Trump supporters, are you happy?

[kaz]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

There's no variation among Democrats at all. Notice you can't name anything Democrats disagree on

 

[kaz]

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

Correct. And bringing in H1B workers and immigrants hurts us even more.

Mark

Nonsense, trained workers are not the problems, illegal immigrants who tax our system are the problem. Trained workers grow the economy. There are plenty of jobs in this country for skilled workers, and they grow as you add skilled workers

There have been stories where our own trained workers were replaced wholesale by companies that wanted to pay less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/u...t-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

If there are too many trained workers for the jobs available, they certainly are a problem. Do you deny this?

Mark

We're talking about a system for a country with 350 million people, anecdotal examples are irrelevant.

I don't wear a seat belt because I read about someone who lived because in an accident he was thrown clear of the car and if he'd been strapped in he'd have died! Yeah

 

[owebo]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

There's no variation among Democrats at all. Notice you can't name anything Democrats disagree on

What even more sad....a lot of GOP'ers agree with democrats on hitlery.....

 

[kaz]

If THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Trumpettes are indistinguishable from leftists in every single attitude and behavior EXCEPT they want Trump to be their Big Government Goodie Distributor instead of Hillary. You need only look at your own charming post about "garbage" to see the standard leftist tactic of demonizing those who disagree with you in order to avoid ever having to address their concerns seriously.

But hey, I guess that means you don't need our "garbage" votes to win the election, so good luck on that "yuuuuuge win" without us. And don't even consider trying that bullying, horseshit hypocrisy of, "Well, if you don't decide Trump is wonderful, you want Hillary, but he doesn't need your vote, but you have to get on board to beat Hillary, but you're garbage". If you ever connect with reality enough to recognize how badly your Idiot Boy candidate is botching the election and start to wonder why, look no further than your own reflection of his utterly repellent attitudes.

no we want businesses to run their shops and the government stay out. it's quite simple bubba.

What the ****? That's not what Trump says that you keep defending

Well he wants lower taxes and.less regulation...standard free market stuff.

How is proposing charging Carrier $1,500 a unit for building them in Mexico "less regulation?" How is ending Nafta less regulation if he can't get a deal he wants?

Government deciding what is "fair" is no solution ... to anything.

And where has he talked about taxes and regulations artificially driving corporations offshore? That I oppose. What I support is when they do it for economic efficiency

If all countries played on a level field, you would have a point. America simply cannot compete with countries that pay a dollar a day in wages.

Mark

Sometimes. Then our economy benefits because consumers get lower prices and our companies can compete better with foreign competition. I know you think you know more than the field of economics about economics, but your belief doesn't make it so, it just makes it harder to get your head through doorways.

Also, you have no legitimate right to restrict the liberty of others

 

[kaz]

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

What if we start by addressing the oppressive regulations and taxes that are pushing companies offshore first and see where we stand?

This is why I'm confused because he talks about this stuff alot. He's gonna put a moratorium In regulation and just stated 25% of the cost of a house is regulation.
He talks about Low corporate and income taxes and reducing regulation. He even mentioned removing the dep of education and.the epa.

And then trade....what I don't get is if we have such a benefit of free trade, then why are the deficits so high...China sells 500 billion more to us the we to them......shouldn't it be just a few billion at most?

I don't know enough specifically about the China deficit to answer that, but trade balances are a completely screwed statistic. Do you know if you buy a Ford it was probably imported and if you buy a Toyota it probably wasn't?

US corporations doing business overseas is also great for our economy but may not show up in import/export at all. Those numbers are just very misleading, you really have to dig into them to understand them.

And again, low costs for consumers benefits us. China provides us with massive amounts of cheap crap. Building the same thing here does not make us richer.

Why not? Does it make sense to have people on welfare when we could have them working?

Mark

Begging the question

 

[kaz]

And you want to **** them again by crushing the economy

We have no economy. We have NAFTA and the ASIAN connection. Thank you Democrats. Trump wants us back to work. Hillary wants us to get Asia up and running at our expense. Again.
Trump 2016.

