Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 93727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2660 on: May 08, 2018, 11:58:34 PM »
Local news outlets in Seattle are reporting that Trump has ordered Boeing to cut off their deals with Iran.   (I didn’t even realize that Boeing sells “billions” of dollars worth of jetliners to Iran)

Not sure if this is something they must comply with...or if its just another blow hard tactic.
Depending on how it's outfitted a 787 runs between 150-200 million. A triple 7 is up into the 300s. Ten aircraft will put you into the multi-billion dollar stratum quite easily. 

Boeing would be in a tough spot because they're very heavily invested in their US infrastructure. Trump could conceivably make life pretty hard for them, and there's just no way at all to know if he would. A lot of other companies might tell him to piss off, and I suspect (hope) that's what European companies would do. I'd be more interested to see what Airbus Industrie does. They could tell him what to do with his sanctions, and there's a possibility that punitive action against Airbus would hurt the US airlines far more than it would hurt AI. No way that would stop him, though.

I wonder if Boeing could sue over the loss of a deal that was already inked. If they'd begun production then it'd seem they have a pretty good case to make.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2384
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2661 on: May 09, 2018, 07:02:20 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2662 on: May 09, 2018, 07:09:25 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1

Why?

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2663 on: May 09, 2018, 08:37:25 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2664 on: May 09, 2018, 11:18:54 AM »
Just offer this:   I negotiate a fair amount.  A lot, really.  And invariably, at some point I will get "well, [Your competitor] accepts these terms/issues."    Invariably, I know that I have a deal at some point, because they would BE with [my competitor] if they really were accepting those terms/issues.   

The wild card here for me is China.   They are opportunists.  I'm not sure what they can do here to screw the deal for the rest of us, but that's my worry.  If Iran was going to put all their eggs in the Russian basket, they'd be there by now, by virtue of the economics and geography of the area. 

Let me twist this around a little:  what would you all have done?   Just rode it out?  Hoped for the best?  How do we get a better deal?  Live with it? Ask nicely?
Your bolded is an interesting point. However there are more than 3 players here, and the team dynamics have changed quite a bit. Your initial assessment is correct, but would it still be correct if in the interim the other guy has undertaken a successful merger and you're under indictment for being an ass-clown?

As for your question, there was no harm in riding it out. While it's laughable to assume that nitwit had some valid, logical reason for pulling out, the safest guess is that he objected to the sunset provision. So he sunsetted it now, rather than letting it continue to constrain their nuclear program, which everybody but Bibi and Bolton say is the current status? If you ink a deal wherein somebody agrees to pay you $100 a month for 10 years are you going to tear it up because you deserve more for longer? This isn't even rolling the dice on a better deal. The dice are gone. This is simply telling the guy to shove his money up his ass and laughing as you walk away under the misguided impression that you just won.

I agree with all that, and it's sound analysis... except for one point.  I know Shep Smith has gotten some publicity for pointing out that Trump didn't "withdraw" - because there isn't a withdraw provision in the deal - so this is really a commitment to breach the agreement, but I think it's not unreasonable to point out that we haven't actually breached the agreement yet.   I'm not naďve enough to think that in the next 90 days we'll have a perfect deal, Brady will commit to four more seasons in New England, and Portnoy will be back in Dream Theater, but I think it's fair to see what it is that makes this deal "terrible", and whether Iran might actually agree to certain specific changes.

Everything I've read is that you are correct: the sticking point is the sunset provisions. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2665 on: May 09, 2018, 11:30:22 AM »
Just offer this:   I negotiate a fair amount.  A lot, really.  And invariably, at some point I will get "well, [Your competitor] accepts these terms/issues."    Invariably, I know that I have a deal at some point, because they would BE with [my competitor] if they really were accepting those terms/issues.   

The wild card here for me is China.   They are opportunists.  I'm not sure what they can do here to screw the deal for the rest of us, but that's my worry.  If Iran was going to put all their eggs in the Russian basket, they'd be there by now, by virtue of the economics and geography of the area. 

Let me twist this around a little:  what would you all have done?   Just rode it out?  Hoped for the best?  How do we get a better deal?  Live with it? Ask nicely?
Your bolded is an interesting point. However there are more than 3 players here, and the team dynamics have changed quite a bit. Your initial assessment is correct, but would it still be correct if in the interim the other guy has undertaken a successful merger and you're under indictment for being an ass-clown?

As for your question, there was no harm in riding it out. While it's laughable to assume that nitwit had some valid, logical reason for pulling out, the safest guess is that he objected to the sunset provision. So he sunsetted it now, rather than letting it continue to constrain their nuclear program, which everybody but Bibi and Bolton say is the current status? If you ink a deal wherein somebody agrees to pay you $100 a month for 10 years are you going to tear it up because you deserve more for longer? This isn't even rolling the dice on a better deal. The dice are gone. This is simply telling the guy to shove his money up his ass and laughing as you walk away under the misguided impression that you just won.

I agree with all that, and it's sound analysis... except for one point.  I know Shep Smith has gotten some publicity for pointing out that Trump didn't "withdraw" - because there isn't a withdraw provision in the deal - so this is really a commitment to breach the agreement, but I think it's not unreasonable to point out that we haven't actually breached the agreement yet.   I'm not naďve enough to think that in the next 90 days we'll have a perfect deal, Brady will commit to four more seasons in New England, and Portnoy will be back in Dream Theater, but I think it's fair to see what it is that makes this deal "terrible", and whether Iran might actually agree to certain specific changes.

