If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Yep, that's the very logical conclusion I've been trying to point out to a lot of people who rail against the trade deals. Be prepared to pay significantly more for goods across a broad spectrum.
Out here in "Breadbasket Country", I have similar concerns. The three largest foreign consumers of beef products (Just one major Ag product) from Kansas are Canada, Mexico, and China, respectively...so tearing down NAFTA and erecting trade barriers with China is extremely risky. Couple that with increased labor costs for processing following the mass deportation of illegals, and its a potential nightmare scenario.
But that logic, which should have been baked in before voting, doesn't seem to get much traction. Or any traction that people will admit to at any rate.
He's not going to do it, I'd bet. Too disruptive to too many of the creatures in the swamp. The people he's putting around him are a pretty strong suggestion that he's not going to drain it -- he just wants to join the swamp himself. So I think we're in for more of what we've been getting for the past few decades: social issues as a distraction. The next big step in American politics is pointing the finger in the right direction. Or, at least, a somewhat more accurate one. Wall Street isn't the only problem, but if you ran solely against it that would be sufficient for now.
To that end, the Ds seem to very clearly belong to Warren and Sanders now. They'll have a focused message. I doubt that really changes anything in 2018, but 2020's gonna be interesting. They'll have had time to hone the message and time to pick a candidate. No way Sanders can run at age 79. Does anyone think Trump will run for re-election?
I'm not sure it lurches to the left. If they repeal the ACA, that's the battlefield.
It's been a week, it is going to take awhile to process it but I think there is a big possibility that last week's elections are being over interpreted. She was maybe just a bad candidate running a flawed campaign that relied too much on polls and demographics. He didn't win a landslide. She had some real bad strategic decisions that look suspect in retrospect.
1. The stuff that talent is talking about on the state level is real, the Democratic party has to compete in a lot more places. If you do this, that is a counterbalance to any lurch left.
2. You need a better candidate. Someone will emerge, the benefit of losing is the Clinton baggage will be sent away. Of course carrying that burden was still easier than this clown in office.
But that logic, which should have been baked in before voting, doesn't seem to get much traction. Or any traction that people will admit to at any rate.
There just seems to be a large contingent of people that think stopping free trade will result in some sort of magical return to the heyday of US manufacturing without any consequences and don't consider the flow the other way the benefits the US job market.
I'm not sure it lurches to the left. If they repeal the ACA, that's the battlefield.
It's been a week, it is going to take awhile to process it but I think there is a big possibility that last week's elections are being over interpreted. She was maybe just a bad candidate running a flawed campaign that relied too much on polls and demographics. He didn't win a landslide. She had some real bad strategic decisions that look suspect in retrospect.
1. The stuff that talent is talking about on the state level is real, the Democratic party has to compete in a lot more places. If you do this, that is a counterbalance to any lurch left.
2. You need a better candidate. Someone will emerge, the benefit of losing is the Clinton baggage will be sent away. Of course carrying that burden was still easier than this clown in office.
I don't know about a lurch, but to me it comes down to what you point the finger at: Wall Street/big corporates, or distractions from it. Hillary didn't point the finger at anything at all. You're right about ACA, and maybe I'm a bit one-track-minded but that falls within the same category. It's all about how the pie gets shared.
In a highly unusual move, President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday night left his Manhattan residence without notifying the reporters covering him or giving any indication of where he was going.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
You would think guys who talked about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright would be horrified by the insertion of Steve Bannon as one of the most powerful men in the nation. Ayers and Wright had extremely tenuous connections to Obama. Bannon will be running the white house. It's crazy.
You would think guys who talked about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright would be horrified by the insertion of Steve Bannon as one of the most powerful men in the nation. Ayers and Wright had extremely tenuous connections to Obama. Bannon will be running the white house. It's crazy.
It still amazes me how clean Obama's been. Ayers and Wright are the best the right's investigative money and muscle could come up with.
Remember back to the 2008 election and that wacko Larry Sinclair that claimed that he gave Obama blowjobs and cocaine? The Right proved that one beyond a shadow of a doubt!!
Tweet
Comment