CDZ Mitt Romney's speech....Spot on!!!!

[320 Years of History]

Mr. Romney literally just finished his remarks about why Donald Trump has no business ascending to the U.S. Presidency. He could not be more correct. How it is that literally millions of people have in most of the 2016 primaries so far thought that Mr. Trump's pretensions to outsider-status, or even if here were truly an outsider, have any overarching merit in the face of all the negative realities Mr. Trump has manifest day in and day out since at least June 2105 is beyond me.

If you missed Mr. Romney's speech, here it is in writing....

I am not here to announce my candidacy for office. I am not going to endorse a candidate today. Instead, I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a "Time for Choosing." He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I'm no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country.

I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world.

Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that "the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."

That doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times.

But if we make the right choices, America's future will be even better than our past and better than our present.

On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.

Let me explain why.

First, the economy: If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession.

A few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.

But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.

Now not every policy Donald Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can't punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today fromTed Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.

I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.

Perhaps. But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

What he said on 60 Minutes about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.

Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.

I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.

Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

The president of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.

Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as "The Donald." He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn't because he had attributes we admired.

Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.

Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.

Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.

For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term "crony capitalism." It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.

A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.

There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.

We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I'm right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.

Attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. It's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn't last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.
​

Hello my friend. You are becoming one of my favorite debaters so I hope you won't be annoyed or insulted with a bit of rebuttal here.

I didn't see Mitt Romney's speech as 'spot on' even though I am not a Trump supporter. I saw it as insulting, hypocritical, and intentionally destructive to the process. I saw it as a retread dredged up by the GOP as their best hope to derail the Trump train and force a brokered convention, of which I am sure Romney will be one of the contenders to be the nominee. I was frankly angered and disgusted.

In rebuttal I offer Judge Jeanine's opening volley last night:

[media][/media]

TY. I don't mind rebuttal at all...no need to agree with me.

I have to take a call right now...I'll get back as goes the content of your post's video.

RE: your own text from the post, okay. I'm okay with most of it. I just didn't find his speech insulting. I'll explain why after I watch the video.

 

[Dekster]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

 

[320 Years of History]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat[at] the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

Red:
Avoiding the Issue

All those things can be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing on whether his remarks about Mr. Trump have merit. For example, a rapist is not wrong when he identifies that Charles Manson is a murderer and that he should therefore be despised. One can see the rapist as taking the moral high ground if one wants, but even if he is, is he morally wrong re: his assertion that the murderer should be despised? I think not.

Blue:
That it may very well be; indeed, I'm almost certain it will be.

Of all the candidates running, I suspect that Mr. Sanders is the one big corporations least care to see assume the Presidency. In theory, Mr. Trump may be the second worst for big corporations, but ....

1. I doubt it because even though Mr. Trump isn't beholden to them for his candidacy, he's no stranger to the needs of multi-billion dollar business and that which isn't in general good for big corporations isn't going to be good for his privately held multi-billion dollar Trump Organization either.
2. I haven't confidence in how reliable Mr. Trump's statements are.
3. Mr. Trump is a "spin doctor" and as such, I expect him to do many things that will not "pass the sniff test" and that he'll spend a lot of energy trying "sell" using the same empty and/or populist rhetoric, blatant lies, and half-truths he's been using in his campaign. From just the last GOP debate:
   1. Medicare savings -- outright wrong
   2. Trade deficits -- outright wrong
   3. 9/11 Conspirators -- outright wrong
   4. The merit of the Iraq War II before it began -- unsubstantiated
   5. Trump University -- multiple lies
   6. Vladimir Putin -- partly true and partly false
   7. Small hands -- outright lie (the part about his hands only)

 

[Dekster]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat[at] the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

Red:
Avoiding the Issue

All those things can be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing on whether his remarks about Mr. Trump have merit. For example, a rapist is not wrong when he identifies that Charles Manson is a murderer and that he should therefore be despised. One can see the rapist as taking the moral high ground if one wants, but even if he is, is he morally wrong re: his assertion that the murderer should be despised? I think not.

Blue:
That it may very well be; indeed, I'm almost certain it will be.

Of all the candidates running, I suspect that Mr. Sanders is the one big corporations least care to see assume the Presidency. In theory, Mr. Trump may be the second worst for big corporations, but ....

1. I doubt it because even though Mr. Trump isn't beholden to them for his candidacy, he's no stranger to the needs of multi-billion dollar business and that which isn't in general good for big corporations isn't going to be good for his privately held multi-billion dollar Trump Organization either.
2. I haven't confidence in how reliable Mr. Trump's statements are.
3. Mr. Trump is a "spin doctor" and as such, I expect him to do many things that will not "pass the sniff test" and that he'll spend a lot of energy trying "sell" using the same empty and/or populist rhetoric, blatant lies, and half-truths he's been using in his campaign. From just the last GOP debate:
   1. Medicare savings -- outright wrong
   2. Trade deficits -- outright wrong
   3. 9/11 Conspirators -- outright wrong
   4. The merit of the Iraq War II before it began -- unsubstantiated
   5. Trump University -- multiple lies
   6. Vladimir Putin -- partly true and partly false
   7. Small hands -- outright lie (the part about his hands only)

It is not avoiding the issue to dispute the credibility of a speaker who is making generic allegations against someone else and offering themselves as an authority. He is a corporate raider. I have more respect for a youtube star as a business person than I do corporate raiders. Trump is a buffoon, but he is a buffoon who has actually built things.

