M
mattiasNYC
Guest
DaveP said:
I am pretty sure though that China watches NK carefully, as the latter seems a bit 'on the edge'.
Donald trump. what is your take on him?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
I am pretty sure though that China watches NK carefully, as the latter seems a bit 'on the edge'.
I will remain consistent in not arguing about me (what I am more impressed by).mattiasNYC said:
I am sure we can find experts on either side of any issue, as a "professional" myself (I work for a living), I don't find much confidence in listening to other professionals from my field. (The expert EE witness that Peavey's patent case lawyer hired, didn't even know what a LTP was.)
My original comment about Israel was pretty much in passing as one of the several examples of President Obama becoming more aggressive in opposing the new incoming president. We are watching history happen. I have never seen a previous administration do this while leaving office. The Clinton administration lowered themselves to sophomoric pranks, (like removing the W keys from keyboards). President Obama is raising this to new heights, stirring the pot on the world stage.
He continues to define his legacy for better or worse.
JR
PS: re: N. Korea, I think Trump should appoint Dennis Rodman ambassador... So they can talk one wing-nut to another. N Korea is holding a US citizen (student) they need to release. They'll probably get a better payday from Pres Obama than Trump (the negotiator).
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
JohnRoberts said:
That's just semantics. Ultimately everything you say stems from your opinion on things. So any comment anyone makes about what you say will ultimately be about your impressions or opinions. It's inescapable.
Like I said; I really feel like asking questions or questioning propositions are met with what simply amounts to a call for proclamations only. Blogging is a better medium for that as comments can be disabled.
JohnRoberts said:
A fair point. But then so what? You argue that Iran is an existential threat according to Israel because the masses supposedly say so. Some people whose job it is to protect the nation seems to feel otherwise. If experts aren't reliable then why would the masses be? If you don't find much confidence in listening to professionals when discussing electronics or topics other than politics, do you find much confidence in listening to laymen? I'm guessing "no", and that you instead listen to far more factual and technical arguments. We could do the same here, but the problem is that we'd likely end up with the same conclusions as the professionals and that most certainly doesn't fit the narrative that Israel faces an existential threat from the evil terrorist-supporting nuclear-weapons-developing bent-on-Israel-nuking Iran.
JohnRoberts said:
Well, as you pointed out, 'one president at a time', and Obama is still the president. I greatly prefer a president doing his best to improve whatever he can as long as he is the president. The reason I questioned your comment in passing on the UN vote and the peace process was simply because it sounded like rhetoric, which back in the mid 90's might have made sense, but after another two decades of settlement expansion just sounds like nonsense. So, I just wanted to make sure you actually believed what you said and that it wasn't something you didn't really think about but said anyway. Now I know.
JohnRoberts said:
You know, I hope, that most of the reports of these pranks were grossly exaggerated if not outright false. There appears to be confirmation that some "w" keys were removed, but beyond that very little else. The contemporaneous media accounts were extremely overstated and inaccurate. (And the investigation cost way more than any actual damage done by staffers.)
Bad visuals indeed. What trump said very correctly, this is not the most important legislation to work on...DaveP said:
This is not so simple... I have written about this before. The real issue is the price for these small cars that Americans are willing to pay. The premise for Trump threatening a "border tax" (AKA tariff) is to make the Mexican built cars expensive enough to justify building them here (using more expensive US labor). The point that everyone is ignoring is that adding a few thousand dollars to the sticker price of these small cars will kill sales numbers. In the past, Detroit was eating the modest loss on US built small cars to help meet fleet mileage averages, making up the cost difference from the more profitable large cars/trucks.
If the government makes it impossible for Detroit to make these small cars cheaply enough to keep consumers happy, guess what, they won't sell enough to meet fleet mileage targets. That will be the next inconvenient discussion between Detroit and the administration, unless they return to the sham (loss leader) pricing.
======
Any old enough to remember when the US government imposed tariffs on small cheap Japanese cars, they responded by a pivot to start making and selling more expensive premium priced cars that could support the tariff that the former small cheap Japanese cars couldn't. Now the Japanese make expensive cars and trucks in factories here (built mostly in non-union factories).
I am a free trade advocate so do not support a "border tax".
I do not support government imposed fleet mileage standards either...
The good news is that this is mostly an opening negotiation with Detroit. They will still make cars in Mexico for international sales, etc. Most car parts makers are there already.
It appears there is a new sheriff in DC... Maybe he can stop at least some of the nonsense there. 8)
JR
DaveP said:
You give him too much credit. People were very unhappy about this move. That had a lot more to do with what happened than anything from Trump. And if you read the narcissist-in-chief's tweets, he only said it was the wrong time to gut the Ethics committee--not that it was a horrible idea, or that it shouldn't be done. Just that now (when people were paying attention) was the wrong time.
Andy Peters
Well-known member
DaveP said:
Except neither of those things are true.
Trump didn't come out in favor of the committee, he just questioned the timing. Since he will be the most ethically-challenged president in the history of this country, naturally he prefers that no such committees exist. He really only cares about "optics." The reality is that the far-right teabagger contingent in the House Republican Caucus decided to flex its muscles and challenge the leadership. Note that the House GOP leaders, especially Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McCarthy, argued against the evisceration of the ethics committee. They, too, likely were thinking about "optics," but they needed to show the caucus who's boss, so the amendment was withdrawn. Do note that Ryan was just re-elected to the Speakership, so he won.
In regards to Ford canceling the plans to build a new small-car factory in Mexico, the reality, from The NY Times: "The new Mexican factory was to build Ford Focus sedans currently manufactured at another Michigan plant near Detroit. Now the company will build those cars at an existing plant in Mexico." Not exactly the victory that Trump is crowing about.
trueAndy Peters said:
speculation
"only" ? I'm shocked that a buffoon would know about "optics". [sober edit- Reality TV star understands optics better than most /edit]
tea bagger...? Do you mean constitutionalists? I might be one but I am not a joiner. (Insert old Groucho Marx joke about not joining any group that would have me. ;D ) [sober edit- tea party movement needs to continue with things like term limits and less intrusive government /edit]
I didn't watch the floor discussion so I'll take your word for it.
[edit the congress needs to follow the same laws they make us follow. How do so many become millionaires? (rhetorical). /edit]
Reality from the NYT... ;D I read the NYT for a year back in the '70s and a little too pink for me. [sober edit- the NYT has broken a few important stories recently but seems to be practicing advocacy rather than unbiased reporting (like a lot of media). Watching government closely (for a change) is their job, so keep that up. Trump should be held to a high standard just like any politician. /edit]
As I already shared the Mexico brouhaha is not so simple, but yes, Ford is expanding operations at another existing Mexican plant, this is all very early stages of a much larger negotiation, and last I checked Trump is still not president yet. The big car companies have been dependent on government largess for decades.. this is early days and they will be as accommodating as they need to be.
[sober edit- at this point it is unclear how to undo Detroit's entanglement with government. Another concern is "peak auto sales" and the tide may finally start going out on low interest rate car loans. If car loans start defaulting this could cascade. They seem to be in a momentary reprieve for now (reporting good sales numbers this week) but there has been too much capacity in that industry for years, and they are flipping some underwater car loans into new car purchases (capitalizing the debt balance). That won't end well while increased inflation might help used car values a little, it will accelerate interest rate increases so a double edged sword.. /edit]
JR
[edit- note to self, post less after beer o'clock... that could be a good NY resolution for me. /edit]
T
tands
Guest
Well,
A. There are too many cars already, capitalism at this point is just feeding consumerism + greed. Without a car, you don't buy more than you can carry.
And,
B. I had no idea they had an ethics commitee, wtf is that for? Coverups? Wetwork?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZQyOrRcoto
A. There are too many cars already, capitalism at this point is just feeding consumerism + greed. Without a car, you don't buy more than you can carry.
And,
B. I had no idea they had an ethics commitee, wtf is that for? Coverups? Wetwork?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZQyOrRcoto
T
tands
Guest
Weaponized fake news can deploy malware, omg.
;D
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/816505977822449664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfI1S0PKJR8
;D
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/816505977822449664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfI1S0PKJR8
This is the reverse of the EU and UK, we all buy small cars and large cars don't sell well here, except some SUV's.
These used to be a bit of a joke until the climate changed and we get "once in 200 years floods" every few years now.
DaveP
iampoor1
Well-known member
DaveP said:
As an American, imaganing the Road not half filled with Trucks and SUVs is almost impossible. ;D
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
iampoor1 said:
Yeah. I recently drove on an Interstate Highway on the west coast for the first time. It was a rental care, and I asked the company if I could get a smaller car than the larger full size that had been reserved for me. The agent said there were indeed smaller full size cars available. I said "No, I mean, like compact or something, a small car." because I'm thinking parking, fuel consumption etc. Took about two minutes to convince the person I was serious and she looked at me like I was a wee bit insane.
I've gotta say though, driving around in a by European standards normal size car wasn't all that fun when on the highway. People passing left and right in big SUVs, pickup trucks etc.... ugh.... felt unsafe...
Americans taste in car size varies with the price of oil (currently around $50 a barrel). Back when oil was between $100-150 a barrel, small cars sold a lot better. In UK and EU taxes on petrol keep the fuel price chronically high and help shift the bias toward small fuel efficient cars.DaveP said:
I believe the F-150 pick-up truck is Ford's best selling SKU, and nowadays made with an aluminum body to reduce weight to improve gas mileage (government fleet mileage standard again). It seems a little crazy to make trucks with aluminum, but consumers are apparently buying them (low interest rate loans help too).
I would prefer to see less government involvement in private business decisions and public markets.
JR
dmp
Well-known member
Unfortunately, we would have seen much worse outcomes for emissions and fuel economy today if government regulation hadn't played a role. You can look up for yourself the decreases in Soot, NOx, SOx, and improvements in fuel economy over the last 30 yrs. Negative outcomes would be health effects (asthma, cancer, acid rain, etc) and higher oil prices due to more demand for the same miles driven.
One of the key hurdles to modern clean and efficient cars was forcing sulphur to be removed from the fuel - as it poisons aftertreatment. This was done by US gov regulation last decade. Would not have happened without the heavy hand of gov
.
In Trump news this week, he insulted a congressman he disagreed with on health reform by calling him a "clown"
It is really astounding that a level of discourse (personal attacks) we prohibit on this forum is being practiced by the Republican President Elect.
Trump has brought this himself - it was apparent during the primary and general election - there is no justification for his behavior and it is an embarrassment to this country.
dmp
Well-known member
Trump didn't do either of those things. Anymore than if he twitter rants that the sun better come up tomorrow morning.
Republican's tried to end the ethics panel that Democrats created in 2008. They reversed course in less than a day because of public outrage and negative media attention. The Republicans weren't able to obfuscate this one with propaganda and distractions.
As to Ford reversing course, 80% of lost manufacturing jobs were due to automation. Blue collar populists shouldn't get too excited.
I think Trump does get credit for showing terrible judgment with his recent comments on US intelligence services. Clapper yesterday called him out for "disparagement". I can only imagine the Republican reaction to a Democrat acting the way Trump has.
and before that they removed lead from gasoline. For the record I said "less" not no. I put seat belts in my car long before they were standard equipment.dmp said:
I feel that the fleet mileage standards for now are excessive and lead to market distortions like building pickup trucks from aluminum, and Detroit taking a loss on small cars trying to improve the average.
If we really want to see better fleet mileage results it is counter productive to force Detroit to build the small cars domestically. Allow them to build them as inexpensively as possible (probably in Mexico) so they can meet market price expectations of small car buyers. The foreign made light trucks (to escape passenger car safety standards) back in the '80s (?) were too cheap to be safe, but modern small passenger cars built in Mexico should be cheap and safe.
I hate raising taxes, but it is crazy that they didn't increase gasoline taxes while oil was so cheap, after the higher gas prices were normalized. We don't need EU high gas taxes, but some extra revenue for infrastructure repairs could be relatively painlessly extracted. (the other elephant in the room for road use taxes is EV.. they need to pay their share.) Congress has been shouted down in the past when they floated assessing road use taxes based on miles driven.
Don't get me started on ethanol, better than mtbe for oxygenation, but not for 10-15%. Basically a farm state boondogle.
Tax subsidies perhaps for small EVs, but why subsidize Tesla's that are rich people's cars.
Have you been following Sen Schumer's public statements? He has taken a particularly aggressive partisan stance considering the vote result.
It is good to see President Obama finally going to capitol hill and meeting with congress , but it seems too little and too late, and too partisan.
yes... and by his detractors. Not a pretty sight to see the president elect repeatedly compared to Hitler. (I thought that was supposed to mark the end of all arguments).
One of many.... I expect more embarrassment to come if everybody involved keeps doing what they are doing now. (But I've been embarrassed for years).
Good luck to us all.
JR
PS: re: the intelligence community after 9/11 there was an effort to harmonize them by adding another layer on top... they seem overly politicized right now and still not well organized, with not enough assets outside the beltway (like assets way outside the beltway). While this discussion is focussed in the realm of politics and trying to explain the unfavorable general election result for now. Trump is getting the Russian hack data today so we'll see if he changes his tone in light of credible evidence. The intelligence community could stand review and re-organization. This hacking is serious and has been going on for years (we hack other nations too). We need a MAD strategy for cyber warfare like nuclear. We do not have that now, so bad actors will keep hacking us until we can made that a bad decison.
dmp
Well-known member
Since I made this comparison I guess I should respond. I said Nixon or Hitler - since the more likely immediate problem Trump faces is illegal meddling in the election. If any direct connection to him or his cronies comes out .
But as to Hitler, I actually meant it seriously. Based on the early rise of Nazism in the 1930s. It started as a populist economic movement driven by heavy economic sanctions imposed by the victors of WWI and high unemployment in Germany.
Hitler used scapegoating to rally his supporters and unite them behind him by turning their anger and frustration on particular groups of people. He also was extremely emotional and angry in rallies promoting his rise to power.
And at what point does a historical comparison become an insult? Can you compare someone to Karl Marx? Economics of Venezuela? etc etc
Really though I am hoping to be ahead of the curve, so the modified Godwin's law will be named after me.
Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"
dmp's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Trump approaches 1"
Sure, this article has a lot of his statements:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/sen-schumer-gop-plan-would-create-health-care-chaos.html
If you have a better source I'd be happy to read it. Not sure what is objectionable or out of the norm, unless you have a double standard for Democrats and Republicans. The highly partisan stance of Republican's over the last 6 yrs has been pretty obvious in my opinion. Plenty of objection and negativity towards Obama.
There is a distinction between personal insults and heated policy discussions. Calling someone a "clown" is clearly a personal attack. You and I have clear, strong disagreements on politics, but if I call you a "clown" for disagreeing with me on health care politics, you would consider it a personal attack I think. A "clown" doesn't have any justifiable context.
I think we all should be able to agree that Trump is lowering the standard of politics in a really sad way and it is an embarrassment to the country.
I can see that comparison working for the likes of Kim Jong-Un, but not Trump.
The Germans were in dire straights by 1930, some Americans may be, but the vast majority are comparatively rich.
Unemployment in today's US is under 5%, but in Germany in 1930 it was 15.3%.
The Jews had been persecuted for decades in lots of eastern European countries, for no good reason other than they were left wing and religious prejudice. There is no comparable scapegoat, not even Muslims or Mexicans come close to that level of blind hatred.
Most Americans will have grandfathers who fought against Nazi Germany, I do not believe that this present generation will trash that collective memory.
At the time, the full horror of Hitlers intentions were unknown and unforeseen, nowadays we have that knowledge and people like yourself, regularly remind us (not a bad thing) so I don't think that a more savvy aware public could be hoodwinked today.
The only downside of comparing Trump to Hitler is that it frightens gullible people who do not have the historical background knowledge and perspective to make the judgement on their own, but I don't think that applies to people on this forum.
DaveP
