Mexico Never Agreed to Farm Deal With U.S., Contradicting Trump

[CMPancake]

Are you confused? I vote yes.

Am I confused that Trump is giving bombs and guns to Saudi Arabia, the country that funded and supported the 9/11 attacks? No. Am I confused that Trump supporters are turning a blind eye to this? Also no.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And what will the world do if he wins a second term? I can see everybody holding out for four years; but eight?

If Mr. Trump wins a second term, then the likely effect will be that the world will increasingly treat the United States of America as "non-essential" (based on “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Did Mexico agree to help control illegal immigration or not?

Good question.

Have you actually done a semantic analysis of the announcement to see what actual - concrete - actions were agreed to?

The answer is that the whole agreement amounts to

Spoiler

bafflegab, mumblification, and weasel words

.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump is allowing the country that supported the 9/11 attacks to have nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia is one of "The Good Guys" and would never do anything like that. Why Saudi Arabia's human rights record is unparalleled.

Right?

PS - Mr. Trump is NOT allowing Saudi Arabia to "have nuclear weapons" all he is doing is allowing Saudi companies to build components for nuclear weapons that will be owned by the United States of America and used to defend freedom and democracy by incinerating anyone who doesn't do what the US government tells them to do (provided that they don't have their own nuclear weapons, of course).

 

[trouble13]

I know that yet another "Trump lied" story is incredibly quaint by now, but it does beg two important questions:

1) How has our country managed to function while its head of state has had precisely zero credibility?
2) Could I lie to people infinity times and just...get away with it?"



Mexico Never Agreed to Farm Deal With U.S., Contradicting Trump - Bloomberg

Prediction that I will deserve no credit for making: trump supporters will pretend to doubt the veracity of the story. Then, upon realizing that denying the article is futile after realizing later in the thread that they didn't read the totality of it, they'll move on to "so what?" or "ha ha tds."

The truth to this one is pretty easy to find. Either mexico does or does not buy argicultural equipment. There isnt much room for ambiguity

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

The truth to this one is pretty easy to find. Either mexico does or does not buy argicultural equipment. There isnt much room for ambiguity

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Read the prediction.

 

[Bullseye]

Good question.

Have you actually done a semantic analysis of the announcement to see what actual - concrete - actions were agreed to?

The answer is that the whole agreement amounts to

Spoiler

bafflegab, mumblification, and weasel words

.

As Arnie Johnson used to say "Very funny, but STUPID".

 

[danarhea]

Did north korea comply with trump's demands/requests? Saying something doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Let's see how long those armed troops in mexico keep up their vigilance.

As one of the biggest Trump bashers on the board, I will say that Trumps threats to Mexico seem to be working at this time. Yea, I believe Trump is the crappiest president of all time, but I have to keep an open mind and give credit where credit is due. Tariffs would have hurt us badly, but would also would have hurt Mexico too. Trump is playing chicken with Mexico, and it has the possibility of backfiring. However, this time, it seems to have worked. I am not in Congress, and I am certainly not in the inner circles of Trumps cabinet, so I do not completely know the reasoning behind this strategy. All I know is that, at this time, it seems to be working. I will give Trump some credit here. Unlike you, I will only trash Trump on this if it ends up backfiring. If it works and ends up benefiting the economy, I will give Trump praises for this. (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little :mrgreen

2 days ago - Mexico tightens southern border security as another day passes with no tariff deal | World news | The Guardian

And today, we seem to have some kind of a deal, although Trump is not being completely honest about what it is. At least it is something, which is better than nothing.

 

[smallvoice]

Am I confused that Trump is giving bombs and guns to Saudi Arabia, the country that funded and supported the 9/11 attacks? No. Am I confused that Trump supporters are turning a blind eye to this? Also no.

Yes, you are confused on so many levels, but at least you are concerned enough to ask questions. You just aren't concerned enough to find the correct answers. My theory is based on your political lean.

 

[CMPancake]

Yes, you are confused on so many levels, but at least you are concerned enough to ask questions. You just aren't concerned enough to find the correct answers. My theory is based on your political lean.

What are you blabbering about? Are you trying to make a point?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The truth to this one is pretty easy to find. Either mexico does or does not buy argicultural equipment. There isnt much room for ambiguity

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The odds on the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US WITHOUT an agreement to buy more agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.

The odds that the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US WITH an agreement to buy more agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.

When you combine those two and cancel out the opposing terms, you get "The odds on the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.".

To claim that it took some fantastic negotiating skills to convince the Mexicans to buy more agricultural equipment from the US (especially when there is no agreement on what the minimum amount of increase is to be) is akin to claiming that it took some fantastic negotiating skills to convince the Mexicans that the Sun rose in the East or that water is wet or that their predominant language should be Spanish.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well, you've only been here for about a year or so, so it is hard to say whether or not you actually would be consistent in what you are saying here...The only way to tell will be to see how you react when the next Democrat is in office. Which from what I see might be a long time from now...

Partisanship has never made sense to me because it's a quick way to avoid being practical about solving issues. From a social perspective I tend to lean more liberal but am less so fiscally because how you pay for programs should factor into its sustainability. I lean more toward helping people than the "bootstraps" mentality which I find over simplistic.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The odds on the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US WITHOUT an agreement to buy more agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.

The odds that the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US WITH an agreement to buy more agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.

When you combine those two and cancel out the opposing terms, you get "The odds on the Mexicans buying LESS agricultural equipment from the US are so slim as to be ignored.".

To claim that it took some fantastic negotiating skills to convince the Mexicans to buy more agricultural equipment from the US (especially when there is no agreement on what the minimum amount of increase is to be) is akin to claiming that it took some fantastic negotiating skills to convince the Mexicans that the Sun rose in the East or that water is wet or that their predominant language should be Spanish.

This also applies to the metrics for defining Mexico's efforts at reducing migration to the US. Any plan that places penalties for lack of compliance requires some base quota or percentage reduction in order to have any meaning.

 

[Slavister]

As one of the biggest Trump bashers on the board, I will say that Trumps threats to Mexico seem to be working at this time. Yea, I believe Trump is the crappiest president of all time, but I have to keep an open mind and give credit where credit is due. Tariffs would have hurt us badly, but would also would have hurt Mexico too. Trump is playing chicken with Mexico, and it has the possibility of backfiring. However, this time, it seems to have worked. I am not in Congress, and I am certainly not in the inner circles of Trumps cabinet, so I do not completely know the reasoning behind this strategy. All I know is that, at this time, it seems to be working. I will give Trump some credit here. Unlike you, I will only trash Trump on this if it ends up backfiring. If it works and ends up benefiting the economy, I will give Trump praises for this. (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little :mrgreen

2 days ago - Mexico tightens southern border security as another day passes with no tariff deal | World news | The Guardian

And today, we seem to have some kind of a deal, although Trump is not being completely honest about what it is. At least it is something, which is better than nothing.

Sorry, but after years of spin and fake news from this administration, even a would-be-genuine-win is too much a suspect of it being just another fake news. Aside from the NYT piece stating that Mexico had agreed to everything months before tariffs, even your own article mentions ...

... the detentions followed a pattern of harassment from the authorities in both countries against individuals assisting migrants and an attempt at “criminalising” the caravans ...

how long did that pattern go on for? ... and even more interestingly ...

Recent weeks have already seen a proliferation of immigration checkpoints in southern Mexico and police raids on migrant centers

So, is all this just continuation of a pattern going on for a while now? Did tariff threats play any role at all?

Or is it sort of like Trump taking credit for economy in 2017 that did not change its trajectory after he took office?

I have no idea, but given the history of this Administration, I am not going to give it credit until we hear more from more trustworthy sources than Trump and Trump / Fox / Breitbart news.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This also applies to the metrics for defining Mexico's efforts at reducing migration to the US. Any plan that places penalties for lack of compliance requires some base quota or percentage reduction in order to have any meaning.

Agreed, and any "plan" or "agreement" that does NOT include those things is mere mumblification and bafflegab.

To claim that such a "plan" or "agreement" constitutes a humongous and fantastic victory that was only achieved through incredibly superior negotiating skills is sort of like putting 10# of well aged male bovine excrement in a nice box and tying a pretty bow on it.

 

[JustHanging]

Trump is allowing the country that supported the 9/11 attacks to have nuclear weapons.

But you forget, Trump only supports the best American attacking terrorists.