Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2018 23:36:55 GMT -5
Building a giant wall would cost billions of dollars and it wouldn't stop anyone from getting into the USA illegally. Yes, as I said, ridiculous. What makes you think I was saying it's good idea? It's one of the dumbest ideas and Trump won't let it go. Too bad if he's not serious about NAFTA. In theory, free trade is a good thing. But not when it's used as a way to obtain workers for slave wages and poor human rights protections. As well as other nations not playing by free market rules, such as China and other asian countries pegging/devaluing their currency, dumping products & materials (like steel) on the market (govt subsidizing to bankrupt foreign competitors), tariffs on American goods, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2018 23:43:51 GMT -5
Undoing NAFTA is great in theory but the law of unintended consequences. The trade war/tariff crap he started is a perfect example and had to make concessions right away. From my understanding, the tariff was intended mostly to combat China's dumping of steel. We shouldn't have to make concessions, when they've been cheating the system from the very beginning. Demand that they stop pegging their currency for starters. Also, if a country is unable to produce its own steel, that can cripple its ability to rebuild infrastructure and military equipment during wartime. It's a major national security risk.
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on May 27, 2018 23:47:52 GMT -5
Yes, as I said, ridiculous. What makes you think I was saying it's good idea? It's one of the dumbest ideas and Trump won't let it go. Oh I don't think you support the wall at all, some people actually do tho. Very "small government" of them. Also they put Trumps Wall in PUBG which I thought was hilarious:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 0:11:39 GMT -5
Are we so sure it's strictly Trump's policy? www.afsc.org/document/immigrant-detention-and-family-separationImmigration has been fucked up for decades. There was immigration/refugee crisis on the border during Obama's run in office. Of course, the mainstream media didn't make as big of deal about it at the time, much less blame the presidency. www.npr.org/2016/05/31/480073262/u-s-mexico-border-sees-resurgence-of-central-americans-seeking-asylumObviously, the true root of the problem is not Republicans or Democrats. For whatever reasons, life sucks worse in many of these other countries compared to the U.S. and people flee their homelands in search of a better life here. I feel for these people, but I'm not convinced that it's the US's responsibility to take on all the world's problems and be the universal protector. Honestly, I doubt we have the resources to sustain such a monumental goal indefinitely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 0:27:30 GMT -5
Yes, as I said, ridiculous. What makes you think I was saying it's good idea? It's one of the dumbest ideas and Trump won't let it go. Oh I don't think you support the wall at all, some people actually do tho. Very "small government" of them. Also they put Trumps Wall in PUBG which I thought was hilarious: That is funny. Even if they started the wall, it'd just be a boondoggle and waste of tax $'s, like the Super Collider. Govt spent billions and abandoned the project. Unlike the wall though, the collider project might have had some worth, because it could've helped scientists make some interesting discoveries. interestingengineering.com/usas-super-collider-lies-abandoned-texas-desert
|
|
|
Post by Ronhel on May 28, 2018 5:24:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2018 18:25:30 GMT -5
It'll take more than a cartoon to convince me that he's racist. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I haven't seen the proof. Leftist elitists (like Zuckerburg, Facebook CEO) build walls & gates around their private estates, to keep the poorer people out (i.e. it's not necessarily a racist thing). Main difference - Trump is a real estate mogul and he wants this on a larger scale. His lawn is America, figuratively speaking. I'm not even convinced he's truly conservative on social issues, since most of his history prior to his campaign rhetoric indicates a liberal stance on many of these issues. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Before_and_during_presidential_candidacyBasically, he knew the Democrats would never give him their nomination, so he ran on the Republican ticket. Then he lied his ass off to get elected, like most other politicians.
|
|
|
Post by Ronhel on May 30, 2018 4:49:58 GMT -5
1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before. 1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump's Castle, accused another one of Trump's businesses of discrimination. "When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor," Brown said. "It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back." That was when Trump 1st started running Trump enterprise. Many articles going from there to the present here's one. www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 7:48:10 GMT -5
Interesting that such a rotten candidate could win, despite spending far less campaign $'s.
imo, if Democrats seriously want the presidency, don't let Hillary run again. They'll probably be fine with most other candidates. Likely, what America prefers most is a centrist candidate who cares about the good of the country 1st and foremost, ahead of party and politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 8:55:59 GMT -5
If we could abolish all religion in the world, conflict would continue. Nationalism or something else would be used (by governments and tyrants) in its place to manipulate people into fighting and supporting wars. I've read there's actually a warrior gene that makes some people more prone to fighting/aggression. Also, chimps war with each other. As do orangutans. These species don't need religion or country to fight. Humans descended from ape-like ancestors who would've had similar genes. Science. lol True people love their violence and that will never change but "more Christianity" isn't the solution to anything. It just a giant scam for tax free money anymore. The USA is behind Europe but general follows the same trends. In Ireland in the 1970s-80s it was completely unthinkable people would go against the Catholic church and they didn't even have divorce till the 90s. Then they went and voted for divorce, gay marriage, and last night abortion: www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/abortion-referendum-likely-to-put-pressure-on-northern-ireland-politicians#img-1Its going to take 20 more years probably for the US to do the same thing hopefully. "Does this televangelist really need a fourth $54 million private jet?" www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/televangelist-need-fourth-54-million-dollar-private-jet-015717391.html
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 1, 2018 19:18:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:49:40 GMT -5
Traditional conservatism is for smaller government. Neo-cons (probably most Republicans in Congress today) aren't. Trump certainly isn't a traditional conservative. He's on record saying it's ok for the U.S. to continue increasing its debt. A long time ago, Democrats used to be considered conservatives and the party of choice for racist groups like the KKK. Parties change over time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 23:19:10 GMT -5
The full story began during Obama's administration, with govt regulations that forced people to buy electricity via not coal. lol All I'm saying is, the notion that coal is inherently more expensive and less profitable is a false narrative. Simply put, govt regulation can make any good/service more expensive and they've done just that in regards to the coal industry. www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/13/promise-kept-barack-obama-breaks-coal-industry/I realize that's a conservative site. Let's be honest, it'd probably be tough finding a left-leaning site admitting why coal has truly been failing in terms of profitability. So here's Obama on record, stating it clearly. Note: I'm not disputing the environmental reasoning for reducing use of coal or why Obama pushed for those regulations.
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 1, 2018 23:24:19 GMT -5
The EPA is aggressively arrogant if not entirely rogue? LOL! God I love Brietbart. Or at least I did when Milo was still on it cuz he made me laugh.
Coal has been falling worldwide. Europe, China, renewable energy has come down a lot in price and this is a good thing.
Also if a anti-regulation person was truly mad about Obama era regulations they would not force people to use coal they would simply remove anything anti-coal and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 0:01:18 GMT -5
The EPA is aggressively arrogant if not entirely rogue? LOL! God I love Brietbart. Or at least I did when Milo was still on it cuz he made me laugh. Coal has been falling worldwide. Europe, China, renewable energy has come down a lot in price and this is a good thing. Also if a anti-regulation person was truly mad about Obama era regulations they would not force people to use coal they would simply remove anything anti-coal and let the chips fall where they may. Coal's falling precisely because nearly every country has been increasing carbon reducing regulations and the upping the costs associated with carbon emissions, leading to the shuttering coal power plants all over. Renewable energy prices go down (as market share increases) because it's taking the place of coal (w/ its expensive carbon emissions). As renewable energy gains more & more market share, mass production of solar panels, etc. go up... supply goes up, and prices go down. I don't think Trump's anti-regulation. He'll support regs to counter previous regs, to fulfill his policy agenda. Sure, you could say that's anti-free market, even if it's being done to save the industry from total implosion (not even returning it back to its original state, of course). Trump doesn't care. It's one of his campaign promises (to protect the coal industry), and now with the immediate goal of putting an abrupt halt to the shuttering of more coal plants (which he views as a direct result of regs enacted during the previous administration).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 0:15:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 0:36:10 GMT -5
Physicist Michio Kaku predicts humans will be able to control the earth's weather in about 100 years or whenever we become a "Type 1" civilization. So I guess that means there's a possibility of avoiding future ice age/s through the miracles of technology.
|
|
|
Post by Ronhel on Jun 2, 2018 7:08:44 GMT -5
This mornings tweet.........I think he lost it his mind is gone
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 2, 2018 10:15:12 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 14:17:11 GMT -5
Good one, Arnie. lol It's probably inevitable that coal is going the way of the dodo anyway, whenever they start getting net energy producing fusion reactors online (perhaps 20-50 years from now).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 14:33:21 GMT -5
Regarding global warming... err.. climate change due to mankind's production of CO2. imo, it's given somewhat excessive attention on the list of environmental challenges. Deforestation and pollution of the world's oceans (a direct result of human population explosion, which nobody seems to want to talk about) are far greater problems. Because destroying those affects nature's carbon sink and ability to self-regulate climate. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 15:42:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 2, 2018 19:28:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 20:35:32 GMT -5
That's assuming 2 things. That they even read the WSJ and that it's truly a conservative paper. www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-biasBut if both are true... Perhaps they rationalize that trade is so ridiculously lop-sided against the U.S. and we're bleeding hundreds of billions $'s from trade deficits every quarter, that protectionism and the threat of trade wars is an acceptable & corrective course of action. Also, a nation maintaining its own steel production can be considered a national security issue, a necessary industry to build infrastructure, especially during wartime. Conservatives are big on pro-military.
