What Donald Trump Doesn’t Know about U.S. Trade

National Review ^ | 08/19/2015 | Kevin D. Williamson

[mac_truck]

Actually, I don’t see anything hateful in his article.

Really? Here's the set up paragraph...

Trump fancies himself an ace negotiator, a skill that he has had some chance to hone in an embarrassing series of corporate bankruptcies, and he proposes to employ those skills to ensure trade that is “fair” by whatever ethical standards occur to this particular serial adulterer/crony capitalist/pathological liar/reality-television grotesque. While Trump himself is fundamentally unserious, the Right has witnessed a destructive reemergence of the old anti-trade populism articulated by Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.

[SeekAndFind]

Where’s the “hate” in the above paragraph?

All it is for me is an attack on his trade policies.

Now, you might disagree with the author and believe he is wrong and Trump is right. well and good, let’s debate the issue.

But that statement does not tell me that the author “hates” Trump.

Here’s how hate would look like -— TRUMP WANTS TO THROW GRANDMA OFF THE CLIFF ( what the Dems did to Paul Ryan ), or TRUMP WANTS HIS EMPLOYEE TO DIE OF CANCER WITHOUT TREATMENT ( what the Dems did to Mitt Romney ).

Show me someone writing stuff like that and I’ll agree that it’s hate.

[freedomfiter2]

The idiot says that trade restrictions that other countries put on American goods has little negative effect but it would be a disaster for the US to reciprocate.

[mac_truck]

Lol..so Trump’s marriage history is a trade related issue?

Your parsing reminds me of another ‘serial adulterer’...

[GoneSalt]

Trump fancies himself an ace negotiator, a skill that he has had some chance to hone in an embarrassing series of corporate bankruptcies, and he proposes to employ those skills to ensure trade that is “fair” by whatever ethical standards occur to this particular serial adulterer/crony capitalist/pathological liar/reality-television grotesque. While Trump himself is fundamentally unserious, the Right has witnessed a destructive reemergence of the old anti-trade populism articulated by Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.

That's not urine. It's rain. /s

[Catsrus]

Ross Perot had a personal vendetta against GHW Bush. I read the background and it had something to do with Reagain putting him in charge of POWs and MIAs and then Bush did something to stab him in the back. The only thing I remember about Ross Perot was him making the sucking sound of American jobs if NAFTA went through. He wasn’t wrong about that.

[bert]

Unless I have strong evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe the reason Trump has it in for China is because they repeatedly got the better of him trying to make deals.

[miss marmelstein]

Wow. This guy is factually illiterate. Who is his target audience? Krauthammer and George Will?

[miss marmelstein]

Yeah, that’s pretty hateful! Good point.

[Arm_Bears]

What does Obama know about US trade that Trump doesn’t, Mr. Williamson?

[Helicondelta]

“Trump fancies himself an ace negotiator, a skill that he has had some chance to hone in an embarrassing series of corporate bankruptcies”

LMAO. Who the hell is Kevin D. Williamson? Trump is worth billions and owns property all over the world. By any reasonable standard he is a very successful negotiator.

I checked the numbers and last year the US ran a $343 billion deficit with China, a $53 billion deficit with Mexico, and a $67 billion deficit with Japan. Trump’s position is that the trade deals with these countries need to be renegotiated so that they become more balanced. Does Kevin D. Williamson disagree?

Trump says that he is in favor of free trade. What Kevin D. Williamson doesn’t get is that in the real world, trade deals need to be negotiated. The numbers don’t lie. The politicians made bad deals with China, Mexico and Japan. Trump is right. Kevin D. Williamson is wrong.

[Yosemitest]

"While Trump himself is fundamentally unserious,
the Right has witnessed a destructive reemergence of the old anti-trade populism articulated by Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot."

WRONG on both examples !

Source:

" ...the obvious question:
How can an impolitic New York billionaire, who openly touts his ubiquitous past
of greasing the palms of politicians of all stripes in order to amass a king’s fortune in business,
possibly become a populist hero of the average citizen out there,
and in particular many conservative Republicans?