Everything I've read is that you are correct: the sticking point is the sunset provisions.
What on Earth makes you think that any of this will happen, in 90 days or 90 years? You know as well as I do that Trump has no idea what any of this is about. The 90 and 180 day provisions are simply for the gradual withdrawal of companies legally doing business with them. Trump himself has said that Iran probably won't renegotiate and that he wouldn't if he were in their shoes. This abrogation is what it is and it won't be any different next week or next year.

And by the way, is this indicative of the predictability and adherence to sound economic principles that restored the economy after Obama's reign of fiscal terror?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2666 on: May 09, 2018, 11:35:04 AM »
Local news outlets in Seattle are reporting that Trump has ordered Boeing to cut off their deals with Iran.   (I didn’t even realize that Boeing sells “billions” of dollars worth of jetliners to Iran)

Not sure if this is something they must comply with...or if its just another blow hard tactic.
Depending on how it's outfitted a 787 runs between 150-200 million. A triple 7 is up into the 300s. Ten aircraft will put you into the multi-billion dollar stratum quite easily. 

Boeing would be in a tough spot because they're very heavily invested in their US infrastructure. Trump could conceivably make life pretty hard for them, and there's just no way at all to know if he would. A lot of other companies might tell him to piss off, and I suspect (hope) that's what European companies would do. I'd be more interested to see what Airbus Industrie does. They could tell him what to do with his sanctions, and there's a possibility that punitive action against Airbus would hurt the US airlines far more than it would hurt AI. No way that would stop him, though.

I wonder if Boeing could sue over the loss of a deal that was already inked. If they'd begun production then it'd seem they have a pretty good case to make.

The difficulty is that most of those kinds of very large, international deals with sovereign nations allow for this to happen.  Meaning, Boeing accepts the risk that their deal is subordinate to international negotiations, treaties, and sanctions.  We can debate whether Trump is "fucking" with Boeing or not, but I would  imagine they don't have a ton of leverage here.   You are correct in pointing out Airbus; they are heavily subsidized by the French government, so they won't feel the pain directly.  I doubt France will have much heartburn for doing something they do as a matter of regular business.  Not to say they won't try to exact something from us in that (they have a knack for that; the huge GE/Alstom transaction from a couple years ago is a good example). 
   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2667 on: May 09, 2018, 11:37:00 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but that's part of the problem for some.  It SHOULDN'T have been just about the nukes.   It SHOULD have included the ballistic missiles and other equipment by which Iran is making it's presence felt in the middle East. 

To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal. 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2668 on: May 09, 2018, 11:39:17 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but that's part of the problem for some.  It SHOULDN'T have been just about the nukes.   It SHOULD have included the ballistic missiles and other equipment by which Iran is making it's presence felt in the middle East.

Why? No other country has that rule. Israel exports major weapons to worn torn countries all the time and exerts influence there. So does America. Why should Iran forfeit that?

Don't get me wrong, I think ALL countries should forfeit that, but why are singling out Iran but ignoring the other countries doing it too? Why not get Russia, while we're at it?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2669 on: May 09, 2018, 11:45:16 AM »
Just offer this:   I negotiate a fair amount.  A lot, really.  And invariably, at some point I will get "well, [Your competitor] accepts these terms/issues."    Invariably, I know that I have a deal at some point, because they would BE with [my competitor] if they really were accepting those terms/issues.   

The wild card here for me is China.   They are opportunists.  I'm not sure what they can do here to screw the deal for the rest of us, but that's my worry.  If Iran was going to put all their eggs in the Russian basket, they'd be there by now, by virtue of the economics and geography of the area. 

Let me twist this around a little:  what would you all have done?   Just rode it out?  Hoped for the best?  How do we get a better deal?  Live with it? Ask nicely?
Your bolded is an interesting point. However there are more than 3 players here, and the team dynamics have changed quite a bit. Your initial assessment is correct, but would it still be correct if in the interim the other guy has undertaken a successful merger and you're under indictment for being an ass-clown?

As for your question, there was no harm in riding it out. While it's laughable to assume that nitwit had some valid, logical reason for pulling out, the safest guess is that he objected to the sunset provision. So he sunsetted it now, rather than letting it continue to constrain their nuclear program, which everybody but Bibi and Bolton say is the current status? If you ink a deal wherein somebody agrees to pay you $100 a month for 10 years are you going to tear it up because you deserve more for longer? This isn't even rolling the dice on a better deal. The dice are gone. This is simply telling the guy to shove his money up his ass and laughing as you walk away under the misguided impression that you just won.

I agree with all that, and it's sound analysis... except for one point.  I know Shep Smith has gotten some publicity for pointing out that Trump didn't "withdraw" - because there isn't a withdraw provision in the deal - so this is really a commitment to breach the agreement, but I think it's not unreasonable to point out that we haven't actually breached the agreement yet.   I'm not naďve enough to think that in the next 90 days we'll have a perfect deal, Brady will commit to four more seasons in New England, and Portnoy will be back in Dream Theater, but I think it's fair to see what it is that makes this deal "terrible", and whether Iran might actually agree to certain specific changes.

Everything I've read is that you are correct: the sticking point is the sunset provisions.
What on Earth makes you think that any of this will happen, in 90 days or 90 years? You know as well as I do that Trump has no idea what any of this is about. The 90 and 180 day provisions are simply for the gradual withdrawal of companies legally doing business with them. Trump himself has said that Iran probably won't renegotiate and that he wouldn't if he were in their shoes. This abrogation is what it is and it won't be any different next week or next year.

