GG

There's a polar opposite to TDS, which is thinking that everything that Trump does is wonderful. You have to stop and ask why are NYT and WSJ op-eds aligned on a topic? Using tariffs as the bludgeoning tool in this spat will make that tool far less effective if that's the only thing that he can revert to. The call for tariffs was not a carefully deliberated strategy. It was the latest off the cuff tactic that countered his inner circle. Businesses and countries will adapt to this tactic, and it will be a lot easier to call his bluff next time and will make the job much tougher for his trade team to negotiate the next trade deals.

Why did Trump ignore the scathing editorials from WSJ in his tweet?

Then you should have no problem providing a list of the exact items that Mexico caved in to that weren't part of the prior agreements. While you're looking for that, think of the longer term implications of the President boy who cried wolf and got AMLO to deploy 6,000 federales to his southern border. Did he get the agriculture win that he crowed about? Did AMLO agree to the real concession of categorizing Mexico as a "safe third country?" What do you think will happen when he plays the tariff card next, especially after USMCTA is ratified? What do you think realistically happened in the last week - Mexico fully caved to Trump's demands, or Trump's inner circle (family) sat him down and explained to him again that using tariffs as a bludgeon was a really bad idea because he wasn't going to get what he really wanted and he faced a GOP revolt? If there were truly big gaps in the negotiating positions and the USA's only option was to threaten tariffs, then it's nearly impossible that gulf would be bridged in less that a week. More likely is that the two sides agreed to a PR compromise that gave Trump a semblance of public victory, but didn't change matters much.

But that's not the question you asked in starting this thread.

The short answer is, no. The explanation is because it's not as simple as trying to harm the Mexican economy to bend them to our will. The perverse outcome for the US is that if you inflict more economic pain you inflict on Mexico, then you will add thousands of Mexicans who will try to jump the border, in addition to the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans. Mexico was already recently downgraded because of concerns about what AMLO is going to do with industry and regulations, and there's plenty of reasons to think that he will look to reverse course in liberalizing the economy. Trump's tariffs may box him into a bad corner. The good news is that AMLO didn't lash out at Trump like Vicente Fox did and is willing to see if Mexico can provide more. I also find it odd that Trump blames Mexico, but has never attacked the cartels who are running the smuggling rings. Even a semi-competent oompa can figure that one out, and I'm trying to understand how he thinks that the Mexican government can handle the cartels. If the this is a gambit to force AMLO to invite US troops in (as Tasker suggested), how does that square with Trump's non-interventionist views? This would be launching an all out war, since the cartels number tens of thousands. On what grounds would the troop deployments be approved, and how would America react to a military option, when there could still be other solutions? The biggest trouble is that NOBODY knows what the ***** Trump wants, and he's one or two tweets away from some in the GOP defecting to the other side to consider him insane. Just look at how this recent tweet storm unfolded. If this was his opening position, then there wouldn't be much concern. But he went nutso on the eve of the new trade deal being introduced to Congress. This is a trade deal that he personally lauded as a "very good deal" and he was looking forward to working with Mexico. He overruled the biggest trade hardliner on his staff, who was against the new tariffs. He back-stabbed his son in law who only two months prior had worked out a framework for a deal with AMLO to establish better rules for US investment in Mexico. Now, everybody knows that the bad Trump, who bankrupted 2 casinos is back, because the blueprint is the same. Finally, he is really screwing US companies who were already on edge from his proclamations to blow up NAFTA. He's moving closer to adopt Obama's policy towards business by talking big, but knee capping them with added costs. This situation is far different than with China, where the costly economic battle is worth the pain to slow China's imperial aspirations and to reshape the global supply chain that's been built up over the last 20 years. Even on that front, Trump would have been in a far better shape had he renegotiated TPP, instead of just walking away.

Goldberg should provide more detail on his graph to clarify his case. Anyone who's used Lexis/Nexis knows that duplication of stories is a major pain when running their search. Showing the sheer number of times a particular word appears likely overstates its usage because it probably appears in one story that's been syndicated 100 times. This is obviously the result of news outlets relying on outsourced and syndicated content. So, while the trendline of these terms is definitely on the uptick, the slope of the line is very likely exaggerated.

Don't forget Geraldo. His expose of Willowbrook set the wheels of public opinion in motion. So of course, the pendulum swung the complete opposite way. Reforming mental institutions wasn't an option. They had to be totally destroyed.

You would have figured that spread of typhus and fire in Bel Air set by the homeless encampment would spur some action, but no.

Don't we already have one or two? Edit - One - Kyle Peko. Star is from Tonga

SMIMP? He can do a better job with the acronym.

That's a crappy intersection and looks like the CRV was doing the usual NYC trick of making a turn from the middle lane.

So let's recap - you don't have a clue about a discussion topic, but feel compelled to jump in with an inane non-sequitur. When you get called out for it, you're the one who gets indignant. Way to represent Canada.

Then stay out of the conversation, because the term "equity" has been a constant presence in race conversations propaganda in the US for the last 3 years.

Thanks Lewis. Now tell me how the word 'equity' has been properly applied in race discussions.

There's nothing like self inflicted wounds.

Only proves that Dobbs is an idiot. How dare Senators sound off on a stupid tweet that will hurt their states' economies?

Equity has been a wildly misused term lately. Equity is the difference between what you have and what you owe. Essentially it's what you earned and kept. That's why it's nothing close to the recent usage by Green. It is not a derivative of equality. But because it sounds similar, stupid people adopted it.

Fake news

Is that Brian Williams in the third row?

Doesn't answer the question, does it? Like getting 69 scoops of ice cream and insisting that you don't get fat.

How many scoops of ice cream will this perfect world guarantee each citizen?

Local news anchors had to hide their smirks when they reported that DeBlasio secured his first endorsement - from the mayor of Orangeburg, SC, after he visited the city three times to secure (beg) for the endorsement.

Which one was more damaging to the voters - fake news about the inauguration crowd or keeping your doctor?

I'm torn on this because it's taking anti-trust into uncharted territories. My standard for enforcing anti-trust is when there's clear consumer harm. There are many valid cases for natural monopolies to exist, and as long as the companies don't abuse their monopoly status, they should be left alone. The major techs aren't like traditional industrials, because consumers do benefit in direct transactions from their large size. You wouldn't get free 2-day shipping if Amazon is broken up. How would you benefit if there were two Facebooks doing the exact thing? My focus wouldn't be on anti-trust grounds but on corporate behavior. How are the companies using the vast personal data that they collect? Are they allowed to sell all of it? Are the TOS clear and do the companies skirt the TOS to drive more revenues. My guess on these questions is that do not behave ethically and are probably breaking some privacy laws. If needed, new laws should be considered because we never had situations where 3rd parties had access to mountains of personal data that individuals did not know were given up or permitted through small print. If banks engaged in this behavior, there'd be rightful indignation and multiple hearings leading to sanctions. The techs somehow get away with providing far less disclosures in their financial filings than most industries they now compete with. That's where my focus would be. Don't break them up, but air out their financials.

Look at all the recent mass shootings - there's a concerted effort to minimize the coverage of the shooters. Race has nothing to do with it.