Trump's Trade War

[retread 2951]

 

[Post Oak 20184]

12 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Actually the more I think of it, the more I think the framework is a deal almost everyone would be ok with. This is with the caveats that we don’t know the enforcement mechanisms or the terms of the final signed deal.

The negative is an unknown increase in the cost of goods produced in Mexico that would be felt to some extent by consumers here. This is offset by American relative competitive advantage gained by imposing more stringent labor and environmental standards on our trading partners.

What part of that are Democrats upset with? 

Who is upset by that deal, besides strict free trade advocates? People upset that Trump is going to sign it? 

I’m interested to hear the beefs with it. There are people here who definitely know more about the past deals and how this compares than me, but seems like mostly positive.

Andrew Feinberg

 

@AndrewFeinberg

 

JUST NOW:

@stevenmnuchin1

can’t cite a single specific example of how the proposed US-Mexico trade deal would benefit consumers. Won’t speculate as to whether stricter labor requirements will result in higher auto prices.

7:26 AM · Aug 28, 2018

[wildcat09 29234]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Wow. That's a good one. Can you do the labor supportive sections too?

I lean more toward that's he's aware of these and fine with them. Imposing regulations on our trading partners that we already cover, or are closer to covering currently, gives us a competitive advantage. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems pretty simple. It's analogous IMO to established companies embracing more regulation because they can handle it and their smaller competitors have more trouble bearing the cost.

From the fact sheet presented it seems like a good deal.  I'll be interested to hear what we gave up as well as any other criticisms.

 

I too like to pretend that I'm a smart person by saying insanely stupid shit online.

[F250 28681]

It looks like Americans have become more Pro-Trade since Trump began his populist campaign against trade.

"While recent polls show that American views of President Trump’s performance on trade are divided along partisan affiliations, the just-completed 2018 Chicago Council Survey finds that the largest majorities of Americans yet recorded say that trade is good for the US economy, US consumers, and US job creation. In addition, a growing majority believe that NAFTA is good for the US economy, and six in ten approve of US participation in a renewed Trans-Pacific trade agreement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/outlook/2018/08/27/populist-revolt-against-trade-liberalization-is-over-trump-killed-it/

[American Swindle 102]

16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Because of stupidity like this:

A good chunk of "we the people" need to learn some shit.  And it seems that the only way to learn certain lessons for certain folks is to actually touch the hot stove.  Am I happy that they just burned their hands?  Not particularly.  Am I happy that, by burning their hands, MAYBE they're learning that touching the hot stove is a stupid fucking thing to do?  Yep.

 

The lesson here is that Tariffs do not work, whether it be Obama, Bush, or Trump. Personally, I feel the binary system we have now just pits us against each other and we miss the lesson all together.  The big picture lesson is that governments cannot intervene in the free market without distorting it, thus creating higher prices.  But no, that's not the fashionable thing to do....we have to call the President every name in the book and show glee that his supporters (and I bet non-supporters) are hurting because some of his poor policy choices. 

It would be different if you guys were getting to the heart of the matter, but the divisive rhetoric and constant Trump bashing really drives a wedge between all of us.  

 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

Andrew Feinberg

 

@AndrewFeinberg

 

JUST NOW:

@stevenmnuchin1

can’t cite a single specific example of how the proposed US-Mexico trade deal would benefit consumers. Won’t speculate as to whether stricter labor requirements will result in higher auto prices.

7:26 AM · Aug 28, 2018

Like he’s not for it, or they asked him how it helps consumers and didn’t give anything specific?

[Brisketexan 104589]

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

The lesson here is that Tariffs do not work, whether it be Obama, Bush, or Trump. Personally, I feel the binary system we have now just pits us against each other and we miss the lesson all together.  The big picture lesson is that governments cannot intervene in the free market without distorting it, thus creating higher prices.  But no, that's not the fashionable thing to do....we have to call the President every name in the book and show glee that his supporters (and I bet non-supporters) are hurting because some of his poor policy choices. 

It would be different if you guys were getting to the heart of the matter, but the divisive rhetoric and constant Trump bashing really drives a wedge between all of us.  

