What actions are you going to take?
Stopping the trade war.
Ideally just not starting a one-on-one showdown without any plan or international help wouldāve been best, but it was purely out of ego that the president kept ratcheting up the stakes on personal whims. Those extra moves definitely should not have happened, and the market always reflected poorly on them.
Right now weāre still deeply in the red from our initial starting position, and state propaganda is feeding the electorate stories of pain reduction as stories of success.
The whole thing was a useless exercise, not because China didnāt need to be dealt with, but because it was done poorly. As with North Korea, Iām not interested in giving the President participation awards for trying badly.
Regurgitation. Who would we have partnered with to buck China?
The ātrade warā is going to stop a recession how?
Not regurgitation. The massive bailouts of state money necessary to prop up our industry offer the dirtiest, roughest estimate of how far in the red the trade war has put us. Thatās before doing any economics to measure the full ripple effects of it.
Who would we have partnered with to buck China?
Just by asking this, youāve already put more thought into economics than the President has. Leveraging US political capital for help in dealing with a second world economic adversary wouldnāt be a difficult hurdle for a competent president.
The ātrade warā is going to stop a recession how?
You were a participant in those 2018 threads where the height of the presidentās impulsive negotiation tactics were priced into the market. It would be faster to just reread those, which are filled with people who know a lot more about the machinery of economics than I do.
Yes regurgitation.
Didnāt answer.
Didnāt answer.
1 Like
You arenāt capable of taking any of those actions.
We won the trade war, a little point he seems to have overlooked.
More opinion from Jonathon Turley. Of course heās an expert, soā¦
Heās an expert, so his opinion shouldnāt be dismissed just because heās educated.
No, heās an expert so his opinion carries more weight than yours
He shouldnāt be dismissed because his opinion confirms my bias.
Please accept it as fact.
My statement already encompasses your two statements.
In your mind.
Do you accept it as fact?
The whole article? No.
The facts in it? Yes.
The analysis. Please?
Everything that he quoted from the public record, I donāt contest.
I disagree with his opinion that basic rights were denied to the Republican minority.
Based on your education?
Yes. I learned in school that youāre supposed to cite sources to support statements like that. He didnāt cite anything.
If I wanted to know exactly what was deniedāwhich witnesses, which procedures, etcāI should be able to read that in the article, or be directed to where I can get that information, before Iām expected to accept that as the foundation for the rest of the article.
Thereās no reason not to include that, even in an opinion piece. It doesnāt take up extra spaceāthanks to hyperlinksāand since heās an expert, he should be able to to provide that information without much effort.
The only reason not to support that assertion with evidence, is because he has an incentive to hide it in support of his opinion that Republicans were treated unfairly. Perhaps if the Republican witness list was provided, the average reader would agree with Democrats that those witnesses were outside the scope of the hearings.
Please?
Good article.
I thought you claimed to have read the article? He laid them out point by point.
Some precedent is a bit more recent. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the other House impeachment managers are expected to demand fair play and equal treatment in the presentation of witnesses and evidence, the very due process denied in the House investigation. (Democratic leaders repeatedly denied witnesses and minority hearing-days for Republicans. They allowed only one non-staff witness for the entire House Judiciary proceedings, and I was that witness.)
2 Likes
