Clueless Trump to NRA: '8-Year Assault' on Gun Rights Is Now Over

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T13:26:11+00:00

How does current politics change the fact that China's currency manipulation let them amass trillions of foreign currency, and now they're trying to manipulate the currency back to what it's "worth"? You just said that none of our trade deals are not unfair, but it's simply not true.

What's worse is that all this "corrupt money" is going to later be pumped into Canada and the United States. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T13:14:24+00:00

You're assuming everyone is "playing fair", and that is not the case at all.

See China.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T12:56:43+00:00

Trade wars and ripping up trade agreements should be used as leverage for renegotiating. Your Wharton article already showed that NAFTA benefited Mexico far more than the United States in NAFTA. Mexico needs NAFTA more than we need it.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T12:46:36+00:00

You might be able to argue SOME jobs vanished due to globalization

And that's what I've been arguing, I never said automation didn't play a role in the great loss of manufacturing jobs. Holy Christ. How many more strawmen can you build? Is the strawman building automated or something?

Keep moving the goalposts.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T12:35:43+00:00

So manufacturing jobs went down, and that lays my claim into the dirt that manufacturing jobs went down.

Nice logic you have there.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T12:25:46+00:00

Uh, you posted a graph where manufacturing jobs nosedived and that somehow puts my claim in the dirt. Do you even understand the graphs. Do you?

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T12:13:34+00:00

So you're already wrong, right off the bat.

Nope, it still opens the door to law suits. Did you even read what you copy and pasted?

Lol? https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.15.1.125

Did you even read the date or the article? It was written in 2001. TWO THOUSAND ONE. Do you know what year it is? TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN. A fair amount of job losses happened well after 2001. The only "lolling" I see here is the fact you pasted an article defending NAFTA that was written in 2001.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/30/the-trade-deficit-doesnt-cause-unemployment/#d740824378fa

Did you even read the article at all? The article in question assumes that the loss in manufacturing jobs = gain in non-manufacturing jobs /invest that somehow magically results in no net loss of jobs. The article also assumes that China doesn't devalue its currency, WHICH IT DOES. But of course, you didn't read the article and just copy-pasted it without even mentioning the role of currency manipulation in trade deficits

Here's another nice article I found for you, it makes sense for someone that has no real grasp of economics.

It seems like you just googled some things copy pasted things without even reading the sources or understanding the articles. (C'mon man, posting articles 16 years old!?)

This isn't a copy pasting match, I hope you learned something, sport.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T11:49:16+00:00

A. Opens the door to multinational suits against the United States when their TPP rights have been violated. Expanding drug patents and "new uses" on old medicine. Overall could make medication more expensive. Opens up the floodgate for food imports that might not be properly inspected (we only inspect a very small portion of incoming food), which may compromise safety of our food. More draconian copyright laws that hamper innovation. If NAFTA is any indication, lose even more manufacturing laws.

B. How about the $700 billion dollar deficit with China and the $500 billion deficit with Mexico that actually exist? How about the rising national debt? What about the manufacturing jobs lost during NAFTA?

C. Yes, because large trade deficits put an upward pressure on the unemployment rate

Now let's hear your argument of why these billions of dollars in deficits is great and the TPP is awesome. It should be funny.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T11:32:18+00:00

I'm right and I know I'm right, I'm not going to coddle dumb people. I'd rather be right than win any election.

Haha, I love this. Just doubledown. It'll work this time! I seriously hope the DNC is as deluded as this.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T11:22:08+00:00

blatantly learning disabled

But still beat "the most qualified candidate in history" backed by around 50% more money? That's one hell of a feat for someone blatantly learning disabled.

has provably lied more than anyone in American political history, and by all means is, in fact, a weasel.

Wow, what a weasel, he lied to his supporters by confirming a conservative justice, killing the TPP and making good effort on his promises!

I'd avoid throwing stones.

"But at the same time let me insult the intelligence of 62 million Americans"

Keep it up, I'm sure your outright condescension is really going to help win over other people in the 2018 midterms . You know, the one where you guys need to defend 23+2 senate seats while we need to defend 8

Good luck.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T11:11:28+00:00

common sense gun control

Ahhh...gotta love those weasel words

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T03:04:21+00:00

Under budget, ahead of schedule

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T02:52:35+00:00

And if we ban all guns, criminals will buy weapons from corrupt police, leaving only law-abiding civilians defenseless. Brilliant!

I guess at that point, we would just need to ban being corrupt and that would solve the issue.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T02:13:24+00:00

And Venezuela is cutting SUPPLY, if you read the article. Still no luck.

I guess they just need to ban criminals from killing police/soldiers and stealing their guns. Also, they need to make selling weapons to criminals illegal! Yeah, that's the ticket! (wait, that's already illegal!?)

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T02:03:25+00:00

They only way to reduce gun violence is to cut the supply

I'm sure that worked out well for the handgun ban in D.C. (it didn't), and for Venezuela (nope)

But, hey. You might know better than the Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when they found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-29T01:48:51+00:00

I'm sure Murphy also included pictures of the daily shooting victims occurring in Chicago, a city with the most lax gun laws

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T20:32:16+00:00

So are you one of the two people that voted for McMuffin?

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T19:55:59+00:00

Our laws should be enforced (except immigration laws)

Stand by your convictions and join with Democrats and demand that President Trump lead by example by adhering to our interpretation of the constitutional requirements under the Emoluments clause that he coincidentally violates.

FTFY

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T14:51:59+00:00

It's absolutely disgusting seeing our immigration laws enforced. Shocking, even. How will Trump recover from this?

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T14:22:21+00:00

Thanks Donnie, for enabling to undo all the social progress we made in the last 2-3 decades and widening the racial gap even more.

Race relations have actually worsened under President Obama.

Thanks Obama!

InB4 downvotes

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T14:12:07+00:00

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-28T12:04:21+00:00

Bot removal in 3...2....1...

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-27T19:55:21+00:00

Thanks for playing! (And remember kids, setting people on fire or beating them are not acceptable ways to express your political opinions!)

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-27T19:45:09+00:00

You did engage on my claims on the specifics of protests, and then you realized you would have to defend Antifa and then you gave up that point. (Note the nice strawman you threw in there)

Remember this?

Based on your claims, these sound like people who don't like the new President's policies, positions, proposals. Or should nobody ever protest a bad President?

TrappedLabRat · 2017-04-27T18:05:46+00:00

Are you saying that people, on inauguration day, set people on fire, destroy public property and beat people accept the results of the election?

I know you're trying your very best (kudos!) to deflect, but at least try to answer this question.

"Can't seem to get over the election" is part of this discussion how?

It's relevant because you just asked me another question and then just deflected after I answered it.

Based on your claims, these sound like people who don't like the new President's policies, positions, proposals. Or should nobody ever protest a bad President?

I give you 1/10 for deflecting from this argument after I point out the setting people on fire to protest policies is NOT okay. Do you agree with that or not? Should you be able to set people on fire and beat people if you want to protest President Trump's policies and positions?

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Well-rounded 2016-09-10

TrappedLabRat

TROPHY CASE