Sure, Trump wants that. It's his goal. The problem is his plan to accomplish that won't. His anti-capitalist policies are going to make the economy worse, not better

He IS a capitalist. He knows how the system works, and wants to bring it back to America. Piss on Asia.
Outsourcing is what doesn't work. Redistributing our wealth and resources is what doesn't work. Replacing American workers with illegals makes the economy worse. The Obama/Clinton regime gives a 3,000 dollar break per employee if the Company fires an American and hires an illegal in his place. That is what isn't working.
America FIRST this time.
Vote for America benefiting America for a change.

Free markets are what works. Government should neither harm nor "help" business.

And capitalism is just a term for economic freedom. Decisions are driven by the market. That Trump is going to control markets and make our decisions for us is free markets because he's smarter than everyone is just ridiculous

I doubt that anything Trump would do would be worse than what we have today. Today, the liberals are dictating the market. If you are happier with them doing so than Trump, then vote for them again.

Mark

Strawman. And I'm not voting for Hillary and have never voted Democrat for President. Then again after this election, I will have voted Republican once in the last seven elections

 

[kaz]

Carrier proposal?

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

This doesn't say the amount, but I heard him propose "$1,500." It wasn't through the media, I heard him say it.

That is just an abomination to free markets and capitalism that government would do that. It's a big reason I don't give him any trust when he talks about "renegotiating" Nafta or pulling out of TPP. I want free markets.

Government shouldn't have any trade deals. We should just:

1) Open our markets

2) Threaten countries we prop up with "foreign aid" and with our military we are stopping if they don't open their markets to us.

That's it, end of proposal

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

""I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.""

That would happen if renegotiation fails..it wouldnt..Mexico need us.more than we.need.them

I don't even know what the goal of "renegotiation" is, can you clarify? Is this another we need government to tell us what's "fair" again? How's that worked out for you in the past?

What is "free trade"? I understand you want it, as do I, but I also understand that other countries have been manipulating both their currency and products to get a "leg up" on their competition. I understand that, since we do not control other countries, that all we can control is how we react to that manipulation.

There is no "free trade", and there NEVER has been.

Mark

So there has never been totally free trade, true, and?

 

[kaz]

What if we just don't charge tariffs?

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

What if we just don't charge tariffs?

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

Certainly two way free trade is better for us both than one way free trade. But according to economics, one way free trade is better than no free trade. That isn't just something that I read about, I took the courses, understand the math and lived it through my career. The US has kick ass global companies.

As for your view that if we empower government to decide what's fair and only allow our companies to engage in "fair trade," when has in your experience government ever used that sort of power to actually make life fair? Seriously, I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

It's pretty obvious why you keep ignoring it, government doesn't use power to make anything fair, they use power for power sake. So, why do you keep reasserting the nonsense that government will use power over trade to make life fair when you are admitting they don't use power to make life fair by evading the question?

 

[jc456]

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

Certainly two way free trade is better for us both than one way free trade. But according to economics, one way free trade is better than no free trade. That isn't just something that I read about, I took the courses, understand the math and lived it through my career. The US has kick ass global companies.

As for your view that if we empower government to decide what's fair and only allow our companies to engage in "fair trade," when has in your experience government ever used that sort of power to actually make life fair? Seriously, I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

It's pretty obvious why you keep ignoring it, government doesn't use power to make anything fair, they use power for power sake. So, why do you keep reasserting the nonsense that government will use power over trade to make life fair when you are admitting they don't use power to make life fair by evading the question?

For the record, the US companies pays tariffs/ import taxes into countries we ship to.

 

[buckeye45_73]

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

Certainly two way free trade is better for us both than one way free trade. But according to economics, one way free trade is better than no free trade. That isn't just something that I read about, I took the courses, understand the math and lived it through my career. The US has kick ass global companies.

