Trump announces trade deal with the EU

[Bean]

I answered your questions 4, 5 & 6 with one thing, which you consider immaterial.

That says a lot about you.

So, just to be clear - and you are completely free to clarify;

You believe Trump is restarting an old trade deal, initiated by Obama (TPIP?) - but the reasons for doing it are completely different (query #5) and you still won't list why (query #4) Obama initiated TPIP in the first place? - Is that really your stance, so you can somehow believe you've answered my queries?

and in no way, have you answered #6 - as Obama didn't get it ratified (even if it is the same deal, hence why it is immaterial to the discussion).

IF Trump does, would he have been more successful with regards to EU-USA trade deal? (query #6)

Oh and btw - I note you didn't list any explicit question of yours I failed to answer.......shall we hold our breath or will you admit you were wrong on that?

[Bean]

It's cruel to play on his OCD.

Ah, the master CRETIN returns.

If you're going to join the conversation, at least try to keep up with what has been previously said.

[sasguru]

EU plays a blinder with Trump

Juncker tamed Trump in one 3 hour meeting. Can't imagine the current shower of sh*t in Whitehall doing anything other than make a complete pig's ear of any trade deal they attempt to negotiate.

Thing is Trump is a cretin - even an old alcoholic like Juncker can play him like a fiddle.
He probably massaged his massively inflated, er ..... ego.

[Bean]

OK, explain how Trump’s tariffs are such a blazing success - he’s announced a bail out of his rural supporters of $12billion in emergency aid to cover their loss of business due to his tariffs he introduced with China.

Strawman, - I never said they were.

But giving money to farmers is emergency aid, not socialism, unlike healthcare, etc, where government handouts are evil left wing commie Russian ideas. (Apart from we can’t call them Russian, because Russia is the Republican party’s friend. They are the good guys)

Strawman & changing the subject, - I never stated anything about that, one way or the other.

[WTFH]

So, just to be clear - and you are completely free to clarify;

You believe Trump is restarting an old trade deal, initiated by Obama (TPIP?) - but the reasons for doing it are completely different (query #5) and you still won't list why (query #4) Obama initiated TPIP in the first place? - Is that really your stance, so you can somehow believe you've answered my queries?

and in no way, have you answered #6 - as Obama didn't get it ratified (even if it is the same deal, hence why it is immaterial to the discussion).

IF Trump does, would he have been more successful with regards to EU-USA trade deal? (query #6)

Oh and btw - I note you didn't list any explicit question of yours I failed to answer.......shall we hold our breath or will you admit you were wrong on that?

I did not say that Trump is restarting a deal that was first in negotiations 5 years ago. I said that maybe before you put words into other people’s mouths or make wild assertions, that you might want to establish if Trump ‘s planned trade talks with the EU are a continuation of the talks from back then, or if they are new ones.

You say that’s immaterial, then you tell me I’m using straw man arguments and you don’t like my response, etc.

Before you tell me you’re trying to clarify what I said, then you completely make it up, or before you post little pictures and say that I don’t answer your questions, you might want to read what I say, apply some comprehension, do some research and then explicitly tell me in grown up words where the errors are, without getting emotional, petulant or pictorial.

You want me to answer that if Trump signs a trade deal that no one knows the contents of, and if it bears total, some or no resemblance to one worked on for several years, and if it is agreed by parties on all sides, does that make him more successful than Obama?
How can an intelligent person give a straight answer to that? Too many ifs, too many unknowns, and no definition of success.

Put it like this: If Trump signs a trade deal with the UK to sell us chlorinated chicken and all UK exports to the US are subject to a 250% import tariff, is that successful? Yes it is, if you only look from the US side, and leave out any US businesses that need UK products. Is it successful for the UK? No. Does that matter, because you haven’t defined what you mean by successful? No. You get a factual answer to a question, but the answer is useless, because your question was flawed and loaded to start off with.

[WTFH]

EU plays a blinder with Trump

Juncker tamed Trump in one 3 hour meeting. Can't imagine the current shower of sh*t in Whitehall doing anything other than make a complete pig's ear of any trade deal they attempt to negotiate.

That must be worrying for anyone else attempting to negotiate with the EU - the world’s best negotiator (as he likes to portray himself) was unable to beat Drunker.
As for your reference to “shower”, I’d say that’s a golden word to use when referring to Trump. Allegedly.

[Bean]

I did not say that Trump is restarting a deal that was first in negotiations 5 years ago. I said that maybe before you put words into other people’s mouths or make wild assertions, that you might want to establish if Trump ‘s planned trade talks with the EU are a continuation of the talks from back then, or if they are new ones.

You say that’s immaterial, then you tell me I’m using straw man arguments and you don’t like my response, etc.

