Trump allowed more weapons to Ukraine. He campaigned for president on no war. There was a delay in his actions. Not sure what the reason is or was. I speculate he used the weapons as a deterrent to Russia. Or it happened early in his presidency and he was slow.
He's trying to stop the war in Ukraine. We will see.
New Ukraine borders will be drawn. The Russians won. Stop the war.
First I'll quote what I was responding to.
Posted Image
As I mentioned, that was a foolish reply, because no Trump did not crush my economy. And if he did I certainly wouldn't be thanking him.
Here's the kicker.....
- I'm not talking about what you never said.
- I'm talking about what you said.
When I reply to what you said, it's not my fucking job to talk about what you never said.
I never said I think Trudeau wasn't responsible for Canada's downfall. Then you said I said it. Then I said quote me. Then you tell me you never said I think Trudeau wasn't responsible for crushing Canada's economy. You totally did:
Legga:
> I have no problem with the notion that Trudeau damaged the Canadian economy.
Spatial:
> Actually, you did have a problem with it cause you juuuust went on about Trump crushing my Canada and a list of other damages only the Liberal government delivered.
I still have no problem with it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. The only thing you need to do is admit you equated my claim with Trudeau's mismanaging of the Canadian economy with the claim that Trump is trashing the Canadian economy, which are not mutually exclusive.
Im not sure if you've realized by now that you're arguing with tautologies. I usually start with those because I know we can at least find common ground in them, except with people who are completely entrenched in their own camp. My claim is not at all controversial.
2 nations imposing tariffs or economic sanctions to damage another nation's trade. Ok. Seems we agree with Oxford dictionary.
Now my second question is: If Ukraine and Russia really reached ceasefire (seems like that is not happening), would the two nations still be at war with one another?
Other countries can have popular American brands for cheaper. Why should an iPhone cost 90% more in Vietnam ? That will soon change.Explain which argument you think I'm making here and which one you think you're addressing. You are quoting me saying:
""Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries and hence does not align with what is good for the world.""
Now finish this sentence: "No I disagree that Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries because (...)."
Does the sentence continue with "(...) because why should iphones cost 90% more in Vietnam"?
Im not saying iPhone should cost 90% more in Vietnam. Does that answer your question?
I see now that the problem and friction boils down to a combination of you not being able to read what I say carefully, and not being able to condense what you say into its essence.
...Or are you basically saying that Trump is not aiming to put America first and put down the best deal for America at the cost of other countries because he can negotiate a good deal for American iPhone over, say, Chinese smartphones, so it's actually economically better for countries to buy those iphones, and that if those countries were smart they'd actually just take the deal because it's super profitable to them, and US needs to force them to negotiation table simply because they lack all economical insights and what's good for them, when in reality getting more american brands cheaper will be economically beneficial to them, if only they realised it? Surely you're not that braindead?
Your argument is that Canada and the US are in a trade war.
At this point in time, there isn't one as Canada and the US aren't doing a tit for tat tariff increase and quite possibly that won't even happen.
.
.
.
China on the other hand is having a tit for tat tariff war with the US and last I looked the US imposed a 245% tariff on China. THe Yuan is crashing to hell, Chinese workers are out of work as their employers are broke. China needs that sweet USD cause the Yuan isn't enough.
245% increase. That means all consumers in the US will have to pay 345% more for all goods coming in from China, incentivising the consumer to buy alternative products. This also forces Chinese business to move their operations to the US and hire US citizens.
It's about job creation and boosting one's economy.
Is this happening in between Canada and the US ? Nope.
That is a tariff war, while this is not.
Here is where you go again and disregard what I actually said in the quote you're responding to. What you're quoting me on is the following claim I made:
"Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries and hence does not align with what is good for the world."
This argument is not "Canada and US are in a trade war". You're quoting a separate claim. So when you quote me on one thing and then go ahead and respond to something completely different I said elsewhere, do you see how I might find it frustrating?
Is your stance: "No I disagree that Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries because (...)." Or are you just instinctively responding to me by quoting random bits of what I said and then going ahead and making counterarguments to the general feeling you think I'm going for?
This would be the second example you asked for. Do you see how you're not actually responding to what I say, but instead are extrapolating and responding to what you think I said?
The entirety of what you're quoting is me basically asking "did you read what I said?" And I extrapolate from your response the answer: No you did not.
And yes, I understand that your argument is that US and Canada are not in a trade war because there is no ongoing escalation of tit for tat. I've responded to that with a question.
First I'll quote what I was responding to.
Posted Image
As I mentioned, that was a foolish reply, because no Trump did not crush my economy. And if he did I certainly wouldn't be thanking him.
Here's the kicker.....
- I'm not talking about what you never said.
- I'm talking about what you said.
When I reply to what you said, it's not my fucking job to talk about what you never said.I never said I think Trudeau wasn't responsible for Canada's downfall. Then you said I said it. Then I said quote me. Then you tell me you never said I think Trudeau wasn't responsible for crushing Canada's economy. You totally did:
Legga:
> I have no problem with the notion that Trudeau damaged the Canadian economy.
Spatial:
> Actually, you did have a problem with it cause you juuuust went on about Trump crushing my Canada and a list of other damages only the Liberal government delivered.I still have no problem with it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. The only thing you need to do is admit you equated my claim with Trudeau's mismanaging of the Canadian economy with the claim that Trump is trashing the Canadian economy, which are not mutually exclusive.
That doesn't dispel the fact that you came at me calling out Trump for, as you said "crushing Canada."
Claiming to have no problem with an alternative notion isn't you admitting to be wrong, while you continue to argue.
