A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[Kasandra]

Here are a few examples of Trump being out of touch.  I wouldn't exactly call them lies, but they could be called whoppers or just plain stupid remarks if, as Trump says, you shouldn't be PC.  For many of them, as Linus Pauling supposedly once wrote on one of his student's test papers, "This is not right, it's not even wrong."

* People have to flush their toilets up to 15 times.

* Wind turbines cause cancer.

* "If you buy a box of cereal—you have a voter ID."

* Asbestos would have saved the World Trade Center.

* Exercise uses up the bodies finite energy. This one echoes Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove dropping nukes on the Soviet Union to "protect our precious bodily fluids."

* Young people pay $12/yr for health insurance.

* "Remember, new "environment friendly"  lightbulbs can cause cancer. Be careful-- the idiots who came up with this stuff don't care."

* Sleeping is bad for you.

* Shaking hands is barbaric.

* The F-35 stealth fighter is literally invisible.

[TheDrake]

Here's a link to the wild claim about toilet flushes.

https://grist.org/politics/we-investigate-trumps-claim-that-people-are-flushing-toilets-10-times-15-times/

[TheDrake]

We all know how the defense of such things go.

He's exaggerating.
He's joking.
He's trolling.

But never

He's an idiot.
He's a liar.

[Pete at Home]

* People have to flush their toilets up to 15 times.
Truth, unless you don't think that poor people are people. 


* Wind turbines cause cancer.
Lie.

* "If you buy a box of cereal—you have a voter ID."
Smug rich person's Exaggeration.

* Asbestos would have saved the World Trade Center.
I don't know if this is a lie or delusion


* Exercise uses up the bodies finite energy. This one echoes Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove dropping nukes on the Soviet Union to "protect our precious bodily fluids."
Delusion

* Young people pay $12/yr for health insurance.
Delusion wrapped in exaggeration


* "Remember, new "environment friendly"  lightbulbs can cause cancer. Be careful-- the idiots who came up with this stuff don't care."
I don't know if this is a lie or delusion


* Sleeping is bad for you.
This is a common Manic Psychosis

* Shaking hands is barbaric.
Cultural point of view impossible to identify as true or false

* The F-35 stealth fighter is literally invisible.
Common idiotic American misuse of the word "literally"

[TheDeamon]

Here's a link to the wild claim about toilet flushes.

https://grist.org/politics/we-investigate-trumps-claim-that-people-are-flushing-toilets-10-times-15-times/

Hyperbole, but valid enough in my own anecdotal experience with regards to bowel movements and old vs new toilets. Older toilets that aren't efficiency ones could normally handle them easily enough in a single go.

If I'm using an efficiency toilet, I'll sometimes stop and flush before I even complete the bowel movement(and the toilet gets plugged up anyway), never mind when I get to the wiping after because of past experience with plugged ("efficiency") toilets.

[Kasandra]

* The F-35 stealth fighter is literally invisible.
Common idiotic American misuse of the word "literally"

No, he literally meant literally.  We can't see what he's actually thinking because he's wearing the Emperor's New Brain.

I remember when HW Bush seemed impressed when he watched an item being scanned at a supermarket.  It stuck to him like how the tank and helmet became so deeply attached to Dukakis that he could never climb out or take it off.  Neither of those were as they seemed, but Trump is 100% delivering the goods, literally.

Here's a bonus comment that sums things up nicely:

* "My wife says I'm the biggest star in the world. But she might just be saying that because she's intelligent."

Another time we can review his gratuitous personal attacks and grade school insults.  If John Dingell were alive today, he would reach out of his grave to take revenge.

[TheDrake]

Here's a link to the wild claim about toilet flushes.

https://grist.org/politics/we-investigate-trumps-claim-that-people-are-flushing-toilets-10-times-15-times/

Hyperbole, but valid enough in my own anecdotal experience with regards to bowel movements and old vs new toilets. Older toilets that aren't efficiency ones could normally handle them easily enough in a single go.

If I'm using an efficiency toilet, I'll sometimes stop and flush before I even complete the bowel movement(and the toilet gets plugged up anyway), never mind when I get to the wiping after because of past experience with plugged ("efficiency") toilets.

Fiber is your friend.

[Pete at Home]

Still, none of them reach the malice and delusion of HRC’s “under fire in Kosovo” death tongue bit. Only Trump’s “Mexicans are rapists” blurb comes anywhere close.

