Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

I would just say that if people are thinking you are sympathetic to the Trump position on this issue, it may be because you seem to take their arguments at face value, even though this Administration lies all the time. I really don't believe there are many people in the Administration who think that protectionism is good for the country.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

Trump thinks everything is a zero-sum game. He thinks you are either winning a trade war or losing a trade war all of the time.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

True, but that also makes it easier to explain the reptile logic that controls his thinking.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

It is nothing short of stunning. Almost as stunning as the fact that people on this board recently espoused the belief that the real problem in this country was the fact that hysterical liberals were shrilly and overly critical of Trump.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If The Orange Lord wasn't crazy before, he's got to be totally batcrap fall on the floor blubbering crazy this morning. He is totally alone and isolated. He can't talk to anybody...and that includes his wife, on the off chance that they meet in the hall...... without wondering if that person is part of the Deep Resistance.



I concur the 25th Amendment is appropriate. But the prospect of Pence and the cabinet implementing it approaches zero. They are cowards. Trump would declare that he is not under a disability, and precipitate the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.



Barring something like a full-on cardiac arrest, this is going to stay ugly for a long, long time.

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

You credit these people with far too much cynicism and shrewdness. I think a bunch of these folks really think they can win a trade war.

I think Putin has a grand plan to balkanize the world into geographic spheres of influence. Were Trump smart, one could assume he's playing along with that by starting a trade war. But he's not. He's playing to the base and thinks he's going to do some victory lap after bringing the Chinese to their knees. I see dumbness here and little else.

(Of course, there are some smart folks who understand that Trump's strategy could result in an global recession that damages the Chinese and buys us more time at the top of the heap, but Trump is not one of them. And I'd guess those people are a really tiny faction within this clueless administration.)

Re: Trump on Anything
 

Don't credit that letter too much. I've read it twice and it's engineered for a purpose you and I don't understand.

It could be the GOP trying to save its ass ("Look, we had this figured out all along...").

It could be the GOP trying to force out Trump.

If you're truly cynical, it could be double agents trying to bolster the "deep state" paranoia among the right wing base. Or it could be Russians, using another asset in the govt.

Here's why the letter is strange:

1. If you're a covert actor, why do you want publicity?
2. Why would a covert actor out himself by admitting he's been there since the start of the administration? There are very few such people left, and this makes unmasking easier.
3. If you're a covert actor saving the Republic from an autocrat, why take this enormous risk, and why execute it so recklessly? If you're caught (and now every media outlet will be looking to out you), you'll be purged, and all connected to you will be purged, and then all of your work will go up in smoke.

I can't make heads or tails of the letter. There's nothing to be gained by such an announcement, and a lot to be lost. It smacks of GOP "engineering."

On a side note, the Times had better have this right. If this turns out to be a low level nobody, or a fraud, it's the media's Waterloo.

Regarding shrill liberals being a huge problem, they are. They're generally idiots, with simple politics. I've no time to listen to them or their idiot opponents on the right. The naive should be ignored. (I'm fine with normal, pragmatic liberals. Socially, I am one.)

Re: And we won't even get into all the "unintended" but totally foreseeable results..
 

Trump believes he can win a trade war. Peter Navarro too. Who else? Not sure there's anyone in the cabinet who thinks so. Certainly not Pompeo, Mattis, Mnuchin or Haley. Wilbur Ross is totally corrupt.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

Fuck that. You have called liberals "shrill" too many times. You're not allowed to use that phrase again until you've caught up by calling conservatives shrill. As I recall, you missed eight years of the Obama Administration in that regard, so it's going to take you a while.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

The Right Wing is just as shrill. And even worse, it's also living in a fictional world.

I ripped the right wing relentlessly while Obama was in office. The "He's a socialist!" crowd was an embarrassment of the first order. Naive jackasses, eating a bullshit media narrative served to them by Fox. Fucking morons.

And I also distinguished between normal liberals, with whom I've no issue, and naive, shrill liberals. The liberals who coolly make their arguments (Warren, Sanders, Booker, and in media, people like Kristof, Gene Robinson, etc.) are fine.

The lunatics who froth over everything Trump does, are out protesting, screaming on MSNBC, or howling about patriarchies, being triggered, etc.... the "professionally aggrieved or offended" sorts -- they are shrill. You can't deal with crazy people like that.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

I thought I was clear, but maybe not. Stop using the phrase "shrill liberals" anymore. That is all. Thank you.

eta: For Hank, Orwell, updated:

Re: Trump on Anything
 

This is laughably pompous. Stop being a self-important ass.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

We obviously don't fully understand the motivations behind the anonymous author, but nothing you have said changes my opinion that it is nothing short of stunning.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

Was I being pompous? Let me say it differently, then. I am so fucking tired of hearing people mechanically describe liberals as "shrill" that it makes me want to choke someone. Is that better? It's tired and annoying and trite and I hate it. Please stop.

Re: Trump on Anything
 

I described a certain type of liberal. You conveniently ignore that.

Most asshole right wingers think Liz Warren is shrill. I do not. She offers policy prescriptions and makes lucid points, and backs them up with data. I find her the definition of a sensible liberal -- a person with whom one can reason and find compromise.

The liberals who go absolutely nuts at everything out of the White House, the sorts who channel Andrea Dworkin on #metoo issues, defend the silliness on college campuses (trigger warnings, shouting at speakers, etc.), the lunatics who think overlooked trans issues are the most important crises in the modern world... these people are cuckoo pants. You can't talk to someone in a pink hat screaming about patriarchies. I sympathize with a lot of their points, but when I listen to their incoherence, the constant "celebration of grievance," I'm left thinking, "Oh, fuck that. That's pointless. Those people are fucking nuts." (As nuts as my right wing Archie Bunker-like older family members who think Trump is great.)

The shrill right and shrill left are birds of a feather. Both want things, and they want to be angry, and they want to yell at you, and they want to be heard, to be important... But they should all be ignored. No one should have to listen to people who bleat and scream and think entitlement is something to be celebrated. Right, left, middle -- you're entitled to what you can get. And what you can get is a function of how well you can ask for it, take it, or demand it. Using any of those methods, you aren't getting shit acting like spoiled petulant children, being absurd, or living in a fictional world.

Fuck the shrill right and the shrill left. How's that? That work for you?