It isn't like I can criticize someone for being wrong when all the others in the field say nothing substantive at all. I don't support anybody much at this point. If the election were held tomorrow, I am not even sure there is one I could vote for in either party. Trump is no worse or better than any of them. He is just different in that he is colorful.

 

[320 Years of History]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat[at] the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

Red:
Avoiding the Issue

All those things can be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing on whether his remarks about Mr. Trump have merit. For example, a rapist is not wrong when he identifies that Charles Manson is a murderer and that he should therefore be despised. One can see the rapist as taking the moral high ground if one wants, but even if he is, is he morally wrong re: his assertion that the murderer should be despised? I think not.

Blue:
That it may very well be; indeed, I'm almost certain it will be.

Of all the candidates running, I suspect that Mr. Sanders is the one big corporations least care to see assume the Presidency. In theory, Mr. Trump may be the second worst for big corporations, but ....

1. I doubt it because even though Mr. Trump isn't beholden to them for his candidacy, he's no stranger to the needs of multi-billion dollar business and that which isn't in general good for big corporations isn't going to be good for his privately held multi-billion dollar Trump Organization either.
2. I haven't confidence in how reliable Mr. Trump's statements are.
3. Mr. Trump is a "spin doctor" and as such, I expect him to do many things that will not "pass the sniff test" and that he'll spend a lot of energy trying "sell" using the same empty and/or populist rhetoric, blatant lies, and half-truths he's been using in his campaign. From just the last GOP debate:
   1. Medicare savings -- outright wrong
   2. Trade deficits -- outright wrong
   3. 9/11 Conspirators -- outright wrong
   4. The merit of the Iraq War II before it began -- unsubstantiated
   5. Trump University -- multiple lies
   6. Vladimir Putin -- partly true and partly false
   7. Small hands -- outright lie (the part about his hands only)

It is not avoiding the issue to dispute the credibility of a speaker who is making generic allegations against someone else and offering themselves as an authority. He is a corporate raider. I have more respect for a youtube star as a business person than I do corporate raiders. Trump is a buffoon, but he is a buffoon who has actually built things.

It isn't like I can criticize someone for being wrong when all the others in the field say nothing substantive at all. I don't support anybody much at this point. If the election were held tomorrow, I am not even sure there is one I could vote for in either party. Trump is no worse or better than any of them. He is just different in that he is colorful.

Red:
Okay...well, you're right. That's an ad hominem basis for rebuttal/argument. The specific version I think you're applying is called tu quoque.

Blue:
Accuracy and substance are not at all the same things. Nevermind that Mr. Trump rarely exhibits either. Heck, the man expressly stated that he disapproves funding of Planned Parenthood's performing abortions, yet Planned Parenthood doesn't perform any federally funded abortions and isn't an "abortion factory."

• "The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly. And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that."
• "While Planned Parenthood is engaging in the despicable practice of abortion — in addition to then selling aborted baby body parts to the highest bidder — the organization should receive no taxpayer dollars." This quote was made to Breitbart, a conservative media outlet.
  
• For the discussion of Planned Parenthood, skip to 10:55.
  
  

Now why are those three examples important? Because in none of them does he show the faintest awareness of the Hyde Amendment. As a result of that Amendment, no federal funds are used to fund abortions "except (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."


Pink:
I gotta say, that's a terrible reason for choosing someone specific as one's preference for President.

(I don't know if you are doing that; I'm just saying....)


Green:
Okay...."Vote for me. I'm colorful." There's a slogan.

(I don't know if that is your "slogan;" I'm just saying....)

 

[Dekster]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat[at] the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

Red:
Avoiding the Issue

All those things can be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing on whether his remarks about Mr. Trump have merit. For example, a rapist is not wrong when he identifies that Charles Manson is a murderer and that he should therefore be despised. One can see the rapist as taking the moral high ground if one wants, but even if he is, is he morally wrong re: his assertion that the murderer should be despised? I think not.

Blue:
That it may very well be; indeed, I'm almost certain it will be.

Of all the candidates running, I suspect that Mr. Sanders is the one big corporations least care to see assume the Presidency. In theory, Mr. Trump may be the second worst for big corporations, but ....