As for your view that if we empower government to decide what's fair and only allow our companies to engage in "fair trade," when has in your experience government ever used that sort of power to actually make life fair? Seriously, I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

It's pretty obvious why you keep ignoring it, government doesn't use power to make anything fair, they use power for power sake. So, why do you keep reasserting the nonsense that government will use power over trade to make life fair when you are admitting they don't use power to make life fair by evading the question?

Hang on, I don't like an all powerful govenrment, but how can you say one way free trade is good? That's like Amish people who don't fight back if they're attacked.....it doesn't make sense to me. If they close there markets to use why should we open ours to them. Cheap consumer goods are great, but they have to reciprocate. I do think standards and reasonable regulation are ok....the problem is we have waaaaay too much regulation.

 

[kaz]

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

Certainly two way free trade is better for us both than one way free trade. But according to economics, one way free trade is better than no free trade. That isn't just something that I read about, I took the courses, understand the math and lived it through my career. The US has kick ass global companies.

As for your view that if we empower government to decide what's fair and only allow our companies to engage in "fair trade," when has in your experience government ever used that sort of power to actually make life fair? Seriously, I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

It's pretty obvious why you keep ignoring it, government doesn't use power to make anything fair, they use power for power sake. So, why do you keep reasserting the nonsense that government will use power over trade to make life fair when you are admitting they don't use power to make life fair by evading the question?

Hang on, I don't like an all powerful govenrment, but how can you say one way free trade is good? That's like Amish people who don't fight back if they're attacked.....it doesn't make sense to me. If they close there markets to use why should we open ours to them. Cheap consumer goods are great, but they have to reciprocate. I do think standards and reasonable regulation are ok....the problem is we have waaaaay too much regulation.

One way free trade is nothing like the Amish not fighting back. You're a bright guy, I don't think I need to explain the obvious fallacies in that analogy. Like starting with choice. Amish trading with the Indians is a choice many would make. None of them chose to be attacked.

Also, the math says you're wrong. Take an economics course and get back to me

 

[cereal_killer]

Most votes for any Republican in the history of the Republican party. Yeah people are pretty happy

I agree you're not an angry Trump supporter. But as a Trump supporter who isn't angry, do you not see what I'm talking about? Do you not look at the Trumpettes and say wow, you're not going to bring anyone in that way?

For example, how is my voting for Johnson a vote for Hillary? Is that really supposed to convince me?

People should always vote for who they want. If you like Johnson, then by all means vote for him. That's the way it should be. However, if the idea of a Clinton Presidency is something you do not want to see THEN one should rethink how they place their votes.

I've always said if Clinton in office is something one cannot bear to see then the choice is clear, but if it wouldn't be the "end of the world" cast your vote how you see fit. I have zero issues with that. Not everyone thinks a Clinton presidency is a terrible thing. Even righties.

I haven't met one person who is on the right that doesn't think that hitlery is a bad thing. Not one. Everyone I've talked to agrees she is a criminal. and then there is Benghazi. I mean, really?

Edit: and then there is the whole scotus nomination and the same ole politics different day thing.

There's some #nevertrumpers and "Republicans" that are going to vote for her.

There isn't any logic in that. I highly doubt that will happen. That would make them hypocrites. They're merely talking, they will not walk that walk.

The nevertrumpers and GOPe are butt hurt over Trumps crassness and failure to apologize to them. Couple that with him not trying to reach out and coddle their butt hurtness is also making them spiteful. Yes they are going to vote for Hillary or sabotage Trump by just voting down ballot.

The GOPe is done in once Trumps gets in office. Their gravy train will go off the rails into the ravine. That isn't sitting well with a lot of them.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree you're not an angry Trump supporter. But as a Trump supporter who isn't angry, do you not see what I'm talking about? Do you not look at the Trumpettes and say wow, you're not going to bring anyone in that way?

For example, how is my voting for Johnson a vote for Hillary? Is that really supposed to convince me?

People should always vote for who they want. If you like Johnson, then by all means vote for him. That's the way it should be. However, if the idea of a Clinton Presidency is something you do not want to see THEN one should rethink how they place their votes.

