Trump's trade war with China

[pknopp]

I'm OK with that as long as we do the same.

I dont think we have the same chance to spy on china

Foreigners are closely watched in china and very few if any are allowed to work in the chinese defense industry

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

 

[Zorro!]

That's funny, I just looked at my receipt and I don't see a tariff charge.

Please post an image of a receipt you have that has a line for "tariff charge".

If you want to be this ignorant that is on you.

It's your claim that we pay them, yet, I've carefully checked my receipts and it's not on there. So then I thought, "maybe it's built into the price." So I check for price inflation since Trump ramped up tariffs in the middle of last year.

So we have two possibilities:

i) US Consumer are paying the tariffs in which case, we should see surging consumer prices.

ii) US Consumers are not paying the tariffs in which case we should not see surging consumer prices.

Guess what I found?

I understand that you had a theory, but once it is clear that the data do not support it, what do you do then?

You are not important.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So we disagree, I have no problem with that. But your response is to question my humanity? That's odd, do you consider those that disagree with you to be subhuman or nonhuman? That's a curious response, why do you do that?

Your anecdotal examples are not relevant or important.

The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers

That is not "anecdotal" that is the State of Affairs in the US Economy by our official metrics.

You aren't attempting to dismiss it because it supports your proposition. So, one wonders, why do you persist in your proposition when it is clearly falsified by the hard data?

Certainly it is fair to conclude that you hold your proposition despite the data. And that's curious. Why would you persistently cling to a belief that is obviously not true, that tariffs are causing a consumer price surge, when the data is quite clear that they are not?

You are arguing a direct positive relationship between the imposition of tariffs and consumer prices. It is perfectly proper to ask the question: "Does the Data Support This Proposition?"

If it does, then
i) when tariff income to the US treasury goes up, consumer prices should rise additionally in relationship to the tariff increase.
ii) that is, when tariff income to the US treasury spikes, consumer prices should spike as well.

So what do we see when we look at the data?

The data does not reveal the relationship you claim.

Don't take it personally, it is important to test your beliefs against real world facts, and then adjust your beliefs to the facts. That allows your beliefs to assist you in making accurate predictions which are important as you make behavioral choices in your everyday life.

 

[pknopp]

If you want to be this ignorant that is on you.

It's your claim that we pay them, yet, I've carefully checked my receipts and it's not on there. So then I thought, "maybe it's built into the price." So I check for price inflation since Trump ramped up tariffs in the middle of last year.

So we have two possibilities:

i) US Consumer are paying the tariffs in which case, we should see surging consumer prices.

ii) US Consumers are not paying the tariffs in which case we should not see surging consumer prices.

Guess what I found?

I understand that you had a theory, but once it is clear that the data do not support it, what do you do then?

You are not important.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So we disagree, I have no problem with that. But your response is to question my humanity? That's odd, do you consider those that disagree with you to be subhuman or nonhuman? That's a curious response, why do you do that?

Your anecdotal examples are not relevant or important.

The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers

That is not "anecdotal" that is the State of Affairs in the US Economy by our official metrics.

You aren't attempting to dismiss it because it supports your proposition. So, one wonders, why do you persist in your proposition when it is clearly falsified by the hard data?

Certainly it is fair to conclude that you hold your proposition despite the data. And that's curious. Why would you persistently cling to a belief that is obviously not true, that tariffs are causing a consumer price surge, when the data is quite clear that they are not?

You are arguing a direct positive relationship between the imposition of tariffs and consumer prices. It is perfectly proper to ask the question: "Does the Data Support This Proposition?"

If it does, then
i) when tariff income to the US treasury goes up, consumer prices should rise additionally in relationship to the tariff increase.
ii) that is, when tariff income to the US treasury spikes, consumer prices should spike as well.

So what do we see when we look at the data?

The data does not reveal the relationship you claim.

Don't take it personally, it is important to test your beliefs against real world facts, and then adjust your beliefs to the facts. That allows your beliefs to assist you in making accurate predictions which are important as you make behavioral choices in your everyday life.

My links are not to what I claim. My links are to what others are claiming.

