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

[Chomsky]

Getting people to believe in the reality of "America's ethical & visionary leadership roll, including it's altruistic ideologies & aspirations" gets a whole lot harder if they start thinking that the leadership of the United States of America does NOT believe in it themselves, but rather believes in "American threats and bluster and pushing everyone around so that rich Americans can get richer".

Now it may well be that the leadership of the United States of America does NOT believe in "American threats and bluster and pushing everyone around so that rich Americans can get richer" but that is almost irrelevant if no one believes that the leadership of the United States of America does NOT believe in "American threats and bluster and pushing everyone around so that rich Americans can get richer".

In international affairs, as in horse racing, the bookies don't make their money out of what the facts are, they make it out of what the other people BELIEVE the facts are.

That (the bolded), was kinda' the point.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is exactly the way Twump views diplomacy: a zero-sum game with 'winners and losers'. This is why he's pushing the narrative that the tariffs were the deal maker when in fact he had to take them off the table. It looks a lot more macho than, "We got this done by talking to them, like always."

Not only that, but it sells a whole lot better than "We got this done by talking to them, like always, and we didn't get a single thing that they hadn't been willing to agree to when we started talking to them - despite the fact that we told them that we wouldn't make any deal that didn't include all of the things that we added on to what they had been willing to agree to from the start and which we told them were completely non-negotiable."

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Same here. I'm on the Left, I am a liberal, but that's on a continuum like many things in life, thus it should come as no surprise to anybody that I still carry some conservative views on several issues.

We're overreacting and polarizing too much these days, it makes communication almost impossible.

The average "American Liberal" is (on the international continuum) slightly to the "right" of the average "Canadian Conservative".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That (the bolded), was kinda' the point.

Indeed it was, and it was worth emphasizing because some people think that the US can continue to act the Lucy van Pelt role because the rest of the world is going to keep on playing the Charlie Brown role for all eternity.

Of course those people won't get the message regardless of how often you send it to them.

 

[Chomsky]

Indeed it was, and it was worth emphasizing because some people think that the US can continue to act the Lucy van Pelt role because the rest of the world is going to keep on playing the Charlie Brown role for all eternity.

Of course those people won't get the message regardless of how often you send it to them.

Hah! I never knew that was her family name! Thanks! :cheers:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hah! I never knew that was her family name! Thanks! :cheers:

After a wildly successful career in merchandising management

​

Ms. van Pelt has now retired

​

and is living in Fossil OR.

​

It's always nice to keep track of those you knew when you were a kid, isn't it?

 

[MTAtech]

If someone who is more familiar with the arcane ins and outs of the WTO than I am could help me out here, I'd appreciate it.

Does the WTO allow for the impositions of tariffs for POLITICAL reasons, or only for valid economic objectives?

I realize that the US has the power to impose SANCTIONS for POLITICAL reasons, but does the US have the power to impose TARIFFS for POLITICAL reasons?

I rather suspect not and that any of Mr. Trump's advisors who are not afraid to speak the truth in the hearing of "The Leader" have already told him that the US is not - legally - empowered to do that.

If my suspicion is correct (and I stand to be corrected [but only by someone who actually refers to the actual law and jurisprudence {and not to an opinion piece in Breitbart}]) then I also suspect that they told Mr. Trump that the Mexican government has completely legal means of retaliation for illegal acts committed by the government of the United States of America (which might include imposing sanctions on either the government of the US or on specifically names American citizens [which sanctions could range up to {and even include} sequestration of assets]).

There are no international rules regarding tariffs. So, a country can impose tariffs for any reason that they choose. What Krugman was pointing out that the trade agreements that the U.S. party to with Mexico -- and the one Trump wants to replace NAFTA, all state specifically that now country party to the agreement will impose tariffs on another party.

Trade agreements are only as binding as the faith in the country signing the agreement. One country can't sue another country for violating a trade agreement. However, breaking these agreements hurts the credibility of that country.

 

[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.

There's a lot wrong with both the parties. Best one can do is try to fix it, but when has either party been perfect?
A generation ago people had similar complaints when it was their Dem and GOP party.

With all due respect though, you are on the Right, so it's a bit odd for you to be giving advice on how to fix the Democratic Party. The only thing Democrats could do to get you to vote for them is if they became Republicans, right?

 

[Chomsky]

After a wildly successful career in merchandising management

View attachment 67257914
​

Ms. van Pelt has now retired

View attachment 67257915
​

and is living in Fossil OR.

View attachment 67257916​

It's always nice to keep track of those you knew when you were a kid, isn't it?

Haha! That was great, buddy. Thanks for this. It's probably good enough for it's own thread, and I bet the interest is there.

Anyway, thanks again! :cheers:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

There are no international rules regarding tariffs.

Really?

So I guess that "United States Challenges Five WTO Members Imposing Illegal Tariffs Against U.S. Products" simply didn't happen? (Apologies for the link to that whacko, left-wing, socialist, liberal, pinko, commie, web site.)

So, a country can impose tariffs for any reason that they choose. What Krugman was pointing out that the trade agreements that the U.S. party to with Mexico -- and the one Trump wants to replace NAFTA, all state specifically that now country party to the agreement will impose tariffs on another party.