Well, PERSONALLY, I don't think it will happen.  90 days is a blink of an eye in an international diplomatic setting, so the deck is stacked against a radically improved renegotiated deal.   But who knows?  Desperate people do desperate things (by that I mean Iran) so who knows?   Maybe they're not desperate.  The wild card for me is Mike Pompeo.  He wouldn't have taken that job knowing that Trump was pulling out and with the prospects that his first BIG high profile gig was to be a colossal failure for the ages.   (I suppose given that NoKo released those prisoners, it won't be, but still). 

Quote
And by the way, is this indicative of the predictability and adherence to sound economic principles that restored the economy after Obama's reign of fiscal terror?

Actually yes.   This was telegraphed for months.  He's doing EXACTLY what he said he was going to do throughout the campaign (funny, huh, being critical of a politician KEEPING his promises??).   The big issue here is what  will happen to oil prices, and I guarantee you - 100% - that the bigger, more oil dependent companies (to the extent that they're not ALL oil dependent) have hedged themselves nicely in anticipation of this happening.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2670 on: May 09, 2018, 11:47:43 AM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but that's part of the problem for some.  It SHOULDN'T have been just about the nukes.   It SHOULD have included the ballistic missiles and other equipment by which Iran is making it's presence felt in the middle East. 

To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal.
As far as I'm concerned my employment agreement SHOULD have included a 500% annual pay increase. Alas, I couldn't swing that and I took the best deal I could. Refusing to accept the job because of it seemed like a pretty dipshit thing to do at the time. As Dave pointed out, you had an international dreamteam of skilled negotiators hammering at this thing for years and this was the very best deal that could be reached. And according to everybody with a mental age greater than 11 it's something that is without a doubt better than nothing.

You're a skilled negotiator.  Can you figure out what we've gained by abrogating this thing?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2671 on: May 09, 2018, 11:49:20 AM »


To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal.

It seems more like the deal wasn't necessarily terrible from the beginning, but rather just in need of some improvement and additions. So why did we pull it off the table entirely instead of renegotiating the current one an piling more on top? I get that it might not have worked ideally for us, but there's what, 7 or 8 other countries involved in this deal. They're probably not too pleased with this move.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2672 on: May 09, 2018, 12:07:49 PM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but that's part of the problem for some.  It SHOULDN'T have been just about the nukes.   It SHOULD have included the ballistic missiles and other equipment by which Iran is making it's presence felt in the middle East. 

To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal.
As far as I'm concerned my employment agreement SHOULD have included a 500% annual pay increase. Alas, I couldn't swing that and I took the best deal I could. Refusing to accept the job because of it seemed like a pretty dipshit thing to do at the time. As Dave pointed out, you had an international dreamteam of skilled negotiators hammering at this thing for years and this was the very best deal that could be reached. And according to everybody with a mental age greater than 11 it's something that is without a doubt better than nothing.

I have the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old, so I get that.  It certainly WAS better than "nothing".   But in your scenario, after you take the job, if situations change and you become more valuable, do you ask for more?   Or unilaterally just suck it up (remembering of course that if THEIR situation changes and you're not needed, you're out). 

Quote
You're a skilled negotiator.  Can you figure out what we've gained by abrogating this thing?

Well, I don't know the dynamics of the actual situation, but the theory is - and it's not a bad one at least at the transactional level - that you telegraph that you're willing to leave the table.   You're not desperate.  Literally on day one of any negotiation "class" or seminar Charles Karass will tell you that you are a far more effective negotiator if you are willing to walk away from the table.    It's not always possible - in fact, you run odds akin to about the very best major league baseball hitter, or about 30 to 40% of the time - but one of the first things I do is try to figure out if the other side is staying at the table hell or high water.  Doesn't mean I'll get everything I want, and I certainly can't be a dick about it, but first step (well, second) is assessing their level of desperation.    Trump cut right to the chase.   In a real estate deal what he did was borderline brilliant.   Question is, does it translate?  I tend to think not - for various reasons I'd be happy to shoot the shit about - but nonetheless, it's not a complete whackjob, mental-patient strategy.  if it was JUST Kerry et al and the Iranians, I'd be a lot more confident in Trump.  The presence of FIVE of our allies at that table makes it less likely it was Kerry alone being a p**** and a bad bike rider.  Though let's be clear; NOT a fan at all of John Kerry.  I think he was way over his head in that role. 

I think I've told this story before, so I'll be concise:  negotiations with the Japanese, and they had a habit of coming back to this one point.  We took a break; our lead lawyer, my boss, said "look, if they come back to that point, I'm going to lose my shit.  No, not really, but I'm going to pretend to get angry, throw my pad, maybe swear a little, say we're done, and walk out of the room.   Sarah (our lead finance person), you wait a couple minutes and ask [specific person on the other side] if they accept our recusal or if they are interested in taking that issue off the table once and for all.    Bill, if they say "yes, we will take it off the table", you make it clear we have at most the rest of the day, but if we leave the room, then there are no more discussions.  Put these three issues in front of them, if they accept, say you can talk me into accepting the deal."    Like clockwork, they asked, he went "bat shit" and it basically went as I described it.  We got a deal done in about two and a half hours.  OF course, since it was all an act, I was able to convince Don we had a deal, but the turning point was clearly that they knew there was a limit at that point.  They thought we were willing to walk away, and they were not.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2673 on: May 09, 2018, 12:24:11 PM »


To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal.

It seems more like the deal wasn't necessarily terrible from the beginning, but rather just in need of some improvement and additions. So why did we pull it off the table entirely instead of renegotiating the current one an piling more on top? I get that it might not have worked ideally for us, but there's what, 7 or 8 other countries involved in this deal. They're probably not too pleased with this move.

See above on the first part.  As to the feelings of the others, who's to know?  I mean, we know from the public reactions, but we don't REALLY know what the sticking points are.  Anyone who has ever worked in a products and services sales organization can tell you the classic dynamic:  the lawyers, who are spineless and risk averse (and who won't concede much off the optimal terms and conditions) and the sales team, who are cowboys and reckless (and who just want to cut a deal, because "that stuff will never happen").  Of course, the magic is finding the point of compromise.  We don't know what the dynamic was there. 

I do feel strongly about this, though.  Trump may be being reckless here, and may be pushing too hard, no doubt.   I feel like there is very little evidence, though, that Obama/Kerry et al (on the U.S. team) took this deal to the absolute limit.  It's the same with the Paris Accords (which is well documented in this regard).   Kerry just reeks of "desperation" in these situations, and having the president himself walking around in back corridors of a hotel looking to sneak into the Chinese delegation to beg them to join the deal (as happened with Paris) doesn't paint that picture any differently. 

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3383
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2674 on: May 09, 2018, 12:40:23 PM »
I have the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old, so I get that.  It certainly WAS better than "nothing".   But in your scenario, after you take the job, if situations change and you become more valuable, do you ask for more?   Or unilaterally just suck it up (remembering of course that if THEIR situation changes and you're not needed, you're out). 

You KEEP your current job and contract, and try to negotiate positive changes. 
You don't tell your employer to fuck off, quit, and leave the employer and other employees in a bind in the process.
Just my thoughts.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2675 on: May 09, 2018, 12:46:57 PM »
The Iran Deal was a shitty deal from day 1 and is one of the reasons Trump is in office. It was these types of deals that made people fed up with Obama bending over for the rest of the world that led people to vote Trump. It was nothing more a bribe to get Iran to "stop" producing nuclear weapons. They may have stopped enriching uranium (who really knows) but they sure have shit haven't stopped making weapons and missiles.

Why would Iran have to stop making weapons and missiles? The deal was about nukes, best I could tell.

Well, not saying I agree with this, but that's part of the problem for some.  It SHOULDN'T have been just about the nukes.   It SHOULD have included the ballistic missiles and other equipment by which Iran is making it's presence felt in the middle East. 

To Chino's question, one of the "why's?" is BECAUSE it didn't go far enough.    I believe - though don't know for sure - that this wasn't an issue for our partners.  In preliminary negotiations as to how this would move forward, they had no problem expanding the scope of the deal.
As far as I'm concerned my employment agreement SHOULD have included a 500% annual pay increase. Alas, I couldn't swing that and I took the best deal I could. Refusing to accept the job because of it seemed like a pretty dipshit thing to do at the time. As Dave pointed out, you had an international dreamteam of skilled negotiators hammering at this thing for years and this was the very best deal that could be reached. And according to everybody with a mental age greater than 11 it's something that is without a doubt better than nothing.

I have the emotional maturity of a 12-year-old, so I get that.  It certainly WAS better than "nothing".   But in your scenario, after you take the job, if situations change and you become more valuable, do you ask for more?   Or unilaterally just suck it up (remembering of course that if THEIR situation changes and you're not needed, you're out).     
If I sign a contract I honor it. Moreover, I don't see how the circumstances change.

And perhaps you'll offer up some free legal advice. I know how lawyers love to do that. If I do sign a contract for employment, and 3 months later my boss is replaced by a new guy who promptly says "your old boss was a dick so I want you gone, just because. Pack your stuff and get out," do I get to sue the ever-loving shit out the guy?


Quote
Quote
You're a skilled negotiator.  Can you figure out what we've gained by abrogating this thing?

Well, I don't know the dynamics of the actual situation, but the theory is - and it's not a bad one at least at the transactional level - that you telegraph that you're willing to leave the table.   You're not desperate.  Literally on day one of any negotiation "class" or seminar Charles Karass will tell you that you are a far more effective negotiator if you are willing to walk away from the table.    It's not always possible - in fact, you run odds akin to about the very best major league baseball hitter, or about 30 to 40% of the time - but one of the first things I do is try to figure out if the other side is staying at the table hell or high water.  Doesn't mean I'll get everything I want, and I certainly can't be a dick about it, but first step (well, second) is assessing their level of desperation.    Trump cut right to the chase.   In a real estate deal what he did was borderline brilliant.   Question is, does it translate?  I tend to think not - for various reasons I'd be happy to shoot the shit about - but nonetheless, it's not a complete whackjob, mental-patient strategy.  if it was JUST Kerry et al and the Iranians, I'd be a lot more confident in Trump.  The presence of FIVE of our allies at that table makes it less likely it was Kerry alone being a p**** and a bad bike rider.  Though let's be clear; NOT a fan at all of John Kerry.  I think he was way over his head in that role. 