I've always said if Clinton in office is something one cannot bear to see then the choice is clear, but if it wouldn't be the "end of the world" cast your vote how you see fit. I have zero issues with that. Not everyone thinks a Clinton presidency is a terrible thing. Even righties.

I haven't met one person who is on the right that doesn't think that hitlery is a bad thing. Not one. Everyone I've talked to agrees she is a criminal. and then there is Benghazi. I mean, really?

Edit: and then there is the whole scotus nomination and the same ole politics different day thing.

There's some #nevertrumpers and "Republicans" that are going to vote for her.

There isn't any logic in that. I highly doubt that will happen. That would make them hypocrites. They're merely talking, they will not walk that walk.

The nevertrumpers and GOPe are butt hurt over Trumps crassness and failure to apologize to them. Couple that with him not trying to reach out and coddle their butt hurtness is also making them spiteful. Yes they are going to vote for Hillary or sabotage Trump by just voting down ballot.

The GOPe is done in once Trumps gets in office. Their gravy train will go off the rails into the ravine. That isn't sitting well with a lot of them.

What's GOPe? Grand Ol Party elite?

Perhaps, instead of looking at it as 'sabotaging Trump' if someone votes third party, or even for Clinton, you should look at it as Trump not being a solid enough candidate to win the votes of those people.

OK, that's a lot harder to swallow for anyone voting Clinton instead.

 

[80zephyr]

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

Correct. And bringing in H1B workers and immigrants hurts us even more.

Mark

Nonsense, trained workers are not the problems, illegal immigrants who tax our system are the problem. Trained workers grow the economy. There are plenty of jobs in this country for skilled workers, and they grow as you add skilled workers

There have been stories where our own trained workers were replaced wholesale by companies that wanted to pay less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/u...t-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

If there are too many trained workers for the jobs available, they certainly are a problem. Do you deny this?

Mark

We're talking about a system for a country with 350 million people, anecdotal examples are irrelevant.

I don't wear a seat belt because I read about someone who lived because in an accident he was thrown clear of the car and if he'd been strapped in he'd have died! Yeah

Anecdotal? Lol. I have asked this before, and you didn't answer. Tell me why American wages are stagnant, and our standard of living is eroding?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

no we want businesses to run their shops and the government stay out. it's quite simple bubba.

What the ****? That's not what Trump says that you keep defending

Well he wants lower taxes and.less regulation...standard free market stuff.

How is proposing charging Carrier $1,500 a unit for building them in Mexico "less regulation?" How is ending Nafta less regulation if he can't get a deal he wants?

Government deciding what is "fair" is no solution ... to anything.

And where has he talked about taxes and regulations artificially driving corporations offshore? That I oppose. What I support is when they do it for economic efficiency

If all countries played on a level field, you would have a point. America simply cannot compete with countries that pay a dollar a day in wages.

Mark

Sometimes. Then our economy benefits because consumers get lower prices and our companies can compete better with foreign competition. I know you think you know more than the field of economics about economics, but your belief doesn't make it so, it just makes it harder to get your head through doorways.

Also, you have no legitimate right to restrict the liberty of others

Unless you maintain a level playing field, you ARE restricting the liberty of others.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

We have no economy. We have NAFTA and the ASIAN connection. Thank you Democrats. Trump wants us back to work. Hillary wants us to get Asia up and running at our expense. Again.
Trump 2016.

Sure, Trump wants that. It's his goal. The problem is his plan to accomplish that won't. His anti-capitalist policies are going to make the economy worse, not better

He IS a capitalist. He knows how the system works, and wants to bring it back to America. Piss on Asia.
Outsourcing is what doesn't work. Redistributing our wealth and resources is what doesn't work. Replacing American workers with illegals makes the economy worse. The Obama/Clinton regime gives a 3,000 dollar break per employee if the Company fires an American and hires an illegal in his place. That is what isn't working.
America FIRST this time.
Vote for America benefiting America for a change.

