@James: I will answer your question better you said policy. Fair enough.

1) Border Security
2) Smart Trade Deals/American Jobs/Keystone Pipeline

There that is two policies.

i'm not being aggressive, i'm just wondering.

with that having been said, manipulating trade deals, attacking companies for employing people in other countries, and international oil agreements.... that's not specifically betraying libertarian principles.

although i will admit, there's a certain weakness america has in aspects of trade.

we let people get away with so much, because we're not willing to flex our muscles to protect our sellers who get hit with massive tariffs. beyond agriculture, i'm 100% free trade.

if another country puts up tariffs, i say we respond in like. i don't want to instigate trade wars, but if people look for a fight with us, i say we show them what happens when you try to skim money off of working america.

How do you support anyone 100%? Even with my favorite elected leaders, there are always some policies/decisions I disagree with.

"if another country puts up tariffs, i say we respond in like. i don't want to instigate trade wars, but if people look for a fight with us, i say we show them what happens when you try to skim money off of working america."

Who are you even targeting with this? Most of our major trading partners have low tariffs. The primary exception among our top 15 trading partners would be Brazil. I didn't know fucking over Brazil was an important part of our economic agenda (well, any more than fucking over South/Central America has been part of the US agenda for the past century or so).

Imposing tariffs as a penalty for tariffs doesn't make sense unless there's proportionate interdependence. What, Ethiopia has high tariffs and imports a lot of US goods, so we'll show them by slapping a tariff on the much smaller export market from Ethiopia to the US?

Also, the WTO is a thing that exists and prohibits most-favored-nation treatment on tariffs between WTO members. So if you were planning to raise tariffs on, say, China, you have to raise them for all other WTO members or get in international hot water.

(Not that raising them on all WTO members wouldn't get you in even *more* international hot water, but it'd be a different pot.)

I made no discourse on "why Trump supporters are wrong" in my post in this thread. My post was "on topic" ..the topic being: what is it that trump might do that would cause his supporters to change, stop supporting Trump,? And my "on topic" post suggested that about 15% to 20% of Trump supporters are "so smitten with Trump" that they'll continue to support him, no matter what he does... Loyalty to their chosen Demagogue is more important than the truth, rational thought, what's best for them or the nation etc. I cannot change the problems the TrumpGod acolytes have with the situation in which they have placed themselves, all I can do is merely point out the obvious and vicariously enjoy their discomfort.

You are just talking garbage Mere Mitchell. Just pure obvious garbage. I will vicariously enjoy your discomfort hurr durr hurr.

In other news, illegal crossings of the Mexican border are down massively just recently.

Just need to make a quick note because it will bother me if I don't.

@Lethologica

You were right with the most favored nation clause explanation you gave, but you used the worst possible example in explaining it. China was the one country the most favored nation clause did not apply to. As a requirement to allowing China into the WTO, the U.S. demanded section 421 to be added allowing higher tariffs on goods and services from China in specific situations, with tariffs on the same goods from other countries remaining unchanged. Section 421 had a limited life of 12 years though, so it is no longer applicable and you would still technically be right with your example today.

That's great, fiedler. I look forward to your explanation for why January border apprehensions were up 25% year over year, when it was just as certain Trump would take office and Trump had done just as little to actually influence border apprehensions.

@Manwe Sulimo--Thing is, as long as the example is valid now, it's the best example I can use, because it's the most likely target of sanctimonious protectionists and other tariff seekers.

Thank you for the additional information, though; I knew China had some special clauses in its WTO membership, but I didn't know about that one.

(I should add that the January increase is a marked departure from several years of declining border apprehensions, a figure conservatives scoffed at when I brought it up previously.)

I find it charming that PastorAlan wants to make a safe space for the special conservative snowflakes. Given how much abuse and shit women, and minorities, and liberals have had to put up with in an effort to simply be safe, I think it's worth debating whether conservatives have any right to be free from challenge and abuse. It's just the golden rule. We've seen how they themselves WANT to be treated by how they treat others. I'm of a mind to oblige them in this desire.

@letho

i have a libertarian spree when it comes to trade. i understand wanting to build up local economies, but i really don't think government should decide these things. i know people can outbid smaller businesses on a global scale, but it's the individual consumer's choice to pay less for a product, or pay a bit more to support the local economy.

i don't like the government putting up roadblocks telling people that they shouldn't make their own decisions on issues.

nonetheless, i'm very pro tariff in energy and agriculture. sovereignty is important for a nation, and if you are dependent on energy and agriculture, then in a sense you loose a bit of control on the world stage

Question for Hillary supporters, did you see the play?

What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news.../trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

James, that's certainly a position you can take (though ag+energy is justifiably a huge portion of international trade), but I don't see what it has to do with your earlier position about the US imposing punitive or reactionary tariffs on countries that impose tariffs, as a sop to 'working America'.

Trump is on a roll. Less than two months in:

The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.7 percent, compared with 4.8 percent in January, and wages rose by 6 cents to $26.09 in February, after a 5-cent increase the month before.

U.S. added 235,000 jobs in February; unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../u-s-added-235000-jobs-in-february-unemployment...

Oh, *now* conservatives care about the standard unemployment rate and jobs-added metrics. How swift the about-face.

Here's a mantra you might recall from eight years of reactionary sarcasm: thanks, Obama.

@CAPT Brad

Literally has 1% maximum to do with Trump

@Letho

Yeah ag and energy are a big part, but commodity tariffs I do not like.

They're not MASSIVLELY hurting us, but they're tipping the balancesagainst local industries. If we lose naturally, no problem. But for automotive parts passing back and forth with Mexico and manufacturing; we are getting skinned.

As of right now, I'm a reluctant WTO supporter though. I'd go into this more, but I got a midterm at 2. Ttyl

Clinton was credited with an improving economy even though the recovery began under GHW Bush

Confidence in the market and Trump.

While unseasonably warm weather may have boosted the payrolls count, the data represent President Donald Trump’s first full month in office and coincide with a surge in economic optimism following his election victory. The figures also validate recent comments by Federal Reserve officials that flagged a likely interest-rate increase this month.

“We’re getting closer and closer to full employment,” said Ryan Sweet, an economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania. “Wages had been the one sore spot in the labor market data, and I think that’s coming through here. With inflation accelerating I think we’re going to start to see even stronger wage growth down the road.”

The prospect of a Fed rate increase at its meeting next week is “pretty much a slam dunk,” he said.

Trump, via a post on his Twitter account in a retweet of a Drudge Report headline, seized on the report: “GREAT AGAIN: +235,000”.

Private employment, which excludes government agencies, rose by 227,000 after a 221,000 increase the prior month. It was the biggest gain since July. Construction jobs, which can fluctuate depending on the weather, rose by 58,000, the strongest in almost a decade, and followed a 40,000 increase in January. Manufacturing payrolls gained 28,000, matching the most since August 2013. Meanwhile, retail positions fell by 26,000, the most in four years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-10/u-s-jobs-wages-show-solid-gains-in-trump-s-first-full-month

And there may have been some misattribution there. But Clinton had 8 years. Trump has had less than a quarter. There's no equivalence.

@JamesYanik Literally has 1% maximum to do with Trump

your conclusion; I think not.

i'll admit market confidence has been soaring, and that i'll attribute to Trump. Job growth? Sorry pals, he hasn't done that much here yet!

Unemployment:
http://6803l1jplwe1s1hjp4dfnjlb-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Unemployment-2006-Jan2016-Athomas.png

Jobs:
http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/6.5.15.jpg?itok=_W0QzQ-j

Wage growth:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/56b4a4aa6e97c623008b51ac-1200-900/average-hourly-earnings-growth-january-2016.png

If you had bothered to pay attention for the last ten years, Brad, you would know that all of the numbers you cited are right on the trendlines. It's nice to know that Trump has had no effect in his first month--better than nothing is a surprisingly high standard--but crediting Trump for that is ridiculous. (Such ridiculousness would explain the economic optimism, though--it's almost like having a major presidential candidate slander the US economy for a full year, only to change his tune once he's elected, has an impact on public attitudes.)

@Lethologica

http://www.economagic.com

this site is magic

Fact free reasoning. Yep, the first month, before Trumo has done anything other than piss on himself, is the best jobs report since thre months ago!

and out come the haters