I think I've told this story before, so I'll be concise:  negotiations with the Japanese, and they had a habit of coming back to this one point.  We took a break; our lead lawyer, my boss, said "look, if they come back to that point, I'm going to lose my shit.  No, not really, but I'm going to pretend to get angry, throw my pad, maybe swear a little, say we're done, and walk out of the room.   Sarah (our lead finance person), you wait a couple minutes and ask [specific person on the other side] if they accept our recusal or if they are interested in taking that issue off the table once and for all.    Bill, if they say "yes, we will take it off the table", you make it clear we have at most the rest of the day, but if we leave the room, then there are no more discussions.  Put these three issues in front of them, if they accept, say you can talk me into accepting the deal."    Like clockwork, they asked, he went "bat shit" and it basically went as I described it.  We got a deal done in about two and a half hours.  OF course, since it was all an act, I was able to convince Don we had a deal, but the turning point was clearly that they knew there was a limit at that point.  They thought we were willing to walk away, and they were not.
That's all well and good. Iran isn't Japan in this situation. Presumably your team was trying to work out a fair deal. Iran already had a fair deal and Trump wanted to make it more one-sided. Moreover, with nobody worth a damn backing us up on this we don't really have much leverage.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2676 on: May 09, 2018, 05:27:21 PM »
Christ. Not five minutes after Manchild's announcement yesterday Israel puts out warnings that Iran will likely attack them. The idea of Iran attack Israel is preposterous, but I think that of damn near everything they claim. Today Israel claims that rockets were intercepted over Golan Heights, and naturally they came from Iranian forces. Now they're ramping up clandestine strikes in Syria, that they've already been undertaking for quite some time.

I tell ya, I don't trust the Iranian government, but I do consider them to be rational actors. They'll do the logical thing for their own best interest. I don't trust our government, and under Trump I don't consider them rational actors. There's just no telling what we'll do, and that includes acts totally contrary to our own national interest. Yet with both parties I get the sense that cooler heads will prevent something catastrophic from occurring. Israel scares the hell out of me, though. They're untrustworthy, obviously, but they are rational actors. They will behave in accordance with their own national interests, and their national interests are patently contrary to peace and basic human values. On top of that, though, I have only ever seen one indication of cool heads over there, and Trump/Pompeo aren't GHWB/Baker. We won't be talking them out of anything.

Frankly, rather than quibbling over Trump's idiocy we should be paying more attention to Israel. I think they're the ones that could really turn this into a shitstorm.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2677 on: May 09, 2018, 05:59:07 PM »
If I sign a contract I honor it. Moreover, I don't see how the circumstances change.

And perhaps you'll offer up some free legal advice. I know how lawyers love to do that. If I do sign a contract for employment, and 3 months later my boss is replaced by a new guy who promptly says "your old boss was a dick so I want you gone, just because. Pack your stuff and get out," do I get to sue the ever-loving shit out the guy?

Second question first.   Lawyerly question, so a lawyerly answer: It depends.  In an at-will situation, you do not. Well, more correctly, you CAN - you can essentially sue anyone for any reason, subject to any "frivolous lawsuit" statutes - but you probably won't get anywhere.   This sort of happens in mergers all the time.

First question though:   I'm not going to be able to get this across in five lines, and even if I can I'll get a TON of shit about "honor" and "integrity" and yada yada.   But I had a contract law LEGEND for my 1L Contracts class.  His name was Robert Birmingham, and he was well-published and well-renowned.  His innovation?  A utility-based view of contracts.   Meaning, all contracts should be looked at in terms of utility.  If it comes to a point that you're sub-optimal in your utility, his argument is you SHOULD breach it, because you and your contractual "partner" are better served in contracts with a higher utility.   The typical damages for a contract breach is "to put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been prior to the breach".   You see this a lot, actually, once you know what you're looking for.  The classic case is a guy who was building a house, and wanted a certain type of pipe.   The contractor put in a similar, but not exactly the same, pipe, even though the contract specifically spelled out the manufacturer and type of pipe.   The builder wanted THAT SPECIFIC pipe and sued.  Because there was no difference in performance, no difference in value of the house, but only a burden on the contractor to source and supply that SPECIFIC pipe, the court ruled in favor of the contractor.   

There is nothing inherently wrong with a breach, if the parties are put in the position they would have been had the contract been performed.   So I'm not losing any sleep, necessarily, about Trump threatening to pull out.  I am losing sleep - and probably a lot of it over the next few weeks - on what happens to the parties involved.  This won't be looked at like a standard contract, but still, if there's a meeting of the minds - if Iran agrees to whatever the new deal is, we have no choice but to assume it's their intent to be in that deal.  If Trump gets "more" such that it might be measured, that's not really a concern.

We tend to look at things like we would on the playground; I don't know that that's how it's looked at in the highest diplomatic circles. I don't think anyone will ACTUALLY take it seriously.  They will drag flags through the streets and m*****f*** the U.S. whether we pull out or not.   If there's no deal, ultimately, it will be because one side was unreasonable, not because we pulled out. 



Quote
That's all well and good. Iran isn't Japan in this situation. Presumably your team was trying to work out a fair deal. Iran already had a fair deal and Trump wanted to make it more one-sided. Moreover, with nobody worth a damn backing us up on this we don't really have much leverage.