Before you tell me you’re trying to clarify what I said, then you completely make it up, or before you post little pictures and say that I don’t answer your questions, you might want to read what I say, apply some comprehension, do some research and then explicitly tell me in grown up words where the errors are, without getting emotional, petulant or pictorial.

You want me to answer that if Trump signs a trade deal that no one knows the contents of, and if it bears total, some or no resemblance to one worked on for several years, and if it is agreed by parties on all sides, does that make him more successful than Obama?
How can an intelligent person give a straight answer to that? Too many ifs, too many unknowns, and no definition of success.

Put it like this: If Trump signs a trade deal with the UK to sell us chlorinated chicken and all UK exports to the US are subject to a 250% import tariff, is that successful? Yes it is, if you only look from the US side, and leave out any US businesses that need UK products. Is it successful for the UK? No. Does that matter, because you haven’t defined what you mean by successful? No. You get a factual answer to a question, but the answer is useless, because your question was flawed and loaded to start off with.

I told you, you were free to clarify your exact position, I had a go based upon inferences from your statements, that didn't make it exactly a wild assertion and leave you to clarify it, since you've not explicitly stated your position yourself on the matter. I said it's immaterial and it generally still is - read on to find out why I think so...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ro-tariff-deal
"short on detail" - so I'm unable to reach a conclusion to your query about continuation of talks or new deal.....

Interesting, that you wait until now in the discussion, to assert they're loaded questions!

Let's remove query #6 from the list then;
4. (If 'No' to the above - query#3), why was Obama doing a deal at all?
5. Can't Trump be doing a deal for the same reasons as Obama tried, rather than due to your premises?


Was I wrong to call out your strawman arguments? (Or are you asserting they weren't strawmen?, even though Russia, communism, socialism weren't topics we were talking about - only trade deals, for example!)


Why did Obama initiate a trade deal (and since he didn't apply any tariffs to the EU, it cannot be because of tariff blowback [your premise = the only reason Trump is initiating a trade deal is tariff blowback]).

Given, that Obama cannot have initiated it due to the same premise you used for Trump, can't Trump also be initiating a trade deal for the same reason(s) as Obama?

Also, if* it is the same trade deal, that was started pre-tariff application by Trump - doesn't that make a mockery of your original premise anyway? (That the only reason for Trump doing the deal is blowback from tariffs) - *which due to being 'short on detail' we don't know yet


It looks like a double standard from you and an arbitrary premise, based upon no real hard evidence and/or objective reasoning
There you go, no pictures/emoticons.

Ps.
Where was I being emotional?
Where was I being petulant? (I've called you evasive and reluctant to answer, both of which are fair I believe, if you reread the thread)

Also, you still haven't linked/referred to where I avoided one of your questions, prior to post #15 - were you lying?

[sasguru]

I told you, you were free to clarify your exact position, I had a go based upon inferences from your statements, that didn't make it exactly a wild assertion and leave you to clarify it, since you've not explicitly stated your position yourself on the matter. I said it's immaterial and it generally still is - read on to find out why I think so...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ro-tariff-deal
"short on detail" - so I'm unable to reach a conclusion to your query about continuation of talks or new deal.....

Interesting, that you wait until now in the discussion, to assert they're loaded questions!

Let's remove query #6 from the list then;
4. (If 'No' to the above - query#3), why was Obama doing a deal at all?
5. Can't Trump be doing a deal for the same reasons as Obama tried, rather than due to your premises?


Was I wrong to call out your strawman arguments? (Or are you asserting they weren't strawmen?, even though Russia, communism, socialism weren't topics we were talking about - only trade deals, for example!)


Why did Obama initiate a trade deal (and since he didn't apply any tariffs to the EU, it cannot be because of tariff blowback [your premise = the only reason Trump is initiating a trade deal is tariff blowback]).

Given, that Obama cannot have initiated it due to the same premise you used for Trump, can't Trump also be initiating a trade deal for the same reason(s) as Obama?

Also, if* it is the same trade deal, that was started pre-tariff application by Trump - doesn't that make a mockery of your original premise anyway? (That the only reason for Trump doing the deal is blowback from tariffs) - *which due to being 'short on detail' we don't know yet


It looks like a double standard from you and an arbitrary premise, based upon no real hard evidence and/or objective reasoning
There you go, no pictures/emoticons.

Ps.
Where was I being emotional?
Where was I being petulant? (I've called you evasive and reluctant to answer, both of which are fair I believe, if you reread the thread)

Also, you still haven't linked/referred to where I avoided one of your questions, prior to post #15 - were you lying?

Nurse!

[Bean]

Nurse!

Thanks for that really wonderful contribution to the discussion.

You were asked before, to keep up with the conversation, if you're going to join it.

[sasguru]

Thanks for that really wonderful contribution to the discussion.

You were asked before, to keep up with the conversation, if you're going to join it.

I think WTFH is the only person on here who bothers reading your mentally ill ramblings.
Why, I have no idea.