abelcainsbrother wrote:Ed. just seems to be against putting America first,he seems to have a problem with it. The truth Is that whether you like Trump or not he has been speaking out about how lousy our politicians are for 40 years. And the American people can see that politicians in both parties have not put America first.
For 40 years? So whether things are going well or poorly Trump has been spouting off about how everyone else is dumb? Boom or bust, war or peace, no matter what? And you think that makes him credible? Whatever.
Anyway, you're wrong about this "America first" nonsense. Trump's plan to put America first involves backing out of alliances, starting trade wars, and generally destabilizing the world. That's not beneficial to the United States or anyone else. He'd be putting us first by screwing the whole world, which seems great until you remember that we're in the world, too.
abelcainsbrother wrote:Conservatives have been angry at the Republican party for years because they are wimps politically and lose to the Democrats on every issue. Conservatives expect our elected Republicans to do everything politically to defeat the Democrats and to fight tooth and nail against liberalism and yet they have not done it. So Trump is a no-brainer to those on the right fed up with the Republican party.
First off, you keep saying that but you never provide a single scrap of evidence to back it up. Nothing. Ever. I guess that makes sense, since Trump doesn't either, and you're just the parrot on his shoulder. Still, you could at least try.
Second, no, it's
not the Republicans' job to fight tooth and nail against liberalism. The Republicans' job is to work with the Democrats to negotiate the best compromises possible for the greater good of our nation. You personally may hate (what you call) liberalism (but is really just a BS straw man), but more than half the people in this country are liberals or moderates and expecting that the conservative minority will always get it's way is silly and childish. Grow up, ACB.
abelcainsbrother wrote:The one thing that attracted me to Trump is he is a brawler politically,he is not a wimp like ed is used to. ed is used to wimpy Republicans like Bush who never defends himself or his policies and just let's the Democrats wage political war against him,without fighting back.Trump won't be like that,he will fight politically which is what we've wanted. Just because Trump is a fighter politically ed thinks he's a fascist,but if Trump actually fighting politically for the issues he ran on makes him a fascist? Then I like it. It is time for liberals to start losing politically and they will if Trump gets his way. So much of what liberals have built up over the years will be tore down.
Trump is a lying blowhard who blurts out whatever stupid thing pops into his head, and is then too arrogant and proud to ever retract it, regardless of how stupid, dangerous, or damaging to his ambitions it might be. I realize that for some people that makes him a breath of fresh air, but those people tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp on reality.
I have never said that he's a fascist. What I've said is that he's using the same kinds of divisive, populist campaign strategies that have been used by fascists in the past. Trump's method of whipping up support is reckless and dangerous. That's why the KKK and other white supremacist groups love him so much. He spews hate. He finds the angriest voice in the room and he amplifies it.
Trump is scary. He's used his newfound political clout to try and intimidate the judge in his Trump U case. That's alarming. The other day a woman at a rally asked him if he supported firing Muslim TSA and INS employees and replacing them with veterans. His response was that he'd look into it. Think about that. A supporter proposed firing US citizens from their jobs for being the wrong religion and he said it was worth considering. Again, that's alarming. Just yesterday he apparently told Congressional Republicans that he'd be the best Constitutional President ever, and then added that he'd defend Article XII. There is no Article XII. That's Trump for you. He brags about his immense knowledge, then immediately demonstrates that he doesn't actually have any.
abelcainsbrother wrote:America will prosper economically just by getting our trade deficits under control. And we can have much lower taxes just from putting America first when it comes to trade.The burdon can be more on our trading partners than the American people to bring in money,this is how it was done before we had an income tax.. America has the economic advantage over any other country on earth,we just have not been using it.
America is already prospering economically. The problem is that 90% of us are missing out on the new wealth. Lowering our corporate taxes isn't going to bring those lost jobs back. The world is more complicated than that.
abelcainsbrother wrote:Reagan used tariffs to save Harley Davidson motorcycles from Japanese motorcycles and it worked...
I wasn't aware of this claim, so I did some research. It turns out that the actual claim - that tariffs saved Harley Davidson - falls somewhere between extremely exaggerated and false, and the implied claim - that Ronald the Great was actually a bit of a protectionist - is also mostly false.
Harley was in trouble because their labor costs were high, their management was poor, and 50% of their bikes were shipped with defective parts, but they were still the only American motorcycle company left and the name still carried mystique. Their wounds were mostly self-inflicted, they really didn't deserve a bail out, and the Reagan administration didn't think it was good economic policy to give them one, but Reagan was also worried that if he said no and they went under he'd [have a beer] a lot of blue-collar voters. He was also concerned that a few protectionists in Congress would use the death of Harley as an opportunity to rewrite the international trade statutes to scale down the president's powers and make it easier for them to implement protectionist measures.
So he said yes to a tariff on bikes with 700 cc+ engines, but he also gave European bike makers an exemption. The only people who really got hit by the tariff were the Japanese bike manufacturers (and the 3,000 Americans working in Japanese motorcycle retail, distribution, and after-market jobs in the States). The Japanese companies with plants in the US just increased production here and evaded the tariff that way. Those that didn't responded by designing bikes with 699 cc engines for the next production year. Harley Davidson sales only went up by 6% due to the 45% tariffs on Japanese bikes.
The biggest reason that HD is still here is that they fixed the things that were wrong with their company. They basically copied everything the Japanese were doing, which resulted in a better margins on a better product. Reagan's tariff gave them enough breathing room to save themselves, but it did so by raising prices for American consumers who had no interest in ever owning a Harley and just wanted Japanese bikes.
To quote the Cato Institute's assessment:
Once again, President Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns; this version is available to incumbents only.
And no, there is
absolutely nothing liberal about the Cato Institute.
abelcainsbrother wrote:so this idea we can't do it,or it won't work is not true,it does work and has been done before and it can be done again.
Sure, Trump could impose tariffs on foreign goods (thereby significantly raising the costs for American consumers), fine the hell out of Apple for using Chinese companies to make their products (thereby causing Apple to pack up and move the rest of their business abroad, too), and start a trade war (thereby causing
them to impose tariffs on
our stuff, too). I don't question whether he could or even would.
What I disagree with is that he
should.