Really, that isn't what my reading of Part 2 of the "Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA)" tells me. Please feel free to prove me incorrect by citing the specific section that says "now (sic) country party to the agreement will impose tariffs on another party" (or even anything close to it).

Trade agreements are only as binding as the faith in the country signing the agreement. One country can't sue another country for violating a trade agreement. However, breaking these agreements hurts the credibility of that country.

Now there are three really blinding flashes of the obvious. One (guess which one) of them happens to be false.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Exactly. We're all somewhere on a continuum, and our hearts and thoughts will vary along that continuum differently for different issues and aspects.

But mainly, we collectively have got to put our American identity above much of the more subordinate identities we have, like Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal. We've lost respect for each other. And without respect, you have nothing.

Please don't tell me we'll need to have another World War II, to achieve mutual respect and dignity for each other, because that's a pretty damn depressing thought!

Wars don't guarantee that will happen, not at all. Hate to say it but that is probably the exception rather than the rule.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Haha! That was great, buddy. Thanks for this. It's probably good enough for it's own thread, and I bet the interest is there.

Anyway, thanks again! :cheers:

Once in a while (sometimes for decades at a time) I don't do much to stop my mind from wandering where it will go.

There 1,079,426 of those statues of Lucy;

would you believe 67,905?

would you believe 105?
​

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The average "American Liberal" is (on the international continuum) slightly to the "right" of the average "Canadian Conservative".

The entire country has been shoved so far to the right that the center looks "Left".
But that is mighty difficult to explain to our actual progressives. Many of them believe that we can just skip back over to the Center Left when just dragging ourselves back to the Center is going to feel "lefty" to some.

 

[pamak]

There are no international rules regarding tariffs. So, a country can impose tariffs for any reason that they choose. What Krugman was pointing out that the trade agreements that the U.S. party to with Mexico -- and the one Trump wants to replace NAFTA, all state specifically that now country party to the agreement will impose tariffs on another party.

Trade agreements are only as binding as the faith in the country signing the agreement. One country can't sue another country for violating a trade agreement. However, breaking these agreements hurts the credibility of that country.

There are international rules and international bodies to resolve tariff issues. What you probably want to say is that a country can simply decide at any point not to abide with such rules. This thing applies anywhere from economic to non-proliferation treaties and to international organizations such as the UN. Basically a superpower has much more flexibility to draw a policy in contrast to international practices (in fact often a western superpower can set an example for such international practices). Of course, there are consequences in the long run for everybody, including a superpower.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The issue with Mexico is not just the crossing of their southern border, it is also permitting the transit from there to our border.

Sure, but the borders are the more manageable part of the control; once people get through it becomes more difficult to identify and apprehend them. Then of course there's the northern border which is more problematic due to the cartels running the show.

 

[trixare4kids]

The entire country has been shoved so far to the right that the center looks "Left".
But that is mighty difficult to explain to our actual progressives. Many of them believe that we can just skip back over to the Center Left when just dragging ourselves back to the Center is going to feel "lefty" to some.

That's just not true or perhaps I have misunderstood your point. Care to elaborate?
If the center were truly feeling or looking left, no need for a known centrist like Biden to flip on his decades long beliefs.
And don't tell me that a 78 year old Biden has suddenly evolved. We, who have been around the block a few times, know Biden is selling out.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That's just not true or perhaps I have misunderstood your point. Care to elaborate?
If the center were truly feeling or looking left, no need for a known centrist like Biden to flip on his decades long beliefs.
And don't tell me that a 78 year old Biden has suddenly evolved. We, who have been around the block a few times, know Biden is selling out.

You may have misunderstood my point.
I'm saying that the center, the political center, "feels" more like the Left these days because in the last forty years we have been steadily drifting further and further Right. To illustrate, Many of Reagan's policies, and bills he signed in cooperation with both Republicans and Democrats, and his tax policies, would look very "lefty" if enacted today, and Ike Eisenhower was approximately where Joe Biden was for many years.

But speaking of Biden, he IS flipping and moving on many of his long held views precisely BECAUSE of pressure from today's Left, but in the end, the net result would be that we'd wind up approximately in what was for years regarded as the Center.

FDR was somewhat Left, Truman a little less so, Eisenhower was the Center, Kennedy slightly to the Left, Johnson slightly more to the Left, Nixon was Center-Right, Ford was a little more to the Center, Carter slightly more to the Left, then came Reagan and the long slow drift to the Right again, Bush more to the Center again, Clinton more to the Center, Bush 43 moderately Right, Obama "talked" Left but functioned as if he wanted to be more to the Center. Trump has moved us way to the Right.

I don't expect you to agree either. You'll probably say that Obama was six inches from being a Marxist, but that is because you're pretty far to the Right, so to you, he looks like a Marxist.

PS: I would like to believe that Joe Biden has evolved but my gut tells me it's just for show.

 

[uptower]

Now Twump is in a huff and claiming the deal has 'secret' provisions.

