Does Donald Trump Want to Ban German Luxury Cars from America?

lol well enjoy him as much as you can

Why are people "Brainwashed"? for voting trump? You need to have an answer...

Hitler would make us all drive a VW.

I'm so tired of lazy "Non" historical people like you ... What would Hitler again? nO! HE WANTED to make "THe Peoples car" A car that most people could afford...There you had the VW Beetle or whatever they called them back then.., YOu know what, later we got the Fiat 500 for Italia and SUPRICE SUPRICE, the MINI COOper to the UK...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm so tired of lazy "Non" historical people like you ... What would Hitler again? nO! HE WANTED to make "THe Peoples car" A car that most people could afford...There you had the VW Beetle or whatever they called them back then.., YOu know what, later we got the Fiat 500 for Italia and SUPRICE SUPRICE, the MINI COOper to the UK...
Jeez wrong side of the bed comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
So far in my and many others minds in this country Trump is doing exactly what he campaigned on. Immigration reform and new trade deals. The economy is also red hot, due to tax cuts and cutting crippling regulation. To portray Trump as hated everywhere is not true, his popularity in Eastern Europe is off the charts and he has been well received in the Middle East and Asia.

As for polling data, I lost all confidence when any poll is done about Trump, see past election. Clinton was getting a few hundred (did get a big crowd once but needed JayZ) at her rallies once a week, while Trump filled arenas twice a day. I made 400 dollars on that election, based on what I saw , not what pollsters told me.

Probably done with this as the views on Trump are either like or hate. He has smart men negotiating these deals, and in the end the US will get some relief from bad deals. I know in Western Europe he is not liked, but contrary to what you hear, he has many people in the US that are behind him.

Our economic success may be good for now but 5 years down the road, the government needs to pay off the deficit somehow. And it's not gonna be from generous donations.
 
SUPRICE SUPRICE

OwbQY.gif
 
The most interesting thing is that Trump thinks German cars costing 25% more than the competition would make people flock to American brands instead of just going back to buying the Asian premium brands that they bought when the German brands were deliberately making their cars cost 25% more than the competition.
 
Doesn't really matter as his steel tariffs are going to make it so no American can even afford to buy a car, much less a Merc.
We'll all be riding Huffys to work when he's finished.
 
The economy is also red hot, due to tax cuts and cutting crippling regulation.
Hate to break it to you, but not enough time has passed for those changes to affect the economy.

To portray Trump as hated everywhere is not true, his popularity in Eastern Europe is off the charts and he has been well received in the Middle East and Asia.
Russia isn't Eastern europe and Saudi isn'tthe Middle East, and I know enough people in he later to have had a very different experience.


As for polling data, I lost all confidence when any poll is done about Trump, see past election. Clinton was getting a few hundred (did get a big crowd once but needed JayZ) at her rallies once a week, while Trump filled arenas twice a day. I made 400 dollars on that election, based on what I saw , not what pollsters told me.
I would put money on you having a different view if they were pro-trump.

Probably done with this as the views on Trump are either like or hate. He has smart men negotiating these deals, and in the end the US will get some relief from bad deals. I know in Western Europe he is not liked, but contrary to what you hear, he has many people in the US that are behind him.
You going to get a better deal than 0% tariffs on US exports of steel into the EU? Do go on........
 
All the big German automakers have facilities in the U.S. so it wouldn't actually ban them. Secondly, I work fairly close to Trump Tower in Colombus Circle and its pretty much a Mercedes dealership up there and I wouldn't want it any other way. Who the hell wants to get shuttled around midtown Manhattan in a Chevy Malibu, please.....bring on the S-Class and Maybachs.
 
So we gonna make fun of me now? OKAY.. Funny reaction I get, just because I said the truth? What does VW mean?---
You were being made fun of by others. I was asking those others how their Danish is, and indicating they should be more lenient when someone is posting in a language other than their own.

Funny how you pick on me when I'm the one defending you. That'll be the time I stick up for you.
 
I'm so tired of lazy "Non" historical people
Careful...

HE WANTED to make "THe Peoples car" A car that most people could afford...There you had the VW Beetle or whatever they called them back then.
He wanted to do a great many things, as we're all aware, and it was called the KdF-Wagen:

s01.jpg


Product of Kraft durch Freude (translated to English as "Strength through Joy), a German "leisure organization," and not exactly revolutionary by cars-for-the-masses standards.


YOu know what, later we got the Fiat 500 for Italia and SUPRICE SUPRICE, the MINI COOper to the UK...
Now...I have the nagging suspicion that the 500 wasn't the inexpensive car to get in 1957 Italy, but I just don't know, so I won't debate it.

