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.



​

 

[1stRambo]

Yo, been telling folks? Ted Cruz is the MAN!!!

"GTP"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[saveliberty]

You had a chance and blew it Mr. Romney. Could have made a bid for a second run and passed. The reason: You did not connect to voters. Maybe it is because you didn't listen to them, kind of like now. You have your single vote and I have mine.

 

[Fueri]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

 

[Indeependent]

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.



​

Neo-Con bullshit.

 

[320 Years of History]

Things would, I think be different if Mr. Trump were

1. consistent with the themes he articulates,
2. consistently accurate with the objective assertions he makes,
3. using something other than fear and hatred to generate votes,
4. there congruence between his words and his actions, and
5. there substance to his proposals.

...but that just isn't. Time and time again those traits simply do not manifest themselves.

If folks don't want an establishment candidate, fine. That doesn't bother me in the least. I don't especially want to have to choose an establishment candidate either, but this election cycle, there simply is no non-establishment candidate of integrity in the running. I'm certainly not going to support a liar and hate monger simply because s/he's the only non-establishment person running. Why would I? That's tantamount to cutting off my nose to spite my face. Who the heck thinks and acts that way?

As I've said before on USMB, I was optimistic for Mr. Trump's candidacy. All the had to do was present sound business cases for his policy ideas, cases of the quality that I know he developed while he was at Wharton. He has yet to do so even once. The fact is that since June 2015, I have waited and waited and waited, and Mr. Trump has had opportunity after opportunity to show the gravitas that he should be more than capable of delivering. Quite simply, he has not shown one iota.

People say a number of potentially positive things regarding the things they say they see and like in Mr. Trump. What are some of them? Let's look at three...perhaps other members will discuss some of the others...

• Donald Trump is a straight shooter. Fine. I like straight shooters, a lot. What is straight shooting about taking both side of a given position? Straight shooters take a stance and if they put off some people, well they just do, but they aren't going to waffle and be vague in the interest of offending nobody. I don't see that from Mr. Trump.
• Donald Trump is an outsider. Great. Be an outsider; nothing wrong with that. In fact it's probably a good thing. But Mr. Trump isn't an outsider; he's literally purchased power and influence for the past 30 years. Mr. Trump is an outsider in name only, and that only because he's never held elected office. Do people honestly believe that all those former executive branch administrators and former congressmen and senators are suddenly outsiders merely because they lost their elections? LOL Nothing could be farther from the truth, unless, as individuals they choose to be, but when they move to PR firms, think tanks, and lobbying firms, they just shift the context of their insider-ness, but when they do so, they don't cease to be insiders.
  
  People "outside the Beltway" perhaps don't realize it, (and I get why they might not) but being an insider isn't about whether one holds/held elected office, it's about whether one can move policy in the direction one wants. be it in one's own interest or on behalf of a client. Being an insider is also about whether one can, at a moment's notice get the ear of the official with whom one wants to make one's case for "whatever." I wager you will know exactly what an outsider is the instant you attempt to get a meeting/phone call with an Assistant/Deputy Secretary (or higher) of XYZ Department, or with Representative or Senator "So and So," or the Ambassador from "Wherever" any one of whom you've never before met. Those folks aren't going to push back their schedules for you and they aren't going to do it for me either.
  
  Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has been able to and has been doing so for years, and nearly every other individual or entity having the sort of wealth he does has done the same. He just isn't an elected insider, but he's absolutely an insider.
• Donald Trump eschews political correctness. What Mr. Trump is is not devoid of politically correct speech, but rather suffused with rudeness, vulgarity and temerity. Politically correct delivery of one's message has at its heart the preservation of one's (presumably) positive reputation. Why anyone thinks that Mr. Trump has no concern for his reputation is beyond me. All Mr. Trump has done with his crass invective and vitriol is turn around the tactics of PC speech to allow himself the ability to use the language of curs and cads to establish in the public sphere a persona that likens himself to little but a prole, an unsophisticated and poorly educated hick.
  