 

OR....it circles back to folks NOT supporting such interference with trade until 1) they joined Cult 45, and 2) the Cult leader told them that tariffs were good, and trade wars were easy to win.  People believe this bullshit BECAUSE OF who said it.  So, the "who said it" is pretty damned germane.

I've never been a fan of extensive government intervention in the market (I use the word "extensive" because there always has been and always should be some regulatory checks on trade -- we don't let folks import chinese dinner plates made with lead, for example, and we have anti-dumping mechanisms (esp. through the WTO) to ensure some fairness in the market).  I have long known that squeezing the balloon in one place makes it bulge in another, and that can be a painful unintended consequence.  But these new fans of "tariffs are good, and trade wars are easy!" need to learn that, too.  And we have demonstrated amply that we only learn such lessons the hard way.  So be it.

Touch the stove.  After you do that, then we can talk about what many of us have been saying all along -- it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future.  I suspect they'll be more receptive of that message as they ice down their burned hand.

[American Swindle 102]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

OR....it circles back to folks NOT supporting such interference with trade until 1) they joined Cult 45, and 2) the Cult leader told them that tariffs were good, and trade wars were easy to win.  People believe this bullshit BECAUSE OF who said it.  So, the "who said it" is pretty damned germane.

I've never been a fan of extensive government intervention in the market (I use the word "extensive" because there always has been and always should be some regulatory checks on trade -- we don't let folks import chinese dinner plates made with lead, for example, and we have anti-dumping mechanisms (esp. through the WTO) to ensure some fairness in the market).  I have long known that squeezing the balloon in one place makes it bulge in another, and that can be a painful unintended consequence.  But these new fans of "tariffs are good, and trade wars are easy!" need to learn that, too.  And we have demonstrated amply that we only learn such lessons the hard way.  So be it.

Touch the stove.  After you do that, then we can talk about what many of us have been saying all along -- it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future.  I suspect they'll be more receptive of that message as they ice down their burned hand.

I agree with most of this, but if you are on the right side of the argument, then trying to persuade the other side by berating them with what seems like condescending vitriol is not the way to go about it in my opinion.  

So what I see is this:

Person Touching the stove: "Ooh Hot!"  

Person A's Response: "you dumb ass mawfucker, didn't you know it was hot?  Maybe you're dumbass will think next time!" Inner Monologue: (That'll teach that dumbfuck) 

Person B's Response: "it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future"

 

Now which response do you think will get the person touching the hot stove to actually not touch the stove next go round?  IMO, there are many out there that would touch it again to spite Person A. 

 

[Foosters 17730]

2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I agree with most of this, but if you are on the right side of the argument, then trying to persuade the other side by berating them with what seems like condescending vitriol is not the way to go about it in my opinion.  

So what I see is this:

Person Touching the stove: "Ooh Hot!"  

Person A's Response: "you dumb ass mawfucker, didn't you know it was hot?  Maybe you're dumbass will think next time!" Inner Monologue: (That'll teach that dumbfuck) 

Person B's Response: "it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future"

 

Now which response do you think will get the person touching the hot stove to actually not touch the stove next go round?  IMO, there are many out there that would touch it again to spite Person A. 

 

Treating them like children actually does make a lot of sense. Thanks for the tip.

[seven 1366]

6 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I agree with most of this, but if you are on the right side of the argument, then trying to persuade the other side by berating them with what seems like condescending vitriol is not the way to go about it in my opinion.  

So what I see is this:

Person Touching the stove: "Ooh Hot!"  

Person A's Response: "you dumb ass mawfucker, didn't you know it was hot?  Maybe you're dumbass will think next time!" Inner Monologue: (That'll teach that dumbfuck) 

Person B's Response: "it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future"

 

Now which response do you think will get the person touching the hot stove to actually not touch the stove next go round?  IMO, there are many out there that would touch it again to spite Person A. 

 

If you touch a hot stove AGAIN to spite someone for calling you a dumbass for touching it in the first place, then yes you are irredeemable.  Hopefully the state would take any children under your care away from you. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I agree with most of this, but if you are on the right side of the argument, then trying to persuade the other side by berating them with what seems like condescending vitriol is not the way to go about it in my opinion.  