1. I doubt it because even though Mr. Trump isn't beholden to them for his candidacy, he's no stranger to the needs of multi-billion dollar business and that which isn't in general good for big corporations isn't going to be good for his privately held multi-billion dollar Trump Organization either.
2. I haven't confidence in how reliable Mr. Trump's statements are.
3. Mr. Trump is a "spin doctor" and as such, I expect him to do many things that will not "pass the sniff test" and that he'll spend a lot of energy trying "sell" using the same empty and/or populist rhetoric, blatant lies, and half-truths he's been using in his campaign. From just the last GOP debate:
   1. Medicare savings -- outright wrong
   2. Trade deficits -- outright wrong
   3. 9/11 Conspirators -- outright wrong
   4. The merit of the Iraq War II before it began -- unsubstantiated
   5. Trump University -- multiple lies
   6. Vladimir Putin -- partly true and partly false
   7. Small hands -- outright lie (the part about his hands only)

It is not avoiding the issue to dispute the credibility of a speaker who is making generic allegations against someone else and offering themselves as an authority. He is a corporate raider. I have more respect for a youtube star as a business person than I do corporate raiders. Trump is a buffoon, but he is a buffoon who has actually built things.

It isn't like I can criticize someone for being wrong when all the others in the field say nothing substantive at all. I don't support anybody much at this point. If the election were held tomorrow, I am not even sure there is one I could vote for in either party. Trump is no worse or better than any of them. He is just different in that he is colorful.

Red:
Okay...well, you're right. That's an ad hominem basis for rebuttal/argument. The specific version I think you're applying is called tu quoque.

Blue:
Accuracy and substance are not at all the same things. Nevermind that Mr. Trump rarely exhibits either. Heck, the man expressly stated that he disapproves funding of Planned Parenthood's performing abortions, yet Planned Parenthood doesn't perform any federally funded abortions and isn't an "abortion factory."

• "The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly. And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that."
• "While Planned Parenthood is engaging in the despicable practice of abortion — in addition to then selling aborted baby body parts to the highest bidder — the organization should receive no taxpayer dollars." This quote was made to Breitbart, a conservative media outlet.
  
• For the discussion of Planned Parenthood, skip to 10:55.
  
  

Now why are those three examples important? Because in none of them does he show the faintest awareness of the Hyde Amendment. As a result of that Amendment, no federal funds are used to fund abortions "except (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."


Pink:
I gotta say, that's a terrible reason for choosing someone specific as one's preference for President.

(I don't know if you are doing that; I'm just saying....)


Green:
Okay...."Vote for me. I'm colorful." There's a slogan.

(I don't know if that is your "slogan;" I'm just saying....)

You are still wrong. You just are projecting your logic onto others. You may trust the judgment of a lawyer who should be disbarred or a doctor who should have his license removed, but I do not. It is the same with Mitt Romney. He has no basis to have his judgment on business matters related to Mr. Trump to be taken seriously by me when Mr. Romney's business career is based on stealing the equity created by other people. I prefer people who build businesses and create jobs over someone who tries to steal the benefits of those labors.

I do note that you keep building straw man arguments as if I had commented on these other issues that I have not even raised by implication.

"Vote for me. I'm colorful" is what the primaries are and have been for the better part of 25 years. In an age in which every new crumb of the minutia of something on the cable news plate merits "breaking news" , Mr. Trump is the ideal candidate. One;s preference does not matter. The media's preference matters, and Mr. Trump is dominating it good or bad. I find it entertaining that the GOP establishment cannot handle him. I find it equally amusing that people get so worked up when the person who occupies the White House doesn't affect their lives nearly as much as they seem to think. A single bad choice someone makes themselves will more radically alter the course of their lives than 10 Presidents could ever change.

 

[320 Years of History]

Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices. Mr 47% is just unhappy that Trump has tapped into the segment of the population that he couldn't. He is a sleezy guy in a nice suit. None of this really matters though. Presidential elections are a battle among corporations to decide whose turn it is to eat[at] the public trough and fleece the sheep. Average folks are going to be screwed over either way. IT is just a matter of who gets to do the screwing this time.

Red:
Avoiding the Issue

All those things can be true, but even if they are, they have no bearing on whether his remarks about Mr. Trump have merit. For example, a rapist is not wrong when he identifies that Charles Manson is a murderer and that he should therefore be despised. One can see the rapist as taking the moral high ground if one wants, but even if he is, is he morally wrong re: his assertion that the murderer should be despised? I think not.

Blue:
That it may very well be; indeed, I'm almost certain it will be.

Of all the candidates running, I suspect that Mr. Sanders is the one big corporations least care to see assume the Presidency. In theory, Mr. Trump may be the second worst for big corporations, but ....