This chart from Goldman Sachs shows tariffs are raising prices for consumers and it could get worse

Consumer prices in tariff-affected categories have risen much more than the prices of goods not impacted by tariffs.

 

[Zorro!]

I dont think we have the same chance to spy on china

Foreigners are closely watched in china and very few if any are allowed to work in the chinese defense industry

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

...They control what they do...

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they even have the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

 

[pknopp]

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

...They control what they do...

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

[/QUOTE]

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.

 

[Zorro!]

It's your claim that we pay them, yet, I've carefully checked my receipts and it's not on there. So then I thought, "maybe it's built into the price." So I check for price inflation since Trump ramped up tariffs in the middle of last year.

So we have two possibilities:

i) US Consumer are paying the tariffs in which case, we should see surging consumer prices.

ii) US Consumers are not paying the tariffs in which case we should not see surging consumer prices.

Guess what I found?

I understand that you had a theory, but once it is clear that the data do not support it, what do you do then?

You are not important.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So we disagree, I have no problem with that. But your response is to question my humanity? That's odd, do you consider those that disagree with you to be subhuman or nonhuman? That's a curious response, why do you do that?

Your anecdotal examples are not relevant or important.

The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers

That is not "anecdotal" that is the State of Affairs in the US Economy by our official metrics.

You aren't attempting to dismiss it because it supports your proposition. So, one wonders, why do you persist in your proposition when it is clearly falsified by the hard data?

Certainly it is fair to conclude that you hold your proposition despite the data. And that's curious. Why would you persistently cling to a belief that is obviously not true, that tariffs are causing a consumer price surge, when the data is quite clear that they are not?

You are arguing a direct positive relationship between the imposition of tariffs and consumer prices. It is perfectly proper to ask the question: "Does the Data Support This Proposition?"

If it does, then
i) when tariff income to the US treasury goes up, consumer prices should rise additionally in relationship to the tariff increase.
ii) that is, when tariff income to the US treasury spikes, consumer prices should spike as well.

So what do we see when we look at the data?

The data does not reveal the relationship you claim.

Don't take it personally, it is important to test your beliefs against real world facts, and then adjust your beliefs to the facts. That allows your beliefs to assist you in making accurate predictions which are important as you make behavioral choices in your everyday life.

My links are not to what I claim. My links are to what others are claiming.

This chart from Goldman Sachs shows tariffs are raising prices for consumers and it could get worse

Consumer prices in tariff-affected categories have risen much more than the prices of goods not impacted by tariffs.

No one is claiming that you can't find anecdotal data that a specific tariff increase increased a specific cost. What is important for national policy is what is the "on balance" effect?

Some examples:

If the Chinese quit buying Soy Beans, what happens to the price Americans pay for Soy Beans? Same for Pork products and Lobster? To get a realistic view of how the American Consumer is being affected, you have to match the increase in say an Aluminum product against the decrease in other products where we are no longer competing with Chinese buyers.

And when you look at it on balance, Trump has opened up a new cash stream to the US Treasury of $10's of Billions in tariffs, from a nation that is working to build a military to challenge us, with NO discernible effect on overall consumer prices.

No one predicted he could pull that off, in fact, our "best" minds predicted the opposite, but once again, Trump's proven to be correct, and as uncomfortable as that may be, when the data is clear we have to adjust our thinking.

 

[Zorro!]

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

...They control what they do...

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.[/QUOTE]
No. In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

I see you failed to address something very important:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

 

[pknopp]

You are not important.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

So we disagree, I have no problem with that. But your response is to question my humanity? That's odd, do you consider those that disagree with you to be subhuman or nonhuman? That's a curious response, why do you do that?

Your anecdotal examples are not relevant or important.

The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers

That is not "anecdotal" that is the State of Affairs in the US Economy by our official metrics.

You aren't attempting to dismiss it because it supports your proposition. So, one wonders, why do you persist in your proposition when it is clearly falsified by the hard data?

Certainly it is fair to conclude that you hold your proposition despite the data. And that's curious. Why would you persistently cling to a belief that is obviously not true, that tariffs are causing a consumer price surge, when the data is quite clear that they are not?

