Agree. Problem is this is a gratuitous game that is played on all sides nowadays. trump has been insulter in chief during his campaign.

We really ought to hold all sides to the same standard.

“I am also tired of the term ‘liar’ being tossed around so loosely, especially as applied to statements that can be interpreted differently by people with a less biased attitude.” – Irv

Rather nuanced take. What did you make of trump declaring “lyin’ Ted”?

Did you happen to think what trump said about Sen Cruz’s father was anywhere close to accurate?

When you have a person who has a pattern of such “inaccuracies” strung out before you, do you conclude that maybe you are just being “biased” and that they all have a perfectly good, rational and objective explanation?

Where do YOU draw the line between the speaker being merely (and innocently) misinformed vs intent to deceive?

Would you (DID you) afford obama the same latitude and nuance?

I really would like to agree, but I just cannot if the numbers don’t match the argument.

We have to explain how it is that the value of what is manufactured (i.e. the “gdp” of manufactured goods) has been close to a straight line rising upwards (except for 2008) all this time.

It is true that employment in that sector has turned downward, but it is not true that we’ve lost any “technology equilizer”.

In fact, it is very much a story of increased productivity, as more value is produced with decreasing labor.

It is the use of technology that explains MOST (if not the vast majority) of the decline in manufacturing labor.

Blaming trade and overseas production is a confusion of cause and effect when observing two parallel events.

In a way, it is not unlike the climate change argument one sometimes hears… “This year we had more tornadoes – must be due to global warming!”.

I’m not surprised the party is at odds with itself, since Trump is at odds with the conservative coalition.

As to fair trade, if we already have fair and free trade, not much will change with our trade agreements, if fair means equalizing our wage and regulation disparity with some nations.

As American companies have moved production overseas, we’ve lost the technology equalizer that made our productivity equal in value to cheap labor countries.

I would suggest that deficit as proof that we are getting more value in return for what we provide the rest of the world.

A significant part of this figure is on the strength of the US dollar (a good bit of which is driven by it’s – and US financial markets – safe haven / global standard bearer status).

Already heard about trump’s bowling campaign with Congress.

Suggest you check out how it is being received in the public sphere too. There is more to “selling” than just arm twisting your own party members.

It is not only that the message isn’t getting out (as the airtime is filled with self inflicted controversy), but also that it is not a coherent one.

This is, in large part, because trump has been rather hands off in formulating the solution, nor setting a direction on what he would accept.

Heck, he is still saying it is “negotiable”. Nobody knows how big a swing in the final product that means. (See Neo’s recent post on that)
http://neoneocon.com/2017/03/21/is-the-gop-health-care-reform-bill-dead-on-arrival/

Without it being “agreed” what can anyone actually “sell”?

And, let’s not talk about the strategic timing / prioritization.

Interesting stuff about the 60’s and 70’s.

https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

Paul Ryan is on Hannity and said (paraphrase) : “I’ve really been impressed with the President rolling up his sleeves and getting involved with the House members…”

He was in Kentucky at a rally for the health care bill tonight.

I think you need to check your sources. You’re getting bad information.

Now this isn’t comparing country to country, so it isn’t completely definitive, but someone is fudging. I know that some (most) of the EU resents Germany’s trade imbalance.

“I guessed you missed the part where” I essentially said that, in practically EVERY country that has a trade agreement with the US, one can find the very same arguments made.

They cannot all be “true”?

And it doesn’t take much imagination to understand that from the other side, the US hasn’t exactly been a floor mat at the negotiating table. It has been negotiating from a position of power, given its economic size and political power.

Who, then, is likely to end up with the “better” end of any of those trade deals?

Often what is deemed “unfair trade” is a lack of favorable treatment for a specific industry or group (or several), but nobody talks about who “loses” under such a policy, if implemented.
.

If it were merely “bully pulpit” (i.e. hot air), that is hardly a concern. What you advocate goes well beyond that.

Now, you can argue every which way that what you advocate is a good thing. BUT, we are still talking about that same power being in the next dem POTUS’ hands.

Then what?

What stops all that trump does from being undone? Especially if it is all either from EOs or strictly party line votes in Congress?
.

trump KNOWS when he tweets stuff like this, it will take up airtime. Evidently, he thinks that is more valuable use of that airtime than in making the case for things like AHCA.

These “distractions” keep trump from building support beyond his base, without which he won’t ever get lasting change.

Instead, they lose him credibility, as do those who seem to think this is no problem at all, or, worse, cheer this on.
.

That trust and credibility will be especially important if/when we have some kind of crisis.

Maybe trump’s cabinet picks would be able to deftly navigate any crisis, but will trump listen to them? Or, will he issue some tweet that enflames the matter?

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/06/2180771/how-many-us-manufacturing-jobs-were-lost-to-globalisation/