1. I doubt it because even though Mr. Trump isn't beholden to them for his candidacy, he's no stranger to the needs of multi-billion dollar business and that which isn't in general good for big corporations isn't going to be good for his privately held multi-billion dollar Trump Organization either.
2. I haven't confidence in how reliable Mr. Trump's statements are.
3. Mr. Trump is a "spin doctor" and as such, I expect him to do many things that will not "pass the sniff test" and that he'll spend a lot of energy trying "sell" using the same empty and/or populist rhetoric, blatant lies, and half-truths he's been using in his campaign. From just the last GOP debate:
   1. Medicare savings -- outright wrong
   2. Trade deficits -- outright wrong
   3. 9/11 Conspirators -- outright wrong
   4. The merit of the Iraq War II before it began -- unsubstantiated
   5. Trump University -- multiple lies
   6. Vladimir Putin -- partly true and partly false
   7. Small hands -- outright lie (the part about his hands only)

It is not avoiding the issue to dispute the credibility of a speaker who is making generic allegations against someone else and offering themselves as an authority. He is a corporate raider. I have more respect for a youtube star as a business person than I do corporate raiders. Trump is a buffoon, but he is a buffoon who has actually built things.

It isn't like I can criticize someone for being wrong when all the others in the field say nothing substantive at all. I don't support anybody much at this point. If the election were held tomorrow, I am not even sure there is one I could vote for in either party. Trump is no worse or better than any of them. He is just different in that he is colorful.

Red:
Okay...well, you're right. That's an ad hominem basis for rebuttal/argument. The specific version I think you're applying is called tu quoque.

Blue:
Accuracy and substance are not at all the same things. Nevermind that Mr. Trump rarely exhibits either. Heck, the man expressly stated that he disapproves funding of Planned Parenthood's performing abortions, yet Planned Parenthood doesn't perform any federally funded abortions and isn't an "abortion factory."

• "The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly. And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that."
• "While Planned Parenthood is engaging in the despicable practice of abortion — in addition to then selling aborted baby body parts to the highest bidder — the organization should receive no taxpayer dollars." This quote was made to Breitbart, a conservative media outlet.
  
• For the discussion of Planned Parenthood, skip to 10:55.
  
  

Now why are those three examples important? Because in none of them does he show the faintest awareness of the Hyde Amendment. As a result of that Amendment, no federal funds are used to fund abortions "except (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."


Pink:
I gotta say, that's a terrible reason for choosing someone specific as one's preference for President.

(I don't know if you are doing that; I'm just saying....)


Green:
Okay...."Vote for me. I'm colorful." There's a slogan.

(I don't know if that is your "slogan;" I'm just saying....)

You are still wrong. You just are projecting your logic onto others. You may trust the judgment of a lawyer who should be disbarred or a doctor who should have his license removed, but I do not. It is the same with Mitt Romney. He has no basis to have his judgment on business matters related to Mr. Trump to be taken seriously by me when Mr. Romney's business career is based on stealing the equity created by other people. I prefer people who build businesses and create jobs over someone who tries to steal the benefits of those labors.

I do note that you keep building straw man arguments as if I had commented on these other issues that I have not even raised by implication.

"Vote for me. I'm colorful" is what the primaries are and have been for the better part of 25 years. In an age in which every new crumb of the minutia of something on the cable news plate merits "breaking news" , Mr. Trump is the ideal candidate. One;s preference does not matter. The media's preference matters, and Mr. Trump is dominating it good or bad. I find it entertaining that the GOP establishment cannot handle him. I find it equally amusing that people get so worked up when the person who occupies the White House doesn't affect their lives nearly as much as they seem to think. A single bad choice someone makes themselves will more radically alter the course of their lives than 10 Presidents could ever change.

Are you incapable of presenting remarks that are contextually relevant to the discussion at hand?

I must ask because so far you have not. You've only offered a variety of false comparisons, ad hominem refutations, and avoided the central point: Mr. Trump's statements are over and over wrong, inconsistent with his own earlier remarks, and/or incomplete, and the quantity of his have made such statements calls into question his trustworthiness.

Red:
Excuse me? You specifically stated what your line of argument was in your prior post. I merely identified it for what it is: a fallacious basis for refuting Mr. Romney's key assertions.

You wrote:

"Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices.​

That is so tu quoque that it can rightfully be called a textbook illustration of that line of fallacious argument. I'm not projecting anything, not the least of all "my logic." It isn't my logic I'm applying; it just is logic, the very same logic the whole damn world, except apparently for you, uses and understands.

Blue:
Again, whether I would or not has no bearing on anything other than the outcome I may or may not legitimately expect as a consequence of doing so. It doesn't affect whether you have presented a fallacious argument. It doesn't affect whether Mr. Romney has accurately identified inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Mr. Trump's statements.

 

[Dekster]

Are you incapable of presenting remarks that are contextually relevant to the discussion at hand?

I must ask because so far you have not. You've only offered a variety of false comparisons, ad hominem refutations, and avoided the central point: Mr. Trump's statements are over and over wrong, inconsistent with his own earlier remarks, and/or incomplete, and the quantity of his have made such statements calls into question his trustworthiness.

Red:
Excuse me? You specifically stated what your line of argument was in your prior post. I merely identified it for what it is: a fallacious basis for refuting Mr. Romney's key assertions.