So what I see is this:

Person Touching the stove: "Ooh Hot!"  

Person A's Response: "you dumb ass mawfucker, didn't you know it was hot?  Maybe you're dumbass will think next time!" Inner Monologue: (That'll teach that dumbfuck) 

Person B's Response: "it'll burn you, and it should be avoided in the future"

 

Now which response do you think will get the person touching the hot stove to actually not touch the stove next go round?  IMO, there are many out there that would touch it again to spite Person A. 

 

This isn't a Trump voter outreach board, and I'm not here to persuade them of anything.   The handful of Trump cultists here don't make a shit aside from being an amusing curiosity.   No, I don't think D candidates or the Democratic Party should insult Trump voters, even if those insults are deserved.   It would be counterproductive.   That doesn't have much relevance to discussions on this board, which don't have the impact on elections that you seem to think they do. 

[American Swindle 102]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

This isn't a Trump voter outreach board, and I'm not here to persuade them of anything.   The handful of Trump cultists here don't make a shit aside from being an amusing curiosity.   No, I don't think D candidates or the Democratic Party should insult Trump voters, even if those insults are deserved.   It would be counterproductive.   That doesn't have much relevance to discussions on this board, which don't have the impact on elections that you seem to think they do. 

I know it's not an outreach for Trump supporters, but the online world does manifest itself in the real world in my opinion.   If both sides are constantly talking shit to each other and not focusing on the substance of each issue, then we are just going to keep going round and round on the Team-Party-Tribe-Politics Tilt-A Whirl getting fed turd sandwiches time and time again.  

It Is what it is. Everyone's a badass online I guess.   

[Brisketexan 104589]

8 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I know it's not an outreach for Trump supporters, but the online world does manifest itself in the real world in my opinion.   If both sides are constantly talking shit to each other and not focusing on the substance of each issue, then we are just going to keep going round and round on the Team-Party-Tribe-Politics Tilt-A Whirl getting fed turd sandwiches time and time again.  

It Is what it is. Everyone's a badass online I guess.   

My position -- the substance of the issue -- is that you shouldn't touch a hot stove, because it will burn you.  That's the team-neutral position.

It's not my fault that we have tens of millions of people on "Team touch the hot stove because an orange man told us to," and who THEN celebrate their burns as owning the libs.  But I'M the team/tribe guy?  Ok then.  You're right, we'll never get anywhere, because merely taking a position contrary to that of Cult 45 automatically brands me as a "libtard hur dur."  The issue is that there IS NO POINT IN ARGUING ANYTHING WITH THESE PEOPLE.  It simply can't be done.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Biff Tannen 45492]

15 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I know it's not an outreach for Trump supporters, but the online world does manifest itself in the real world in my opinion.   If both sides are constantly talking shit to each other and not focusing on the substance of each issue, then we are just going to keep going round and round on the Team-Party-Tribe-Politics Tilt-A Whirl getting fed turd sandwiches time and time again.  

It Is what it is. Everyone's a badass online I guess.   

The issues have no substance.  It's all fear based.  That's it.  

[Mojo Hand 4580]

21 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I know it's not an outreach for Trump supporters, but the online world does manifest itself in the real world in my opinion.   If both sides are constantly talking shit to each other and not focusing on the substance of each issue, then we are just going to keep going round and round on the Team-Party-Tribe-Politics Tilt-A Whirl getting fed turd sandwiches time and time again.  

It Is what it is. Everyone's a badass online I guess.   

And in my opinion, the real problem is that both sides nonsense.   That's what normalized a candidate like Trump and ultimately got him elected.  We're not on the politics carousel you describe.   We flew right off of it.  It's looking damn good right now compared to what we've got. And if you think talking shit about the other side is some new devolution in politics, you have a lot of history to read up on.  It's been there from before we were even an independent country, and far worse than now. Since you're blushing at this mild criticism, the shit that the major opposing sides said about each other in the 1700s and 1800s would make you shit your pants.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, American Swindle said:

I know it's not an outreach for Trump supporters, but the online world does manifest itself in the real world in my opinion.   If both sides are constantly talking shit to each other and not focusing on the substance of each issue, then we are just going to keep going round and round on the Team-Party-Tribe-Politics Tilt-A Whirl getting fed turd sandwiches time and time again.  

