getting through to the American people is the important thing.

And if other countries are really going to trade 100 billion in tariffs on them for 10 million in tariffs on Trump businesses, that's a big win for Americans. It's basically putting in tariffs without any retaliation. After "negotiating" a deal that good, Trump could start a donation site and get back more than he lost from the sanctions from Americans happy about what a great job he did renegotiating our trade deals.

I agree that they would have to put the trump tariffs on top of other tariffs. But getting through to trump is the important thing. He is the one with this power. The American people aren't going to feel any sympathy for trump if he gets personally sanctioned. It is his own damn fault.

Trump is not the one with the power. The American people are. This is like offering a lawyer a bribe to sell out his client. Even if you succeed (Trump backs down), his client will just fire him and get a different lawyer who won't be bought. And then you'll get bigger tariffs, borne out of anger as much as desire for gain.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Icehawk posted...

red sox 777 posted...

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.

Several republicans have come out against the tariffs, they are just too scared to do anything outside of a strongly worded tweet. Not for any "negotiation" reasons, but because they are cowardly and scared of hurting themselves among their base. In the case of Jeff Flake, I think he is scared to put his fellow Republicans in a tough spot.

Also, this isn't a negotiation. We set tariffs, and now equal tariffs are coming our way. If we up them, they will be upped back. This is how trade wars start. Trade negotiations happen in agreements like TPP, which Trump threw out.

It's a negotiation. Trump was unhappy with TPP, so he is trying a more aggressive form. They can settle, or we can play the whole trade war game some more and we'll see who is more desperate for a deal later. But that can take years.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

As for Republicans in Congress stopping Trump's tariffs, that's very unlikely. Republicans are generally not dumb enough to undercut their own negotiator, projecting weakness, when he's in the middle of a negotiation. They did it to Obama, sure, but he was a Democrat.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!