  There's nothing wrong with having that persona is one is a prole, if one is a hick, if one is poorly educated, but Mr. Trump is none of those things; that is not the background from which he comes. I have relatives who are backwoods Southern hicks. Growing up we had staff who were inner city hicks and proles. Each of those folks can or could be endearing and have/had their own, normally brash, way of expressing themselves in whatever was their indigenous style of doing so. They rib me from time to time for what some of them call my "spit and polish," and I give back as good as I get from them. Nonetheless, I respect them and their ideas just as they me and mine, yet we are, as individuals, very different.
  
  The key is that their comportment is no more affected than is mine. We are each true to ourselves and our respective reputations are what they are. Most importantly, however, our modes of expression have integrity; neither they nor I pretend to be what we are not and none of us is ashamed of that which we are.
  
  Most folks may be more familiar with conventional forms of PC speech such as saying "people of color" or "visually challenged," and so on, but make no mistake, the central aim of politically correct expression is to present an appearance that one wants others to accept as the verity of who one is and what one stands for. That's not one bit different from what Mr. Trump does, but a brief look into his background will show anyone that the brash, undisciplined and unsophisticated delivery is nothing but artifice contrived to make him appear as a so-called "man of the people."
  
  Think of it like this...Do you or I need to be black to understand, respect and respond to the concerns that black folks express? Is a black person incapable of understanding the concerns of whites? Must a man have a sex change to understand the challenges women face in our society? Must one be poor to sympathize with the hardships of poverty? Of course not. One need not be of a people to be sympathetic to and for those people. One can be another's champion yet not be just like them. Mr. Trump has not learned that.

The two preceding realities are things that I just don't understand how it is that people, people "outside the Beltway," have largely not figured it out. One need not be rich, poor, black, white, male or female to "get" it. One need only observe and think. Everyone can do that if they but will do it.

 

[Militants]

Both of Romney and Cruz are strong possible candidate to finished to Trump. I thought Kasich was no. 3 but is over for Kasich. Nothing in voctorius yet for Kasich or ha can nominate by american people but I stands that he's gone until line up now. It are Romney or Cruz nowadays. Romney are real buisness candidate of the republican. Kascish isn't real good candidate even he are like Mitt Romney no vote by 15 state till now. Real buisness candidate of Romney. Last 30 he must win 23-24-25 of 30 to be republican candidate.

 

[320 Years of History]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

 

[Militants]

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.





​

Reagan win in 1980/1984 then to 1988 he was real good president of America.

 

[saveliberty]

Things would, I think be different if Mr. Trump were

1. consistent with the themes he articulates,
2. consistently accurate with the objective assertions he makes,
3. using something other than fear and hatred to generate votes,
4. there congruence between his words and his actions, and
5. there substance to his proposals.

...but that just isn't. Time and time again those traits simply do not manifest themselves.

If folks don't want an establishment candidate, fine. That doesn't bother me in the least. I don't especially want to have to choose an establishment candidate either, but this election cycle, there simply is no non-establishment candidate of integrity in the running. I'm certainly not going to support a liar and hate monger simply because s/he's the only non-establishment person running. Why would I? That's tantamount to cutting off my nose to spite my face. Who the heck thinks and acts that way?

As I've said before on USMB, I was optimistic for Mr. Trump's candidacy. All the had to do was present sound business cases for his policy ideas, cases of the quality that I know he developed while he was at Wharton. He has yet to do so even once. The fact is that since June 2015, I have waited and waited and waited, and Mr. Trump has had opportunity after opportunity to show the gravitas that he should be more than capable of delivering. Quite simply, he has not shown one iota.

People say a number of potentially positive things regarding the things they say they see and like in Mr. Trump. What are some of them? Let's look at three...perhaps other members will discuss some of the others...

• Donald Trump is a straight shooter. Fine. I like straight shooters, a lot. What is straight shooting about taking both side of a given position? Straight shooters take a stance and if they put off some people, well they just do, but they aren't going to waffle and be vague in the interest of offending nobody. I don't see that from Mr. Trump.
• Donald Trump is an outsider. Great. Be an outsider; nothing wrong with that. In fact it's probably a good thing. But Mr. Trump isn't an outsider; he's literally purchased power and influence for the past 30 years. Mr. Trump is an outsider in name only, and that only because he's never held elected office. Do people honestly believe that all those former executive branch administrators and former congressmen and senators are suddenly outsiders merely because they lost their elections? LOL Nothing could be farther from the truth, unless, as individuals they choose to be, but when they move to PR firms, think tanks, and lobbying firms, they just shift the context of their insider-ness, but when they do so, they don't cease to be insiders.
  
