25% tariffs on Mexican & Canadian stuff starts tomorrow.

  • Thread starter Thread starter shar-vell Dan
  • Start date Start date
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig
 
The Blazing Saddle said:
And pork.
Click to expand...


oliva-munn-hotdog.gif


secdon-try.gif
 
GreatRedDragon said:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig
Click to expand...

You'd have a good argument here, but you initial premise is off. You're looking at the tariffs as starting the negotiation and assuming there's already a fair deal in place. But that's not the basis for the tariffs. Trump isn't using them as a means of distributive bargaining to make a deal/get a discount after the face. He's using them to to get other countries to the negotiation table in the first place to start renegotiations because we've been shafted on the original deal.

What the US has been working with for the past 50+ years is trade agreements where only one side has held up their end of the bargain. The US has faithfully held up their end of the contract while the other countries have not held their end and reciprocated. While we don't need to rely on goods from other countries we've continually purchased them. The same cannot be said about the countries we have agreements with. In short, we're getting shafted and it's time to redo the contract.

The problem has been these countries don't want to come to the table to talk. Really, why would they. They have a great deal where we buy goods from them and support their economy while they don't do anything and take advantage of the situation. To use your cabinet maker example... You put it in terms of the cabinet maker completed his job with top quality and we're trying to renegotiate terms after the fact (get a discount). The situation we actually have is we've paid the cabinet maker, a plumber, electrician, drywall installer, painter, etc. a deposit up front and regular payments on time to do work in several large buildings. Then all these contractors have half-assed the jobs if they did any work in the first place. And when we call trying to find out what the hell is going on no one is answering the phone. In this case it's the contractors who have to worry about their credibility. Otherwise a large contract will be cancelled and/or they can be sued; each of which has a good potential of bankrupting their business.

Tariffs are the equivalent of taking legal steps to contact the contractors and force them to reply before more drastic actions are taken. They still have a chance to save face and complete the work correctly. Or they can choose to not respond and have their livelihood put in danger. Whatever path it takes from there, they started in the wrong, which gives us the upper hand if they decide to talk.

This is exactly what we're seeing unfold with the tariffs. The other countries are saying "oh shit, he's serious. We can't ignore it and need to show up to the table." They're caving and starting talks to save face & their livelihood. Sticking with the contractor example; it's them saying please don't sue us we'll complete the job, and how about if I knock off some of the cost to make it up to you. We respond with that's fine, but we're redoing the terms of our initial contract as well otherwise I'll still sue you. The new terms will benefit me more, but don't worry you'll still be able to make a good profit too. Maybe the cabinet maker thinks he's big enough and can give us the finger. But when we sue he'll be looking to settle out of court. At that point it's well buddy you had your chance, now face the consequences. Your business may survive afterwards, but you'll be stuck with piddly-shit little jobs instead of large, high profit jobs. Sure we may be without a cabinet maker for a bit which will be a pain in the ass. But at that point we hire someone else or say fuck it we'll do the job ourselves.

Basically the US has been screwed over for way too long in these original trade deals and other countries haven't been willing to respond when we want to talk. Trump had to resort to more drastic measures in these tariffs to get them to pick up the phone in the first place. If they don't want to talk, their economy may suffer. The US may suffer some short term inconveniences, but our economy isn't near as reliant on other countries as they are on the US. It seems a few countries have realized this and have responded. So far the tariff tactic seems to be working as planned.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
You'd have a good argument here, but you initial premise is off. You're looking at the tariffs as starting the negotiation and assuming there's already a fair deal in place. But that's not the basis for the tariffs. Trump isn't using them as a means of distributive bargaining to make a deal/get a discount after the face. He's using them to to get other countries to the negotiation table in the first place to start renegotiations because we've been shafted on the original deal.

What the US has been working with for the past 50+ years is trade agreements where only one side has held up their end of the bargain. The US has faithfully held up their end of the contract while the other countries have not held their end and reciprocated. While we don't need to rely on goods from other countries we've continually purchased them. The same cannot be said about the countries we have agreements with. In short, we're getting shafted and it's time to redo the contract.

The problem has been these countries don't want to come to the table to talk. Really, why would they. They have a great deal where we buy goods from them and support their economy while they don't do anything and take advantage of the situation. To use your cabinet maker example... You put it in terms of the cabinet maker completed his job with top quality and we're trying to renegotiate terms after the fact (get a discount). The situation we actually have is we've paid the cabinet maker, a plumber, electrician, drywall installer, painter, etc. a deposit up front and regular payments on time to do work in several large buildings. Then all these contractors have half-assed the jobs if they did any work in the first place. And when we call trying to find out what the hell is going on no one is answering the phone. In this case it's the contractors who have to worry about their credibility. Otherwise a large contract will be cancelled and/or they can be sued; each of which has a good potential of bankrupting their business.

Tariffs are the equivalent of taking legal steps to contact the contractors and force them to reply before more drastic actions are taken. They still have a chance to save face and complete the work correctly. Or they can choose to not respond and have their livelihood put in danger. Whatever path it takes from there, they started in the wrong, which gives us the upper hand if they decide to talk.

This is exactly what we're seeing unfold with the tariffs. The other countries are saying "oh shit, he's serious. We can't ignore it and need to show up to the table." They're caving and starting talks to save face & their livelihood. Sticking with the contractor example; it's them saying please don't sue us we'll complete the job, and how about if I knock off some of the cost to make it up to you. We respond with that's fine, but we're redoing the terms of our initial contract as well otherwise I'll still sue you. The new terms will benefit me more, but don't worry you'll still be able to make a good profit too. Maybe the cabinet maker thinks he's big enough and can give us the finger. But when we sue he'll be looking to settle out of court. At that point it's well buddy you had your chance, now face the consequences. Your business may survive afterwards, but you'll be stuck with piddly-shit little jobs instead of large, high profit jobs. Sure we may be without a cabinet maker for a bit which will be a pain in the ass. But at that point we hire someone else or say fuck it we'll do the job ourselves.

Basically the US has been screwed over for way too long in these original trade deals and other countries haven't been willing to respond when we want to talk. Trump had to resort to more drastic measures in these tariffs to get them to pick up the phone in the first place. If they don't want to talk, their economy may suffer. The US may suffer some short term inconveniences, but our economy isn't near as reliant on other countries as they are on the US. It seems a few countries have realized this and have responded. So far the tariff tactic seems to be working as planned.
Click to expand...
This ^^
 
GreatRedDragon said:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig
Click to expand...
You know, that sounds good but 99% of it will be proven wrong in the next month or so..
Wonder what he will say then?
 
GreatRedDragon said:
“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig
Click to expand...

If Trump was only flipping quarters (distributive bargaining), then he wouldn't have given an additional 30 days to Canada and Mexico. And he's not asking them to do all the border protection and searching for drugs and illegals, he's asking them to do their fair share - and that will take a partnership. But you have to come out of the gate strong.

Shock and awe.
 
JackTheBear said:
You’re not nearly as polite as most Canadians.

LOL
Click to expand...
Canadian people are nice…even the insult was nice. I would have said hey phony…your daddy’s a punk and your momma’s a whore and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree… but that’s not nice….or professional. As a representative of this site I would never say something like that to another member.
 


dRump is an idiot. He blinked first yesterday b/c he was completly wrong and looked like an idiot to the entire world.
Cut off aid to starving malnourished people around the globe and try to extort our most trusted NA trading partners and hurt every posible business big & small in the process.
Completely bizarre chain of logic. Un-ethical, immoral, un-American and some of the worst decisions ive ever witnessed.



WHO WANTS OR NEEDS $1300 ALTERNATORS FOR THEIR CARS ? TRY BUILDING AUTOS OR AIRPLANES INCLUDING JET FIGHTERS WITH NO RAW MATERIALS OR CNC PARTS. WHO WANT $7 BUCK A GALLON GAS ? TRY FILLING A GROCERY STORE WITH NO FOOD
 
Last edited:
CNN reported last night that these tariffs may cost Americans $600 each in the first year. If you can't handle $600 then I don't know what to tell you. Well worth it imo. Americans have gotten too used to having their cheap Chinese bullshit delivered to their door in days after visiting their Amazon cart.
 
Last edited:
shar-vell Dan said:


dRump is an idiot. He blinked first yesterday b/c he was completly wrong and looked like an idiot to the entire world.
Cut off aid to starving malnourished people around the globe and try to extort our most trusted NA trading partners and hurt every posible business big & small in the process.
Completely bizarre chain of logic. Un-ethical, immoral, un-American and some of the worst decisions ive ever witnessed.



WHO WANTS OR NEEDS $1300 ALTERNATORS FOR THEIR CARS ? TRY BUILDING AUTOS OR AIRPLANES INCLUDING JET FIGHTERS WITH NO RAW MATERIALS OR CNC PARTS. WHO WANT $7 BUCK A GALLON GAS ? TRY FILLING A GROCERY STORE WITH NO FOOD
Click to expand...
How in the fuck can you type that with a straight face. Trump blinked first ? Fuck Dan, all you have to do is go to ANY media outlet to see who blinked. You’re literally tossing around bullshit that even CNN doesn’t have the balls to lie about. It’s the epitome of provably false. It doesn’t get any more provably false. What the hell are you trying to accomplish by posting shit so ridiculously false that not a single person reading it doesn’t know you’re full of shit. God damn.
 
shar-vell Dan said:


dRump is an idiot. He blinked first yesterday b/c he was completly wrong and looked like an idiot to the entire world.
Cut off aid to starving malnourished people around the globe and try to extort our most trusted NA trading partners and hurt every posible business big & small in the process.
Completely bizarre chain of logic. Un-ethical, immoral, un-American and some of the worst decisions ive ever witnessed.



WHO WANTS OR NEEDS $1300 ALTERNATORS FOR THEIR CARS ? TRY BUILDING AUTOS OR AIRPLANES INCLUDING JET FIGHTERS WITH NO RAW MATERIALS OR CNC PARTS. WHO WANT $7 BUCK A GALLON GAS ? TRY FILLING A GROCERY STORE WITH NO FOOD
Click to expand...
And with one post Dan has regained his title as stupidest poster on Rig Talk. Now he's made the cut to go to nationals.
 
shar-vell Dan said:


dRump is an idiot. He blinked first yesterday b/c he was completly wrong and looked like an idiot to the entire world.
Cut off aid to starving malnourished people around the globe and try to extort our most trusted NA trading partners and hurt every posible business big & small in the process.
Completely bizarre chain of logic. Un-ethical, immoral, un-American and some of the worst decisions ive ever witnessed.



WHO WANTS OR NEEDS $1300 ALTERNATORS FOR THEIR CARS ? TRY BUILDING AUTOS OR AIRPLANES INCLUDING JET FIGHTERS WITH NO RAW MATERIALS OR CNC PARTS. WHO WANT $7 BUCK A GALLON GAS ? TRY FILLING A GROCERY STORE WITH NO FOOD
Click to expand...
......mental case..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top