Calling it "Politically Motivated"

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8517
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by canpakes »

Markk wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 12:05 pm
And just to be clear you did say that free trade was good, and that the current deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars is good....your wrote:
If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split. The ‘deficit’ side is so large because of the huge amount of trade overall, and shows that our economy is quite strong, with an expected amount of consumption due to Americans having sufficient resources to do so.
Markk, there is quite literally not one word in that excerpt that is the word, ‘good’. And even if you are going to try for a creative interpretation, you can’t get farther than concluding that our trade split is ‘reasonable’. Reasonable is not a synonym for good. Stop trying to murder the language. : D

What is the current Democrat plan, if there is one it should not be that hard to link me to it.
During this Administration, Democrats cannot set policy, but I suspect that today’s plan is to watch Trump levy a 25% tax on Americans in order to finance a tax cut for his friends, while calling it a tariff.

Do you have a modern-day example of tariffs working as you claim they will?
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9213
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 2:06 pm
Well, I find these perspectives to be consistent with the fact that there is no serious messaging that would suggest a plan to rebuild US manufacturing. A big poker table bluff that crushed GDP by 6% or more for not much. If these folks are right, then right-wingers will shift again. It begins with: Biden killed us with inflation and Trump will lower it on day 1! Can't you guys see, the Fentanyl crisis is the real issue and it can only be fixed with tariffs! It was never about Fentanyl totally, it's mainly about US jobs and the working man, we must endure high prices like during world war II for the greater good (Fox literally said this)! Ha Ha! Trump just played the master hand of world poker and had all the libs fooled, trade has rebalanced by 17 billion and the tariffs are over now. It was all a poker bluff!
Trump's presidency is a gish-gallop of stupid policies and stupid justifications for the stupid policies.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Markk
God
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Markk »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 2:50 pm
Markk wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 12:05 pm
And just to be clear you did say that free trade was good, and that the current deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars is good....your wrote:
Markk, there is quite literally not one word in that excerpt that is the word, ‘good’. And even if you are going to try for a creative interpretation, you can’t get farther than concluding that our trade split is ‘reasonable’. Reasonable is not a synonym for good. Stop trying to murder the language. : D

What is the current Democrat plan, if there is one it should not be that hard to link me to it.
During this Administration, Democrats cannot set policy, but I suspect that today’s plan is to watch Trump levy a 25% tax on Americans in order to finance a tax cut for his friends, while calling it a tariff.

Do you have a modern-day example of tariffs working as you claim they will?

Your wrote...

If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split. The ‘deficit’ side is so large because of the huge amount of trade overall, and shows that our economy is quite strong, with an expected amount of consumption due to Americans having sufficient resources to do so.

Does that mean it is poor or bad? No, it means that it is reasonably good. Lol, come on cakes, so was your comment of it being "reasonable" in the context of it being good or bad. Personally, reading the whole paragraph, about a "strong economy" and an "expected" amount of consumption, and us having "sufficient" resources, I read that as reasonably good as opposed to reasonably bad. Cake's again, if you would have just said you screwed up on this, as we all do a times.... you would not have to be dying on this hill you have chosen.


During this Administration, Democrats cannot set policy,
I am not asking Democrats to set policy; I am asking what the Democrat caucus's plan is. Again, if they don't have one that you are aware of, just say so?

We know that part of Bidens plan was to set tariffs, was that for all his rich friends? Why was Biden setting tariffs?

I haven't read anything yet on what happened today with the tariffs, but this will be a interesting year.

Do these tariffs look fair, or unfair? Why? On a side not I head on the radio today that Japan has a 600% tariff on our rice....is that fair, that we buy their cars but we can't really sell them our rice?

Image

Image
Image

Image
Image
Markk
God
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Markk »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 2:50 pm

Do you have a modern-day example of tariffs working as you claim they will?
Yes, absolutely....starting with China benefiting big time. South Korea, Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia.....etc. As I have shown you in several posts NAFTA, WTO, and making China a Permanent Normal Trading Relations (PNTR) status. Clinton and Bush basically removed American tariffs.