The answer is simple.
He knows the BEAST.
He’s familiar with its moves, its tactics, its weaknesses and vulnerabilities,
and therefore he’s one of the most qualified to kill it --
or at least to bridle and saddle it,
then ride it and bring it to heel.

Indeed, for generations many well-intentioned patriots have attempted to assault the dragon’s lair on the Potomac.
Unfortunately, their Mr. Smith-caliber zeal and integrity alone weren’t the proper weapons of St. George needed to fight
the sharp teeth and talons of entrenched bureaucracy,
nor the fiery breath of a complicit media and entertainment industrial complex.
Who knows,
perhaps Trump’s charred and gnawed bones will join the pile of carnage at the cave’s entrance
like so many who have tried before him.
That remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, if someone were ultimately to prevail against the Leviathan of Government,
whether that is Trump or anyone else,
the true people’s champion would have to be someone of independent financial means.
That is, he or she would need to be able to fight without ever becoming beholden to the faceless financiers and donors
who ONY give IN ORDER TO RECEIVE (and control).
He must therefore be INCORRUPTIBLE,
otherwise, we’re right back to where we are now.

He or she would also need to be PROVEN in terms of demonstrable organizational success on the world stage,
NOT a member of the FAILED professional political class, or a PONTIFICATING academic,
or God forbid, a malignant narcissist community organizer with ZERO experience in the real world.
Although, being a narcissist isn’t necessarily a showstopper
IF this leader can TRULY GET THE JOB DONE.
Saving the country won’t be judged on STYLE points, just results.
Certainly modesty isn’t one of Mr. Trump’s virtues.
But as they say,
it ain’t bragging IF YOU CAN DO IT.

... Trump’s supporters ... They are indeed protesting, ... coming forth FROM BOTH major parties ALONG WITH independents,
sorely aggrieved at a dysfunctional government
guilty of far more than 95 transgressions.
They arise together IN FURY BECAUSE
our once great government has clearly BECOME DESTRUCTIVE of operating BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,
and it is therefore the right of the people TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT,
and to institute NEW government. "

[Yosemitest]

Limbaugh Compares Trump To Perot In 1992

Here's another explanation on WHY Donald Trump is NOT another "Ross Perot" .

Carly on Hillary, Rather on Trump -- and Dr. Carson on What Ails America
August 14, 2015

...
RUSH: ... CNN last night, Don Lemon speaking with host of the TV show called The Big Interview.
This would be Dan Rather, about the presidential race.
Don Lemon said,
"Have you ever seen anything like this Trump stuff?
You ever seen anything like this in all of your years covering politics?"

RATHER: I have not.
I'm fond of saying I've been to goat-ropings and space shots and been covering presidential campaigns a long time.
I've never seen anything like this...
Many Republicans fear...
He's definitely tapped into something.
And I know that the other Republican candidates see him as sort of a sun-powered, perpetual motion, all-American bull-shine machine,
but a large section of his party doesn't see him that way.

RUSH: Right. So Dan Rather thinks he's in for the long haul.
"You ever heard of goat roping?
Can't say that I have, either.
But Dan Rather... (interruption) He been to one.
And... (interruption)
"I'm fond of saying I've been to goat-ropings and space shots
and been covering presidential campaigns a long time.
I've never seen anything like this."
He was around when the Perot phenomenon was happening.
Would he not...?
How many of you people think that the Perot think is vastly different from what's happening now?

How many of you think it's much the same thing?
I mean, Perot?
Can anybody say third party?
There was no pledge from Perot.
I mean, Perot...
You know, you look at the differences in Perot and Trump.
Snerdley, off the top of your head can you cite any?
I know it's an unfair question because there are some things. (interruption)
Well, yeah, Perot didn't brag about how rich he was, but he did in his own way, and others did it for him.
He didn't do it exactly as Trump does, but I'll give you an example.