I don't know about that, but that IS the crux of the story.  If Iran already thought they got bled dry, we're fucked.  If they thought they had a fair deal, well, that's a problem, but "fair deal" doesn't mean "the only deal", so there's room there, if what we need is their equivalent to the sleeves off their vest.   If they were dancing with glee in the streets of Tehran, I think we'll see a lot of rhetoric in the press, but we'll have their full attention at the time the parties sit down.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2678 on: May 09, 2018, 06:02:46 PM »
Christ. Not five minutes after Manchild's announcement yesterday Israel puts out warnings that Iran will likely attack them. The idea of Iran attack Israel is preposterous, but I think that of damn near everything they claim. Today Israel claims that rockets were intercepted over Golan Heights, and naturally they came from Iranian forces. Now they're ramping up clandestine strikes in Syria, that they've already been undertaking for quite some time.

I tell ya, I don't trust the Iranian government, but I do consider them to be rational actors. They'll do the logical thing for their own best interest. I don't trust our government, and under Trump I don't consider them rational actors. There's just no telling what we'll do, and that includes acts totally contrary to our own national interest. Yet with both parties I get the sense that cooler heads will prevent something catastrophic from occurring. Israel scares the hell out of me, though. They're untrustworthy, obviously, but they are rational actors. They will behave in accordance with their own national interests, and their national interests are patently contrary to peace and basic human values. On top of that, though, I have only ever seen one indication of cool heads over there, and Trump/Pompeo aren't GHWB/Baker. We won't be talking them out of anything.

Frankly, rather than quibbling over Trump's idiocy we should be paying more attention to Israel. I think they're the ones that could really turn this into a shitstorm.

That's the rub, isn't it?   Israel is untrustworthy BECAUSE they are rational actors, vis-a-vis their own situation.  I've said (a lot, it seems, in the Age of Trump) that desperate people do desperate things, and that seems to be Israel.  They always seem to be able to paint themselves into the victim corner - not "victim" as in "poor me", but "victim" as in "we are on the brink of annihilation!" - and it's a pretty tough putt here in the States to really stand up and tell them to go f--- themselves.   You have a better chance of Trump sleeping in Melania's bed than you do of Trump doing that. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2679 on: May 09, 2018, 06:15:48 PM »
If I sign a contract I honor it. Moreover, I don't see how the circumstances change.

And perhaps you'll offer up some free legal advice. I know how lawyers love to do that. If I do sign a contract for employment, and 3 months later my boss is replaced by a new guy who promptly says "your old boss was a dick so I want you gone, just because. Pack your stuff and get out," do I get to sue the ever-loving shit out the guy?

Second question first.   Lawyerly question, so a lawyerly answer: It depends.  In an at-will situation, you do not. Well, more correctly, you CAN - you can essentially sue anyone for any reason, subject to any "frivolous lawsuit" statutes - but you probably won't get anywhere.   This sort of happens in mergers all the time.

First question though:   I'm not going to be able to get this across in five lines, and even if I can I'll get a TON of shit about "honor" and "integrity" and yada yada.   But I had a contract law LEGEND for my 1L Contracts class.  His name was Robert Birmingham, and he was well-published and well-renowned.  His innovation?  A utility-based view of contracts.   Meaning, all contracts should be looked at in terms of utility.  If it comes to a point that you're sub-optimal in your utility, his argument is you SHOULD breach it, because you and your contractual "partner" are better served in contracts with a higher utility.   The typical damages for a contract breach is "to put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been prior to the breach".   You see this a lot, actually, once you know what you're looking for.  The classic case is a guy who was building a house, and wanted a certain type of pipe.   The contractor put in a similar, but not exactly the same, pipe, even though the contract specifically spelled out the manufacturer and type of pipe.   The builder wanted THAT SPECIFIC pipe and sued.  Because there was no difference in performance, no difference in value of the house, but only a burden on the contractor to source and supply that SPECIFIC pipe, the court ruled in favor of the contractor.   

There is nothing inherently wrong with a breach, if the parties are put in the position they would have been had the contract been performed.   So I'm not losing any sleep, necessarily, about Trump threatening to pull out.  I am losing sleep - and probably a lot of it over the next few weeks - on what happens to the parties involved.  This won't be looked at like a standard contract, but still, if there's a meeting of the minds - if Iran agrees to whatever the new deal is, we have no choice but to assume it's their intent to be in that deal.  If Trump gets "more" such that it might be measured, that's not really a concern.

We tend to look at things like we would on the playground; I don't know that that's how it's looked at in the highest diplomatic circles. I don't think anyone will ACTUALLY take it seriously.  They will drag flags through the streets and m*****f*** the U.S. whether we pull out or not.   If there's no deal, ultimately, it will be because one side was unreasonable, not because we pulled out. 



Quote
That's all well and good. Iran isn't Japan in this situation. Presumably your team was trying to work out a fair deal. Iran already had a fair deal and Trump wanted to make it more one-sided. Moreover, with nobody worth a damn backing us up on this we don't really have much leverage.

I don't know about that, but that IS the crux of the story.  If Iran already thought they got bled dry, we're fucked.  If they thought they had a fair deal, well, that's a problem, but "fair deal" doesn't mean "the only deal", so there's room there, if what we need is their equivalent to the sleeves off their vest.   If they were dancing with glee in the streets of Tehran, I think we'll see a lot of rhetoric in the press, but we'll have their full attention at the time the parties sit down.
Your first two paragraphs are exemplary of why people hate lawyers. A contract is a binding agreement, except when it's a non-binding agreement. You've got 27 volumes explaining why it is, and another 24 explaining why it isn't.  Did any of your professors ever make you list 25 reasons why water isn't wet?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2680 on: May 09, 2018, 07:18:48 PM »
Israel AND contracts? I feel like Stadler and I both have boners in this thread right now.