You wrote:

"Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices.​

That is so tu quoque that it can rightfully be called a textbook illustration of that line of fallacious argument. I'm not projecting anything, not the least of all "my logic." It isn't my logic I'm applying; it just is logic, the very same logic the whole damn world, except apparently for you, uses and understands.

Blue:
Again, whether I would or not has no bearing on anything other than the outcome I may or may not legitimately expect as a consequence of doing so. It doesn't affect whether you have presented a fallacious argument. It doesn't affect whether Mr. Romney has accurately identified inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Mr. Trump's statements.

So now you cannot refute anything so you resort to personal attacks. I am sure you have a link for that logical fallacy you are conveniently withholding. If you lack the capacity to evaluate statements in their larger context of what is being discussed, then perhaps you should spend less time searching your bookmarks for a response and actually using the logic you pretend to have. Here is one for you--there is nothing logical about an irrational process to begin with. Now to clarify so you have something to do with your links--Mitt Romney's opinions on Donald Trump's business acumen is the pot calling the kettle black. There is no false comparison here except you fashioning yourself "logical".

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you incapable of presenting remarks that are contextually relevant to the discussion at hand?

I must ask because so far you have not. You've only offered a variety of false comparisons, ad hominem refutations, and avoided the central point: Mr. Trump's statements are over and over wrong, inconsistent with his own earlier remarks, and/or incomplete, and the quantity of his have made such statements calls into question his trustworthiness.

Red:
Excuse me? You specifically stated what your line of argument was in your prior post. I merely identified it for what it is: a fallacious basis for refuting Mr. Romney's key assertions.

You wrote:

"Romney made billions destroying companies and jobs. He is in no position to take the moral high ground over Trump when it comes to business practices.​

That is so tu quoque that it can rightfully be called a textbook illustration of that line of fallacious argument. I'm not projecting anything, not the least of all "my logic." It isn't my logic I'm applying; it just is logic, the very same logic the whole damn world, except apparently for you, uses and understands.

Blue:
Again, whether I would or not has no bearing on anything other than the outcome I may or may not legitimately expect as a consequence of doing so. It doesn't affect whether you have presented a fallacious argument. It doesn't affect whether Mr. Romney has accurately identified inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Mr. Trump's statements.

So now you cannot refute anything so you resort to personal attacks. I am sure you have a link for that logical fallacy you are conveniently withholding. If you lack the capacity to evaluate statements in their larger context of what is being discussed, then perhaps you should spend less time searching your bookmarks for a response and actually using the logic you pretend to have. Here is one for you--there is nothing logical about an irrational process to begin with. Now to clarify so you have something to do with your links--Mitt Romney's opinions on Donald Trump's business acumen is the pot calling the kettle black. There is no false comparison here except you fashioning yourself "logical".

I have not attacked anyone.

I have refuted your remarks by showing that they are logically fallacious. Insofar as they do not logically speaking "hold water," what else is there to say?

If it's true that you truly don't, after having read the content at the links I provided about ad hominem lines of argument, understand how that's the only basis you've presented for your remarks -- even in your most recent post above, it's all you've offered -- stop talking to me because I'm not here to educate you, and you are clearly, at this point in your life, too under-informed for me to continue to engage with you in conversation.

 

[320 Years of History]

The type of protectionism associated with free trade is something that nobody who knows what they are talking about in terms of economics has said it a damn thing to do with jobs, good or bad. To the extent you mean free trade related protectionism, what it's bad for is the price of goods, not the price of labor.

What I was responding to was Romney's statement as to the impact on jobs. He did indeed reference the impact of such policies on jobs beyond higher prices of goods.

[Mr. Romney] said, (from your text): "[Mr. Trump's] proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America"

At this point I believe none of what these people tell us on this. Zero.

Yes, protectionist policies would cause prices to rise. To that I say, so what. We have lower prices on goods, but are left with stagnant wages and a decimated manufacturing sector.

All, or much, of that value-add activity normally associated with manufacturing operations has left the country to the benefit of these other nations that are now garnering that wealth that formerly would have stayed here.

This is simple. Want to sell it here? Build it here. Full stop.

If companies don't like it they are free to not take advantage of the largest consumer market on the planet.

Clarification: The indented portion of the OP comprises the entirety of Mr. Romney's speech. None of those are my words.

Red:
Okay...I understand to what you referred. TY for the clarification. Truly, I don't know what the heck an "export job" is. I have to agree that remark was vacuous.

I believe Mr. Trump has proposed imposing a 35% tax on any cars made in Mexico, the aim being to keep companies from moving out of the U.S. That's just a pipe dream and patriotic rhetoric, wishful thinking, really; companies are not going to just abandon their investments in factories and other infrastructure to return to the U.S.

Given how many different car models are made currently in Mexico, I don't see how that is going to be helpful. Among other things, it'd just allow other car makers/sellers to increase their prices so that they still fall below the price of the cars built in Mexico. It could also drive the business case for vehicle production to be happen somewhere other than both Mexico and the U.S.