It Is what it is. Everyone's a badass online I guess.   

Fuck you boot licker. The second Trump gains ultimate power, using the tactic of fear which is what he always uses and falls back on, is the day “both sides” get shoved to the side and your dear leader’s side becomes “the truth.”

Just in case you were too stupid to notice trump doesn’t give a shit about “the issues.” The people both in the real word and on the net can’t say enough shit about a guy like that and a guy like you that succumb to and support that. 

So let me be a little more clear, FUCK YOU. 

[American Swindle 102]

14 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Fuck you boot licker. The second Trump gains ultimate power, using the tactic of fear which is what he always uses and falls back on, is the day “both sides” get shoved to the side and your dear leader’s side becomes “the truth.”

Just in case you were too stupid to notice trump doesn’t give a shit about “the issues.” The people both in the real word and on the net can’t say enough shit about a guy like that and a guy like you that succumb to and support that. 

So let me be a little more clear, FUCK YOU. 

You seem hinged.  I've criticized Trump on this Trade War with China already so I don't get the vitriol.  This only highlights my point that guys like you on the web that talk shit like this only motivate the other side to spite you (or what they see as the cultish Left).  

Trump sucks balls in a lot of ways my man, so go take your prozac and have a coke and a smile.  

 

[GRHorn 105]

15 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Fuck you boot licker. The second Trump gains ultimate power, using the tactic of fear which is what he always uses and falls back on, is the day “both sides” get shoved to the side and your dear leader’s side becomes “the truth.”

Just in case you were too stupid to notice trump doesn’t give a shit about “the issues.” The people both in the real word and on the net can’t say enough shit about a guy like that and a guy like you that succumb to and support that. 

So let me be a little more clear, FUCK YOU. 

Congrats.  You’ve reached Jimmy Jazz/Brisket levels.  Go fly a kite or something. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 hours ago, American Swindle said:

You seem hinged.  I've criticized Trump on this Trade War with China already so I don't get the vitriol.  This only highlights my point that guys like you on the web that talk shit like this only motivate the other side to spite you (or what they see as the cultish Left).  

Trump sucks balls in a lot of ways my man, so go take your prozac and have a coke and a smile.  

 

You mean unhinged, but whatever.

If you criticized trump before I’m sure it was totally mild and designed to cover up the fact that you support whatever that idiot does. It’s ok, I realize its either your job or your complete defieciency in intellect. It’s not personal. Just take it for what it is. You’re a troll who contributes nothing to the board, and I’m kind of sorry  (eh not really) that I call you on that. Mea culpa. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Congrats.  You’ve reached Jimmy Jazz/Brisket levels.  Go fly a kite or something. 

Thanks. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

So called Trumkins on the net think people who supported Reagon and the two Bush presidents are ”the left.” Actually, its really just a bunch of Russian paid trolls were talking to. The vast majority of Trump supporters don’t post on the internet, except for facebook idiots and Russian paid trolls. 

[HenryJames 65889]

 

[Biff Tannen 45492]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

Soooooo what does that mean?

[Lurch 5921]

Soooooo what does that mean?

Tariff is eliminated because there is no national security threat allowing him to unilaterally impose it.

[American Swindle 102]

14 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

You mean unhinged, but whatever.

If you criticized trump before I’m sure it was totally mild and designed to cover up the fact that you support whatever that idiot does. It’s ok, I realize its either your job or your complete defieciency in intellect. It’s not personal. Just take it for what it is. You’re a troll who contributes nothing to the board, and I’m kind of sorry  (eh not really) that I call you on that. Mea culpa. 

While you're right to assume I meant you were unhinged, you're wrong to assume that I support for whatever Trump does.  It's okay, I forgive you.  

[American Swindle 102]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Soooooo what does that mean?

 

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

This is a good thing, the cronyism of Trump and that equity firm remind me of the cronyism that lead to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.  Using government to protect corporate interests is bullshit.  

[zork 629]

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-says-it-is-willing-to-scrap-car-tariffs-in-us-trade-deal/

Is this good?

