In fundraising speech, Trump says he made up trade claim in meeting with Justin Trudeau

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because of a Democrat media article? No.

Are you not paying any attention to the debate in here? It’s ambiguous at best. . At the very worst, Trump shot from the hip. Trudeau was wrong if one looks at goods alone. Trump might have been wrong if one counts services as well. But as the last previous poster’s article says, the Canadian formula shows Trump was right.
 
Does it bother anyone that Trump said he didn’t know if we did or didn’t have a trade deficit with Canada when that was already a major issue. HE DIDN’T KNOW! He is making trade policies without knowing basic facts about our trade balances.

Personally, that bothers me the most about this story. Oh, and the fact that he seems proud of not knowing and his ability to make things up.
 
Rhubarb said:
You’re casting pearls.
Click to expand...
anikins

Clearly. .

It truly is amazing to see the liberals say things like this and simultaneously deny with such righteous indignation that they disdain those who support Trump or engage in hateful speech directed at us.
 
sallybutler said:
HE DIDN’T KNOW! He is making trade policies without knowing basic facts about our trade balances.
Click to expand...
Neither, apparently, did Trudeau who denied there was one. But nobody criticizes Trudeau, just Trump.
Both were right and both were wrong. If one counts products, Trump was right. If one adds services, Trudeau was right.

Regardless, I’ll believe the interpretations put on the interchange if and when I ever get to hear them from a believable source.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It truly is amazing to see the liberals say things like this and simultaneously deny with such righteous indignation that they disdain those …
Click to expand...
It is truly amazing to take the words of one person on one occasion and implicitly extrapolate to the behavior of a whole group.
 
dvdjs said:
It is truly amazing to take the words of one person on one occasion and implicitly extrapolate to the behavior of a whole group.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Which part of it bothers you? I don’t think I have seen a single liberal on here admit that any liberals here ever say disdainful things about Trump supporters.

But I think this is truly the first time I have seen liberals call those who oppose their point of view “swine”.

“Swine”, “deplorables”, “bitter clingers”, “white married women who obey they husbands” . I think those of us who are not Dems get the idea.
 
Do… Do you understand what the idiom “casting pearls” means? It doesn’t imply anyone are pigs. If I wanted to call someone a swine I’d just say it.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
It’s not a word-for-word quote.
Click to expand...
Interesting to use quotation marks on not word-for-word quote!

I wonder if the not word-for-word quote is faithful to the original content or that it uncharitably twists the meaning, pehaps for the sake of divisiveness?
 
Rhubarb said:
Do… Do you understand what the idiom “casting pearls” means? It doesn’t imply anyone are pigs. If I wanted to call someone a swine I’d just say it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand it’s a metaphor. I’m sure you didn’t literally think I was a hog. But the meaning of the metaphor is extremely demeaning and negative. Why not just admit you went a little overboard in your ideological disdain for those who don’t agree with you, and apologize. It’s so much easier to do that than to argue that somehow it wasn’t really intensely disdainful and offensive to compare someone to a pig. And, too, it would be a real revelation to people on here who did support Trump to learn that some liberals, however few they might be, can disagree without being disagreeable.
 
dvdjs said:
Interesting to use quotation marks on not word-for-word quote!

I wonder if the not word-for-word quote is faithful to the original content or that it uncharitably twists the meaning, pehaps for the sake of divisiveness?
Click to expand...
Oh, but as you know, it gets worse. Mrs. Clinton not only said white married women vote the way their husbands tell them to vote, but that they also take their voting orders from their “bosses” or even their “sons”.

And then she referred to Trump supporters as people who did not want to see black people get jobs or (possibly adapting to her audience) see Indian people advance.

But really, I think the Dems ought to embrace Hillary Clinton in her expressions. She is one of the few who says directly what the party thinks of people who do not agree with them. And she’s the most outspoken in her support for abortion. She’s their “truth teller”, so to speak; the only one with sufficient courage to tell what the party is really all about.
 
Last edited:
See, you say you understand the metaphor but then in the next sentence say there is a comparison to a pig.

These two things are mutually exclusive. I don’t know if you’re suffering from a victim complex or what… I don’t know how to deal with people who just want to be contrarian.
  1. (idiomatic) To give things of value to those who will not understand or appreciate them.
Synonyms
preach to deaf ears

You’ll notice there’s nothing in the phrase that has anything to do with actual pigs. There isn’t even a value judgement beyond perhaps judging someone for not appreciating said pearls.
 
Last edited:
Makes me wonder how much Nixon knew before he decided to take the historical step of dropping the gold standard based on the trade “deficit.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top