Then what? Impose yet another tariff, all the while driving prices up? At that rate, most new cars will cost as much as a BMW or Mercedes....that's hardly going to be good for U.S. new car consumers. Perhaps Mr. Trump thinks the used car industry needs a boost because with 35% tariffs on new cars, it's sure going get one. (See: substitutes and elasticity of demand and price discrimination)

Blue:
That's just not a good idea. There are just too many goods that people demand and that cannot be made in the U.S. at lower cost than elsewhere. Do you honestly believe that people are going to get pay increases merely because the cost of goods increases? That's just not going to happen, especially when there's a burgeoning market and demand for the very same goods in China, India and other developing nations.

I think too many people don't recognize the distinctions, and their impacts, between mature markets and growth markets. The U.S. and Western Europe is a mature market; China, India, Russia, and many other parts of the world are growth markets, just as the U.S. was right after WWII. Quite simply the sorts of demands you have proposed is not among the ones mature markets can make to businesses. Remember, businesses care about generating profit, not about from whom they generate it.

your opinion that 'it's just not a good idea' I will disagree with.

I understand your point of view and shared it at one time. Trust me I understand the distinctions between mature markets and growth markets.

I also know that it will be generations, if ever, before the global labor markets reach equilibrium and it is again cost effective to manufacture here without such measures.

I also know that were this to be enforced we'd see a boom in many sectors that support manufacturing, such as construction, transportation etc which would have their own ripple effects as well as that infrastructure was rebuilt, tax revenues would skyrocket (far less opportunity to offshore those profits, which is costing us billions) and there would likely be other benefits as well, such as less pollution due to more stringent emissions controls here than in China, for instance.

How do we actually do anything about Carbon emissions when a huge portion of the pollutants are being belched out by these emerging countries and we encourage the manufacture of increasing percentages of the world's goods in these regions? We are shooting ourselves right in the foot on that count, IMO. The cost of that, if the AGW crowd is to be believed, is incalculable and may be catastrophic.

would our junk get more expensive? yes. would it roil the markets for a while? sure, but at the end of the day we should use our strengths to our advantage instead of simply saying we should build this or that over there because it's less expensive to do so. that's exactly what's gotten us into this mess, IMO.

Our consumer market is one of our advantages. From where I'm sitting we are not using that strength one bit, opting instead to throw open the doors and let any vendor sell anything it darn well pleases, regardless of the net impact on ourselves. I think it's nuts.

Red:
What's efficient about that happening when there is no boom in domestic U.S. manufacturing? I don't even see why it would happen if there is no boom in U.S. manufacturing.

I don't know why folks make such a big "to do" over U.S. manufacturing. The Industrial Revolution began in Europe and they had a surge in manufacturing jobs and the corresponding individual prosperity. It then made it's way to the U.S. and the U.S. experienced the very same surges. In the spread, the preponderance of manufacturing jobs shifted from Europe to the U.S. as the U.S. became the lower cost place of production. The U.S.' "time in the manufacturing sun" has ebbed; it was inevitable that it would as the capability to do the same work came to exist in lower cost places.

It's a perfectly normal thing; it's the way the business cycle functions. It's not a good or bad thing; it just is how economies develop, grow, and mature and how global labor markets head to a new equilibrium point. Some 2 billion workers who are willing to work at prices far lower than are Americans is what's moving the equilibrium point. At the moment, all that's shifted is the supply curve. Later it'll be the demand curve that shifts.

Pink:
I concur with the incongruity of expectations you've identified. The matter of environmental preservation differs from that of free trade and manufacturing, but there's no denying the latter affects our ability, as the dominant species on the only habitable planet of which we know, to ameliorate the downsides of the former.

I see two viable approaches to dealing in concert with manufacturing and environmental preservation:

1. There must come into existence power generation methods that are both effective and that result in low enough costs to implement that there's a valid business case for governments to adopt them as replacements for fossil fuel derived energy. The fact is such sources already exist, but why nations refrain from implementing them is beyond me for whether one is China, the U.S. the U.K., Mexico or anyone else, the fact is we share the planet. If/when it "goes to pot," it'll be that way for everyone.
2. Including the cost of environmental resource use in the cost of goods/services purchased. I realize that means everything costs more to adopt that policy universally, but the fact is that humanity has reached the point whereby we have enough of an impact on the planet itself that we have to pay for what amounts to merely existing on it. If by doing so we can reverse planet-level changes that unabated will lead to our demise, and our actions indeed do so, it makes sense that eventually we could revert to a model whereby we stop paying to occupy the planet.
   
   Obviously that cycle cannot likely begin and end in the course of a typical human lifespan. That it cannot is beside the point. Humanity has also reached the point were the temporal scope of management that we must take goes beyond that of our immediate existence. What good does it do us to "live the life of Reilly" now if it means our descendents will have no place to live? What is the point of deferring the hardship of making such decisions to our descendents? It's not as though it's going to get easier to stomach the decisions that must be made.

Green:
??? I don't think I get what you are trying to communicate. What else do you think businesses are going to do but choose to produce their wares where it is least costly to do so? I can assure you that business managers evaluate multiple business operating scenarios and choose the one that offers the best profit potential. If they determine that insufficient profit potential exists in a given market, they'll simply exist that market.

That's just how capitalism works. If you want to propose a shift toward a command economy, fine, but please do so clearly for I've been assuming capitalism is the economic model in play in this discussion.

(BTW, is there some reason you're hopping back and forth contextually between the application of microeconomic principles and macroeconomic ones?)


Blue:
Advantage with regard to what? Do you really think U.S. consumers have some long run demand-side advantage over the pent up demand of 2 billion Chinese and Indians? I can't see what it might be. Just as with the supply side discussed in the prior "red" section the U.S. had the numbers advantage over Europe, which in turn became a demand side one, high population developing nations have the exact same advantages over U.S. consumers. We can sit here and quibble over whether it'll be 5, 50, 10 or 20 years before that advantage fully manifests itself, but however long it takes, there's no way round the inevitability of it happening.

I'm going to copy and then respond, as I'm on a tablet at this point

Red:
What's efficient about that happening when there is no boom in domestic U.S. manufacturing? I don't even see why it would happen if there is no boom in U.S. manufacturing.

------ I never said anything about efficiency, nor was it implied or inferred that I was forwarding this as the most efficient model of anything. Clearly it isn't if we're assuming massive trade barriers.


Blue:
Advantage with regard to what? Do you really think U.S. consumers have some long run demand-side advantage over the pent up demand of 2 billion Chinese and Indians? I can't see what it might be. Just as with the supply side discussed in the prior "red" section the U.S. had the numbers advantage over Europe, which in turn became a demand side one, high population developing nations have the exact same advantages over U.S. consumers. We can sit here and quibble over whether it'll be 5, 50, 10 or 20 years before that advantage fully manifests itself, but however long it takes, there's no way round the inevitability of it happening.

----again I said nothing about the long run. At this time our consumer market is a strength. We can indeed quibble about timetables, but I see no reason to accelerate that shift in the balance of consumer power which is exactly what we're doing by shifting these jobs to workers in other nations, to the detriment of our own. We should instead be exploiting that currently existing strength, imo.


don't think I get what you are trying to communicate. What else do you think businesses are going to do but choose to produce their wares where it is least costly to do so?

---- not if you take away that option, which is exactly what forcing them to produce here would do. If they want to exit the market, fine. Someone else will take their place. If it is truly a necessary good supply/ demand will set a price that makes it profitable.


That's just how capitalism works. If you want to propose a shift toward a command economy, fine, but please do so clearly for I've been assuming capitalism is the economic model in play in this discussion.

----- I don't know why you'd assume that pure capitalism was the model when my premise from the outset was to drastically limit choices for businesses in term of where goods would be manufactured. I think free trade has been a bust for the U.S. worker. I would do whatever possible to reverse that trend and to create whatever advantage possible.

Sorry for the delay in reading and responding to your comments.

Red:
I know you didn't explicitly say anything about efficiency; however, we both know we are discussing economic policy. Thus I didn't need you to expressly mention it for no matter their stance on government's proper role in effecting economic efficiency, not one economically astute person I've ever met -- professors, professional economists, or so-called lay people who have a solid understanding of economics -- has not had economic efficiency as an intrinsically extant factor driving why they've proponed or rebuked any given stance. I presumed you to, in considering an economic policy, to have given, like the other folks I noted, due consideration to economic efficiency in arriving at your position, thus the question I asked: What's efficient about [using a tariff to generate a boom in industries that support domestic manufacturing] when there is no boom in domestic U.S. manufacturing?

Perhaps I should not have assumed you considered the economic efficiency of the tariff you think will be beneficial. As a clarifying question, then, I ask you...Do you not consider economic efficiency - minimally, maintaining the current level of it, or ideally, increasing it -- to be an intrinsic aim of any economic policy? If yes, I await your direct reply to the efficiency question I asked previously. If no, what strikes you as the legitimate reason(s) for (1) ignoring economic efficiency when conceiving or discussing economic policy, (2) advocating for economic policies that one knows (from one's study of economic principles/laws) reduce economic efficiency?

Blue:
Like economic efficiency, both the long and short run impacts are among the inherent factors pertinent to evaluating any economic policy. You didn't need to explicitly say something about them.

Light Blue:
Consumer power, the power that arises from demanding or not demanding a good or service, is neither decreased nor increased by imposing tariffs/regulations that affect the supply side of the economy. The power to demand or not demand a good/service exists regardless of where the good/service is produced.

Fluorescent Blue:
The way to exploit one's demand-side (consumer) muscle is to simply refuse to make discretionary purchases from producers whom one, for whatever reason, disapproves. Obviously consumers have the greatest ability to do that, but only if they (1) don't yield the power they have, or (2) if they are willing, after having yielded their demand-side power, to endure some inconvenience of exerting it so as to spur producers to act in ways of which consumers approve.