  People "outside the Beltway" perhaps don't realize it, (and I get why they might not) but being an insider isn't about whether one holds/held elected office, it's about whether one can move policy in the direction one wants. be it in one's own interest or on behalf of a client. Being an insider is also about whether one can, at a moment's notice get the ear of the official with whom one wants to make one's case for "whatever." I wager you will know exactly what an outsider is the instant you attempt to get a meeting/phone call with an Assistant/Deputy Secretary (or higher) of XYZ Department, or with Representative or Senator "So and So," or the Ambassador from "Wherever" any one of whom you've never before met. Those folks aren't going to push back their schedules for you and they aren't going to do it for me either.
  
  Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has been able to and has been doing so for years, and nearly every other individual or entity having the sort of wealth he does has done the same. He just isn't an elected insider, but he's absolutely an insider.
• Donald Trump eschews political correctness. What Mr. Trump is is not devoid of politically correct speech, but rather suffused with rudeness, vulgarity and temerity. Politically correct delivery of one's message has at its heart the preservation of one's (presumably) positive reputation. Why anyone thinks that Mr. Trump has no concern for his reputation is beyond me. All Mr. Trump has done with his crass invective and vitriol is turn around the tactics of PC speech to allow himself the ability to use the language of curs and cads to establish in the public sphere a persona that likens himself to little but a prole, an unsophisticated and poorly educated hick.
  
  There's nothing wrong with having that persona is one is a prole, if one is a hick, if one is poorly educated, but Mr. Trump is none of those things; that is not the background from which he comes. I have relatives who are backwoods Southern hicks. Growing up we had staff who were inner city hicks and proles. Each of those folks can or could be endearing and have/had their own, normally brash, way of expressing themselves in whatever was their indigenous style of doing so. They rib me from time to time for what some of them call my "spit and polish," and I give back as good as I get from them. Nonetheless, I respect them and their ideas just as they me and mine, yet we are, as individuals, very different.
  
  The key is that their comportment is no more affected than is mine. We are each true to ourselves and our respective reputations are what they are. Most importantly, however, our modes of expression have integrity; neither they nor I pretend to be what we are not and none of us is ashamed of that which we are.
  
  Most folks may be more familiar with conventional forms of PC speech such as saying "people of color" or "visually challenged," and so on, but make no mistake, the central aim of politically correct expression is to present an appearance that one wants others to accept as the verity of who one is and what one stands for. That's not one bit different from what Mr. Trump does, but a brief look into his background will show anyone that the brash, undisciplined and unsophisticated delivery is nothing but artifice contrived to make him appear as a so-called "man of the people."
  
  Think of it like this...Do you or I need to be black to understand, respect and respond to the concerns that black folks express? Is a black person incapable of understanding the concerns of whites? Must a man have a sex change to understand the challenges women face in our society? Must one be poor to sympathize with the hardships of poverty? Of course not. One need not be of a people to be sympathetic to and for those people. One can be another's champion yet not be just like them. Mr. Trump has not learned that.

The two preceding realities are things that I just don't understand how it is that people, people "outside the Beltway," have largely not figured it out. One need not be rich, poor, black, white, male or female to "get" it. One need only observe and think. Everyone can do that if they but will do it.

Hillary is not consistent with her theme either.
Hillary trotted out Albright to drive fear into young female voters.
Pot/kettle all black.

 

[Fueri]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

He said, (from your text): "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"

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

Things would, I think be different if Mr. Trump were

1. consistent with the themes he articulates,
2. consistently accurate with the objective assertions he makes,
3. using something other than fear and hatred to generate votes,
4. there congruence between his words and his actions, and
5. there substance to his proposals.

...but that just isn't. Time and time again those traits simply do not manifest themselves.

If folks don't want an establishment candidate, fine. That doesn't bother me in the least. I don't especially want to have to choose an establishment candidate either, but this election cycle, there simply is no non-establishment candidate of integrity in the running. I'm certainly not going to support a liar and hate monger simply because s/he's the only non-establishment person running. Why would I? That's tantamount to cutting off my nose to spite my face. Who the heck thinks and acts that way?

As I've said before on USMB, I was optimistic for Mr. Trump's candidacy. All the had to do was present sound business cases for his policy ideas, cases of the quality that I know he developed while he was at Wharton. He has yet to do so even once. The fact is that since June 2015, I have waited and waited and waited, and Mr. Trump has had opportunity after opportunity to show the gravitas that he should be more than capable of delivering. Quite simply, he has not shown one iota.

People say a number of potentially positive things regarding the things they say they see and like in Mr. Trump. What are some of them? Let's look at three...perhaps other members will discuss some of the others...

• Donald Trump is a straight shooter. Fine. I like straight shooters, a lot. What is straight shooting about taking both side of a given position? Straight shooters take a stance and if they put off some people, well they just do, but they aren't going to waffle and be vague in the interest of offending nobody. I don't see that from Mr. Trump.
• Donald Trump is an outsider. Great. Be an outsider; nothing wrong with that. In fact it's probably a good thing. But Mr. Trump isn't an outsider; he's literally purchased power and influence for the past 30 years. Mr. Trump is an outsider in name only, and that only because he's never held elected office. Do people honestly believe that all those former executive branch administrators and former congressmen and senators are suddenly outsiders merely because they lost their elections? LOL Nothing could be farther from the truth, unless, as individuals they choose to be, but when they move to PR firms, think tanks, and lobbying firms, they just shift the context of their insider-ness, but when they do so, they don't cease to be insiders.
  
  People "outside the Beltway" perhaps don't realize it, (and I get why they might not) but being an insider isn't about whether one holds/held elected office, it's about whether one can move policy in the direction one wants. be it in one's own interest or on behalf of a client. Being an insider is also about whether one can, at a moment's notice get the ear of the official with whom one wants to make one's case for "whatever." I wager you will know exactly what an outsider is the instant you attempt to get a meeting/phone call with an Assistant/Deputy Secretary (or higher) of XYZ Department, or with Representative or Senator "So and So," or the Ambassador from "Wherever" any one of whom you've never before met. Those folks aren't going to push back their schedules for you and they aren't going to do it for me either.
  
  Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has been able to and has been doing so for years, and nearly every other individual or entity having the sort of wealth he does has done the same. He just isn't an elected insider, but he's absolutely an insider.
• Donald Trump eschews political correctness. What Mr. Trump is is not devoid of politically correct speech, but rather suffused with rudeness, vulgarity and temerity. Politically correct delivery of one's message has at its heart the preservation of one's (presumably) positive reputation. Why anyone thinks that Mr. Trump has no concern for his reputation is beyond me. All Mr. Trump has done with his crass invective and vitriol is turn around the tactics of PC speech to allow himself the ability to use the language of curs and cads to establish in the public sphere a persona that likens himself to little but a prole, an unsophisticated and poorly educated hick.
  
  There's nothing wrong with having that persona is one is a prole, if one is a hick, if one is poorly educated, but Mr. Trump is none of those things; that is not the background from which he comes. I have relatives who are backwoods Southern hicks. Growing up we had staff who were inner city hicks and proles. Each of those folks can or could be endearing and have/had their own, normally brash, way of expressing themselves in whatever was their indigenous style of doing so. They rib me from time to time for what some of them call my "spit and polish," and I give back as good as I get from them. Nonetheless, I respect them and their ideas just as they me and mine, yet we are, as individuals, very different.
  
  The key is that their comportment is no more affected than is mine. We are each true to ourselves and our respective reputations are what they are. Most importantly, however, our modes of expression have integrity; neither they nor I pretend to be what we are not and none of us is ashamed of that which we are.
  
  Most folks may be more familiar with conventional forms of PC speech such as saying "people of color" or "visually challenged," and so on, but make no mistake, the central aim of politically correct expression is to present an appearance that one wants others to accept as the verity of who one is and what one stands for. That's not one bit different from what Mr. Trump does, but a brief look into his background will show anyone that the brash, undisciplined and unsophisticated delivery is nothing but artifice contrived to make him appear as a so-called "man of the people."
  
  Think of it like this...Do you or I need to be black to understand, respect and respond to the concerns that black folks express? Is a black person incapable of understanding the concerns of whites? Must a man have a sex change to understand the challenges women face in our society? Must one be poor to sympathize with the hardships of poverty? Of course not. One need not be of a people to be sympathetic to and for those people. One can be another's champion yet not be just like them. Mr. Trump has not learned that.