Trump Claims Mexico Deal Has Secret Provisions, Potentially Roiling Relations Again - The New York Times

...so much 'winning'

 

[pamak]

The entire country has been shoved so far to the right that the center looks "Left".
But that is mighty difficult to explain to our actual progressives. Many of them believe that we can just skip back over to the Center Left when just dragging ourselves back to the Center is going to feel "lefty" to some.

Is not it too hasty to talk about such shifts when at least during the midterms we had a clear win of the "left"?
The next election will actually show if there is a real shift or not.
Also, I think that for social issues, like LGBT and women issues the society continues to move towards the "right." Demographic trends and lifestyle developments like the weakening of religion affect people's attitude.
Even in the economy, the idea that we can use government protection and even coerce business to "bring back" American jobs is a "leftist" attitude. The thing is that the American "centrists" (mainstream Democrats) after the collapse of the Soviet Union moved too much to the right during the general euphoria in the west as a result of the triumph of capitalism.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The entire country has been shoved so far to the right that the center looks "Left".
But that is mighty difficult to explain to our actual progressives. Many of them believe that we can just skip back over to the Center Left when just dragging ourselves back to the Center is going to feel "lefty" to some.

And there are many who feel that anything to the "right" of "Conservative Republican" is "Communist".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's just not true or perhaps I have misunderstood your point.

Option 2 is the operative one here.

Care to elaborate?

Does

If you divide the world's political spectrum into seven general categories "Far Left", "Left", "Left Center", "Center", "Right Center". "Right", and "Far Right" then divide each of those categories into " - ", "neutral", and "+" so that your scale now runs from "Far Far Left -" [equaling 1] to "Far Far Right +" [equaling 21]. For simplicity, think of the divisions as
1. “Far Left” (1, 2, &3),
2. “Left” (4, 5, & 6),
3. “Left Center” (7, 8, & 9),
4. “Center” (10, 11, & 12),
5. “Right Center” (13, 14, & 15),
6. “Right” (16, 17, & 18) and
7. “Far Right” (19, 20, & 21).
When you use that scale then:
• Canada’s “New Democratic Party” probably comes in around an “8” or “9” (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Left Center”); and
• Canada’s “Liberal Party” probably comes in around an “11” or “12” (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Center”); and
• the "Libertarians" probably coming in around "12" to "13" (on the "Center" - "Right Right" border); and
• Canada’s “Conservative Party” probably comes in around a “13” or “14” (sort of “[Progressive to Moderate] Right Center”); and
• the Democrats probably come in around "14" to "15" (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Right Center"); and
• the Republicans probably come in around "16" to "17" (sort of “[Progressive to Center] Right"); and with
• the T.E.A. Party probably coming in around "17" to "18" (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Right".
The vast majority of world politics is probably in the "7" ("Progressive Center Left") to "15" ("Conservative Center Right) range.
[NOTE – “Kleptocracies” and “One-Man-Band” governments don’t really have “politics” as we generally consider them to be.]
​

help?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You may have misunderstood my point.
I'm saying that the center, the political center, "feels" more like the Left these days because in the last forty years we have been steadily drifting further and further Right. To illustrate, Many of Reagan's policies, and bills he signed in cooperation with both Republicans and Democrats, and his tax policies, would look very "lefty" if enacted today, and Ike Eisenhower was approximately where Joe Biden was for many years.

But speaking of Biden, he IS flipping and moving on many of his long held views precisely BECAUSE of pressure from today's Left, but in the end, the net result would be that we'd wind up approximately in what was for years regarded as the Center.

FDR was somewhat Left, Truman a little less so, Eisenhower was the Center, Kennedy slightly to the Left, Johnson slightly more to the Left, Nixon was Center-Right, Ford was a little more to the Center, Carter slightly more to the Left, then came Reagan and the long slow drift to the Right again, Bush more to the Center again, Clinton more to the Center, Bush 43 moderately Right, Obama "talked" Left but functioned as if he wanted to be more to the Center. Trump has moved us way to the Right.

I don't expect you to agree either. You'll probably say that Obama was six inches from being a Marxist, but that is because you're pretty far to the Right, so to you, he looks like a Marxist.

PS: I would like to believe that Joe Biden has evolved but my gut tells me it's just for show.

If you insert the word "American" in your descriptions, then we are in agreement. If you insert the word "International" then we are not.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Now Twump is in a huff and claiming the deal has 'secret' provisions.

Trump Claims Mexico Deal Has Secret Provisions, Potentially Roiling Relations Again - The New York Times

...so much 'winning'

Can you let me know how Mr. Trump is going to implement those "secret" provisions without letting anyone know what they are?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If you insert the word "American" in your descriptions, then we are in agreement. If you insert the word "International" then we are not.

That's what I am talking about, American politics. I said, we in America have been getting steadily dragged further and further to the Right for the past forty years. The word "international" isn't even found in my post.

 

[Buzz62]

The American Democrat can't even bring his or her self to admit a good job when they see it...if the job was done by Trump that is.
Hypocrisy at its finest. Their opposition to Trump is forcing them to crap, unceremoniously and openly, on all Americans.

Good luck in 2020 Democrats...:shock: