Now I know why NOT to vote for Trump
Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 2 months ago to Politics
I was drawn to Trump for various reasons – his boldness, anti-political correctness, his recognition of real problems and not being afraid of talking about them in real terms. Much of what he said has been twisted by the media and made appear crude, insensitive, even illegal, but the media is very good at that… So, none of those issues bothered me at all, in fact, I was glad that he brought them up and I agree with many of them. But I also recognized that he is “loose cannon” and difficult to predict. He had the potential for much needed changes and for going off the constitutional path altogether. Yet, recognizing that essentially staying on the course of the past 30 or 40 years, were bound to fail, and fail big. However, the eye-opener was the debate in South Carolina, when the moderator pressed Trump to explain his often made claim that he plans to “make America great again” – as to, specifically, how? Trump answered that he would prevent US corporations from shipping jobs overseas by enacting (in proposed cooperation with Congress) a punitive tax (or tariff) on them of, say, extra 35%. So, instead of creating favorable conditions for the businesses (and individuals) by lowering taxes and eliminating frivolous regulations, Trumps proposed to be an American Hugo Chavez. One would think that he was reading Directive 10-289! And we all know how well this Directive has worked in Venezuela and how well it is working in Russia. So, this was my eye-opener. And a special thanks to Freedom for pointing at Gary Johnson – if Trump does indeed gets the nomination, I am definitely voting for Johnson.
Given the choice of a man guided by the christian religion, and a man not guided by anything at all, diametrically opposed 180°...I'd choose a christian man any day of the week.
There are far to many in the anti civilized world that believe there is no basic right or wrong, doesn't matter one way or another...their desired ends justifies the means to that end.
Our constitution was solely based on the teachings and lessons learned, not upon the mysticism's or the organization of them...Thomas Jefferson would be a good example of this.
Cruz is staunchly constitutional...rule of law, with temperance. The others either are ignorant or out right reject it...we've got to go with principles.
I like Gary also, he's clearly guided by reason and constitutional principals also...but what chance do we have of getting everyone on board. True, a significant vote for him may make a statement, but at what cost? I'd rather take at least a baby step in the right direction than lose our restoration all together...just my thoughts thus far.
The rest is only justifying supporting a wrong answer and asking for acceptance of that personal decision.
Heal thyself....I shall not grant absolution for I cannot only you can do that...assuming you are acting independently...
If not there was already another wrong answer involved as you gave up the right to independent thought, reason and freedom.
You must confront what you see as you face Dorian. On your own.
1) Harry Reid - Do not see how he practices the same religion I do.
2) Mitt Romney - While I disagree with much of what he says, I can see where he is coming from.
3) Glenn Beck - Pretty close to myself.
Each of those three interprets the same religion very differently. Religion, even a zealot, is not something I measure a person by.
What are there principles and values based off the record we can see and what they say?
If they are a Atheist Zealot that goes around suing people and attempting to use the courts to break the first amendment, I am not interested in them. That Atheist falls in the same camp as Harry Reid as far as I am concerned.
I do not worry about what religion a person is, but what principles they espouse. Cruz is an original intent constitutionalist based on his past behavior and speech.
As far as religion goes, I think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty clear and its walked over in many ways today.
Unless I run I will never see a candidate I agree with everything on. If I did Its a dam near sure sign that I am not using my mind. Rejecting a candidate because he is whatever form of Christianity Cruz is is foolish, just as foolish as rejecting someone because they are atheist.
I look at what the person does and says and back them up on that alone, or choose not to.
His value, does not matter where it comes from, is that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. I happen to share that value as well.
He and I differ in that I do not think the government, federal or state, should govern murder in this area because it cannot be proven that life begins at conception. It is belief based and thereby restricted (1st amendment, no law governing religion) from being governed by the fed (my interpretation, not Cruz's) and while not expressly against the constitution states should also stay out of that one. I include doctors choice to perform the abortion or not as well. Pro choicers that want to force doctors to perform them really get under my skin. If you believe in freedom to choose, it must work both ways.
Lets look at some things he has done I do like and that I think you will like.
1) Subsidies. While campaigning in Iowa people asked him his stance on corn subsidies. He did not pander and said very directly that he was in favor of removing all subsidies, corn and bio-fuel subsidies included. I thought it would cost him the win there, it did not. I am particularly impressed that he held to his position when it would not be popular or prudent politically.
2) EPA, he has said that he would remove the EPA and leave that role to the states
3) Federal divisions created by executive order. He has said that he would reverse federal departments created by executive order, they are unconstitutional as congress would need to approve the creation of new federal departments, and in many cases it may require an ammendment to form the organization. I have never found something more specific on this.
3) 10% flat tax that he has proposed in the senate, and stated he would push as president. He has also stated that it can be paid for by increased commerce brought about by it, and by the removal of regulations which cost business and government billions each year. He has not specified what regulation.
4) Immigration. He added an amendment to the big 8 bill that poison pilled it. Basically they kept saying it was not about citizenship, so he added an amendment the stated no one could gain citizenship through this bill. It killed the amnesty and citizenship. If not for this we would have 12 million illegals being awarded citizenship right now.
5) He is the only standing Senator or Representative who has tried to do everything he ran on to get into the senate. In most cases alone or with one or two other senators/representatives by his side which limited success.
I am not without concerns about the guy, but if he did one or more of the first 3 it would be a huge step in the right direction.
The biggest fact to me that makes me like him, the GOP is funding two other candidates and running attack adds against him. The DNC also attacks him. When both of them hate you, you are doing something right. Becuase of this I think very unlikely he would get in, but if he did I think we would see a shift in the right direction.
Oh and the other thing he is big on is Marriage between a man and a woman. I personally agree with him on this, but do not agree with his approach. Marriage (religious union) and civil union need to be seperate things. Marriages are what churches do, civil unions are legal contracts. This method preserves the rights of the legal contract to everyone (and all documents should read civil union) and allows churches to practice their belief without retribution from the IRS or other through legal channels.
I have never seen a candidate I agree with everything on, Cruz is no different, but he is worth looking at as his track record and his work before politics shows him to be an original intent constitutionalist in my opinion.
To answer your question cruz will talk about both abortion and gay marriage when appropriate to garner votes. He cannot do either without congress because he wont use executive order to do so. Congress wont back him up and neither will the courts on either, So its a fact that he believes as he does, and also a fact that he cant act on those beliefs.
Some of the other things I have listed I think he may be able to act upon
That describes perfectly the general population of the worlds kakistocracies.
I think its time to bring Snowden back to the usa and sic him on exposing the NSA on a continuing basis. The government is trying to protect itself from us and have ultimate SS powers.
I do not need another tyrant of the executive order in office.
Most american companies have transferred their labor intensive operations to china by buying from chinese companies (I know because I have done it). American consumers would never pay for american workers to build the stuff they use- the prices would be too high. They would just tone down their purchases to the really essential things.
Trump is grandstanding to the chinese to get them to allow OUR items to be sold in china more easily.
Trump is making a point about how the chinese want to sell to us, but their government tries to prevent their people from buying from us. Its a good point, actually. Free trade would be great on both sides for the people- perhaps not for the governments involved however. He is jockeying for position- a lot better than Nobama did.
Reagan did only one thing good in my opinion. He stuck to the star wars defense idea and convinced the russians that we were completely protected, all the while being able to launch a first strike against them. Gorbachev was outgunned and basically capitulated. The rest of what Reagan did wasnt good. He was very statist.
He is brutally honest and not politically correct. Which we need in this country. If everyone said what they thought, things would be a LOT better, and more people would get along in the end I think.
This has been a very crony capitalistic country for a LONG time, but it isnt talked about very much. Trump was the first I have heard who admitted that he used the various crony laws out there and basically said "if those laws are there, I use them like everyone else. If you dont like the laws get rid of them" (paraphrased) . I thought that was quite a unique thing to say for a politician. Good for him.
One point that I want to focus on. " Free trade would be great on both sides for the people- perhaps not for the governments involved." Doesn't that mean that our government is the enemy of the people? Certainly not a government of the people for the people...
As to Bernie's "innocence" - I have met quite a few delusional people, some of whom are very intelligent in other areas, that have this clinical condition, called socialism. I am not sure if is curable, as some very advanced cases have been known to go their execution proclaiming the virtues of their executioners. It is a very serious condition.
People tell me why I feel ok with unlocking the doors at my business at night, but would LOVE to lock them during the day (we sell primarily through the internet and dealers, not walk ins). Thats because over the years we have been stolen from much more by government during the day than any thieves at night.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when Bernie has a few drinks and loosens up. Same with Hillary. I remember a few instances when Obama and Bill C didnt realize they were being recorded. Very interesting.
I suspect Trump is the same at any time. Very refreshing.
In the 1970s Warren Buffet and Trump both inharited 40 million. Buffet has turned it into 80 billion without a string of bankruptcies where he did not pay his debts. If Trump had simply put the money in a 5% yeild savings account he would have about 3.2 billion today. He claims about 10 billion, far higher Forbes has him at 3.7 billion. He has cost people more than 2 billion in bankruptcies that he never paid back, and stolen billions in subsidies from the government as well. I have not been able to find our how much, so I am guessing.
That shows the kind of smarts of a big business guy that is in bed with the government to make profit from the favor system, not a business man who has been successful based on accomplsihments.
Buffet is about the only one who turned his inheritance into a real fortune. Most of that fortune will be usurped by our government when he dies anyway, so one could wonder why he did it in the first place..
I just cant get past the idea that in THIS election, its going to be Sanders or Trump, and I choose Trump to do less damage by FAR than Sanders (or Hillary should she survive to the election)
As to being qualified, there is a difference between that and being someone who will bring back Constitutional values, which is what this nation needs.
I heard Trump's response too, but I did not interpret it as to the exclusion of his first trying to encourage companies to remain in the US by offering various incentives to do so. He has talked about creating these incentives from the beginning of his campaign.
If you go to his campaign web site you will see some of what Trump is proposing to foster this plan. The following is copied from the Trump Campaign Web Site:
=========
Business Tax Reform To Encourage Jobs And Spur Economic Growth
Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s (thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.
This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. Right now, freelancers, sole proprietors, unincorporated small businesses and pass-through entities are taxed at the high personal income tax rates. This treatment stifles small businesses. It also stifles tax reform because efforts to reduce loopholes and deductions available to the very rich and special interests end up hitting small businesses and job creators as well. The Trump plan addresses this challenge head on with a new business income tax rate within the personal income tax code that matches the 15% corporate tax rate to help these businesses, entrepreneurs and freelancers grow and prosper.
These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers.
===========
I understand your comment and his statement Saturday night was unsettling, but I would not go so far as to condemn Trump on just one statement without looking into the whole of the subject. Being the businessman he is he would know that this would, by itself, be political suicide. Trump can be unnerving and alarming in much of how and what he says. I still remain open to the possibility of a Trump nomination, however, it is a roller coaster ride- all the way up and all the way down and all the way up.... wheee what a ride!!!
I have a 10 person company, and we now buy 3/4 of our raw materials and subassemblies from china for a very simple reason- we would be unable to compete in the marketplace at the prices needed to NOT buy from China. Customers would simply not have the money to spend on our products, and would cut their purchases. We dont make essential products, and customers would simply choose to spend what money they had left on more essential products. Right now, if we show profits over $50,000 we have to pay 35% tax. Why bother at that rate??? Cutting taxes back to 15% would make a big difference to our small company.
The other candidates are either religious zealots (god only knows what the will do when in office), or they want $12-$15 minimum wages, incredibly higher taxes, 12 weeks paid parental or sickness leave, and other things like that. Any one of those things would bankrupt a LOT of small businesses. Its Trump for me.
The Tariff issue was brought up I think to scare the Chinese government. It would never actually be put into practice because it would hurt us as much as them.
Trump is not an objectivist and wont prevent a socialist end time crash. But he will slow it down a bit. Sanders on the other hand would accelerate it
I think Obama wanted that but couldnt get the votes. Sanders wants it, and probably Hillary does too. I did think that the way Obama set up these exchanges that cost so much now was done to let the government come in with lower cost medicare for everyone and kill off the insurance companies. The companies were stupid to fall in behind him in exchange for the high rates they are getting now.
Plus he would never get that through congress, because they know it would cripple the economy. The cost of chinese goods is like 1/3 that of made-in-america goods. No one is going to revert to hiring americans at this point when regulations and costs are so high here.
I would not bank on him not getting something through our "go along with Obama congress". I agree, we are not making things here without major reductions in regulations and costs.
I would rather this than the back room clinton-esque secret deals that have been done before which seem to benefit china, iran, syria, and russia far more than us. BRING THESE THINGS OUT so we can all see whats up. Trump does this.
There are just not any objectivist candidates out there that are remotely electable, Much more education of people in general will be required before that would happen (unfortunately)
Saying Trump is a businessman does not make him ethical in business or supportive of proper values. (Sorry, but I'm having flashbacks to a variation on "The Mummy" film..."businessman, businessman....")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb-rE...
Its going to be either Trump or Hillary/Sanders. If you keep bashing Trump, you are essentially voting for Hillary/Sanders. Check out Venezuela and see how that worked out for them.
This time it will probably be Sanders who sidelines her. If so, probably any of the 2nd rate GOP'ers could beat him, but Trump would easily defeat him.
Sanders just needs money trees to support him. The problem is that he wants to take OUR backyard money trees to pay for the crumbs he gives us in our front yards.
Saying Hillary is bad is NOT a reason to vote FOR Trump. But saying Hillary is worse and has promised and done terrible things to us IS a reason to vote against her for something that is better. And that is Trump this time. The intellectually better candidates this time are all gone and our of the picture.
To many, (30-33% of registered republicans depending on which poll you look at) state they will not vote for him. I am one of those. If its a trump and (fill in dem here) race Gary will get my vote, or I will write in another. Trump is worse for our country than any other candidate on either side. Simply because he would represent the small government side of the isle while he is not small government.
I do not need another who will say in order to save capitalism we had to move away from capitalism representing small government. That would move the overton window further towards big government and be more damaging to us all than if Bernie were in office.
Trump would be a better fit if he were on the Dem primary and competing with the other big government control types for his place in office.
To which part, which version, which rumor, which innuendo and contradictory comment of his are you referring?! Listen to him; he speaks as if Opinion is Fact. He floats Rumor, loudly, ( "...some people say"; "I heard...") to establish personal deniability. He does these things while sounding like a poorly behaved 15 year old...and that is supposed to recommend him over others?!
Not voting for Trump does not guarantee that a criminal Democrat or delusional Socialist will win. They are no more qualified than the "back door" dealing Trump to be President. You present him as a transparent, honest, 'biz-ness-mon' when obvious history contradicts this. I'll continue to say, your rationale to support Trump is weak. I don't want an emotionally immature, Pragmatist dictator stripping what is left of property rights via one of his deals.
Its all about electability (pandering to 50.1%) to get elected. Trump, for as much as you dislike him, is capturing the anti establishment mood of the country, and is electable at this point. The other remaining GOP candidates are just establishment hacks, and on the democratic side just various versions of socialist hacks offering more or less of our money to buy votes.
You better hope Trump gets to be next president and brings politically correctness back to a low level, and exposes government practices that we need exposed. If we get Hillary or Sanders, its over for the USA in short order
I have some gold and silver, but I am sure whatever the statists could find would be confiscated to prolong their administration. The issue would not be how to hide it, but how to spend it without winding up in jail. Storing food is a short term fix, but once the hordes found out I had some, defense from them and the government that they support would be difficult.
I think the "walking dead" tv show has gotten so much popularity in that once you take out the zombie idea (stupid) and replace it with wandering hordes of entitled people when the government isnt there to support them, it really resonates with the common feelings of millions of people. They know something is wrong, but dont realize what it is.
Regulations cost you money even when you don't have a profit at all. All the candidates keep talking about tax cuts to stimulate business but cutting out the excessive overhead would stimulate business without increasing deficits.
My guess is yes and no.
Therefore it isn't a tax cut by our definitions it's a tax increase. Another way of saying one step closer to slavery.
Government by special interest is another way of saying Democratic Slavery versus a independence of a Republic,
Why are we letting the government play the word game talking about lowering taxes is a good thing. Its just making the bad they have already done a little less bad.
If he does not get this right, hard to believe since he has direct experience in this area, then he can kiss his chance good-bye.
What we need is a "country manager" who is given a budget and the list of things that need to be done- and then manages the government to make it work. Like a city manager. The "country manager" would not set the goals, but just administer them.
What's the difference between a Progressive and Socialist? The Socialist admits it.
What the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? The Republican feels guilty afterwards.
$15 per hour means our company goes out of business the next day. $12 per hour means it would take about a year to go BK.
The 12 week paid parental and illness leave means a lot to my business.
Sanders' 64% capital gains taxation means 64% of the work I put into building up my small company is GONE- means my interest in growing it pretty much evaporates.
Yes, I have trepidations concerning Trump but nothing can compare to the horror story played out over the last 8 years. I am definitely not looking for another career politician (absent Rand Paul) so the choice is narrowed drastically. That might require a loud mouth, brash, impertinent and so called non presidential type that has the capacity to adjust and correct as they proceed. So unless he really f@#ks up... I'll take the chance.
I would add that the government IS the problem. And if we could somehow call for it to be reduced to bare bones it would "serve" us all well- as it was originally meant to be.
However, may I just say that you could be "rounding out" some of Trump's open-ended statements that are not necessarily meant to take that direction. Just a thought.
Seig Heil Comrade Trump...I don't serve your Party.
continuation of BHO's regime. . when the time comes
for me to vote in the primary, that will be my point-
of-view. . we absolutely Must Not Let Them appoint
an Eric Holder or a Rahm Emanuel to the supreme court. -- j
.
What do you get when you cross Dia Del Muertos with Halloween?
A demoweenie?
No
A demonweinee?
No
Hillary in drag?
No
Night Of The Living Rahmen
(just add Flint Water...)
one noodle per packet no salt needed.
Hi I'm Mr. Rahman and I approved this propaganda
you, sir! -- j
.
If we say, our vote doesn't matter, then voting for Johnson will have no effect on the outcome. However, it could send a powerful message if he can rack up votes.
I know it's hard not to vote for the lesser of two evils that can win. I struggle with that myself. But, I am going to try to vote my convictions this November.
Until then, and since Rand is out, I see no reason to support any standing GOP candidate, it will either be Trump, or Cruz at this point, so me not adding my voice there won't change a thing.
Now that he's been on the campaign trail, I haven't seen much of him change except to get more argumentative, petulant, and whiny. Though I think he has had some great zingers - like the one about Jeb Bush - his hypocritical denunciations of Ted Cruz for doing exactly what Trump is doing tell me he's just another politician at heart. And given his policy leanings, he's certainly neither a Constitutionalist nor someone who would really "make America great again". He's another narcissist, and we've already had eight years of that.
I can fault him for everything else you said.
So pick the least bad of whats out there. We WILL get one or the other.
If the vote really comes down to Trump vs Sanders, I'll probably vote via write-in. Sanders is avowed socialist and Trump is socialist lite.
Second, you assume that Trump will secure the nomination on the Republican side. The way things look right now, we are headed to a brokered convention, which favors the Republican establishment candidates like Rubio and Bush. Neither Trump nor Cruz want a brokered convention. So even Trump's nomination is anything but secure.
Third, you assume that head-to-head with Trump, Sanders would win. I haven't seen any poll data, but would be interested to see some.
Is a vote for anyone but the two main contenders a vote to install a Democrat? Potentially. But I ask this: should I not vote my conscience and see where the chips fall? I voted for Perot because I truly believed he was a better candidate than either Bush I or Clinton. I voted for a third party in my state's most recent Governor's race because the incumbent is a candidate I've never liked and his competitor even worse.
And I would further point out that socialism is being forced down our throat regardless of the President because of the spinelessness of the Republicans in Congress. Obama wouldn't be able to do a thing if they would simply exercise a little conviction.
Rubio isnt going to go anywhere. He is young and energetic, but doest get much traction. Cruz is the opponent to Trump, but I think he would lose to the democratic candidate in a general election.
I think head to head, Trump would win against Sanders or Hillary, but he is the only one who would score that victory.
I voted for Perot also, and you can see where that went....
Johnson wouldnt even get 1% in a general election, so a vote for him is the same as not voting.
This is why I think its either Trump or Sanders in November.
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Hillary, but we are talking about the Democratic Party here. There is a reason Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren stayed out of the race - no one wants to run against the Clintons.
Rubio has shown much more traction than I care for, actually. He came in third in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire. He polls well in the South and is the one taking votes from Bush. He's the #3 in almost all the polls, so despite his youth, I think he's a real danger still. The Republican Establishment is rooting for either him or Jeb Bush to get the nomination, but they're both from the same area so Rubio's support comes at the expense of Bush.
I haven't seen too many polls with Sanders vs a Republican, but there have been plenty of Hillary ones. And most of those show that even if Hillary got indicted, she would still likely carry enough states to win. That's the sad reality of our electorate.
Johnson is a conundrum. I agree that a vote for him is nothing more than a symbolic/protest vote, but I can't really fault those who vote for him.
Trump has been pretty quiet vs Sanders, but he will do the politically incorrect thing when the time comes and just blow sanders away by pointing out sanders' lack of a money tree.
Trump's strategy is a gamble, and it could backfire, giving another candidate an opening. This looks like the "go big, or go home," strategy he's used in many business ventures. Jeb Bush is also gambling, betting that he has enough cash to outlast all the other competitors, being the "last man standing" as a Trump competitor when Trump's outrageous behavior turns enough voters (like yourself) away from the current leading candidate.
I'm not particularly a Trump fan, having been a Rand Paul supporter, but I base my opinions on a track record and probability of success. Johnson, Cruz, Sanders are all ideologues, with a vote for them being a guarantee of failure: Johnson doesn't have a prayer of getting elected; Cruz is like Obama, but from the opposite end of the fanatic spectrum; Sanders is the most dangerous, as he only dimly hides his preference for a dictatorial, autocratic socialist Executive that would destroy the republic. Trump, Kasich, Bush, Rubio, and Clinton are pragmatist: Trump is the least objectionable, since he favors a strong economy as a solution to most of the national problems; Kasich and Bush have good record in government, but are also big government statists; Clinton is completely untrustworthy. I didn't mention Carson, as he falls into the same bucket as Johnson: not a prayer of election, primarily because he's failed to educate himself on foreign policy.
For those reasons, I'm remaining undecided, leaning to Trump. Engaging my logic and reasoning skills is my "bulletproof vest" against the completely distorted campaign images coming out of the media, attempting to influence my emotions.
Thank you.
important thing is to stop the Democrats. I intend
to vote for Cruz. I just wish the others (Rubbio, Bush) would just get behind Cruz. He is not ideal,
but he would likely bring in more freedom for free
enterprise.
That's why not.
Now if Cruz chose Johnson as VP running mate and that got the camel's nose in the game .. and that move prompted much of the 46% disenfranchises.... you follow me?
I'd say if that were the case re registering in the primary to vote for the Democrat opposition to Hillary and busting her ass out early on then switching back for the general would make sense. One big mother feather political raid.
But as it stands now ....winner takes all includes all third party all write ins etc.
Your choice and depends on your state. If they are going to vote for Cruz or Bernie anyway....then put the support where it is needed.
A good political raid can be spontaneous if it is carefully planned and executed. It's not for the weak sister voters.
you still get to vote on all local issues
In the general you re-register and leave the top to lines blank. No write ins they go to winner takes all after the fact
Now consider if Cruz would like to win he might mine the biggest selection of voters out there. Demos are 29% Repos are 24% unregistered unrepresented disenfranchised are 46% and growing. Of that number you will lose the weak sister toilet flushers.. but
If Cruz was smart he would run with Web as VP candidate and pick up enough of the lost souls to win.....And that puts one of ours four to eight years out since this one is no Biden.
That also provides four years to form a coalition to counter the Government party Rinos and Dinos
But weaklings and toilet flushers and fifth columnists and socialist roaders are not invited.
That includes International and National Socialists.
Trump, apparently, is running a smart campaign. With this proposal he'll get closet support from the leftists. He'll get support from a majority of Republicans. He just might beat Hillbillary. Bernie won't be in the race, as somebody somewhere apparently has polaroids of the super-delegates in compromising positions...
A Persian buddy of mine was writing software for our local water company. He was really ticked one day because he lost the work to a guy from India who said he'd take the work for $15/hour. I immediately responded, "You should have said, 'I'LL DO IT FOR $7/HR!'" We still laugh about that (he agreed). Let's start some real bidding wars! Imagine what Uncle Sam will do when the engineering grad starts reporting on his W-2 that he's working for $8/hr. Twisted...but, you're chuckling...
Talk about a deflationary recession...
In the first place you need all the charmin available for the stuff Hillary and Bernie are spewing
In the second place it's a start point and a continuation of the effort to get political representation for the 46% or more by now who are disenfranchised by having only two socialists from which to choose. higher that number goes the more change is possible as the disgrunted masses look for local candidates.
Sign up for the primary in which ever party you want and like me vote for the weakest candidate. And the local issues....
Re register for the General Election. and leave the presidential box blank...
Anything else is a winner take all using your vote...write in whatever.
then you won't need toilet paper to look in the mirror
Now, as far as MFN status - picture yourself buying a car from a car dealer. You are one notional entity (country), the dealer another entity (country). Someone comes into the middle of this transaction and, rightly, says that the transaction is unbalanced. The dealer is giving you a new car. That's value. You are giving the dealer a promise to eventually pay for the car. That's dubious value. So, the solution is that there needs to be a 20% tax (tariff) on the transaction, which will be given to someone who has no direct connection to this transaction (actually, most of it will be spent on the needs and desires of that third party and a little given away for high visibility "causes"). So, your cost on the car is now 20% higher, all of which you now have to pay up front. Would you agree that the value that you have gained for this help is at least negative 20% (add administrative and other expenses, and it becomes more than 20%). So, who benefits and who loses with the "tough" stance against free trade, even if in one direction only?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Barnewal... And MOST OFFENSIVE MOMENT IN GOP DEBATE HISTORY http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWillia... -- I am not happy with any of the options...