The two preceding realities are things that I just don't understand how it is that people, people "outside the Beltway," have largely not figured it out. One need not be rich, poor, black, white, male or female to "get" it. One need only observe and think. Everyone can do that if they but will do it.

Hillary is not consistent with her theme either.
Hillary trotted out Albright to drive fear into young female voters.
Pot/kettle all black.

Red:
Just so I'm sure what theme(s) you mean and have in mind, with regard to which of them you find Mrs. Clinton untrue?

Blue:
I wasn't keen on Mrs. Clinton's doing that. It's not that I don't "get" the theme Mrs. Albright extolled for I do, and that was certainly not the first time she'd done so. The problem I have with Mrs. Clinton letting that happen is the implicit espousal of that basis of support for her candidacy.

The prospect that a woman leader will inherently consider the intrinsic female perspectives associated with a given position is not hard to accept. That Mrs. Clinton or any other woman needs to articulate that is both shocking and unnecessary. Mr. Obama didn't (AFAIK) overtly implore blacks to vote for him on the basis of his blackness all but ensuring that he'd at least be cognizant of black folks' perspectives when defining policy, but I can assure you that there are blacks who most certainly understood that to be the case, and who didn't need to be told to do so, and who voted for him on largely that basis.

Similarly but differently too, the blacks whom I know and asked about it stated that they liked his and Mrs. Clinton's platforms more or less equally, so Mr. Obama's blackness, along with the novelty and pride of the history making uniqueness of his ascending to the Presidency, was not a central factor for them, but rather a "tipping point" in a situation wherein they considered all other things to be equal. I would consider myself naive were I to expect women's attitudes be notably different with regard to Mrs. Clinton's prospective Presidency as assessed by female voters.

Other:
This election cycle is unique, IMO, not only among election cycles, but also among the types of things about which I typically must make a choice. I find myself forced this election to choose the lesser of several "evils" (I don't think any of the candidates is outright evil) rather than choosing at least one whom I genuinely approve of. Thus the distinction among Mr. Trump, Mrs. Clinton, and the rest, the question I keep asking myself, is "Which of them will be the least bad?" As goes the whole kit and kaboodle of them is that I'm of the mind that Mr. Trump will be the "most bad."

 

[320 Years of History]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

 

[Fueri]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

 

[Fueri]

Ya know, listening to these guys yammer about how protectionism would be bad for American jobs rings kind of hollow after watching NAFTA and China destroy our manufacturing base.

These same prognosticators told us how great these things would be for America and they were dead wrong. No question, no doubt.

Romney can get bent, as far as I'm concerned. These guys all hate Trump because he's not one of them. I'm not a Trumper but if he wins, he wins and watching the establishment piddle it's drawers is nudging me towards the guy if anything, as these same people are the ones that have looted the country for their own benefit in the first place.

I'm done listening to them- all of them. They cannot be trusted or believed on literally any single thing when it comes to what is good for everyone, as long before policies trickle down to the man on the street they are poured through the strainer of what is best for the uber-rich and that is almost never compatible with what is best for joe average. I'm at the point where if they say it's bad for me, it's likely good. Trust is gone. Belief in any sort of code of conduct or stewardship is gone. they are liars and looters that are picking our bones for their own benefit- and Romney is a poster boy for all of them.

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.

 

[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.

TY for the fairly presented replies. I'm pressed for time just now, but will follow up later, likely tomorrow, but time permitting, perhaps later this morning (evening where you probably are).

Cheers.

 

[Foxfyre]

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]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Both of Romney and Cruz are strong possible candidate to finished to Trump. I thought Kasich was no. 3 but is over for Kasich. Nothing in voctorius yet for Kasich or ha can nominate by american people but I stands that he's gone until line up now. It are Romney or Cruz nowadays. Romney are real buisness candidate of the republican. Kascish isn't real good candidate even he are like Mitt Romney no vote by 15 state till now. Real buisness candidate of Romney. Last 30 he must win 23-24-25 of 30 to be republican candidate.

I applaud your attempt. Really I do. But....be kind. Spare us.