A POTUS should know what the hell he's talking about when he makes a claim

[usmbguest5318]

It's recently come to light that when Trump remarked to the Canadian Prime Minister that the U.S. had a trade deficit with Canada, Trump didn't know what he was talking about.

“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...

“... 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.’ "
(Source)​

I wish I could say "you've got to be kidding me," but I cannot. I've heard the audio of him saying it (I can't find the audio online, but I can find the transcript) and I've seen the tweet in which he reiterates the claim.

My God! The man knew damn well he had no idea of what he was talking about! The man engaged with the Prime Minister of Canada in a conversation about U.S.-Canadian trade and didn't so much as know whether the U.S. had a trade surplus or deficit with Canada!

What kinds of things might Trump, had he "done his homework" prior to the meeting?

• He could have known the US Trade Representative's office says the U.S. has a surplus. (Source)
• He could have known he U.S.' two databases that track trade surpluses/deficits don't agree on the matter: International Trade Commission's database's data indicates the US has a trade deficit with CAN, whereas the National Bureau of Economic Research's database's data indicates the opposite. (Source)
• He could have known that the Canadian Statistics Agency issued a report that explains the discrepancy between their tabulation and that of the U.S. [1] Knowing that he could have at least read the damn thing, he'd have known the reason for the discrepancy.

But, of course, apparently such things -- "doing his homework," if you will -- are "TL" for Trump; thus he "DR" them. Because that is the case, the man is neither credible or able to strongly and soundly make the case for anything having to do with the state/nature of trade between the U.S. and CAN, likely any other nation as well. The man's job requires, among other things, that he know inside out, not be unmitigatedly ignorant to the Nth degree as he showed himself to be, high level things such as whether the U.S. has or hasn't a trade surplus or deficit with the nation with whose head of state he's discussing such a thing.

Now, I don't know how things work in your world, dear readers, but in mine, people charged with representing the firm would get fired almost immediately (!) were they to appear in a negotiation discussion/meeting and be as abjectly unprepared as Trump was when he met and discussed trade with Trudeau. The reason would be for simply not performing a material part of their job.

In what other situations has Trump been in which he was grossly unprepared? I fear the meeting he aims to have with KJU will be one. Trump's lack of depth on the issues that concern the U.S. makes it easy for leaders of other nations to not only take advantage of him, thus America, in negotiations and do so in such a resounding way that Trump doesn't even realize they have done [2], but also, insofar as their preparedness makes it patently clear to them just how ignorant on a given topic he is, his subject matter ignorance, intellectual torpor, and personal hubris diminishes the U.S.'s credibility and role in leading the world, something China, Russia and Germany have been quick to notice and commence to avail to their advantage. As far as I'm concerned, that alone is enough grounds to remove Trump from office.


Note:

1. Seems to me that before we go "fixing" NAFTA, it'd be in the U.S., CAN, and MEX's interest to agree upon one or several ways to calculate the balance of trade among themselves. Then we wouldn't have to bicker about whether there is or isn't a deficit or surplus between any two members of the treaty. After all, one of each nation is the other's largest or second largest customers. It's in each nation's interest to have a common basis of measuring the sales their firms make to one another.
   • Mexico
   • Canada
   • U.S.
2. Need I remind anyone of the stupid-ass idea that Trump got from Putin about partnering on, of all things, cybersecurity?!? Trump was so completely bamboozled by that suggestion that he actually had the gall to publicly propose doing so and considered the idea/prospect of doing so as something of an accomplishment! And what pearl most recently became public? This one: Russia Hacks U.S. Nuclear Plants, Infrastructure 'Hundreds Of Thousands Of Times A Day,' Secretary Perry Warns | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

 

[yiostheoy]

Xelor there is B/T (before Trump) and A/T (anno Trumpi -- in the year of Trump).

B/T you are correct.

However now the rules have all changed.

The rules of developing and selling real estate now trump all B/T principles.

Now, A/T, if you can say it and get away with it for a while then it is ok.

 

[Mousterian]

One thing we have to bear in mind is that the rest of the world's leaders are very aware of the infantile aspects of our President's personality.
No-one really expects any of his blather to remain policy for more than a few days, and just roll their eyes at shit like this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Xelor there is B/T (before Trump) and A/T (anno Trumpi -- in the year of Trump).