Quote

Brussels is willing to scrap tariffs on all industrial products, including cars, in its trade talks with the United States, EU trade chief Cecilia Malmström said Thursday.

“We said that we are ready from the EU side to go to zero tariffs on all industrial goods, of course if the U.S. does the same, so it would be on a reciprocal basis,” Malmström told the European Parliament’s trade committee.

“We are willing to bring down even our car tariffs down to zero … if the U.S. does the same,” she said, adding that “it would be good for us economically, and for them.”

...

[BLKNSTY 289]

https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2018/08/dispatches-from-the-trade-wars.html

 

Great article from UI aka Libtard/Librul/Snowflake University on how much we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Bilateral trade deals with tariff reductions front and center are being executed left and right between any countries not named the US. Seems like everyone is stalling us out while they go behind our back, and you know, actually get shit done. 

Nice little insight there on the TPP. Fucking retarded to up and leave that deal. We literally spent millions of man hours putting this deal together on paper, which anyone who has been in business knows is the actual fucking hard part, and gave it to Japan for a big fat zero. 

We've ostracized ourselves from the Far East, the Greater Pacific, the EU, and North America. I sure hope we can get stuff in place with India, the Arabs (oil excluded, cause shale's hot, hot, hot), and the other shithole countries. 

Just fucking dumb. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by BLKNSTY

[elfenix 34171]

5 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-says-it-is-willing-to-scrap-car-tariffs-in-us-trade-deal/

Is this good?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

 

we were already working on this shit!  you don't get credit for badly taping grandma's candy dish back together after you intentionally fucking break it!

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

 

we were already working on this shit!  you don't get credit for badly taping grandma's candy dish back together after you intentionally fucking break it!

Free trade is good.  

[F250 28681]

6 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-says-it-is-willing-to-scrap-car-tariffs-in-us-trade-deal/

Is this good?

Trump just shot it down.

[American Swindle 102]

23 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-says-it-is-willing-to-scrap-car-tariffs-in-us-trade-deal/

Is this good?

It would almost appear Trump is not for Free Trade, but for protecting the US Auto Manufacturing Industry.  Totally opposite of what he did scrapping the TPP (which was a good move imo.) 

[Lurch 5921]

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

Uh, This seems like a really stupid thing to say

 

Quote

“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal ... I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.

In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.

“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg. He deemed them off the record, and Bloomberg accepted his request not to reveal them.

TOP STORIES. IN YOUR INBOX: For the week’s top stories in politics from the Star’s award-winning journalists, sign up for our ‘This week in politics’ newsletter.

But the Star is not bound by any promises Bloomberg made to Trump. And the remarks immediately became a factor in the negotiations: Trudeau’s officials, who saw them as evidence for their previous suspicions that Trump’s team had not been bargaining in good faith, raised them at the beginning of a meeting with their U.S. counterparts on Friday morning, a U.S. source confirmed.

 

[retread 2951]

Make enemies of allies. Be best!

[swraith 336]

What is Canada’s downside to walking away from these talks and completely ignoring Trump’s arbiter deadline?

[F250 28681]

30 minutes ago, swraith said:

What is Canada’s downside to walking away from these talks and completely ignoring Trump’s arbiter deadline?

I'm not sure but I think all of this needs to pass through Congress before anything can be done.

The supply chain for the auto industry between Mexico, US, and Canada is pretty intertwined there will be a lot of negative consequences for what Trump is pushing. I think enough congressman would be under pressure to stop Trump from making any serious changes.

Canada might call Trump's bluff but then again Trump would probably not have any issues shooting the U.S. economy in the dick. He is famous for being terrible with other people's money.

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28708]

2 hours ago, Lurch said:

 

Trump, of course, is known for both dishonesty and for bragging about his own greatness, and he regularly makes dubious claims about how he is supposedly dominating the begging people on the other side of the bargaining table from him. When he claimed to have made no compromises, it is distinctly possible he was making a false claim to impress the Bloomberg journalists.

As always, we have to consider the possibility that the president was simply lying. 

[retread 2951]

Quote

President Trump had better hope Canada’s foreign affairs minister signs off on the trade deal that Trump agreed on with Mexico, because that deal will never take effect without Canada.

Neither the current Congress nor the next one, which will vote on any trade agreement the administration signs, will accept a US-Mexico trade agreement that excludes Canada.

The United States and Mexico reached what it called a “preliminary agreement in principle” on revisions to the North American Free Trade Agreement on Monday. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland flew immediately to Washington to look over the agreement to ensure that it’s good for Canada, and to try to negotiate changes if it isn’t. Trump said Monday that if Canada doesn’t get on board, he will submit the bilateral agreement with Mexico to Congress for ratification and forget about Canada.

There are many reasons why that would never work.

First, the Trade Promotion Authority Congress extended for three years in July is based on the administration’s statement that it intended to re-negotiate NAFTA as a trilateral agreement. If the administration submits to Congress a US-Mexico free trade agreement and leaves Canada out in the cold, as Trump has threatened, Congress could say that it violates the TPA, also known as fast-track, legislation, and thus is ineligible for consideration.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2018/08/28/trumps-us-mexico-trade-agreement-will-never-take-effect/#6796e1e578d8

[GRHorn 105]

Quick question, why does Bloomberg News feel the need to leak off the record comments in order to throw wrench in trade deal? I wonder why there’s trust issues with the press? 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Are you fucking serious?

[VRHorn 718]

Yeah, this was from the Bloomberg Star, right?

[BurntOrange&White 39647]

Quick question, why does Bloomberg News feel the need to leak off the record comments in order to throw wrench in trade deal? I wonder why there’s trust issues with the press? 

I’m pretty sure the wrench was in there well before the article released. But I’m no rocket surgeon.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Quick question, why does Bloomberg News feel the need to leak off the record comments in order to throw wrench in trade deal? I wonder why there’s trust issues with the press? 

Link to Bloomberg being the source of the leak? 

[woohorn 1131]

Quick question, why does Bloomberg News feel the need to leak off the record comments in order to throw wrench in trade deal? I wonder why there’s trust issues with the press? 

Someone present in the OO leaked it. The professional journalists from Bloomberg agreed not to repeat the info.

I know why there are trust issues with the press. It is a clumsy WH false flag operation. They have admitted as much by dismissing Drumpf's comments as just part of his "negotiating strategy".

[Biff Tannen 45492]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Quick question, why does Bloomberg News feel the need to leak off the record comments in order to throw wrench in trade deal? I wonder why there’s trust issues with the press? 

Quick answer, you're a dumb shit.  The truth fucking matters to rational people.

[Dahobbs 17444]

7 minutes ago, woohorn said:

 

 

Someone present in the OO leaked it. The professional journalists from Bloomberg agreed not to repeat the info.

I know why there are trust issues with the press. It is a clumsy WH false flag operation. They have admitted as much by dismissing Drumpf's comments as just part of his "negotiating strategy".

 

I'm betting that Trump's folks leaked it because the trade negotiations were already failing and Trump needed someone to blame it on. As a result, Trump gets the following things he wants:

(1) No trade agreement, so he can continue working up his base using the "unfair" trade agreements of prior administrations;

(2) He gets to look tough for standing up to Canada (?!?);

(3) He gets to blame the failure on someone else; and

(4) He gets to attack the media even more.

In fact, now that I write it out, there is no doubt that Trump had someone in his office leak it. 

[GRHorn 105]

30 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Link to Bloomberg being the source of the leak? 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nafta-canada-deal-wont-compromise-2018-8

Never mind. It claims they have another source outside Bloomberg. I misread part of it. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by GRHorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Just now, GRHorn said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nafta-canada-deal-wont-compromise-2018-8

According to The Star, Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday that any deal reached would be "totally on our terms" and suggested that Canadians would have "no choice" but to go along with the plan out of fear that Trump would impose auto tariffs.

That quote reports that Trump said certain things to Bloomberg.   You are asserting that it was Bloomberg who then relayed those statements to the Toronto Star.  What is your source for that assertion? 

[GRHorn 105]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

That quote reports that Trump said certain things to Bloomberg.   You are asserting that it was Bloomberg who then relayed those statements to the Toronto Star.  What is your source for that assertion? 

See above. I wonder who the leak is then.