The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

Sheriff Joe said:
So that's the post that got your attention?
A question?
You are a dope. Too funny.
Click to expand...
They're still struggling with the contradictory argument of the terms trade and war. I seperate the terms so that they can think about what those two words really mean and thus whether combining them to say one thing is appropriate.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
They're still struggling with the contradictory argument of the terms trade and war. I seperate the terms so that they can think about what those two words really mean and thus whether combining them to say one thing is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I'm still struggling with the stupidity of you claiming that the 4 or 5 off-the cliff dow drops in the past few weeks are due to "spending bill." That you don't understand the common and easily understood term "trade war" is not our problem. "Trade war" does not require "zero trade" any more than "real war" requires "everyone dead." That Stern-Jo is too stupid to have an opinion of his own is nobody's problem (and probably for the best.)

Here, perhaps something that sounds like bad dialogue from a Kung-Fu ep will help you understand. "Grasshopper and his mentor stopped in the street. A vehicle approached rapidly headed straight for them. What is it? the grasshopper asked. It is an automobile. Oh... Grasshopper watched it racing toward them. But there is a man behind the wheel. Is his name Otto? No, he is the driver. But if he is the driver, how can the mobile be called auto? And before his mentor could answer... the car ran them over. Oops."
 
Friesland said:
"Trade war" does not require "zero trade" any more than "real war" requires "everyone dead."
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why seperating the two is appropriate currently. Are we still trading with China? Is China still trading with U.S.? If so, why would you attach the word War to the current situation? Trust me, I'm not happy the price of a can of spam is nearly $3.00 now. But Musubi's are a delicacy in my house and I'll just have to live without something else. Like maybe I buy a 5-pack instead of a 6-pack
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Which is exactly why seperating the two is appropriate currently. Are we still trading with China? Is China still trading with U.S.? If so, why would you attach the word War to the current situation? Trust me, I'm not happy the price of a can of spam is nearly $3.00 now. But Musubi's are a delicacy in my house and I'll just have to live without something else. Like maybe I buy a 5-pack instead of a 6-pack
Click to expand...

Because "trade war" is not the complete end of trade any more than "world war" is the complete end of the world or "guerrila war" means all silverbacked simians are destoryed.

No one claims that "trade war" means "end of all trade." That's just stupidity.

"Trade war" is a general terms that applies to increasing tariffs, usually tit-for-tat, between two countries. Folks use it in a wide range of situations and it is not some precise term of science, but its general meaning is well understood and only a dishonest pedant would try to pretend it means "total end of trade between two countries." Here's some easily searched definitions:

trade war ˈtrād ˌwôr/noun noun: trade war; plural noun: trade wars
  1. a situation in which countries try to damage each other's trade, typically by the imposition of tariffs or quota restrictions.
A trade war refers to two or more states raising or creating tariffs or other trade barriers on each other in retaliation for other trade barriers.

Even Drumpf himself called it a trade war, mentioning they are "easy to win."

It's just silly to pretend that "trade war" involves eradication of all trade. That is not the meaning.
 
Friesland said:
Because "trade war" is not the complete end of trade any more than "world war" is the complete end of the world or "guerrila war" means all silverbacked simians are destoryed.

No one claims that "trade war" means "end of all trade." That's just stupidity.

"Trade war" is a general terms that applies to increasing tariffs, usually tit-for-tat, between two countries. Folks use it in a wide range of situations and it is not some precise term of science, but its general meaning is well understood and only a dishonest pedant would try to pretend it means "total end of trade between two countries." Here's some easily searched definitions:

trade war ˈtrād ˌwôr/noun noun: trade war; plural noun: trade wars
  1. a situation in which countries try to damage each other's trade, typically by the imposition of tariffs or quota restrictions.
A trade war refers to two or more states raising or creating tariffs or other trade barriers on each other in retaliation for other trade barriers.

Even Drumpf himself called it a trade war, mentioning they are "easy to win."

It's just silly to pretend that "trade war" involves eradication of all trade. That is not the meaning.
Click to expand...
That's been my point all along. That's why I seperate the two terms.
 
Friesland said:
I'm still struggling with the stupidity of you claiming that the 4 or 5 off-the cliff dow drops in the past few weeks are due to "spending bill." That you don't understand the common and easily understood term "trade war" is not our problem. "Trade war" does not require "zero trade" any more than "real war" requires "everyone dead." That Stern-Jo is too stupid to have an opinion of his own is nobody's problem (and probably for the best.)

Here, perhaps something that sounds like bad dialogue from a Kung-Fu ep will help you understand. "Grasshopper and his mentor stopped in the street. A vehicle approached rapidly headed straight for them. What is it? the grasshopper asked. It is an automobile. Oh... Grasshopper watched it racing toward them. But there is a man behind the wheel. Is his name Otto? No, he is the driver. But if he is the driver, how can the mobile be called auto? And before his mentor could answer... the car ran them over. Oops."
Click to expand...
Looks like you know husker.
 
Friesland said:
Because "trade war" is not the complete end of trade any more than "world war" is the complete end of the world or "guerrila war" means all silverbacked simians are destoryed.

No one claims that "trade war" means "end of all trade." That's just stupidity.

"Trade war" is a general terms that applies to increasing tariffs, usually tit-for-tat, between two countries. Folks use it in a wide range of situations and it is not some precise term of science, but its general meaning is well understood and only a dishonest pedant would try to pretend it means "total end of trade between two countries." Here's some easily searched definitions:

trade war ˈtrād ˌwôr/noun noun: trade war; plural noun: trade wars
  1. a situation in which countries try to damage each other's trade, typically by the imposition of tariffs or quota restrictions.
A trade war refers to two or more states raising or creating tariffs or other trade barriers on each other in retaliation for other trade barriers.

Even Drumpf himself called it a trade war, mentioning they are "easy to win."

It's just silly to pretend that "trade war" involves eradication of all trade. That is not the meaning.
Click to expand...
Giving definitions from Webster is probably a call for help, life line. When I get stuck I just ask Iz, he knows hiz shit. Do you have any friends that aren't quite as dumb as you?
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Yup, I'm not a fan of 5 year spending bills like QE that have long term market effects.
Click to expand...

But don't move the one-day... that's the point stupid racist Joe doenst understand and you try to obfuscate.

Now whether easy-money market distortions are better or worse medicine then "too big to fail" bankruptcies is a different debate.

I'd have done a combo, myself, and forced a bit of "moral hazard" on a few of the big banks/insurers/overly leveraged companies as a well as a prerequist of helicopter money, but nobody asked me.

But the passing of a spending bill is not what caused the 5 or 6 serious down days this past month or so. It was threat of trade war. Any other equivocating is just argumenative onanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top