The truth...
Trump never crushed Canada. Yes or no Legga.
Explain which argument you think I'm making here and which one you think you're addressing. You are quoting me saying:
""Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries and hence does not align with what is good for the world.""
That's what you're saying out of ignorance. The US is open for renegotiation. The US up to this day still never Tariffed anyone more than they tariff the states, except recently, when China got into a tariff war with the US over it.
Now finish this sentence: "No I disagree that Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries because (...)."
Does the sentence continue with "(...) because why should iphones cost 90% more in Vietnam"?
Im not saying iPhone should cost 90% more in Vietnam. Does that answer your question?
I see now that the problem and friction boils down to a combination of you not being able to read what I say carefully, and not being able to condense what you say into its essence.
Vietnam tariffs the US 90% to sell US goods there. Japan is bad, they all are.
I'm not just saying this, but the problem lays in your blatant ignorance.
...Or are you basically saying that Trump is not aiming to put America first and put down the best deal for America at the cost of other countries because he can negotiate a good deal for American iPhone over, say, Chinese smartphones, so it's actually economically better for countries to buy those iphones, and that if those countries were smart they'd actually just take the deal because it's super profitable to them, and US needs to force them to negotiation table simply because they lack all economical insights and what's good for them, when in reality getting more american brands cheaper will be economically beneficial to them, if only they realised it? Surely you're not that braindead?
Your argument is that Canada and the US are in a trade war.
At this point in time, there isn't one as Canada and the US aren't doing a tit for tat tariff increase and quite possibly that won't even happen.
.
.
.
China on the other hand is having a tit for tat tariff war with the US and last I looked the US imposed a 245% tariff on China. THe Yuan is crashing to hell, Chinese workers are out of work as their employers are broke. China needs that sweet USD cause the Yuan isn't enough.
245% increase. That means all consumers in the US will have to pay 345% more for all goods coming in from China, incentivising the consumer to buy alternative products. This also forces Chinese business to move their operations to the US and hire US citizens.
It's about job creation and boosting one's economy.
Is this happening in between Canada and the US ? Nope.
That is a tariff war, while this is not.
Here is where you go again and disregard what I actually said in the quote you're responding to. What you're quoting me on is the following claim I made:
"Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries and hence does not align with what is good for the world."
This argument is not "Canada and US are in a trade war". You're quoting a separate claim. So when you quote me on one thing and then go ahead and respond to something completely different I said elsewhere, do you see how I might find it frustrating?
Is your stance: "No I disagree that Trump is acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries because (...)." Or are you just instinctively responding to me by quoting random bits of what I said and then going ahead and making counterarguments to the general feeling you think I'm going for?
This would be the second example you asked for. Do you see how you're not actually responding to what I say, but instead are extrapolating and responding to what you think I said?
The entirety of what you're quoting is me basically asking "did you read what I said?" And I extrapolate from your response the answer: No you did not.And yes, I understand that your argument is that US and Canada are not in a trade war because there is no ongoing escalation of tit for tat. I've responded to that with a question.
You're worried about me not filling in your blanks when you were dismissive of my questions and data.
Technically I answered your questions and I'll show you in the following post.
Here we go again.
USA discounted reciprocal tariffs.
First on the list. China
The US reciprocated 34% to China 67% charges on them. China is the only nation of this list that then increased their tariffs causing the US to increase theirs to 245%
All of the other nations are open for negotiations
Let's take a closer look at your ignorance from page 4.
Spatial, you're not listening
Look how your response is all, i, i, i.
You're really not listening.
^Ironically you said that.
Why don't you comment on the data I posted.
Because your data is in response to arguments I never made and I couldn't care less about.
You don't care about the data. ( Real data from the US that impacts the globe ) Instead you want to argue assumptions, and arguments you "made". That's a closed mind.
The US proposed roughly 50% discount retaliatory tariffs on 51 nations, except nations with low tariffs, and not including Canada.
Ok and?
And that's good and affordable and doesn't destroy economies.
Who is tariffing who more, and who has always tariffed who more ?
I don't give a dann. Check my claims.
And this is the ironic part. Someone here isn't listening.
Does it mean war if the US starts seeking fair trade ?
Yes.
Trade war: a situation in which countries try to damage each other's trade, typically by the imposition of tariffs or quota restrictions.
By this logic, and for your arguments sake. It's uncool for the US to even have "fair" trade.
You're also ignoring the real numbers, because it'll cause you to have a meltdown, as you've been programmed to.
As I'm writing this, the US still doesn't have fair trade, but they're working on it
The answers to that are simple but, I doubt you're able to backtrack toward common sense.
You're not listening.
The irony strikes again.
Doesn't it amazing you how you can accuse me of not listening, but then dismiss information that debunks your fabrications ?
Spatial said:Trump never crushed Canada. Yes or no Legga.
Perhaps not. I admit it was hyperbolae.
I would say that he is harming Canada's economy through tariffs, which, if time permits and no reasonable agreement is reached, will seriously harm Canada. And the US has the upper hand insofar as the problem is isolated to US and Canada, but what the outcome is depends much on what cards other players play.
The context in which I said that was to point out the absurdity of rooting for the person who is trying to harm your own country, so the hyperbolae was added for comic effect.
You're worried about me not filling in your blanks when you were dismissive of my questions and data.
Technically I answered your questions and I'll show you in the following post.
Is this your stance: ""Trump is not acting to further America's interests at the economic cost of other countries"? Yes or no Spatial.
Even if everything you said about the tariffs were true, I don't see how you're connecting the dots with that statement. Connect the dots for me.