[NobleHunter]

Malice?

Also, quantity has a quality all its own.

[TheDeamon]

Fiber is your friend.

I can still stop things up on a very fiber heavy diet. That and its soft enough as it is. I go when my body prompts me to go. It just doesn't seem to bother with "small transactions" in that department unless I'm sick. 

[Pete at Home]

Lies to justify Trump’s inhumanity towards Mexicans and Clinton’s inhumanity towards Serbians, if not malice, what would you call it, noble Hunter? 

[NobleHunter]

I hadn't paid that much attention to the context of Clinton's story.

[Pete at Home]

You know the Clinton admin was dropping cluster bombs on Serbia, right? “Soft targets?”  And that the Kosovo war accomplished nothing but a distraction from the Monica blowout?

[Kasandra]

Fiber is your friend.

I can still stop things up on a very fiber heavy diet. That and its soft enough as it is. I go when my body prompts me to go. It just doesn't seem to bother with "small transactions" in that department unless I'm sick. 

Thanks, as it were, for sharing. FWIW, I am trying to get over SIBO.  If you don't know what that is, you're probably better off.

[NobleHunter]

You know the Clinton admin was dropping cluster bombs on Serbia, right? “Soft targets?”  And that the Kosovo war accomplished nothing but a distraction from the Monica blowout?

But I didn't hear about Clinton's "under fire" story until rather after the fact. Probably not until it was disproven. So if there was any subtext about bombing them up because they were shooting at her, I missed it.

[Pete at Home]

The subtext wasn’t reported as connected in the reporting on either lie. I’ve connected four non simultaneous stories to make the comparison between the two malicious lies. 

The difference is that Trump’s lie appeared before exposure of the family separation atrocity, while Clinton’s under fire lie appeared years after exposure of her husband dropping cluster bombs on Serbian children on Easter Sunday.

[TheDeamon]

Fiber is your friend.

I can still stop things up on a very fiber heavy diet. That and its soft enough as it is. I go when my body prompts me to go. It just doesn't seem to bother with "small transactions" in that department unless I'm sick. 

Thanks, as it were, for sharing. FWIW, I am trying to get over SIBO.  If you don't know what that is, you're probably better off.

Well, Bowel movements probably aren't far removed from the rest of this thread. 

[TheDrake]

“I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much... Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes & everything.”

Indeed.

[Kasandra]

Let's try it the other way 'round since you're playing at being a skeptic.  What did I say that you know is not true?  I'll check back in a few days to see if you've come up with anything.

I think five days is enough time.  But if you're still waiting for the missing link, here it is.

[Seriati]

So we're back to debate the lies of Trump meme (and associated nonsense).  The idea being that because someone paid as a reported to document "lies" of Trump can string together a large list of "lies" that mostly are not in fact lies, but just things the left disagrees with, it's proof of exceptional capacity to lie.  Let you in on a secret, by that standard, just about every word out of every other politician's mouth is also a lie.

In any event, the usual citation is to the WaPo and it's been shown to misrepresent and inflate it's count massively with things that aren't lies.

* Young people pay $12/yr for health insurance.
Delusion wrapped in exaggeration

This one struck me as oddly specific and bizarre, so I decided to dig into it a bit.  It comes from a NY Times interview and is pulled out of context.  It's a long interview and they only excerpted parts of it, but this exchange six months into the Trump admin, came in the middle of discussing why he hadn't reformed Obamacare yet, after he explained that it took Obama 14 months with 60 votes in the Senate (and Trump only had 51), and Hillary couldn't get it down in 8 years with her husband's admin.

TRUMP: Nothing changes. Nothing changes. Once you get something for pre-existing conditions, etc., etc. Once you get something, it’s awfully tough to take it away.

HABERMAN: That’s been the thing for four years. When you win an entitlement, you can’t take it back.

TRUMP: But what it does, Maggie, it means it gets tougher and tougher. As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.

HABERMAN: Am I wrong in thinking — I’ve talked to you a bunch of times about this over the last couple years, but you are generally of the view that people should have health care, right? I mean, I think that you come at it from the view of …

TRUMP: Yes, yes. [garbled]

What does that even mean in context?  It looks like a proxy for saying young people pay very little at 21 and expect full benefits when they retire.  Doubtful anyone took it as an assertion of fact - the Times didn't even ask about it.  So why pull it out?  Just cause it sounds silly?