As far as what you guys are saying about Israel, I mostly agree. Israel is INSANELY dangerous. It's pretty complicated but right now I have a huge headache and am stressed, so I can't discuss much, but if the convo continues, I'm eager to join when I can.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25086
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2681 on: May 09, 2018, 07:36:25 PM »
Just here to say

 :corn
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2682 on: May 10, 2018, 09:42:08 AM »
Your first two paragraphs are exemplary of why people hate lawyers. A contract is a binding agreement, except when it's a non-binding agreement. You've got 27 volumes explaining why it is, and another 24 explaining why it isn't.  Did any of your professors ever make you list 25 reasons why water isn't wet?

And that's why people are dicks. :)  They're wrong.  If you look closely, and think about it (and I say that to someone whom I know WILL look closely, and WILL think about it, so it's a compliment, not a jab), it is ALWAYS a binding agreement (provided the elements of a contract are in place:  competency, meeting of the minds, consideration).   The damages for breach put the non-breaching party in the same position they would have been had the contract been completed.   That's the whole point.  So it's not about "not fulfilling the agreement", it's about not wasting unnecessary resources to do it.   Since you end up where you would have anyway, the courts - contract law in general - is intended to make that as efficient as possible, and that include "breach and remedies".   Sure, there are places for things like "handshake agreements", but those factors are usually outside the four corners of the agreement, meaning, they don't actually apply to the agreement, but to the relationship between the parties and, in a commercial setting, the future (or past) deals between the parties.   

Assume you're looking for a BMW M3 and you call me.   There's one in Dallas for $10,000 but the car's only worth $6500, and he's an asshole all around.  Doesn't want to lower his price for you because you like that devil music.   You call me and ask if I can get one for you.    I do a little research, and I have a line on one in Houston for $5000.   I can also get one from Spokane, but with repairs and shipping, it's $15,000.   I tell you "I'll sell you one for $6,000, delivered to you at Gas Monkey Bar and Grill on July 4th."   I call the Houston guy back and as we're shooting the shit, it turns out I banged his girlfriend at an NCAA Tournament Game in '98.  So deal's off.   Am I obligated to buy the Spokane car and eat the $9,000?   Or should I breach?  What would happen if I breach? 

Likely outcome?  You buy the car from Dallas asshole, and my damages are $4,000.   Courts won't force me to perform, won't force me to eat $9,000, but they will put you in the position you would have been had the deal been done.  You're down $6,000, and you have a BMW M3.   Whether you now trust me, or ever do business with me again, well, the courts can't and won't involve themselves in that, because it's not tangible.   You might never buy another car again.     


Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25086
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2683 on: May 10, 2018, 10:09:31 AM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2684 on: May 10, 2018, 10:28:07 AM »
Your first two paragraphs are exemplary of why people hate lawyers. A contract is a binding agreement, except when it's a non-binding agreement. You've got 27 volumes explaining why it is, and another 24 explaining why it isn't.  Did any of your professors ever make you list 25 reasons why water isn't wet?

And that's why people are dicks. :)  They're wrong.  If you look closely, and think about it (and I say that to someone whom I know WILL look closely, and WILL think about it, so it's a compliment, not a jab), it is ALWAYS a binding agreement (provided the elements of a contract are in place:  competency, meeting of the minds, consideration).   The damages for breach put the non-breaching party in the same position they would have been had the contract been completed.   That's the whole point.  So it's not about "not fulfilling the agreement", it's about not wasting unnecessary resources to do it.   Since you end up where you would have anyway, the courts - contract law in general - is intended to make that as efficient as possible, and that include "breach and remedies".   Sure, there are places for things like "handshake agreements", but those factors are usually outside the four corners of the agreement, meaning, they don't actually apply to the agreement, but to the relationship between the parties and, in a commercial setting, the future (or past) deals between the parties.   

Assume you're looking for a BMW M3 and you call me.   There's one in Dallas for $10,000 but the car's only worth $6500, and he's an asshole all around.  Doesn't want to lower his price for you because you like that devil music.   You call me and ask if I can get one for you.    I do a little research, and I have a line on one in Houston for $5000.   I can also get one from Spokane, but with repairs and shipping, it's $15,000.   I tell you "I'll sell you one for $6,000, delivered to you at Gas Monkey Bar and Grill on July 4th."   I call the Houston guy back and as we're shooting the shit, it turns out I banged his girlfriend at an NCAA Tournament Game in '98.  So deal's off.   Am I obligated to buy the Spokane car and eat the $9,000?   Or should I breach?  What would happen if I breach? 

Likely outcome?  You buy the car from Dallas asshole, and my damages are $4,000.   Courts won't force me to perform, won't force me to eat $9,000, but they will put you in the position you would have been had the deal been done.  You're down $6,000, and you have a BMW M3.   Whether you now trust me, or ever do business with me again, well, the courts can't and won't involve themselves in that, because it's not tangible.   You might never buy another car again.     



Reason number 2 people hate lawyers: You used 426 words to tell me something I already got.  I'm not one of the dicks. :lol

And if I wanted to be one of them, I'd point out that we'd still wind up suing each other over the relative values of the two vehicles. I would have gotten one with 40k fewer miles if you hadn't blown the deal, and you wouldn't want to have to pay for the $1500 stereo in the Texas car.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6556
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2685 on: May 10, 2018, 10:37:23 AM »
The classic case is a guy who was building a house, and wanted a certain type of pipe.   The contractor put in a similar, but not exactly the same, pipe, even though the contract specifically spelled out the manufacturer and type of pipe.   The builder wanted THAT SPECIFIC pipe and sued.  Because there was no difference in performance, no difference in value of the house, but only a burden on the contractor to source and supply that SPECIFIC pipe, the court ruled in favor of the contractor.