B/T you are correct.

However now the rules have all changed.

The rules of developing and selling real estate now trump all B/T principles.

Now, A/T, if you can say it and get away with it for a while then it is ok.

B/T you are correct.

However now the rules have all changed.

Perhaps you didn't notice the normative nature of the thread's title?

Now, A/T, if you can say it and get away with it for a while then it is ok.

Did you state your conclusion facetiously?

 

[tycho1572]

I thought this was going to be about obama not knowing how many states there are....



lol

 

[mikegriffith1]

"Statistics Canada data show Canada has run surpluses with the U.S. for 36 years straight." (Is Trump right about a U.S. trade deficit with Canada? It depends who you ask)

 

[blastoff]

I thought this was going to be about obama not knowing how states there are....



lol

Or, if you like you plan...If you like your doctor...save $2500 a year...etc.

 

[tycho1572]

I thought this was going to be about obama not knowing how states there are....



lol

Or, if you like you plan...If you like your doctor...save $2500 a year...etc.

Obama wasn’t working for Americans... President Trump is.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One thing we have to bear in mind is that the rest of the world's leaders are very aware of the infantile aspects of our President's personality.
No-one really expects any of his blather to remain policy for more than a few days, and just roll their eyes at shit like this.

the rest of the world's leaders are very aware of the infantile aspects of our President's personality.

??? I don't know why you mentioned that?

• That they know of such positions them to exploit to their nations' advantage and the U.S.' disadvantage the verity of that being Trump's nature.
• While one may sympathetic to a naive child, the same deference isn't accorded to heads of state during the occasion of high-stakes negotiations. Socially, that is as goes chit chat about "whatnot" in non-official settings, sure, other heads of state may, at their discretion, forbear Trump's puerility. Hell, they may even find him personable; I'm told that in purely social settings, Trump is indeed quite affable. At the negotiating table and in terms of according the U.S./the POTUS basic respect, not so much, if at all; at best, they'll flatter him to obtain his quietude or approbation and move on getting what they want from the negotiations. (That could be mitigated effectively were Trump to (1) have highly experienced advisors and (2) heed their advice. Of course, ignoramus that he is, Trump doesn't have/do either.) None of them are going to enter into any sort of deal -- economic, military, etc. -- on the basis of Trump's being a nice guy with whom to exchange idle banter, play a round of golf, etc.

Accordingly, I don't know what the verity of what you stated has to do with the central discursive/rhetorical purpose/theme of the OP -- I "hit" the theme from "acute and obtuse angles", as it were.

My God! The man knew damn well he had no idea of what he was talking about! The man engaged with the Prime Minister of Canada in a conversation about U.S.-Canadian trade and didn't so much as know whether the U.S. had a trade surplus or deficit with Canada!

apparently such things -- "doing his homework," if you will -- are "TL" for Trump; thus he "DR" them. Because that is the case, the man is neither credible or able to strongly and soundly make the case for anything having to do with the state/nature of trade between the U.S. and CAN, likely any other nation as well.

In what other situations has Trump been in which he was grossly unprepared? I fear the meeting he aims to have with KJU will be one. Trump's lack of depth on the issues that concern the U.S. makes it easy for leaders of other nations to not only take advantage of him, thus America, in negotiations and do so in such a resounding way that Trump doesn't even realize they have done [2], but also, insofar as their preparedness makes it patently clear to them just how ignorant on a given topic he is, his subject matter ignorance, intellectual torpor, and personal hubris diminishes the U.S.'s credibility and role in leading the world, something China, Russia and Germany have been quick to notice and commence to avail to their advantage.

Some folks may think the OP and Trump's behavior is embarrassing. While I agree with them, the chagrin isn't what disconcerts me. It's the vastly increased risk that the U.S. will, by dint of Trump's subject matter ineptitude, be gradually but assuredly disabused of its primacy across the world and with regard to pretty much everything. Put another way, Trump may well land the U.S. in the emasculated (emaciated may be a better term) position in which Russia found itself in the wake of the USSR's dissolution -- that of being a "tiger" having but physical size and a lone military tooth -- and in which it'd still be but for Trump's fawning and tacit approbation of all things Russian.

​