However, the Mini (called the Austin Seven or Morris Mini-Minor when initially released) wasn't the least expensive car you could get. I understand, though, because it's a simple compact car. In fact, it started at nearly £500 in 1959 and easily approached £600. By comparison, a Ford Popular was just £350 the same year.

The Mini Cooper was an up-rated "performance" example that...surprise, surprise*...cost a fair bit more than the 1961 Mini on which it was based.

*No mockery here, at least not from a spelling standpoint, but given the tone used, I don't feel mockery was unwarranted and I don't feel ashamed for finding it funny.


What does VW mean?---
That would be Volkswagen, though I gather you're referring to its "peoples' car" translation.

But be careful taking product names at face value, they're often intended to deceive. We've got Kraft "Philadelphia" cream cheese here, but it didn't actually come from Philadelphia--it originated in New York. At the time the dairy product was originally marketed, Philadelphia had a reputation for quality consumer goods--especially foods--likely due to the Amish community who favored traditional processes that resulted in quality over quantity.
 
To be honest I was just making a tongue in cheek joke about Hitler and the VW. Yes it was Porsche who was hired for it but with Hitler in charge at the time, it's amusing to conclude that he started the whole thing. Some folks are on 11 for seriousness.
 
Yes it was Porsche who was hired for it but with Hitler in charge at the time, it's amusing to conclude that he started the whole thing.
A fair amount of fiction is indeed amusing.

German motorcycle manufacturer Zündapp got the ball rolling and, with Ferdinand Porsche, started to develope the Auto für Jedermann (car for everyone). Adolf Hitler saw a prototype and got a bug up his butt--no pun intended, I use the phrase quite a bit.


Some folks are on 11 for seriousness.
I just thought a history lesson was called for, particularly for the "lazy 'Non' historical people" who failed to get their facts straight despite denigrating others for exactly the same failure.
 
"Russia isn't Eastern europe and Saudi isn'tthe Middle East, and I know enough people in he later to have had a very different experience."

I am talking about Poland , Hungary, Romania, etc that are very much against EU policy and Pro Trump. Saudi is in the Middle East as is Israel. Both countries are Pro Trump.


"I would put money on you having a different view if they were pro-trump."


The US press is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. The US press is pro Democrat going back to Reagan. Trump has twitter and a few on Fox who back him, the rest of the US media are overwhelmingly Pro Democrat.

Off Topic but Free Tommy Robinson.

The press in this country is 90 percent anti -trump. 90 percent of the press are Dems that is a fact based on campaign contributions. The only people that were pro Trump were the voters and a few at Fox News. From the Wash Post that is totally Anti Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-even-a-decade-ago/?utm_term=.859af8cf7b0d

From the NYTimes their last publication before the election. How could they be so wrong?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Hillary Clinton has an85% chance to win.
Last updated Tuesday, November 8 at 10:20 PM ET
CHANCE OF WINNING
clinton.png

85%
Hillary Clinton
trump.png

15%
Donald J. Trump
The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.

For months, we’ve been updating our estimates with each new poll. Today, it’s Election Day, what we’ve all been waiting for, and there will be no more updates. You can chart different paths to victory below. Here’s how our estimates have changed over time:
 
Last edited:
The US press is pro Democrat going back to Reagan

That’d be because most of the US press is grounded on finding out actual facts, rather than simply preying on emotions. There’s the thorough work that the Rachel Maddow team does to delve into history as it relates to today, and present it in a cogent manner. Then there’s the emotional and rather fact free Sean Hannity approach.

This is an oversimplification, but Republicans tend to "believe" things, and most of the rest want reality and facts. Fox, Breitbart and the conspiracy mongers prey on the former.
 
"Russia isn't Eastern europe and Saudi isn'tthe Middle East, and I know enough people in he later to have had a very different experience."

I am talking about Poland , Hungary, Romania, etc that are very much against EU policy and Pro Trump. Saudi is in the Middle East as is Israel. Both countries are Pro Trump.


"I would put money on you having a different view if they were pro-trump."


The US press is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. The US press is pro Democrat going back to Reagan. Trump has twitter and a few on Fox who back him, the rest of the US media are overwhelmingly Pro Democrat.

Off Topic but Free Tommy Robinson.

The press in this country is 90 percent anti -trump. 90 percent of the press are Dems that is a fact based on campaign contributions. The only people that were pro Trump were the voters and a few at Fox News. From the Wash Post that is totally Anti Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-even-a-decade-ago/?utm_term=.859af8cf7b0d

From the NYTimes their last publication before the election. How could they be so wrong?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Hillary Clinton has an85% chance to win.
Last updated Tuesday, November 8 at 10:20 PM ET
CHANCE OF WINNING
clinton.png

85%
Hillary Clinton
trump.png

15%
Donald J. Trump
The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal.

