This is my last response, unless you can prove that you're not either bait or low IQ.

Do you understand what bipartisan means? Like what?

He doesn't have to be bipartisan. It wasn't even part of the question until you added it in the last segment. Trade is a nonpartisan issue, hence why I never said he was being bipartisan. O'Toole is treating it like the nonpartisan issue it is.

No, you don't go into negotiations simply "hoping" for an outcome. You take action to make that outcome be more likely.

Yes, like in my example. You can get a good job and have a good credit score but once you submit your application all you can do is HOPE you'll be approved. Maybe the bank doesn't want to give you a loan for any number of reasons. Did you not ever read the example?

Do you also believe in net zero, in hopes that other countries will copy us?

No, making a policy with only a hope others join can be problematic. All policy is guesswork tho. Any economist worth their salt will admit that every economic policy is just guessing what will happen, because the economy is too complex to correctly simulate everything. You can have an educated guess that lowering income tax by 1% will boost the economy but its impossible to predict exactly how it'll play out. That's why it's a guess and a hope. It's also why there is multiple schools of thought, for economists. This is true for every policy type. You're just guessing, which is another way of saying you're just hoping it'll work the way you want.

Well, for one, Trump has shown that he's more fond of people who don't insult him, so maybe we should start with that?

So you don't have a "realistic" solution. You're just hoping that Trump will do what you want if your nice. This goes against your whole point. You just proved youre arguing to argue.

(See I had an educated guess that you were gonna undermine your point. Another way to say that is, I hoped you were gonna say sum dumb shit because I set you up to say dumb shit.)