He's out there describing how the federal government wastes money. (impression)
"Hell! Hell, Larry!
You know, they're running around and they're buying all these 737s and 757s.
Hell, I don't need all that!
I have two of 'em myself.
What you need to do is get a bunch of Lear 55s.
You can save about $150 billion and get rid of..."
Well, how does he know that?
So it was subtle (chuckles), but it was the same thing.
I think there was a...
How many of you in this audience...?

Let me just ask you.
I know I can't see your hands raise,
but how many of you think that Trump is in this to win it.?
That's the big question.
Snerdley, you think Trump's in this to win it? (interruption)
Snerdley says he don't know.
Dawn, you think Trump's in this to win it?
Dawn thinks he is.
Brian?
No? Don't know, or don't think he's in to win it?
Brian doesn't know, and I can tell by the way he's saying it, he doesn't care.
So how many of you think Trump's in it to win it?

I can tell you Perot was never in it to win it, and that was a huge factor.
That was important to me.
How do I know that?
How did I know that, do you mean ... ?
Because it was borne out to be true.
He quit when it looked like he was gonna win!
I knew... (interruption)
I predicted he would get out.
I predicted IF it looked like he was gonna win, he would get out 'cause he didn't WANT to win.
I mean, what was that thing?
He didn't go somewhere,
somebody didn't go to his event 'cause some daughter was getting married or some such thing.

I happened to find out WHAT Ross Perot's REASON for getting into the race was, and it was PERSONAL.
I have a lot of respect for Ross Perot.
You can't take his achievement away from him. You can't.
He's a unique, genuine American in a whole lot of ways, but I knew he did NOT WANT to win the presidency.
That first speech he gave at the National Press Club that got all this attention...
I'll never forget Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens was on C-SPAN the next day.

There was some authors hour or some such thing, and Perot the previous day, they televised a speech he had given the National Press Club
where he just railed against the irresponsibility of Washington and the spending and HOW he would fix it.
"They're flying around in 737s, Larry, and 757s!
Get rid of all that.
Get some Lear 55s.
That's all the people running our government need.
They don't need to stand up in there.
Got room to sit, that's fine, fine for everybody.
Nobody else stands up in airplanes; why should they?"

All right, fine,
the next day on C-SPAN, when it was time to take calls, every call to Christopher Hitchens was about Ross Perot
and he had no idea what had happened.
So he's getting all these question from C-SPAN viewers who had seen Perot the day before
or maybe a couple days before and about 30 or 45 minutes into this Hitchens said,
"I'm very much uninformed here.
There's something happening that I'm totally unaware of."
He was there to talk about his book and nobody cared about that.
They wanted to talk about what they'd seen Perot do.
But Perot didn't do that speech to win the ...
he didn't even .... wasn't even thinking about running at that point,
and he I know that he didn't INTEND to win.

I don't know that ABOUT Trump.

So Rush DID NOT SAY that Trump was NOT in it to WIN.
Rush has an entirely different thought about Trump.

[Helicondelta]

Great post!

[VideoDoctor]

I must say... Mr Trump has them "pissing" their pants.

Rock On Monsieur Trump!

[stephenjohnbanker]

” That liberal RINO-puke Kevin Williamson appears to be suffering from either an overdose or no dose of whatever meds he ought to be on. His hateful spew would never have been tolerated by William F. Buckley. WFB would have bounced his ass right out the door.”

If WFB would return alive today, he would sell or close NR immediately. It is now a POS magazine.

[x]

+1

[DoodleDawg]

Trump’s position is that the trade deals with these countries need to be renegotiated so that they become more balanced.

In order to to that he needs to either force U.S. consumers to buy less or Chinese consumer to buy more. How will he do that?

[ELS]

I wish people who post on this thread would argue against the author’s reasoning instead of attacking the man himself.

Right back at ya: The author himself employed an ad hominem attack on Trump in the second paragraph. That is not arguing against Trump's reasoning.

[Daffynition]

Time to drink?