For months, we’ve been updating our estimates with each new poll. Today, it’s Election Day, what we’ve all been waiting for, and there will be no more updates. You can chart different paths to victory below. Here’s how our estimates have changed over time:
There's lots of support for Trump across the world. You just don't hear about it on your everyday news channel. People in the middle east supporting Trump can include lots in Iran as well. Most of the mainstream news is negative towards him, personally I just find it funny. People spend so much time invested in labeling him various forms of unpopular terms. The tariff thing will play out for the good eventually. It's not just automotive but things like Jeans, Whiskey etc. from the U.S. that have high tariffs on them. I can see where he's coming from and I think he's trying to drive a hard bargain. I doubt he wants to "ban German luxury cars". That seems pretty excessive even for someone like Trump and 'pro-America'. We'll see soon.
 
Sadly it looks like you have to deal with him every day...

Repeatedly stating that "Trump= hitler" (sic) doesn't clarify what you meant by saying it in the first place. Trump isn't Hitler. Although the Drumpf family (Trump's paternal grandfather) was German, the Hitler family was not. Also Trump is 71 years old and Hitler is dead, but would be 129 years old if he wasn't. Trump is over six feet tall, Hitler was five foot eight. And of course if Trump was Hitler he'd be ineligible to be President of the United States through not being born in the USA and also having been a member of the Nazi Party of Germany from 1933-1945. Trump isn't, by any measure, Hitler.

In one of your later posts you state that he's "the second coming of hitler" (sic), and I'm sorry to break it to you but reincarnation isn't a thing. Nor are past lives. So that's not true either.

Which leaves us right back at "What?". You haven't explained what you mean by equating the two people. Just stated it over and over again.


There's not much evidence Hitler loved Mercedes, although he certainly had a few, with the car we featured a few months back on Wednesday Want as an excellent example. It was the sort of car that enabled his love of ceremony, pomp and celebrity. He did very much love Volkswagen though, as a brand that fitted in to his "by the people for the people" philosophy. His whole style of leadership centered on these things - encouraging the German people to work for each other for their own collective betterment without greed, while worshipping the ruling elite (him). The Volkswagen Beetle was, initially, Hitler's ideal car: personal mobility, affordable to all. The rampant nationalism and xenophobia was simply a tool to those ends - his popularity was down to the fact that he put "true" Germans first, and put the blame for all of the really quite awful conditions between the wars (including devastating hyperinflation) on outsiders. This was commonly foreigners and immigrants, but Jews were a heavy focus almost from the start, along with gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled - anyone outside the norm of "true" Germans.

For the Austrian-born Hitler, Mercedes, as a German car company, was something to be cherished and heralded. So, no, Hitler wouldn't ban Mercedes. But he would if it were a foreign car company that he believed was outcompeting German ones, in order to protect his Germany for Germans ideals.


For US-born Trump, Mercedes is a foreign car company. Indeed he's not cherishing or heralding them as Hitler may have done. In fact he's reportedly demonising them for remarkably similar reasons - it's a foreign car company that, it's reckoned, he believes is unfairly outcompeting good old American car companies and should be taxed to the point of unattractiveness in order to put American jobs first. That's nationalism and protectionism for you - although Trump's is far more capitalist/conservative in nature than Hitler's more socialist (perhaps centrist) fiscal stance.




Perhaps work on your communication skills and learn how to express what's in your head before you start blaming others for having no idea what you mean when you just batter out single line gems like "Trump= hitler." (sic), which doesn't even have all of the required grammar despite only containing two words...

In case you're in any doubt, it's still bewilderingly unclear what you even mean by anything you've said so far. Unless you think that anyone who expresses nationalist and protectionist tendencies is somehow German, or all Germans are/were Nazis - but that would be a horrifyingly shallow position for any human being to hold.


Incidentally, you've also not clarified your "fake news" comment either. What's fake and where?


I know i'm not a wordsmith or a grammar professor at princeton so i'm sorry if i was not clear before.

I keep hearing people say Trump is hitler or like him. I don't believe it myself and when i say Trump is hitler i'm being facetious. I'm mocking the people who think Trump is a racist bigot.

So when i read a story about Trump banning Mercedes i can't help but be a sarcastic a$$ and say something like.....

"So the Guy who is supposedly hitler jr is going to ban German Cars??" "Riiiiiiiight. More Fake News."

So maybe you should mention to the people who seriously compare Trump to hitler about the massive height disparity?:dopey:

I never said adolph was German. You assume i believe that because i said he would never ban Mercedes.

What fake news you ask? When a news outlet goes on about unnamed sources 99% of the time there are no sources.