As an investor who does a lot of work with contractors, I am unfortuantely am on the road and can't rage vent more than to say I hate this shit.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2686 on: May 10, 2018, 11:54:51 AM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?

I used to teach contracts, or at least contract seminars, and I used to do an exercise that NEVER ONCE EVER failed.  I would ask the group to take out a piece of paper and write down the number of "blue" shirts in the room.  I'd collect the paper, and look at them and make a big production about how "you morons don't even know what blue is??" because the numbers were always different.  ALWAYS.

You can rag on lawyers all you want, but it's ultimately not the lawyers that cause the problem.   Some of you aren't party to all the conversations, but why do you think I make so much to do about individuals and the way they think?  EVERYONE sees the world differently.   That's offensive to some, not offensive to others; that's racist to some, not racist to others.  Putting carts in corrals is necessary to some, an inconvenience to others.    That woman is a free spirit to some, a whore to others.  Pot is a panacea to some, a moral imposition to others. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2687 on: May 10, 2018, 12:21:57 PM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?

I used to teach contracts, or at least contract seminars, and I used to do an exercise that NEVER ONCE EVER failed.  I would ask the group to take out a piece of paper and write down the number of "blue" shirts in the room.  I'd collect the paper, and look at them and make a big production about how "you morons don't even know what blue is??" because the numbers were always different.  ALWAYS.
You were probably afraid to go with red because you knew you'd have to deal with 3 different ADA suits from colorblind lawyers.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2688 on: May 10, 2018, 12:23:23 PM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?

I used to teach contracts, or at least contract seminars, and I used to do an exercise that NEVER ONCE EVER failed.  I would ask the group to take out a piece of paper and write down the number of "blue" shirts in the room.  I'd collect the paper, and look at them and make a big production about how "you morons don't even know what blue is??" because the numbers were always different.  ALWAYS.
You were probably afraid to go with red because you knew you'd have to deal with 3 different ADA suits from colorblind lawyers.  :lol

HA!  I was just literally going to post about the nearly 10% of the population who are color blind!   :laugh:

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20883
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2689 on: May 14, 2018, 09:00:59 AM »
It's entertaining watching the right savage John McCain, in a perverse sort of way. I thought he has been senile for quite some time, but one thing I can't say is that the didn't have a conscience, misguided though it occasionally was. Eh, fuck'em for using it in congress, I suppose.

Part of me hopes that Trump crashes his funeral just to get the last word in.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2690 on: May 14, 2018, 01:48:44 PM »
I'm torn on this latest 'scandal' brought about by Kelly Sadler.  Her comments were insensitive but never meant to be publicly reported on.  They got leaked and now suddenly people are poutraged.  Aside from McCain's family who can feel however the hell they want about what she said and have every right to their response to it, I'm mystified about a) why anyone is really surprised and b) why anyone expects any sort of acknowledgement or apology on behalf of the Trump administration.  This is par for the course for them.

It is ironic that Trump has such a thin skin that he often tweets demanding apologies for any perceived slight against him or his besties.  But again, his hypocrisy is nothing new.

If it is this bad now, imagine what's going to happen once McCain does die.  I doubt Trump crashes the funeral but I'd lay money that he'll tweet something stupid about McCain within 24 hours of his death.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2691 on: May 14, 2018, 04:41:39 PM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?

I used to teach contracts, or at least contract seminars, and I used to do an exercise that NEVER ONCE EVER failed.  I would ask the group to take out a piece of paper and write down the number of "blue" shirts in the room.  I'd collect the paper, and look at them and make a big production about how "you morons don't even know what blue is??" because the numbers were always different.  ALWAYS.

Moral of the story: ask better questions.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13906
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2692 on: May 14, 2018, 09:47:16 PM »
Yeah, but how many ways can you list why water isn't wet?

I used to teach contracts, or at least contract seminars, and I used to do an exercise that NEVER ONCE EVER failed.  I would ask the group to take out a piece of paper and write down the number of "blue" shirts in the room.  I'd collect the paper, and look at them and make a big production about how "you morons don't even know what blue is??" because the numbers were always different.  ALWAYS.

Moral of the story: ask better questions.

No no no, the point was how easily different people could hear the same word, even a simple one like "blue", and interpret them differently.   When you contract, it's not enough to think YOU know what you mean, you have to have a meeting of the minds. 

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27031
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2693 on: May 14, 2018, 10:57:59 PM »
So if someone had raised their hand before writing down their answer and asked for a working definition of blue, do they win?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 12:49:10 AM by Adami »
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12339
  • Gender: Male
  • Inventory!
    • Overhaul
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #2694 on: May 15, 2018, 01:08:23 AM »
I had a disagreement with my girlfriend about a towel I own. I insisted that it was green, while she said it was blue. I am not colourblind, nor is she. I can see what Stadler means with this exercise and I also get why it's important, especially in contracts, that a definition of something has to be infallibly clear in order to not get things mixed up. Written text, single words even, can be so open to interpretation that it's important to use words/phrases that can't be misunderstood
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey