Summations Only

John McTee is out over security clearance but just moved to a campaign position.Tillerson hears he's out from il Donald hours after il Donald twits his magic twitter.Edited by jar, : hit wrong key

McEntee's security clearance issue involves being investigated by Homeland Security for serious financial crimes. He was fired and thrown out on the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue sidewalk.[1] Why is Trump having this guy join his campaign?[1] Some hyperbola intended.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is probably like choosing a lawyer. Do you want to hire a lawyer with the highest of moral values, or do you want a good lawyer?

It appears to me that he is a perfect member of the conspiracy to re-elect the largest criminal enterprise ever to reside in the Whitehouse.

There are at least several articles about this, but this one's from the Washington Post: In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin TrudeauIn a meeting with Trudeau Trump claims Trudeau was wrong about who had a trade deficit with who. The conversation went like this:

quote:

---

Trudeau came to see me. He’s a good guy, Justin. He said, ‘No, no, we have no trade deficit with you, we have none. Donald, please,’ Trump said, mimicking Trudeau, according to audio of the private event in Missouri obtained by The Washington Post. Nice guy, good-looking guy, comes in ‘Donald, we have no trade deficit.’ He’s very proud because everybody else, you know, we’re getting killed.

​

... So, he’s proud. I said, ‘Wrong, Justin, you do.’ I didn’t even know. ... I had no idea. I just said, ‘You’re wrong.’ You know why? Because we’re so stupid. And I thought they were smart. I said, ‘You’re wrong, Justin.’ He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’ I sent one of our guys out, his guy, my guy, they went out, I said, ‘Check, because I can’t believe it.’

​

‘Well, sir, you’re actually right. We have no deficit, but that doesn’t include energy and timber. And when you do, we lose $17 billion a year.’ It’s incredible.

​

The Office of the United States Trade Representative says the United States has a trade surplus with Canada.

---

Summarizing, Trump's and Trudeau's guys go off and figure out who has the deficit, and Trump says that once energy and timber is taken into account that the US runs a deficit with Canada. The Post says that the Office of the United States Trade Representative says the US runs a surplus with Canada. But does that take energy and timber into account? Is energy and timber some special category between the US and Canada by which we agree not to count it in trade figures?Whatever direction the deficit runs, it is small by the standards of countries, in the $0-20 billion range. My guess is that which direction the deficit runs varies with fluctuating oil and gas prices. When the price of oil is high the US runs a deficit, when low Canada runs a deficit.My further guess is that the $17 billion/year deficit Trump claims we're running with Canada is the figure based on the price of oil that day and then annualized.If I've got this right then Trump is going to run to our various trading partners claiming ill treatment every time the price of some commodity we sell them or they sell us changes in a direction unfavorable to us. What a way to run a country!--Percy

It seems to be more nuanced than that. Which is unusual when talking about Trump.From the figures I have seen Trump is right if he’s only talking about trade in goods for 2017. Trade in services had a surplus, which claws back about a third of that (I think).For 2016 the surplus in services was actually larger than the deficit in goods, so the U.S. had an overall surplus that year.However, this figure seems to be historically quite low. In 2007 the deficit in goods was $68 billion.

Found some more information. This is from U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services January 2018. I assume this is the latest month for which figures are available (Canada is 4th from last in the list):

quote:

---

The January figures show surpluses, in billions of dollars, with Hong Kong ($2.6), South and Central America ($2.4), Singapore ($0.9), Brazil ($0.5), and United Kingdom ($0.3). Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China ($35.5), European Union ($15.0), Germany ($6.3), Mexico ($5.6), Japan ($5.6), Italy ($2.8), OPEC ($2.5), India ($1.8), Taiwan ($1.5), Canada ($1.5), South Korea ($1.5), France ($1.4), and Saudi Arabia ($0.6).

---

Naturally Trump doubled down on his lie earlier today, tweeting:

quote:

---

We do have a Trade Deficit with Canada, as we do with almost all countries (some of them massive). P.M. Justin Trudeau of Canada, a very good guy, doesn’t like saying that Canada has a Surplus vs. the U.S.(negotiating), but they do...they almost all do...and that’s how I know!

---

--Percy

Actually, this level of dishonesty is worse than lying. Trump admitted to his donors that he had no idea whether we have a deficit with Canada when he was meeting with Trudeau. Given that he planned ahead of time to meet with Trudeau and to discuss the matter, not knowing the answer was absolutely asinine. The facts are that we have little to no trade imbalance with Canada, and Trudeau is well aware of that fact. Who is Trump laughing at? He did not fool anyone.And then there is the quoted paragraph, where Trump comes up with some stupid reasoning in lieu of just checking the facts. Most countries have a surplus so therefore, Canada has one? Except that they don't.A flat-out lie would be far more acceptable than this. Trump tried to buffoon his way through the meeting with Trudeau and then elected to brag about his own idiocy. And to what end? What does he think he accomplished? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

He is attempting to demonstrate (once again) that there is no act, no insult, no betrayal, no total disregard of ethics and integrity, that the GOP and his supporters will not accept. He is steadily leading them down a path of accepting more and more outrageous behavior......."hmmmmmm, President for life, maybe we'll have to try that some day."I saw my grandkids (12 & 17) last week and it was interesting to see that they know that Presidents should not act like this. They seem embarrassed by Trump and puzzled about why behaves this way. My Granddaughter, 12 yo, mimicked him, but boasting about "how stupid he is." It was insightful to see their awareness of Trump, I never expected it.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the decision to fire McMaster has been made.Is it possible that il Donald does not understand that it is not necessary to fire one apprentice every week?Is it Jeff Sessions for the next episode?And according to the NY Times, Donald Trump Jr. is getting his walking papers as well.Edited by jar, : add lil donald

It's difficult to complain about the folks being fired.Trump's staffing has been an absolute disaster. McMaster was actually one of his better choices. But the overwhelming majority of the folks that are now gone should never have been anywhere near the White House.And there is still a boatload of horrendous picks. Ben Carson and Betsy Devos[1] come to mind along with that joke of a financial advisor, Larry Kudlow that was just hired. Kudlow's most famous economic prediction is his late 2007 insistence that everything was okay.When folks like this are hired, you almost have to give Trump some credit for kicking them out the door. At least you would if he had not picked them in the first place.[1] Not to ignore Sessions, Pruitt, or Perry but Carson and Devos each have a charm all their own.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

John Dowd, leading Trump’s team dealing with the Mueller probe has resigned. BBC

Thanks Paul. Here is my favorite part of the article. About a week ago, Trump tweeted thusly:

quote:

---

The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job and

---

Then several days later Down is gone because Trump does not like his advice. "VERY happy" with his lawyers? ROFL. In other news, apparently other lawyers have turned down the opportunity to advise the president. Now why would any right thinking lawyer turn down the opportunity of a lifetime?http://thehill.com/...top-law-firms-turned-down-trump-reportReally? Representing the president might damage your reputation? Who would have thought that?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is an even bigger reason to turn down il Donald mentioned in your link.

quote:

---

The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’ one lawyer close to the White House told Yahoo.

---

Only a fool works for a client that won't pay.

Not necessarily. If the case gets your name in the news AND you have a good chance of winning, then it may be worth it to take on a client who won't pay so that you can't get better clients in the future. However, if the client won't pay AND makes you look bad, then it definitely isn't worth it.