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 2, 2018 20:48:04 GMT -5
That's assuming 2 things. That they even read the WSJ and that it's truly a conservative paper. www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-biasBut if both are true... Perhaps they rationalize that trade is so ridiculously lop-sided against the U.S. and we're bleeding hundreds of billions $'s from trade deficits every quarter, that protectionism and the threat of trade wars is an acceptable & corrective course of action. Also, a nation maintaining its own steel production can be considered a national security issue, a necessary industry to build infrastructure, especially during wartime. Conservatives are big on pro-military. Law of unintended consequences. Prices go up. Allies pissed off. Sours relationships and makes the dollar weaker and maybe makes the Petrodollar become the Petroeuro? Just a thought. Protectionism was a constant theme in Mercantilism. It didn't tend to work out well.
|
|
|
Post by itsnoot on Jun 3, 2018 10:57:41 GMT -5
You haven't figured it out yet? Any media outlet that criticizes is obviously part of the liberal main stream media and fake news. My jaw fell open recently when I heard a guy say Fox isn't "conservative" any more. Kooooolaid drinking like oh em gee.
And yes, WSJ is conservative leaning news.
|
|
|
Post by ForRealTho on Jun 3, 2018 11:13:14 GMT -5
You haven't figured it out yet? Any media outlet that criticizes is obviously part of the liberal main stream media and fake news. My jaw fell open recently when I heard a guy say Fox isn't "conservative" any more. Kooooolaid drinking like oh em gee. And yes, WSJ is conservative leaning news. Trump could say he misses Communism and the USSR and immediately that would become a "conservative" point of view and anyone who disagreed would no longer be "conservative".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 12:50:54 GMT -5
WSJ is known for having a mix of articles, both right leaning and left leaning, so the argument could be made either way depending on the specific articles you cite. The source I linked, with its survey and double-blind studies, explained this.
That's a broad brush, Super. Who says Trump's conservative? Many Republicans in Congress would probably beg to differ.
Evidently, the left is more "conservative" than Trump on issues of trade, as evidenced by Clinton & Obama supporting NAFTA and other trade agreements. Funny how the left is big on supporting unions, but they don't give second thought about trade agreements that export jobs to low-wage countries. It's globalism that really kills the unions, especially opening trade with Communist govt's who don't play by free market rules. Seems they're following in the foot-steps of daddy Bush and his visions of the new world order.. lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 13:00:33 GMT -5
That's assuming 2 things. That they even read the WSJ and that it's truly a conservative paper. www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-biasBut if both are true... Perhaps they rationalize that trade is so ridiculously lop-sided against the U.S. and we're bleeding hundreds of billions $'s from trade deficits every quarter, that protectionism and the threat of trade wars is an acceptable & corrective course of action. Also, a nation maintaining its own steel production can be considered a national security issue, a necessary industry to build infrastructure, especially during wartime. Conservatives are big on pro-military. Law of unintended consequences. Prices go up. Allies pissed off. Sours relationships and makes the dollar weaker and maybe makes the Petrodollar become the Petroeuro?Just a thought. Protectionism was a constant theme in Mercantilism. It didn't tend to work out well. We're already on that path. The people running the economy like a weak dollar. We've had a weak dollar policy for many decades. That's why they keep printing $'s like it's growing on trees and constantly raising the debt ceiling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 13:51:05 GMT -5
www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2148979/china-putting-troops-weapons-south-china-sea-islandsmoney.cnn.com/2018/03/23/technology/china-us-trump-tariffs-ip-theft/index.htmlThis is our biggest, most favored trading partner. Yeah, let's maintain this healthy relationship - transferring hundreds of billions $'s (or likely closer to a trillion) in trade and IP to China yearly, while they lie through their teeth and stab us in the back. It's the biggest rape of an economy in the history of world. But it's not worth rocking the boat, so let's sit back and take it. Ok. What happens in 20-50 years after China has sucked us dry and becomes the #1 military/economic superpower. I guess they just stop at the south china sea and the world enters a new utopia/ new world order. Riiight. Any notion that they'll be interested in joining the one world govt and giving up their new-found superpower status would be the biggest joke of all.
|
|