It’s a lawyers job to defend a client, and good lawyers often defend the worst clients because the process is important to them. Often those clients have little or no money, there is a reason public defenders exist.

And yes, its ludicrous to support someone who has literally done the opposite of everything you claim to support in the belief that they will somehow do a 180.

Happy to be on your block list. Your mind does not seem to be reasonable at all.

Tariffs are such a bad idea that every country has them on almost every product imported by almost every other country. Oversimplifications like what you just said are extraordinarily unhelpful. Almost as unhelpful as the word “stupid” is in polite conversation.

If tariffs are “stupid” then that must make you smarter than every nation in the world. Or perhaps the situation is much less simple than “tariffs bad, orange man bad”.

“Stupid” is a perfectly appropriate word to describe a bad policy. I didn’t use it to describe you, though I might rethink that. I didn’t realize you were such a snowflake.

They are the opposite of free trade, something Republicans, for example, seem to have forgotten. Then again, ideological and economic consistency have been left behind by current Republicans, who today are more of a cult than anything else. This is because they are in thrall to a strongman. The upside of that, to the extent there is one, is that once Trump is gone the party will likely disintegrate. Strongman regimes rarely survive the death or removal of the strongman. The downside is that it takes a long time for a country to recover from the damage done, if it can recover at all.

If you like protectionist, anti-trade, and harmful economic policies, then great. If you want to damage or destroy American farmers, then you will be very pleased with tariffs.

Hillary defended a rapist during her business career – does that make her pro-rape, or did she just do it for money?

“That is ludicrous” Actually it’s rational, and you just disagree with it.

“Yes, I believe anyone who thinks Trump, who did the exact opposite throughout his entire business career, running on the ticket of a party that opposes everything you stated, would do those things is a fool.”

Then you are blocked. I’m not wasting my time carrying on discussions with incredibly bigoted people who have yet to learn that reasonable minds can disagree.

Her husband had all the leverage in the world with the Most Favored Nation status he granted China to get minimum wages through there and he didn’t. So it is not at all “weird” as you put it for me to suspect his closest associate would not bother either.

The unfair part about your statement wasn’t your reaction to someone ignoring something, but rather the use of telepathic powers to know the internal thought processes of others, to know what facts they ignored rather than weighed differently than you. It’s not fair to use telepathy on people who can’t use it back.

Here is Bernanke explaining why long-term external surpluses in the context of a managed exchange rate are bad:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2015/04/03/germanys-trade-surplus-is-a-problem/

In passing he points out how your “mainstream economic theory” is dissonant with the thinking of the G20.

I understood this when it was written in 2015 which is among the reasons I voted for Trump, because he was the only possible other than Sanders who was even talking about doing something about it (and I would’ve voted for Sanders too if he had made it).

1) Hillary’s husband is not Hillary, we don’t generally hold a person’s spouse as an indicator of much
2) His deal with China was when there was a considerably different relationship, and a considerably different trajectory for China, with an economy that was only a fraction of today. No reason at that time to do the things you suggest.

As to the other, again, you are the one who stated you thought Trump would attempt to implement the Democratic Party objectives. That is ludicrous. Yes, I believe anyone who thinks Trump, who did the exact opposite throughout his entire business career, running on the ticket of a party that opposes everything you stated, would do those things is a fool. And time has born that out as he has done nothing but devastate farmers and hindered the economy.

And so long as we are at this, let’s go to what Bernanke thinks of Trump’s economic understanding and policies:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/6/15726988/ben-bernanke-donald-trump-coal-factory-jobs-tax-cuts

http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/ben-bernanke-donald-trump-yuan/

http://www.reflector.com/Op-Ed/2019/05/13/Bernanke-was-right-Trump-was-wrong.html

So yeah, go ahead and quote Bernanke. Not sure that actually helps you much.

You realize that you picked a scenario that couldn’t be more different than the US, right? Per that article Germany runs a trade surplus that is about 7% of the German economy. The US runs a trade deficit of 3% of our economy. Unclear why you are using that example. Also, again, Bernanke is welcome to his opinion but he is not necessarily right and this really is not generally perceived as a problem. The real issue in Germany is that the rate of export is larger than their entire economic growth rate, which implies the domestic market is shrinking. That is not a problem here at all and in no way justifies what Trump is trying to do.

But I am glad you found one mainstream economist you can agree with in a scenario that is nothing like the United States.

Here is Bernanke explaining why long-term external surpluses in the context of a managed exchange rate are bad:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2015/04/03/germanys-trade-surplus-is-a-problem/

In passing he points out how your “mainstream economic theory” is dissonant with the thinking of the G20.

I understood this when it was written in 2015 which is among the reasons I voted for Trump, because he was the only possible other than Sanders who was even talking about doing something about it (and I would’ve voted for Sanders too if he had made it).