They stood on that stage at a debate and pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. I don't care for Trump, but he's got a point. I heard the pledges.
They're all looooosseeers
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wants-consequences-for-gop-rivals/ar-AAhMWp6
He wants consequences for opponents that won't endorse him. They shouldn't be allowed to run for office again.
They stood on that stage at a debate and pledged to support whoever the Republican nominee is. I don't care for Trump, but he's got a point. I heard the pledges.
Trump brings unity
While I agree with what you said, should them changing their minds or violating the pledge should be illegal?
In the way that everyone thinks that hes a total cockwomble?
In the way that everyone thinks that hes a total cockwomble?
you Brits have the best insults
In the way that everyone thinks that hes a total cockwomble?
lol Never heard that word before but I'm totally going to steal it.In the way that everyone thinks that hes a total cockwomble?
Lol. I should start an insult of the week thread.
lol Never heard that word before but I'm totally going to steal it.
Lol. I should start an insult of the week thread.
The same people that love Ross Perot and love Ralph Nader love Donald Trump.
Those people that never have trusted the establishment.
The same people that have never voted for any establishment candidate.
The same people that either vote for the odd ball, or simply stay home.
The 6% that voted for Ralph Nader, the 20% that voter for Ross Perot.
So Donald Trump can count on somewhere between 6% and 20% support.
Sounds like a real winner to me.
The same people that love Ross Perot and love Ralph Nader love Donald Trump.
Those people that never have trusted the establishment.
The same people that have never voted for any establishment candidate.
The same people that either vote for the odd ball, or simply stay home.
The 6% that voted for Ralph Nader, the 20% that voter for Ross Perot.
So Donald Trump can count on somewhere between 6% and 20% support.
Sounds like a real winner to me.
I do not see how protectionism can work for the U.S. Protectionism can work when you are an underdog, i.e. when you have something to protect against stronger competition. Even then it is best limited to selective industries for a short duration of time.
+1I was only 8 at the time but if I could, I totally would have voted for Ross Perot. Fuck free trade. Fuck it right in the ass, and not in the pleasurable way either.
I think you have that backward. When you're an underdog, protectionism doesn't work for you because your market is not worth the added effort and your domestic industries are likely not complete or particularly efficient, and you cannot produce most of what you need. A small or third world nation cannot make protectionism work because they cannot be self-sufficient and the profitability of their market is low, so they have to entice sellers. A small or third world nation is trying to protect companies that cannot compete with foreign competitors. When you're the USA, your market is worth virtually any effort because it is very profitable, your domestic industries are likely quite complete and efficient, and you have the ability to produce most things you need. A large first world nation is protecting not its industries and companies from foreign competitors, but its wage structures from cheap labor and low-cost regulatory burdens.I do not see how protectionism can work for the U.S. Protectionism can work when you are an underdog, i.e. when you have something to protect against stronger competition. Even then it is best limited to selective industries for a short duration of time.
Damned well said, sir.This nonsense that you either except the downward death spiral of lost jobs or go full commie is -- nonsense! Prior to the huge wave of free trade deals the world economy worked just fine and the USA reached the #1 spot while we had tariffs. Trade doesn't stop because you wish to ensure that people earn a living wage for doing that work.
What I'd like to see is bilateral trade agreements that impose a tariff on goods imported from a nation with low wage levels, poor workplace safety controls and poor pollution controls. I'd impose a tariff of about 50% of the cost differential, but when the exporting nation improves it's wage levels, workplace safety and pollution controls the tariff is reduced. This would provide an incentive for nations to improve the lot of workers and the environment whereas the current goals of free trade are 180 degrees opposite of that and guarantee that wage levels decline, the workplace is more dangerous, and the environment is worse.
Only an idiot would think the trade deals and the consequences of them are good for the planet and the people that live on it -- though clearly there is short term benefit to the leisure class...
Brian