You are arguing a direct positive relationship between the imposition of tariffs and consumer prices. It is perfectly proper to ask the question: "Does the Data Support This Proposition?"

If it does, then
i) when tariff income to the US treasury goes up, consumer prices should rise additionally in relationship to the tariff increase.
ii) that is, when tariff income to the US treasury spikes, consumer prices should spike as well.

So what do we see when we look at the data?

The data does not reveal the relationship you claim.

Don't take it personally, it is important to test your beliefs against real world facts, and then adjust your beliefs to the facts. That allows your beliefs to assist you in making accurate predictions which are important as you make behavioral choices in your everyday life.

My links are not to what I claim. My links are to what others are claiming.

This chart from Goldman Sachs shows tariffs are raising prices for consumers and it could get worse

Consumer prices in tariff-affected categories have risen much more than the prices of goods not impacted by tariffs.

No one is claiming that you can't find anecdotal data that a specific tariff increase increased a specific cost. What is important for national policy is what is the "on balance" effect?

So you think the rising prices are good long term. That's fine, argue that. Don't argue that consumers are not paying it.

Some examples:

If the Chinese quit buying Soy Beans, what happens to the price Americans pay for Soy Beans? Same for Pork products and Lobster? To get a realistic view of how the American Consumer is being affected, you have to match the increase in say an Aluminum product against the decrease in other products where we are no longer competing with Chinese buyers.

What happens is prices go up as soy bean farmers go out of business.

Farm Bankruptcies Surge

And when you look at it on balance, Trump has opened up a new cash stream to the US Treasury of $10's of Billions in tariffs, from a nation that is working to build a military to challenge us, with NO discernible effect on overall consumer prices.

No one predicted he could pull that off, in fact, our "best" minds predicted the opposite, but once again, Trump's proven to be correct, and as uncomfortable as that may be, when the data is clear we have to adjust our thinking.

China is not "paying" for tariffs, but American consumers are - Marketplace

 

[pknopp]

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

...They control what they do...

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.
No. In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

I see you failed to address something very important:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So you are now arguing that Trump can not enact change.

 

[Mac-7]

I dont think we have the same chance to spy on china

Foreigners are closely watched in china and very few if any are allowed to work in the chinese defense industry

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Its obvious that due to civil servant protection laws the Deep State is entrenched and very difficult to remove

Trump made a mistake by keeping ANY obama appointee after his first day on the job

A seasoned swamp rat would not have made that mistake

 

[Mac-7]

Yes there is.

List of Chinese spy cases in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
The following is a list of individuals who have been accused by the government of the United States of spying against the United States on behalf of the People's Republic of China.

Contents

• 1Larry Wu-tai Chin
• 2Glenn Duffie Shriver
• 3Katrina Leung
• 4Peter Lee
• 5Chi Mak
• 6Moo Ko-Suen
• 7Wen Ho Lee
• 8Fei Ye and Ming Zhong
• 9Lan Lee and Yuefei Ge
• 10Gregg Bergersen and Tai Shen Kuo
• 11Anne Lockwood, Michael Haehnel, and Fuping Liu
• 12Bryan Underwood
• 13Bo Jiang
• 14Hua Jun Zhao
• 15Walter Liew
• 16Guoqing Cao and Shuyu Li
• 17Sherry Chen
• 18Xiaoxing Xi
• 19Szuhsiung Ho
• 20Edward C. Lin
• 21Kun Shan Chun
• 22Candace Marie Claiborne
• 23Kevin Mallory
• 24Jerry Chun Shing Lee
• 25Xu Jiaqiang
• 26Shuren Qin
• 27Ron Rockwell Hansen
• 28Ji Chaoqun
• 29Yanjun Xu
• 30Xudong Yao
• 31Yi-Chi Shih
• 32Yu Zhou and Li Chen
• 33Yujing Zhang
• 34Zhongsan Liu
• 35Xuehua Edward Peng

Thats a lot of chinese spying on the United States

Just another reason to keep china at arms length

I'm OK with that as long as we do the same.

I dont think we have the same chance to spy on china

Foreigners are closely watched in china and very few if any are allowed to work in the chinese defense industry

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

It would be foolish for Americans to stick our heads in the sand and leave rodents like comey, brennan, clapper and the lower ranking conspirators in the FBI and DOJ inside the government

 

[Zorro!]

So we disagree, I have no problem with that. But your response is to question my humanity? That's odd, do you consider those that disagree with you to be subhuman or nonhuman? That's a curious response, why do you do that?

Your anecdotal examples are not relevant or important.

The Basics Of Tariffs And Trade Barriers

That is not "anecdotal" that is the State of Affairs in the US Economy by our official metrics.

You aren't attempting to dismiss it because it supports your proposition. So, one wonders, why do you persist in your proposition when it is clearly falsified by the hard data?

Certainly it is fair to conclude that you hold your proposition despite the data. And that's curious. Why would you persistently cling to a belief that is obviously not true, that tariffs are causing a consumer price surge, when the data is quite clear that they are not?

You are arguing a direct positive relationship between the imposition of tariffs and consumer prices. It is perfectly proper to ask the question: "Does the Data Support This Proposition?"

If it does, then
i) when tariff income to the US treasury goes up, consumer prices should rise additionally in relationship to the tariff increase.
ii) that is, when tariff income to the US treasury spikes, consumer prices should spike as well.

So what do we see when we look at the data?

The data does not reveal the relationship you claim.

Don't take it personally, it is important to test your beliefs against real world facts, and then adjust your beliefs to the facts. That allows your beliefs to assist you in making accurate predictions which are important as you make behavioral choices in your everyday life.

My links are not to what I claim. My links are to what others are claiming.

This chart from Goldman Sachs shows tariffs are raising prices for consumers and it could get worse

Consumer prices in tariff-affected categories have risen much more than the prices of goods not impacted by tariffs.

No one is claiming that you can't find anecdotal data that a specific tariff increase increased a specific cost. What is important for national policy is what is the "on balance" effect?

So you think the rising prices are good long term. That's fine, argue that. Don't argue that consumers are not paying it.

We have doubled tariff payments to the US treasury, yet price inflation remains below the Fed Target. US Consumers are not paying these tariffs.

... China is not "paying" for tariffs, but American consumers are - Marketplace

This is the logical fallacy of arguments from authority. I read through your article to make sure they didn't have any data to cite. I didn't see how they could as I have already cited the data.

So lets have a look. First this article is dated the beginning of August, so any data they cite is going to be June or July data, that is roughly a year from when Trump ramped up tariffs. That's a decent amount of time.

The first seven paragraphs are explanations of the competing points of view with firm assurances that it is the President who is wrong. Not until the 8th paragraph do they cite direct evidence:

So far, government reports have not shown a sharp upward spike in consumer price inflation.​

No shit?

Clausing suggests one reason: The costs of tariffs on imported goods from China, such as washing machines and auto parts, have been spread across the economy and diluted. Prices for services, meanwhile, haven’t been affected.
​

See what they did there? They explained why their view isn't supported by the data. They don't question their assumptions, they explain away dis-confirming evidence.

Now the data I gave on consumer prices is through the latest release or Oct 30, updated 11/13/19 and STILL no signs of tariff driven consumer price increases, ergo, US Consumers are NOT paying these tariffs.

 

[pknopp]

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Its obvious that due to civil servant protection laws the Deep State is entrenched and very difficult to remove

Trump made a mistake by keeping ANY obama appointee after his first day on the job

A seasoned swamp rat would not have made that mistake

Trump's appointees dont last long.

 

[Zorro!]

We spy on everyone.

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Its obvious that due to civil servant protection laws the Deep State is entrenched and very difficult to remove

Trump made a mistake by keeping ANY obama appointee after his first day on the job

A seasoned swamp rat would not have made that mistake

Well to be fair, few of us knew then just how corrupt and self-serving the Deep State was then. This nation has learned a lot in the last 3 years, and we will learn a lot more once the Durham report is released.

 

[Zorro!]

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

...They control what they do...

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.
No. In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

I see you failed to address something very important:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So you are now arguing that Trump can not enact change.

No. I'm helping you avoid false reductionism.

In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

Two very simple questions for you:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?​

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

 

[FA_Q2]

You are arguing against a point no one is making. Companies are free to move to China, and Trump is free to charge tariffs for access to the finest consumer market the world has ever seen.

What is it that you are complaining about?

b

Trump demonizing the wrong entity. It is not the fault of the Chinese but the fault of the businesses that relocated there....

It's the goods they are producing there and selling here that are subject to tariffs, he is targeting exactly the right entity.

US corporations, located in China, are the folks conducting industrial espionage against us? Are you sure?

He is taxing the people who had nothing to do with the companies moving to China. There is no espionage. China was smart enough to look long term and made agreements for companies to turn over technology in exchange for low wages and lax regulations.

....

This is willfully ignorant.

Isn't it? This reflexive jump to be aligned with the Chinese is visceral for him.

Fascinating.

The need to call dictatorial governments superior to the US will never cease to amaze and disgust me.

 

[Mac-7]

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Its obvious that due to civil servant protection laws the Deep State is entrenched and very difficult to remove

Trump made a mistake by keeping ANY obama appointee after his first day on the job

A seasoned swamp rat would not have made that mistake

Trump's appointees dont last long.

Someday after trump leaves office we’ll have to do an after action report on that

 

[Mac-7]

We do need to get our Spy Agencies under control, it's clear that the President doesn't control them, and Congress is scared to death of them. I'm sure you agree that our Spy agents should be acting on our behalf and not their own?

Trump appoints those over these agencies.

He does. Are you arguing that Trump has effective control over the agencies that have been trying to drive him from office?

I already addressed that. Trump appoints those over these agencies. They control what they do. If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Its obvious that due to civil servant protection laws the Deep State is entrenched and very difficult to remove

Trump made a mistake by keeping ANY obama appointee after his first day on the job

A seasoned swamp rat would not have made that mistake

Well to be fair, few of us knew then just how corrupt and self-serving the Deep State was then. This nation has learned a lot in the last 3 years, and we will learn a lot more once the Durham report is released.

Yes

Trump thought that he would be allowed to perform his duties and enact his agenda without being attacked by a secret cabal within the executive branch

 

[pknopp]

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.

... If they are still spying that is on Trump's picks.

Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.
No. In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

I see you failed to address something very important:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So you are now arguing that Trump can not enact change.

No. I'm helping you avoid false reductionism.

In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

Two very simple questions for you:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?​

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So once again you are arguing that Trump is incapable of doing anything about this. I can't say that I support a president firing anyone for not following his directive unless I knew what that directive was.

 

[Zorro!]

Actually that is the question under consideration, exactly what do they control? Did you hear Vindman's and the others testimony? These are all folks that are supposed to be under the control of those appointed by the President, yet, Vindman and his collaborators testified that Trump, who appoints the boss of their bosses, should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE because he did not carefully stick to the talking points these "underlings" furnished him, because those points reflected "the inter-agency consensus" as Vindman and his fellow testifiers understood it.

Does that sound like they think their Political Appointee bosses run the show, or them? They think they have even the right to provide the script for THE PRESIDENT to follow and that he should be removed from office if he deviates from it.
Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

Do they currently have the power to do that?

You are arguing that Trump did a poor job filling the jobs.

OK. About par for the course.
No. In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

I see you failed to address something very important:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So you are now arguing that Trump can not enact change.

No. I'm helping you avoid false reductionism.

In order to support that premise one would have to show that ANY one appointed to these positions could effectively control these agencies.

Two very simple questions for you:

i) Do you support the President and his Appointees summarily firing anyone in the Executive Branch that is not following the policies of the President and his Appointees?​

ii) Do they currently have the power to do that?​

So once again you are arguing that Trump is incapable of doing anything about this.

No. I asked your opinion.

... I can't say that I support a president firing anyone for not following his directive unless I knew what that directive was.

Well, if the President, the Head of the Executive Branch cannot fire someone who won't follow his policy directives, then who sets policy for the Executive Branch, in our system?