If you looked at the graph I gave you upstream, you would see this in regard to the US, when we had tariffs, they worked well.
Last edited by Markk on Thu Apr 03, 2025 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8517
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by canpakes »

Markk wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:40 am
And just to be clear you did say that free trade was good, and that the current deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars is good....
canpakes wrote:
Wed Apr 02, 2025 2:50 pm
Markk, there is quite literally not one word in that excerpt that is the word, ‘good’. And even if you are going to try for a creative interpretation, you can’t get farther than concluding that our trade split is ‘reasonable’. Reasonable is not a synonym for good. Stop trying to murder the language. : D
Markk wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:40 am
Your wrote...
If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split. The ‘deficit’ side is so large because of the huge amount of trade overall, and shows that our economy is quite strong, with an expected amount of consumption due to Americans having sufficient resources to do so.
Does that mean it is poor or bad? No, it means that it is reasonably good.
“It”? Is this again coming down to you not reading? Look again at that passage and tell me what I’m referring to.

Here it is:

“If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split.”

This is saying the ratio between imports and exports is reasonable. And it’s not attempting to label that ratio ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The word, ‘reasonable’, is not synonymous with either. It just isn’t. I don’t make the rules.

My statement is definitely not saying, as you claim it does, that “the current deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars is good”.

There’s no opinion offered about our trade deficit. It’s referring to the ratio between imports and exports. These are not the same thing, and I wouldn’t have thought that I’d need to explain that to you.
Lol, come on cakes, so was your comment of it being "reasonable" in the context of it being good or bad. Personally, reading the whole paragraph, about a "strong economy" and an "expected" amount of consumption, and us having "sufficient" resources, I read that as reasonably good as opposed to reasonably bad.
I guess it would be appropriate to reply, “Lol, come on, Markk”. If you don’t even know what you’re referring to when you type out the word, “it”, then you should consider reading much more carefully before attempting to lecture others about what you erroneously ‘think’ they said.

Just sayin’. ; )
Cake's again, if you would have just said you screwed up on this, as we all do a times.... you would not have to be dying on this hill you have chosen.
No apologies, Markk. There’s no trickery in what I wrote; it’s not in cyrillic or code. You just misread it. I’m not responsible for you doing that and then trying to pin the blame on others. English is your first language. Pay more attention to what people are actually writing, and less attention on what you want to think they’re saying. Or at least look at a thesaurus before you try to reimagine how the language works … there’s always one just two clicks away on your phone.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8517
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by canpakes »

Markk, is it reasonable to believe that tariffs will raise prices? Is that good, or bad, if deemed reasonable?

If a reasonable ratio between the applied tariff rate versus the end increase is 2:1, is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

If I overload your pickup with 40 sheets of plywood and your mpg drops by 2, is that reasonable? Good? Bad ? Surprising? Depressing? Unexpected?

Does this help illustrate the issue with your interpretation of the uses of ‘reasonable’? It seems reasonable that it should. I don’t know if my conclusion is reasonable, or good, or bad, though. : D
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9213
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Kishkumen »

canpakes wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:32 am
No apologies, Markk. There’s no trickery in what I wrote; it’s not in cyrillic or code. You just misread it. I’m not responsible for you doing that and then trying to pin the blame on others. English is your first language. Pay more attention to what people are actually writing, and less attention on what you want to think they’re saying. Or at least look at a thesaurus before you try to reimagine how the language works … there’s always one just two clicks away on your phone.
Have you gotten to Markk's patented "coverup is worse than the crime" jingle yet? I quit reading him when I realized that he has no intention of reading carefully, thinking carefully, or being a constructive interlocutor. Basically, he is prime "ignore" list material.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 3284
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Some Schmo »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2025 11:23 am
Have you gotten to Markk's patented "coverup is worse than the crime" jingle yet? I quit reading him when I realized that he has no intention of reading carefully, thinking carefully, or being a constructive interlocutor. Basically, he is prime "ignore" list material.
You can't have a reasonable conversation with unreasonable people. Trump voters aren't worth the time.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Markk
God
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Markk »

Cakes:...“It”? Is this again coming down to you not reading? Look again at that passage and tell me what I’m referring to.