Consider televisions, for example.

It used to be that most televisions demanded by U.S. consumers also were made in the U.S. TV makers determined that it was sufficiently beneficial to their net profit prospects to make the same product elsewhere, so they moved production overseas. Doing so allowed the producers two primary options that could be combined as they saw fit: (1) offer additional or more advanced (or both) features in a television while charging roughly the same selling price, or (2) offer fewer/no additional or more advanced ones, but sell the same product at a lower price.

Consumers expressed their approval of the makers' decisions by buying the televisions. Eventually, in order to remain price competitive, all television makers produce their goods overseas.

Some years later, consumers gripe about the loss of their or their countrymen's loss of jobs making televisions. Those consumers then must opt to "make do" with the televisions they already own and refuse to buy new televisions if they are not made in the U.S. Producers will respond in one of several ways:

1. Do nothing,
2. Modify their business model to deal with reduced U.S. sales,
3. Stop selling in the U.S.
4. Begin producing some or all of their televisions in the U.S.

Obviously, the first three options exist regardless of what consumers do or do not demand; however, which option a given producer chooses is up to the producer. What's a given, however, is that to the extent that U.S. TV production costs are higher than they are overseas, the opposite of what occurred when television production was some years before offshored will be what occurs if producers pursue the fourth option: either television prices for domestically produced TVs will increase or features they contain will go down.​

In looking at the example above, it's not hard to see that consumers have the means of influencing producer behavior without government intervention such as levying tariffs. Additionally, assuming manufacturers elect to produce TV in the U.S. for the purpose of selling them to U.S. consumers:

• Underemployed or unemployed consumers who get the jobs in the factories that make the TVs may in fact also be able to afford to purchase new televisions, that is provided their wages are high enough, which depending on the manufacturer's profit expectations and alternative means of generating profit (for example, just exiting the U.S. market), may or may not be an assumption that pans out.
• Low enough earning consumers who didn't get those jobs will probably not be able to buy one of those newly "Made in the USA" televisions because they cost too much. (assuming they continue to adhere to their patriotic boycott principle)

The economic realities of the preceding two bullet points, and the earlier ordered list of points, are things that free trade opponents just ignore, instead thinking through their "rose colored glasses" that "everybody who wants one" will get one of the newly created manufacturing jobs. They also ignore the fact consumers don't care where a product is made if it's still just too expensive for them to afford or so expensive that lack the will to buy it even if they can afford it. (e.g., folks who can afford to buy $200 blue jeans, but who just won't because they think it's ridiculous to do so....I refuse to buy movie theater popcorn and candy for exactly that reason) In other words, for the hopes of anti-free-traders to become the reality, the following assumptions must materialize:

• Manufacturers will determine that it's "worth it" for them to pursue U.S. sales.
• Manufacturers will be able to sell their wares at prices high enough to meet their owners' profit expectations.
• Manufacturers will be able to sell their wares at prices low enough that enough consumers can afford to buy them, enough to meet the makers' profit objectives.
• The three above assumptions must then proliferate across substantively all manufacturing sub-industries.

Purple:
So what you're suggesting is a prohibition on foreign made goods being sold in the U.S.? Or perhaps you are suggesting the use of tariffs on foreign made goods?

• The first approach just guarantees that substantially all good are produced in the U.S. Fine, but what that does is force all prices -- capital, labor and goods -- to increase in the U.S. For that to be good, wage increases must increase ahead of goods prices, and consistently do so. When have you ever known that to happen, and if you have, what were the economic conditions under which it did? I'll wager the dominant economic factors in pay then, if you are aware of such a period, aren't the same ones and having the same relative importance as those in play now.

Pink:
Yes, other makers will enter the market to replace those who exited, provided the good(s) in question is necessary/non-discretionary. But, what non-discretionary consumer goods aren't made in the USA?

• For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of our food products are domestically produced. Sure, one can buy imported food and drink products, but nobody has to.
• Every dwelling in the U.S. is made in the USA.

That leaves clothing and, perhaps life sustaining drugs. There are plenty of U.S. clothing manufacturers. I submit that:

• if Americans were more committed to supporting American produced goods makers than they be to paying lower prices, they'd buy only from American clothing producers who make their clothes in America.
• if American consumers fully believe in and support the idea that "Made in America" in and of itself is better for the employment prospects of their fellow citizens, they'd buy only form American clothing producers who make their clothes in America.

Yet, by and large, American consumers do neither of those things. I know why I don't, but I cannot say why Americans, by the tens of millions, don't. Why they don't, however, is irrelevant because they have alternatives that would allow them to do so; therefore, that they don't is what matters.

If, however, I were to posit why they don't, I'd say it's because they see/hear someone famous, "important," richer than most people, learned, or some combination thereof oppose free trade, so blithely they do too, never bothering to seek out neutral sources of information about economic principles/laws before committing to their position.