US makes deal with Mexico on tariffs, immigration, Trump announces

[ocean515]

I have it on good authority (from a usually reliable and highly placed source who provided this information on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to provide this information) that that agreement includes a "secret protocol" whereby Hawai'i will remain as a monarchy but that Mr. Trump will be crowned its King [whereupon the second "secret protocol" - which places the "King of Hawaii" as the ex officio "President of the United States of America" - will kick in.

There are also "secret protocols" that provide for the physical movement of the "White House" from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 21°18′24″N 157°51′32″W. Right next to the soon to be built (private) bridge to the "King Donald the First World's Most Super Highest Tower, Most Super Posh Luxurious Resort, and Most Super-Duper Fantastically Greatly Super Golf Course Complex" (formerly Kauai).

That's pretty funny.

Why not 18° 27' 58.79" N -66° 06' 20.59" W?

My highly placed sources indicate the whole place could be had for pennies on the dollar, given the inept government in place there.

 

[slick]

Since I don't really feel like signing up for an on-line gaming site, could you please provide a direct link to the page that you got those odds from?

Also, I don't quite understand what the odds actually mean. From the "+" and "-" signs, it appears that the Republicans has a NEGATIVE chance to win control (I'll take that to mean 50%+1 vote) of the House of Representatives and the Democrats have a POSITIVE chance, which I can understand. However, it also appears that NEITHER the Republicans NOR the Democrats have a POSITIVE chance to win control (I'll take that to mean 50%+1 vote) of the Senate. If that is the case, then are the European bookies saying that the Senate is going to be split 50/50 or are they saying that there is some third party in the US that no one has heard of yet that is going to win at least two US Senate seats (thus enabling that third party to "control" the US Senate unless the Republicans and the Democrats actually work together in order to pass legislation?

The sports book that offers these odds is: wagerweb.eu

Odds to win Senate Control 2020
Republicans -260 Democrats +200

This means the Republicans have an edge to win the senate in 2020, they are not a lock they have an edge:
If you bet $260 on Republicans to win the Senate & they win you get back the $260 + $100 (You win $100)

If you bet $100 on Democrats to win the Senate & they win you get back the $100 + $200 (You win $200)

That should explain it far the House also, where the Democrats are even slighter favorite to keep the House in 2020.



Odds to win House Control 2020
Republicans -240 Democrats -185

Which means the Republicans have a slightly better chance to win the house than the democrats have to win the senate, key word slightly

If no party wins the majority- all bets are cancelled & you get the money you bet back

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Shall we continue to "dispute" over whether or not our agreement is agreed to be an agreement?

Or, since "Box A" fits inside "Box B" and since "Box B" fits inside "Box C", shall we continue to debate whether it is also correct to say that "Box A" fits inside "Box C"?

I gotta admit, that above ^^^ made me laugh hard :lamo
You're alright TU, you're peaches in my book, go on wit yo bad self.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I think that I agree with your "If Trump succeeds at anything, or tries to help our country in any way, if you only get your news from MSM, you won't know about it anyway.".

HOWEVER, I do note that that sentence does start out with the word "if" and also note that I do NOT "only get (my) news from (American) MSM".

So far, except for propaganda organs supporting Mr. Trump (almost all of which are based in the United States of America) I haven't seen much evidence (actually almost none) that Mr. Trump has "succeed(ed) at anything, or trie(d) to help (America) in any way". I have, however, seen a lot of evidence that Mr. Trump HAS been very successful in forcing people into doing what they wanted to do by giving them what they wanted him to give them.

I suppose that that is one definition of "success".

Historically low unemployment, tax relief ( I got it. And I actually live here), booming economy, 10 times the manufacturing jobs brought back in Trumps first 21 months, as compared to Obamas last 21 months. That's evidence of "success"....no?eace

 

[Amelia]

You do realize that just making **** up without anything to support your **** doesn't actually work, yes?

Hey, it got Trump the presidency.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Historically low unemployment,

Except that it isn't.

... tax relief ( I got it. And I actually live here),

And many others didn't. Once you add in the fact that American consumers are actually the ones paying the additional cost of the tariffs, the odds that very many (other than the top 10%) are actually seeing any "tax relief" get pretty crappy.

... booming economy,

Yep, following the same trend line as it has been following for 10 years.

... 10 times the manufacturing jobs brought back in Trumps first 21 months,

If you deduct the number of jobs lost, the number is - what?

If you only consider the number of jobs ACTUALLY "brought back" (as opposed to the "planned" and/or "proposed" and/or "promised" ones) the number is - what?

as compared to Obamas last 21 months.

Please do the same calculations and then get back to me.

That's evidence of "success"....no?eace

As long as you put the word "success" in quotation marks so that you are indicating that you are using it in a different sense than it is commonly used, you are correct.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Except that it isn't.



And many others didn't. Once you add in the fact that American consumers are actually the ones paying the additional cost of the tariffs, the odds that very many (other than the top 10%) are actually seeing any "tax relief" get pretty crappy.



Yep, following the same trend line as it has been following for 10 years.



If you deduct the number of jobs lost, the number is - what?

If you only consider the number of jobs ACTUALLY "brought back" (as opposed to the "planned" and/or "proposed" and/or "promised" ones) the number is - what?



Please do the same calculations and then get back to me.



As long as you put the word "success" in quotation marks so that you are indicating that you are using it in a different sense than it is commonly used, you are correct.

Most people vote their pocketbooks here in America. If your right, and everybody, well, everybody but me, didn't see any tax relief, and aren't happy with the direction we're headed, the dems will win in 2020.

 

[mrdeltoid]

Except that it isn't.



And many others didn't. Once you add in the fact that American consumers are actually the ones paying the additional cost of the tariffs, the odds that very many (other than the top 10%) are actually seeing any "tax relief" get pretty crappy.



Yep, following the same trend line as it has been following for 10 years.



If you deduct the number of jobs lost, the number is - what?

If you only consider the number of jobs ACTUALLY "brought back" (as opposed to the "planned" and/or "proposed" and/or "promised" ones) the number is - what?



Please do the same calculations and then get back to me.



As long as you put the word "success" in quotation marks so that you are indicating that you are using it in a different sense than it is commonly used, you are correct.

Oh I almost forgot:

" Well, a funny thing happened—Trump’s policies, and just as importantly, the expectation of Trump’s policies, ignited a manufacturing resurgence.
In the first 21 months of the Trump presidency, nonfarm employment grew by a seasonally adjusted 2.6%. In the same period, manufacturing employment grew by 3.1%, reversing the trend under Obama when overall employment grew faster than employment in the manufacturing sector.
Comparing the last 21 months of the Obama administration with the first 21 months of Trump’s, shows that under Trump’s watch, more than 10 times the number of manufacturing jobs were added."

" Some economists warn that Trump’s tariffs put our healthy economic expansion (stimulated by tax cuts and deregulation) at risk. The administration’s defenders, on the other hand, see tariffs not as an end to themselves, as they were with the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, but as part of a wider effort to renegotiate the terms of trade with China. Included in the effort are the difficult issues of widespread and systematic Chinese intellectual property theft and opaque non-tariff barriers.
Past performance is no guarantee—but so far, President Trump’s pro-growth policies have confounded his critics’ predictions with the prime beneficiaries being hard-working Americans."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ast-2-years/&usg=AOvVaw3iXPZTkaYx6rKe_08RnSmf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...mas-last-26/&usg=AOvVaw3uagKBPuz1ROiN4edwuaPo

240,883 viewsMar 11, 2019, 03:52pm
Trump's Policy "Magic Wand" Boosts Manufacturing Jobs 399% In First 26 Months Over Obama's Last 26

 

[Chomsky]

wagerweb.eu

Odds to win Senate Control 2020
Republicans -260 Democrats +200


Odds to win House Control 2020
Republicans -240 Democrats -185

Which means the Republicans have a slightly better chance to win the house than the democrats have to win the senate, key word slightly

I think those odds are a reasonable reflection of the reality. Thanks!

Although in the second scenario, wouldn't it be Rep + 240?

 

[slick]

I think those odds are a reasonable reflection of the reality. Thanks!

Although in the second scenario, wouldn't it be Rep + 240?

My mistake (+240) for the Republicans to win the house

 

[Chomsky]

My mistake (+240) for the Republicans to win the house

Ah, no biggie. I knew what you meant. It was an interesting stat; thanks!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You get it! Not to sound patronizing, but proud of you for going against the grain, and saying what is wrong with the Democrat Party and what they need to do to become heard again.

I've always gotten it, at least while adulting.
I'm certainly far from perfect but it's not like I ever tried to make a habit out of pretending to be one thing while promoting the opposite.
Why am I even a liberal at all? Because I am grateful to the liberal programs (some from the New Deal era) that allowed me the opportunities that made it possible to succeed.

I am grateful for the excellent public school education I received, the free community college I attended, the couch change tuition I was able to afford at UCLA, the cheap and free clinics that kept me healthy during my youth, the super affordable places to live I was able to find as a young man working for miserable wages, the VA that has saved my wife's life seven times and kept her alive and relatively healthy, the S-CHIP program that granted my son his three open heart surgeries before the age of five, the Affordable Care Act that my daughter has been able to use.

 

[slick]

The Republicans told him he can't have his tariffs because they're too costly to American consumers and they won't vote for it. So he makes up a story about Mexico 'conceding' so he can 'lift' the tariffs. In effect nothing happened at all.

I mean, he's been away on a holid...sorry 'state visit' all week. When did he even have time to handle this. there were important things to do like trolling Bette Middler.

'This sort of flailing-about to deny the obvious says nothing about Trump and much about those critics
who can no more admit he played high-stakes poker and won a round on border security than they can
admit that the president delivered a magnificent tribute to the heroes of Normandy on Thursday.'

WVSports.com › ... › Off-Topic Discussion Board

 

[Airyaman]

Here's the glorious deal folks. All I can say is...WINNING!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Most people vote their pocketbooks here in America.

Well, so much for "American Exceptionalism".

If your right, and everybody, well, everybody but me, didn't see any tax relief, and aren't happy with the direction we're headed, the dems will win in 2020.

It is going to be interesting trying to keep tabs on the spin ratio in the next five years leading up to the 2024 elections (the campaigning for which has just started).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh I almost forgot:

" Well, a funny thing happened—Trump’s policies, and just as importantly, the expectation of Trump’s policies, ignited a manufacturing resurgence.
In the first 21 months of the Trump presidency, nonfarm employment grew by a seasonally adjusted 2.6%. In the same period, manufacturing employment grew by 3.1%, reversing the trend under Obama when overall employment grew faster than employment in the manufacturing sector.
Comparing the last 21 months of the Obama administration with the first 21 months of Trump’s, shows that under Trump’s watch, more than 10 times the number of manufacturing jobs were added."

You might well have a point there since

After revising its data for past periods, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that seasonally adjusted nonfarm employment grew by 5.1 million jobs in President Trump’s first full two years in office, a 3.5% increase. Private sector payrolls grew by 4.9 million, a 4.0% increase.

By comparison, over the same 24-month period, the economy added 5.0 million jobs in former President Obama’s last two years in office, with private sector employment up by 4.7 million.
​

Especially since everyone knows that 5.1 is much more than 10 times 5.0. Of course both of those numbers are crap since they come from the same source and were compiled using the same methodology that Mr. Trump has labelled as being crap.

" Some economists warn that Trump’s tariffs put our healthy economic expansion (stimulated by tax cuts and deregulation) at risk. The administration’s defenders, on the other hand, see tariffs not as an end to themselves, as they were with the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, but as part of a wider effort to renegotiate the terms of trade with China. Included in the effort are the difficult issues of widespread and systematic Chinese intellectual property theft and opaque non-tariff barriers.
Past performance is no guarantee—but so far, President Trump’s pro-growth policies have confounded his critics’ predictions with the prime beneficiaries being hard-working Americans."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ast-2-years/&usg=AOvVaw3iXPZTkaYx6rKe_08RnSmf
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...mas-last-26/&usg=AOvVaw3uagKBPuz1ROiN4edwuaPo

240,883 viewsMar 11, 2019, 03:52pm
Trump's Policy "Magic Wand" Boosts Manufacturing Jobs 399% In First 26 Months Over Obama's Last 26

I totally agree an increase of 399% is almost 10 times as many.