* The F-35 stealth fighter is literally invisible.
Common idiotic American misuse of the word "literally"

Most in depth write up on this issue I've seen, though he's more interested in the budget claim than the invisibility claim.

https://taskandpurpose.com/does-trump-think-stealth-fighter-jet-invisible-investigation

If you read the quotes, not only does Trump refer to actually seeing the fighter on numerous times, it's absolutely clear that the context of invisibility is in reference to dog fights and combat effectiveness.  Only the liberal press and those looking for fault at ridiculous degree are not able to correctly identify context here, and to pretend they found some kind of lie or something only a moron would believe.

And Kasandra, this is exactly what frustrates me about replying to you.  You grab a list of bullets from leftist sites that are not supported that you haven't even researched, and then to "refute" them I have take time to look up what actually happened - and I'm pretty sure all you're going to do is double down on what's left.

[Kasandra]

What does that even mean in context?  It looks like a proxy for saying young people pay very little at 21 and expect full benefits when they retire.  Doubtful anyone took it as an assertion of fact - the Times didn't even ask about it.  So why pull it out?  Just cause it sounds silly?

I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but in the snippet you quote he does in fact say "...you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance...".

What's your quibble?  And, by the way, when you say...

The idea being that because someone paid as a reported to document "lies" of Trump can string together a large list of "lies" that mostly are not in fact lies, but just things the left disagrees with, it's proof of exceptional capacity to lie.

...it sounds like you're saying fewer than 7,000 instances the Washington Post has reported of "misstatement of facts", narcissistic ego inflating self-compliments, misattributions, unsupported conspiracy theories and sheer gibberish are real.  The other 7,000+ instances are themselves lies that they reported out of spite, and not because he exaggerates, flatters himself with irrational compliments, lies, misattributes and repeats unsupported conspiracy theories.  Right?

As for your discovery about literally invisible F-35 stealth fighter jets, here's how your article rebutting claims that he said it starts:

Does President Donald Trump think the F-35 fighter is literally invisible? After researching his various statements on the 5th generation fighter, I don't really think so. But since he keeps saying exactly that — that the F-35 cannot be seen by enemy pilots...

To help you out I highlighted the part in that article where he says exactly what I said he did.  Since only one of the quotes the author cites include the word invisible, that doesn't mean he didn't say it, only that the author doesn't include a quote where he does say it, with one telling exception:

"The Navy, I can tell you, we're ordering ships. With the Air Force, we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is, you know, almost like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys, I said, how good is this plane? They said, well, sir, you can't see it. I said, yeah, but in a fight — you know, a fight — like I watch in the movies — they fight, they're fighting. How good is this? They say, well, it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it. I said, that helps. That's a good thing."

Well, you *can* see it if you're right next to it, right?  Are you going to insist that you can't see it, or Trump didn't mean exactly what he said?  Here's another instance of him saying it that I found:

"...almost like an invisible fighter…You can’t see it. You literally can’t see it. It’s hard to fight a plane you can’t see."

And another:

This is an incredible plane. It's stealth—you can't see it. So when I talk to even people from the other side, they're trying to order our plane. They like the fact that you can't see it.  I said, "How would it do in battle with your plane?" They say, "Well we have one problem—we can't see your plane." That's a big problem. Stealth, super stealth. The best in the world. We make the best military equipment in the world. Also, remember this: jobs.

Are you going to say he misspoke?

And Kasandra, this is exactly what frustrates me about replying to you.  You grab a list of bullets from leftist sites that are not supported that you haven't even researched, and then to "refute" them I have take time to look up what actually happened - and I'm pretty sure all you're going to do is double down on what's left.

Everything I cited *is* supported.  We can keep fencing on them if you insist, but I find it tiring and may give up.  I'll give you a chance to retract your rebuttal on the invisible plane.  If you still insist he never said it, that would be a meme and I definitely will give up responding to you.

[Kasandra]

FWIW, I just bumped into this article, which I think you will like. It's from FOX, so it must be accurate.

A leading Fox News host has issued a bizarre defence of Donald Trump, in which he described the president as a "liar" and a “full-blown BS artist”.

Tucker Carlson said the president makes misleading statements because “that’s who he is” and compared Mr Trump to a “salesman”.

“He's a talker, a boaster, a booster, a compulsive self-promoter. At times, he's a full-blown BS artist,” Mr Carlson said.