They are making things up because they have a seething hatred for Trump.
 
I'm mocking the people who think Trump is a racist bigot.
I think he's a bigot in general, but that's keyed into the stance he takes with the opposition rather than anything in particular he's said. Is he racist? I don't know. He likes to play the "I tell it like it is" card, but that strikes me as a gimme to brush off assertions that he's racist.

So maybe you should mention to the people who seriously compare Trump to hitler about the massive height disparity?
I'm still curious to whom you keep referring when you repeat this. Like I said, no value added; please add value to the remark by elaborating. If I'm honest, it strikes me as a YouTube comments section sort of thing.

When a news outlet goes on about unnamed sources 99% of the time there are no sources.
Consider giving this a read.

Full disclosure: it does mention Trump, but more due to his comments regarding unnamed sources and highlighting skepticism surrounding them than as a general slam.

Unnamed sources are part of the world we live in, and they are definitely necessary for journalistic endeavors, but a level of skepticism is appropriate.

Having given it a re-read since my initial one nearly a year ago when it was published, I couldn't help but grin at one particular bit. Keep in mind that it was published July 18, 2017.


From the article
Axios and Politico, two publications targeted at political junkies, in particular often float “scoops” predicting that something will happen that never does. An April piece in Axios quoted “aides and advisers” to Trump who suggested that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon could soon be pushed out by Trump, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy potentially replacing Priebus. This would have been a huge shift of power on both Capitol Hill and in the White House and more than three months later has not happened. As early as February, Politico highlighted the potential of a broad shake-up of White House officials that included Priebus. Politico recently suggested that Priebus would be out of his job around July 4; that didn’t happen. The story was carefully hedged, of course, noting that Trump might not follow through on the idea of dumping his chief of staff.

So the assertion was that predictions made based on information from unnamed sources didn't pan out, suggesting said information was dubious. Well, the prediction was indeed off, and as of the article's publishing (July 18) the event predicted still hadn't occurred.

Reince Priebus was out July 29 and Steve Bannon followed August 18.
 
Saying unnamed sources are automatically reliable is just as bad as saying they aren't to be trusted. And with a lot of the latest assertions against Trump looking more and more phony, these unnamed or anonymous sources look sketchy if not downright fabricated or rooted in someone's biased opinion. People are trusting the news less and less these days, and stuff like this is why. The truth eventually comes out. We'll see if Trump really wants to ban German cars. I somehow find that unlikely.
 
The US press is overwhelmingly anti-Trump.

Really? Are you lumping in the vast majority of the press that are simply reporting from a non-partisan standpoint on events that seem to be negative for Trump?

I don't think that's anti-Trump any more than reporting on Watergate was anti-Nixon. It's pro-America, and if there's a public official who has committed potential indiscretions or crimes, it's the job of the press to report on that.

That said, there are definitely partisan news organisations in the US. But they seem pretty obvious and pretty well distributed on both sides.

People in the middle east supporting Trump can include lots in Iran as well.

Significant amounts of Iranians support Trump? Or are we just talking about the anti-government Iranians who would like anyone who offers to stomp the incumbent Iranian political system?

The tariff thing will play out for the good eventually.

Go back and look at history. Tariffs in general don't work out that well. For one, countries that have strong trade agreements don't get into wars, because it's to everyone's detriment. Of course, that probably isn't a concern when you have the largest military in the world and not much for it to do...

I suppose you could look at some more wars where America stomps countries and installs "friendly" regimes as "for the good" from a strictly US point of view, but the other 6.7 billion people on the planet probably will have a different view.

I'm mocking the people who think Trump is a racist bigot.

Trump may or may not be a racist bigot, but he certainly does a very good job of acting as if he is one and making sure that his actions and policies stay on the good side of other people who also behave like racist bigots.

At some point actions matter more than words. A person can claim they're not a racist all day, but if they're putting Japanese in concentration camps and enslaving black people they're probably a racist.

When a news outlet goes on about unnamed sources 99% of the time there are no sources.

Is that the same when the government refuses to release it's sources for information? You know that 70% of all statistics are made up, right?

Unnamed sources are cause for critical analysis of a piece of journalism, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are things that the press simply couldn't report on without the ability to use unnamed sources. The people that decry such journalism are either those who cannot be bothered to use critical thinking or those with an agenda to push.
 
It's true. This video references reporting by the Associated Press just last month, which comes from a meta-study of major statistical work since WWII. The true number has some decimal points on it, but 70% is honestly close enough for GTP.

It's another one of those running jokes/urban myths that can now be put to bed as proven correct.
Wow, that's a fascinating study and a really interesting watch. Just goes to show how you should never give up the search for knowledge.
 
Back