Summations Only

Just speaking about Canada, I would note the following.1. The US does not have a trade deficit with Canada. Trump has stopped claiming that this is the case after he bragged about making a bogus accusation of such during a meeting with Trudeau.2. Both the US and Canada have in the past accused the other of protectionism, and both states have implemented tariffs while complaining about the other. Trump currently cites the tariffs that Canada applies to imported dairy products but does not mention our tariffs on lumber products. Both countries give government subsidies to their agricultural sectors. Without a doubt, there is protectionism on both sides.3. The accusations that Trudeau somehow stabbed Trump in the back is patently ridiculous. Trudeau's response to US tariffs predates the G7 meeting.With respect to Europe? Well, Europe is not a country, and I have to admit to being clueless about the state of trade between the individual countries involved. However, comments like, "There are too many German cars in the US" are complete horse ca-ca. An imbalance in trade in a single commodity does not mean necessarily mean that Americans are losing. In part, it indicates that Americans buy more stuff than Europeans buy because they have a bit more money. In another part, it is an indication of whose cars are seen to be a better value. Making great cars is not an unfair trade practice. And it is more than useless to pick out one industry without noting whatever advantages that the US has in other sectors. Americans sell lots of cigarettes. Yet we strongly discourage our own population from smoking.Even if we decide that it is better not that we not trade with Europe because it costs American jobs, that does not make our allies evil. It makes them businessmen who we want to deal with less. The tenor of the comments by Trump as well as the "special place in Hell" comment from Navarro are completely out of place. For those tempted to defend Navarro, please note that he has already apologized.I'll further note that if you let Trump tell it. Apparently, North Korea and Russia are our buddies while France, Germany, and Canada are enemies who might want to burn the White House again. Surely, that isn't correct.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am guessing that there will not be a need to do this. It may well be that Trump simply stops coming. This time he arrived late, missed a bunch of stuff on purpose, and then left early. What's next?

quote:

---

The lawsuit alleges that the foundation paid $100,000 (75,000) to settle legal claims against Mr Trump's Mar-A-Lago resort, $158,000 to settle claims against one of his golf clubs, and $10,000 to purchase a painting of Mr Trump to hang at another of his golf clubs.

---

If these things are proven to be true, I still don't believe a single Republican member of Congress would give a rat's ass about what is obviously criminal activity.

That area turns out to affect nearly 2/3 of the population of the US.

Unfortunately, most of those immigrants south of the border are brown folks who are hated and feared by large segments of Republican voters. The obvious solution is simply socially unacceptable to them, and their elected leaders run things.After having to back down from snatching babies from the teats of their moms, Trump's rhetoric has become increasingly stark and hateful, with the racism covered by ever thinner layers of reason. If the 2018 elections turn out to favor Trump and his allies, I fear that any hope for solutions to our aging population problem will simply be gone.

"a moderate conservative Justice will be replaced a hard right winger - chosen more for politics than for anything else."Confirmation is a strictly Senate process. I hold out no hope that Democrats will have any input. Ah, what could have been...

No, not paying the fee isn't an indication that the service is too dear, particularly when the alternative is to let someone else pay.

Yes. I meant that the price was too high. Except this is not the choice. The union negotiates as best they can. But non-union folks can now get the same deal for nothing. If they are long-sighted they may take into account that the union may fall if they don't pay, but they might act out of other motives and rely on other folks paying.So there is no implication by not paying that the service is not worthwhile. That is, of course, one possibility, but not paying is not evidence that the service is not worthwhile.

Nothing significant will change. The next dude will likely promote the same environmental/corporate policies that Pruitt did but will be a bit less of a crook. On the other hand, for all of his corruptness, Pruitt did not really steal all of that much. I don't expect that the access of corporate interests to the EPA will decline all or that there will be an increase in transparency.

Yikes. Talk about cherry picking...Let's start with the most basic statement of faith and grace from Trump. Trump has stated that he does not regret not asking God for forgiveness for his sins. If you can find some way to make a Christian out of someone who departs from the absolute sine qua non of Christianity, well, I for one am not interested in debating the issue with you here. Right. I wonder what version it is that you would discuss?

This is your favorite argument. "I don't remember it, so let's assume it did not happen." I knew we'd see it again. Why does bigotry have to affect me personally? Republicans and Democrats do appear to view bigotry quite differently. For left-leaning folk, bigotry is disqualifying for a public official. For right-leaning folks, at least based on you as the example, the response is to deflect and talk about the bigotry of others.I'll have to admit that I can understand some of your points here. If Trump is delivering what you want, then your support is quite understandable. But I am also seeing from you, "well Obama did it too", I'd have to point out that you did not support Obama when he did those things.I appreciate the time you took to respond. And despite my picking at what I see as the least well-supported parts of your response, there is plenty here to think about. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If they make decisions in this way, they are idiots. We know for a fact that Obama, for example, regularly took breaks to play basketball during the day and returned to work. For Trump, we are talking about riding around on a golf cart. No comparison.But that is beside the point. What you are doing is throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. If you are going to make the claim, you should vet it yourself and not rely on memory when you don't even check. It's just plain lazy.ABE:I re-read your original statement and I see that the idea that Trump returned to work after his workout is just something you guessed at without having any indication. That is even worse than lazy. It's flat out dishonest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

marc9000's contribution is very informative. There is some meat in there, but for the most part, 9K confirms my worst expectations. Let me cite an example here: What 9K says here is that whatever he decides is distortion, and his criteria is easily revealed to be subjective and leaning towards whatever he already believes, is fake news. I don't know what would be a more substantial confirmation that the concept of fake news is fairly close to anything he believes isn't correct.And how else could it be? How else can people buy into that "would" vs "wouldn't" explanation that Trump gave yesterday. An explanation that covered one sentence out of a speech full of throwing the FBI/CIA under the bus in Helsinki followed by doing exactly the same thing later on Hannity's show? How does one double negative explain all of that? Easy. The other reporting is fake even if we all saw Trump making those statements, it's all fake.

Most voters did not vote for Trump. But your point is well taken. Quibbling about whether Trump is a mistake by 49 or 51 percent of Americans is not much defense against a pretty damning indictment.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

For whatever this is worth, I know lots of fundamentalists, by which I mean folks who have similar Biblical beliefs to those expressed by Faith. Not a single one of those fundamentalists voted for Trump or supports him now.My point here is that this stuff we are hearing is not required by Christianity. Instead what we are seeing is a bunch of Christians who are willing to emphasize those parts of their religious beliefs that align with their politics. marc9000 made a classic statement along these lines when he accused folks of "cherry picking" when they emphasize what Jesus taught rather than the lessons of the Old Testament. I am reminded of Conservapedia's effort to write their own Bible so that it excludes things not favored by conservatives such as the "let him cast the first stone" story.I am of the belief that many folks will find that the Kingdom of God as talked about by Jesus is a bit too socialist for their liking.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.