The Fox News presenter also rejected the White House’s claim that Mr Trump’s 2017 inauguration was “the largest ever measured on the national mall”.

“We're not going to lie to you: that was untrue,” he added.
...
However, despite acknowledging that the president often lies, Mr Carlson claimed the media hates him because he “tells the truth”.

There's more, but it was hard to read...

[Fenring]

I don't know if I would call any of that invisible nonsense a "lie" or even an untruth. It sounds like used car salesman talk to me. Not that that's a good thing either.

[Kasandra]

He doesn't lie or say untruthful things, but I think we can all agree that he's a used car salesman wrapped inside an offensive clown inside a con man sitting in the Oval Office.  Good to have someone like him sitting there.

[Seriati]

Wow Kasandra, way to "prove" your case.  Like I said, only the liberal press and those looking for fault at a ridiculous degree find fault.

Its like declaring someone a liar for saying that they gave 110% effort.  You can only give 100%, so it's a lie.  Or in the rational world it's a common statement that can be understood in context.  It'd be wrong in a scientific context, but not in another.

So again, it's patently obvious since he's literally referenced the planes and his own ability to see them visually that he knows they are not visually invisible.  Accordingly, what the quotes refer to is the impact of their stealth systems in combat.  In combat hey are literally invisible to the methods used by modern fighters to locate, track and target them (hence "invisible").  Modern "dog fights" are visual dog fights, they aren't really dog fights at all.  They don't rely on human eye visuals, rather they rely on radar and other technical tracking and combat is long range missile lock-ups.  Not being targetable to a missile or trackable by an enemy fighter, is for all intents and purposes "invisible" in fact in that type of combat - even if they can visually see you the fact that their tracking and weapon systems can't at that range is effective invisibility.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40327934

So, for all the quotes that you pulled out of the source I gave you, you missed the main point.  Stealth fighters are literally invisible in combat to the opposing sides fighters.  They can't be locked up even at close range because the missiles are not visual fire attacks and getting to guns range against hem would be difficult.  Nothing about what Trump said is remotely intended to imply they couldn't be shot down by visually targeted guns if the opportunity presents.

Honestly, I think your defense of that is a variant of bad faith.

And I told you the point on the 21 year old statement.  In context it's little different than saying they pay nothing.  I suspect this was completely obvious to the interviewers because they didn't even bother to ask a follow up question.  It was clearly a statement to demonstrate a broader point, the broader point doesn't rest at all on the statement, as an example, being true.

So, again, you found something that  there is no indication in context was intended to be a statement of fact and act like it's assertion was the point.  It'd be exactly like pulling out part of analogy to claim the person making the analogy asserting something absurd as fact.

[Seriati]

Fen, Trump certainly says things that are not true.  Like I said before, reminds me of some ship captains and fishermen I know.  No one on earth calls them liars just because their stories are better than the real life version.

[TheDrake]

That's because there are no consequences to a tall tale. When you exaggerate the amount of violence committed by immigrants it causes real problems.

[Kasandra]

Wow Kasandra, way to "prove" your case.  Like I said, only the liberal press and those looking for fault at a ridiculous degree find fault.

Thanks, I think I did it pretty well.

So again, it's patently obvious since he's literally referenced the planes and his own ability to see them visually that he knows they are not visually invisible.

I confess that is truly hysterical !!!!  He can see them when they are on the ground and he's standing next to them, ergo they are never invisible even though he says when other planes go up against them they can't see them because they are invisible .  I give you credit for using 110% of your thinking ability on that one.  Next time you might want to try 200%.

So, for all the quotes that you pulled out of the source I gave you, you missed the main point.  Stealth fighters are literally invisible in combat to the opposing sides fighters.

While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft make it more difficult for conventional radar to detect or track the aircraft effectively, increasing the odds of an aircraft successfully avoiding detection by enemy radar and/or avoiding being successfully targeted by radar guided weapons.

Oh, so they're literally invisible, but not actually invisible, just harder to detect with radar.  Of course, if a pilot looks out their window they can see them quite clearly.  Literally!

Honestly, I think your defense of that is a variant of bad faith.

That's the whole problem here.  People like you believe in Trump as a matter of faith.  He can lie, abuse, violate his office as much as he wants, but he's still a good guy doing his best day in and day out.  Except when he's playing golf, which he would never do because he's too busy doing his job.  Literally!  I think that should be the word to signify Trump's time in office.