Here it is:

“If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split.”

This is saying the ratio between imports and exports is reasonable. And it’s not attempting to label that ratio ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The word, ‘reasonable’, is not synonymous with either. It just isn’t. I don’t make the rules.

My statement is definitely not saying, as you claim it does, that “the current deficit that is approaching a trillion dollars is good”.

There’s no opinion offered about our trade deficit. It’s referring to the ratio between imports and exports. These are not the same thing, and I wouldn’t have thought that I’d need to explain that to you.

Well, you for got the rest of your paragraph that continues with context. I interpret the $6 to $4 dollar split as leading to the approaching a 750+ billion dollar as being good in your post. Here it is, again, in full context. If I am mistaken with your opinion, is the approaching 1 trillion dollar trade deficit good, or bad....please do clarify it?


If I recall correctly, US trade balances out at around $6 out for every $4 in. It’s a pretty reasonable split. The ‘deficit’ side is so large because of the huge amount of trade overall, and shows that our economy is quite strong, with an expected amount of consumption due to Americans having sufficient resources to do so.

I guess it would be appropriate to reply, “Lol, come on, Markk”. If you don’t even know what you’re referring to when you type out the word, “it”, then you should consider reading much more carefully before attempting to lecture others about what you erroneously ‘think’ they said.

Just sayin’. ; )
See what I just wrote above... is the deficiet good, or bad? If as you claim you did not mean the "large" high deficit was good....what is it then. Reasonably good, reasonably bad,...what?

No apologies, Markk. There’s no trickery in what I wrote; it’s not in cyrillic or code. You just misread it. I’m not responsible for you doing that and then trying to pin the blame on others. English is your first language. Pay more attention to what people are actually writing, and less attention on what you want to think they’re saying. Or at least look at a thesaurus before you try to reimagine how the language works … there’s always one just two clicks away on your phone.
This is just part of your dying on the hill, if act a different hill....a larger part is your "fact" sheet that you pasted as a plan for Biden to strengthen middle class, included very large tariffs, up to a 100%. And nobody is asking for an apology, you did not hurt me.....I am simply saying that what you have been saying here, while scattered and some what cryptic is just telling that you are committed to defending a mess opinion that continue to grow.

If I misread your paragraphs context, okay, then please clarify whether or not the the deficiet is good of bad, give that was original question are they good, bad, or just okay?

And I took your advise and looked up reasonable in Websters Thesaurus, and one of the major synonyms is "good," so given my question was whether or not you felt the deficit is good, bad, or okay....I took your answer as being you thought it was good.
Markk
God
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: Calling it "Politically Motivated"

Post by Markk »

canpakes wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am
Markk, is it reasonable to believe that tariffs will raise prices? Is that good, or bad, if deemed reasonable?

If a reasonable ratio between the applied tariff rate versus the end increase is 2:1, is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

If I overload your pickup with 40 sheets of plywood and your mpg drops by 2, is that reasonable? Good? Bad ? Surprising? Depressing? Unexpected?

Does this help illustrate the issue with your interpretation of the uses of ‘reasonable’? It seems reasonable that it should. I don’t know if my conclusion is reasonable, or good, or bad, though. : D
You are just doubling down again on your slip, that had nothing to do with the context of my question. By the way per Websters Thesaurus synonyms for reasonable are always positives, and negatives are always antonyms. So given that, and the context of you reply, I believe I gave a reasonable or logical interpretation of what you wrote.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/reasonable
Post Reply