Free markets are what works. Government should neither harm nor "help" business.

And capitalism is just a term for economic freedom. Decisions are driven by the market. That Trump is going to control markets and make our decisions for us is free markets because he's smarter than everyone is just ridiculous

I doubt that anything Trump would do would be worse than what we have today. Today, the liberals are dictating the market. If you are happier with them doing so than Trump, then vote for them again.

Mark

Strawman. And I'm not voting for Hillary and have never voted Democrat for President. Then again after this election, I will have voted Republican once in the last seven elections

'Then your vote is worthless. Throw it away at your peril. I never felt that way before, but the election of Obama cured me of voting for third party candidates.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

This doesn't say the amount, but I heard him propose "$1,500." It wasn't through the media, I heard him say it.

That is just an abomination to free markets and capitalism that government would do that. It's a big reason I don't give him any trust when he talks about "renegotiating" Nafta or pulling out of TPP. I want free markets.

Government shouldn't have any trade deals. We should just:

1) Open our markets

2) Threaten countries we prop up with "foreign aid" and with our military we are stopping if they don't open their markets to us.

That's it, end of proposal

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

""I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.""

That would happen if renegotiation fails..it wouldnt..Mexico need us.more than we.need.them

I don't even know what the goal of "renegotiation" is, can you clarify? Is this another we need government to tell us what's "fair" again? How's that worked out for you in the past?

What is "free trade"? I understand you want it, as do I, but I also understand that other countries have been manipulating both their currency and products to get a "leg up" on their competition. I understand that, since we do not control other countries, that all we can control is how we react to that manipulation.

There is no "free trade", and there NEVER has been.

Mark

So there has never been totally free trade, true, and?

And we have to protect our own interests when the playing field isn't level.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

Certainly two way free trade is better for us both than one way free trade. But according to economics, one way free trade is better than no free trade. That isn't just something that I read about, I took the courses, understand the math and lived it through my career. The US has kick ass global companies.

As for your view that if we empower government to decide what's fair and only allow our companies to engage in "fair trade," when has in your experience government ever used that sort of power to actually make life fair? Seriously, I keep asking you that, and you keep ignoring it.

It's pretty obvious why you keep ignoring it, government doesn't use power to make anything fair, they use power for power sake. So, why do you keep reasserting the nonsense that government will use power over trade to make life fair when you are admitting they don't use power to make life fair by evading the question?

I agree with you. The government has used its power to adversely affect American business and jobs. I want them to work for us instead of against us.

Mark

 

[HUGGY]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

Everyone in the Republican Party had the chance to voice their opinion of which candidate they preferred to see running for president, some may have just chosen to stay home in objection to who was left in the primary. Even though I didn't see my chosen candidate as a choice in the process, I still supported him with my vote rather than blame a party because evidently the majority sought out Trump during the Republican primary process. If a voter HAD chosen to sit it out in objection, then he shares the blame in not voicing his concern amid Trump's growing momentum.

The choice we find now comes to who has the best laid out PLAN in addressing the problems our nation faces, not whether or not they adhere to minor opinions such as submitting their tax form. A candidate's tax form doesn't meet your needs in maintaining employment, and (if we have a president who ALLOWS the Constitution's "separation of powers" to have its way) the president can't impose laws beyond what Congress and the Founder's interpretation of the Constitution allows.

If you are SO concerned by what Trump might transform this nation into, it's because our nation has allowed too much executive power to remain unchallenged under Obama.

You are wrong. The power grab which has been going on for decades was immensely increase multi-fold under Bush/Cheney with 9/11 being the excuse. Obama has not enacted any new presidential power grab since elected. Even his much hated Affordable Health Care Act was enacted via congress.

I would be interested to see what new presidential abilities have been given birth by Obama. I know of none.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

As I remember the infighting withJouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Blue Dog Democrats. She went so far as to threaten their campaign funding if they didn't go along with what the liberal democrats wanted in voting for Obamacare. Talk about not being able to handle "complex, ambiguous situations".