I'm done talking to you about this, literally.

[TheDeamon]

So, for all the quotes that you pulled out of the source I gave you, you missed the main point.  Stealth fighters are literally invisible in combat to the opposing sides fighters.

While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft make it more difficult for conventional radar to detect or track the aircraft effectively, increasing the odds of an aircraft successfully avoiding detection by enemy radar and/or avoiding being successfully targeted by radar guided weapons.

Oh, so they're literally invisible, but not actually invisible, just harder to detect with radar.  Of course, if a pilot looks out their window they can see them quite clearly.  Literally!

Bad phrasing is bad phrasing. They're not literally invisible, because they can be seen. But they are figuratively, or even practically, invisible for all other intents and purposes with regards to the current mission profile.

Now can we go lock the Grammar Nazi back in the closet please?

[Kasandra]

Ok, he said "literally" literally several times, but every time he said that enemy planes that might be right beside the Stealth bomber couldn't see it, he actually meant they could see it, because he meant "literally" figuratively.  He probably should have said something like "almost invisible to radar" but that's a big concept that might not register in his child's mind.

I am neither literally nor figuratively a grammar Nazi, but I do have a background in linguistics.  When he says - and I quote - "...it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it. Even if it's right next to it, it can't see it." he actually means they *can* see it.

Am I being obtuse?

[TheDeamon]

I was commenting more on Seriati's use of "Literally" rather than Trump's.

In modern warfare, a plane that cannot be targeted by available weapons systems might as well be invisible even if the enemy pilot can see it. All the pilot can do in that case is try to shoot it down with their auto-canon. Which is going to be more easily said than done when up against a current generation fighter jet.

Weird word juxtapositions notwithstanding.

[cherrypoptart]

SNL had a famous and funny "literally" skit. I'd link it but it's the first thing that pops up if you search SNL literally. I see MAD TV also did a skit on it but haven't watched it. I remember Sean Hannity once had me shaking my head and I don't remember the exact quote but it might have been something like Obama has Congress literally in the palm of his hand or something like that meaning Obama controlled Congress. It's like the Princess Bride quote about inconceivable except the word now is literally. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Calling that a lie is a big stretch. You could argue that it's not proper English but there's another argument that since our language is flexible and adapts if enough people use a word a certain way even if according to the old rules it was absurd eventually it becomes acceptable enough or at least commonly understood. I think, perhaps unfortunately, we're probably there or close to it now with this literally business.

[Kasandra]

The urge to give Trump a pass on his lies is strong in this one, and this one, and this one.  I'm going to throw out my dictionaries, since they are obviously useless now.  Perhaps you Trumpspeak Jedi can explain what he meant when he said "tariffs are making America rich."  It's likely you know what the word "rich" means better than I do and agree with him.  Is it like something with too many calories?  That doesn't really help me, because a calorie is a kilocalorie, so 1 is 1000, or something.  Why isn't it a calory?  Somebody help me out, figuratively!

[cherrypoptart]

Tariffs hurt us in the short term but in the long term if, and that's a big IF, they are successfully used as Trump is intending as a negotiating tool to bring down barriers of entry to U.S. goods in China THEN after they are reduced again as part of the negotiating process having resulted in concessions it will be to the advantage of the U.S. and probably China as well. You can't really have free trade without fair trade. It's hardball negotiating, Trump's specialty. And it can take a while because you have to walk away from the table a few times to get a good deal and not leave too much money on the table as all of our negotiators before Trump have done which is easily proven by both the trade imbalance as well as their tariffs on our goods compared to ours on theirs.

And I don't even think Trump is asking for complete parity. He's just looking to get something that's a little more fair and looks just the slightest bit reciprocal. He's not asking for them to give up their advantage completely. Just make it the least bit less lopsided.

[TheDrake]

2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice
— Norman Cousins

[cherrypoptart]

Yes. Excellent. Well it looks like it already got codified into the language as legitimate. Unfortunately that looks like there is one less lie now that Trump can be accused of telling. More context:

https://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/opinion/tn-blr-me-aword-20180214-story.html

"But not even “literally” is that literal. Here’s Merriam’s second definition: “in effect, virtually — used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible; ‘will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice’ — Norman Cousins.”

In other words, all those annoying figurative uses of “literally” are also correct. And if you find that hard to swallow, you’re not alone. Even Merriam seems a bit lukewarm on users who take too many liberties with “literally.

“Sense 2 is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse,” Merriam’s editors write. “It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.”

[Kasandra]

2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice
— Norman Cousins

Still not buying it.  If someone uses the word for exaggerative effect, it means heightened emphasis, not contradiction of fact.  The plane is not literally invisible when you're right next to it.  It's not even hard to see.  If he was trying to exaggerate for effect, he could have/should have said the plane is literally invisible to radar.  But, like I said, that's a hard concept for some people.

[Pete at Home]

SNL had a famous and funny "literally" skit. I'd link it but it's the first thing that pops up if you search SNL literally. I see MAD TV also did a skit on it but haven't watched it. I remember Sean Hannity once had me shaking my head and I don't remember the exact quote but it might have been something like Obama has Congress literally in the palm of his hand or something like that meaning Obama controlled Congress. It's like the Princess Bride quote about inconceivable except the word now is literally. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Calling that a lie is a big stretch. You could argue that it's not proper English but there's another argument that since our language is flexible and adapts if enough people use a word a certain way even if according to the old rules it was absurd eventually it becomes acceptable enough or at least commonly understood. I think, perhaps unfortunately, we're probably there or close to it now with this literally business.

I didn’t say it was “improper English.” I said that those who use the word that way are illiterates. Or I should have said, ‘ iliteralits’”

[Kasandra]

The urge to give Trump a pass on his lies is strong in this one, and this one, and this one.  I'm going to throw out my dictionaries, since they are obviously useless now.  Perhaps you Trumpspeak Jedi can explain what he meant when he said "tariffs are making America rich."  It's likely you know what the word "rich" means better than I do and agree with him.  Is it like something with too many calories?  That doesn't really help me, because a calorie is a kilocalorie, so 1 is 1000, or something.  Why isn't it a calory?  Somebody help me out, figuratively!

Well, now we know that the Federal Reserve hasn't read the memo on how wonderful tariffs are.

President Donald Trump’s trade war raised prices for consumers and hurt the manufacturing industry, according to a report from economists on the Federal Reserve Board.

"The first comprehensive estimates" of the trade war’s effect on American manufacturers show that the tariffs have hurt the industry more than they helped, wrote Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce, two senior economists at the Federal Reserve's Industrial Output Section.

"We find that U.S. manufacturing industries more exposed to tariff increases experience relative reductions in employment as a positive effect from import protection is offset by larger negative effects from rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs," the report said.

In short, the economists concluded that the tariffs gave a “small boost” to manufacturers, which was “offset by larger drags from the effects” of rising costs and retaliatory tariffs.

[TheDeamon]

Nobody claimed tariffs were going to be a short-term gain in this case, and what you're citing is a short-term issue. The market will take time to adjust to the new pricing realities to settle in and for other production options to be brought online. China has been playing a masterful game of destroying entire sections of the production chain across multiple industries for industry located anywhere outside of China.

Because those production capabilities often no longer exist outside of China, or don't exist on any meaningful scale, they have to be re-created, and those capabilities aren't something that can be restored by flipping a switch. It will take years for new capacity to be brought online at sufficient scale. At least, not without resorting to far more aggressive option which would cost a lot of money and resources to make happen.

[Kasandra]

So, you're supportive of the tariff regimen, yet you say it will take years to restore trade to a level commensurate with where it was before Trump initiated them?  That's a good thing?

[Pete at Home]

I don’t think he said what you think he said

[TheDeamon]

So, you're supportive of the tariff regimen, yet you say it will take years to restore trade to a level commensurate with where it was before Trump initiated them?  That's a good thing?

China's Trade practices are anti-competitive, and in some cases are easily argued as threats to national security, and even global security as the United States aren't the only ones who allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the Chinese.

The only way you fix the damage done to the global trade system is through tariffs against China and any other nation who seeks to benefit from China's damaging practices.

Yes, in the short to medium term it will reduce trade activity as the "most efficient" option is to go with the cheapest one, which is China... For now. The problem is when so many essential economic activities require capabilities that only China has, you have a huge problem on your hands.

China does something you don't like? Too bad, you won't be able to do anything about it, because your own people are reliant on Chinese produced goods to function, and it isn't even your own people you have to worry about. Every advanced economy on the planet is likewise beholden to China for their economy to function, so you run the risk of your ostensible allies going to war in defense of China because you're threatening their own economic well being.

The Chinese Communist have played a masterful game of using the Capitalistic free market system against the rest of the world. We have allowed a command and control economy to leverage the Capitalistic system in order to obtain control over key links in the (active) production chain.

Arguably, Trump should do more, but we can't afford to do more at this point because our position is that bad already. The Status Quo is economic suicide for any Free Nation that wants to stick with it as it relates to "free trade" and China.

[Pete at Home]

Yes. Excellent. Well it looks like it already got codified into the language as legitimate.

Facepalm. Is that what you literally think that a dictionary does? Determines which usages are “legitimate”?

If dumbasses routinely misuse a word in a specific way, the dictionary will describe that usage. That doesn’t mean that ain’t becomes good English.

Dictionaries describe how words are used. Including how stupid people use words.  Such descriptions don’t turn the drooling morons into respectable people.

[Fenring]

President Donald Trump’s trade war raised prices for consumers and hurt the manufacturing industry, according to a report from economists on the Federal Reserve Board.

I trust the Federal Reserve board about as far as I can throw a bus. They're basically a Wall Street burger with a dash of relish. I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history when the people on that board knew what they were talking about, and the big difference between one board setup and another is that only some of them were absolutely proven to be incompetent. That, and the fact that their allegiance is difficult to pinpoint at any given time, makes any statement they make waver in my view between being either ignorant or partisan (but not on a Democrat/Republic axis).

[Kasandra]

Yes. Excellent. Well it looks like it already got codified into the language as legitimate.

Facepalm. Is that what you literally think that a dictionary does? Determines which usages are “legitimate”?

If dumbasses routinely misuse a word in a specific way, the dictionary will describe that usage. That doesn’t mean that ain’t becomes good English.

Dictionaries describe how words are used. Including how stupid people use words.  Such descriptions don’t turn the drooling morons into respectable people.

Not to be too pedantic, but just pedantic enough, linguists have been wringing their hands over the misuse of "literal" since at least Fowler's Modern English Usage in 1924, who similarly bemoaned to how "veritable" ceased to mean "true" altogether and became what's called an intensifier, like how we use "really" or "definitely" today.  I don't credit Trump with much linguistic prowess, and in fact think he is a veritable dumbass when it comes to using, uh, words.  So when he says you literally have to flush 15 times or literally can't see a plane when it's right next to you, he really definitely means just that.

[Kasandra]

I trust the Federal Reserve board about as far as I can throw a bus.

Sure, why not bash them all, because they have letters after their names and still are complete morons.  I have to assume that if you got them in a room, you could 'splain them how things really are.  Ron Vara could, too.

[Pete at Home]

Yes. Excellent. Well it looks like it already got codified into the language as legitimate.

Facepalm. Is that what you literally think that a dictionary does? Determines which usages are “legitimate”?

If dumbasses routinely misuse a word in a specific way, the dictionary will describe that usage. That doesn’t mean that ain’t becomes good English.

Dictionaries describe how words are used. Including how stupid people use words.  Such descriptions don’t turn the drooling morons into respectable people.

Not to be too pedantic, but just pedantic enough, linguists have been wringing their hands over the misuse of "literal" since at least Fowler's Modern English Usage in 1924, who similarly bemoaned to how "veritable" ceased to mean "true" altogether and became what's called an intensifier, like how we use "really" or "definitely" today.  I don't credit Trump with much linguistic prowess, and in fact think he is a veritable dumbass when it comes to using, uh, words.  So when he says you literally have to flush 15 times or literally can't see a plane when it's right next to you, he really definitely means just that.

Au contraire, Trump understands that dumbasses are his most loyal constituents and he literally speaks to them in their own stupefying jargon.

[Fenring]

I trust the Federal Reserve board about as far as I can throw a bus.

Sure, why not bash them all, because they have letters after their names and still are complete morons.  I have to assume that if you got them in a room, you could 'splain them how things really are.  Ron Vara could, too.

Non sequitor?

[Kasandra]

I trust the Federal Reserve board about as far as I can throw a bus.

Sure, why not bash them all, because they have letters after their names and still are complete morons.  I have to assume that if you got them in a room, you could 'splain them how things really are.  Ron Vara could, too.

Non sequitor?

Sequitor!  I made the not large leap to think that because you call them incompetent and disparage their ability to make good decisions, that you might be able to straighten them out.  Ignore their credentials and cumulative knowledge of the subject matter their expertise rests on if you think you have better.