GOP Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes and Predictions

[pErvinalia]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

[piscator]

The reason why the establishment is upset by Drumpf is that he is not bought and paid for -- he is not controlled by the moneyed interests, yet. If he would come to heel, they'd back him 100%. He just has to be willing to not do what he has so far said all along he wants to do.

Drumpf is moneyed interests.

He's not the establishment moneyed interest. If he was, they'd be backing him. They're backing Hillary.

They are backing him. He has the backing of the GOP.

Trump's main office address is 40 Wall Street.

[Forty Two]

Chamber of Commerce: Trump's trade policy would cause U.S. recession

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using a recent analysis commissioned by The Washington Post to argue that Donald Trump's trade policy platform could cause a recession.
The business group, which is a consistent backer of Republican politicians, said in a blog post Friday that a recession would set in during the first year under the Republican front-runner's proposed tariffs because China and Mexico would likely impose retaliatory tariffs.

Trump has proposed a 35 percent tariff on Mexican imports to offset the $58 billion annual bilateral trade deficit and a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods to offset Beijing's alleged currency manipulation.
"Does a recession sound 'great' to you?" wrote J.D. Harrison, senior editor of digital content for the Chamber. "Does 7 million lost jobs sound like 'winning?' No, probably not. And yet, that's exactly where our country would be headed under Trump's trade policies, according to an analysis released last week."
Harrison said even if those countries decided not to retaliate — "an unlikely scenario based on recent history" — the tariffs would still result in the loss of at least 2 million jobs, and at least 1.5 million more wouldn't be created.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... z4BeJZw6vT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Well, we had a pretty big recession or two without Trump's policies. Will Hillary's policies also cause a recession? Or, are her policies recession proof?

However, Trump has proposed the mentioned tariffs as a starting point to negotiating trade deals. He has not stated he would unilaterally impose the tariff come-what-may.

And, this, of course, are Republican leaning think tanks, that support the disproved (wasn't it? I can't keep you left wingers' arguments straight on this at the moment) notion that "free trade" and tariff elimination are good for the US worker and economy. Somehow, now, the lefties opposing Trump are stating that Trump, while advocating a left-wing position on trade, is somehow going to cause a recession..... that is flat out rejecting the left wing notion that we need tariffs and such to prevent the dumping of goods on the US market, undercutting the wages and jobs of workers in the US. Unions are built on that notion, that workers here need higher wages, and that it's not fair to have 10 cent an hour workers in China up against $40 an hour workers in the US on competing assembly lines.

Opposition to free trade deals has come from Democratic members of Congress and organized supporters of the Democrats, like labor unions and environmental groups. I.e., the lefties in the Democrat party would be all over tariffs if they weren't being advocated by Trump. In fact, it's possible the Democrat labor union base is, in fact, favoring Trump on this issue.

What I find weird is someone saying that Trump is off-base on tariffs because conservative free traders are saying he's wrong on tariffs. I would think you'd be more in favor of the left-leaning position that tariffs are needed to protect workers.

[piscator]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

He used to call himself a Conservative and believe in the power of markets. He wouldn't consider being "Left of Hillary" on anything. I guess all that shit is in the past, and it's on with the Trump Party. Can't you just feel the win?

[Forty Two]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

I'll issue a retraction - I forgot you said previously that you don't support Hillary either. Which is fine, too.

I don't support Trump either, per se. I just support him if given the choice between him and Hillary. Since I'm a voter, that kind of analysis is inevitable. I can vote for one, the other, or some guaranteed loser third party, or stay home. I won't stay home, so when I vote, I will either vote for Trump or a third party candidate. The problem with the third parties is that they are almost all completely nuts - the constitution party, the green party, and that group are just weird. The largest third party in the US is the libertarian party, and while I sympathize with small "l" libertarianism on many issues, the problem with the Libertarian Party are the Libertarians themselves - that group is full of Seth-like folks, gun-absolutists, "free citizen" nutcases, and 9/11 conspiracy guys, and other folks that aren't really libertarian in principle, just against what they see are the wrong regulations.

[piscator]

Chamber of Commerce: Trump's trade policy would cause U.S. recession

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using a recent analysis commissioned by The Washington Post to argue that Donald Trump's trade policy platform could cause a recession.
The business group, which is a consistent backer of Republican politicians, said in a blog post Friday that a recession would set in during the first year under the Republican front-runner's proposed tariffs because China and Mexico would likely impose retaliatory tariffs.

Trump has proposed a 35 percent tariff on Mexican imports to offset the $58 billion annual bilateral trade deficit and a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods to offset Beijing's alleged currency manipulation.
"Does a recession sound 'great' to you?" wrote J.D. Harrison, senior editor of digital content for the Chamber. "Does 7 million lost jobs sound like 'winning?' No, probably not. And yet, that's exactly where our country would be headed under Trump's trade policies, according to an analysis released last week."
Harrison said even if those countries decided not to retaliate — "an unlikely scenario based on recent history" — the tariffs would still result in the loss of at least 2 million jobs, and at least 1.5 million more wouldn't be created.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... z4BeJZw6vT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Well, we had a pretty big recession or two without Trump's policies. Will Hillary's policies also cause a recession? Or, are her policies recession proof?

However, Trump has proposed the mentioned tariffs as a starting point to negotiating trade deals. He has not stated he would unilaterally impose the tariff come-what-may.

And, this, of course, are Republican leaning think tanks, that support the disproved (wasn't it? I can't keep you left wingers' arguments straight on this at the moment) notion that "free trade" and tariff elimination are good for the US worker and economy.

This is some kind of pisstake, right?

[Forty Two]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

He used to call himself a Conservative and believe in the power of markets. He wouldn't consider being "Left of Hillary" on anything. I guess all that shit is in the past, and it's on with the Trump Party. Can't you just feel the win?

The Republican party needs to be remade. They were hijacked in the 80s by the religious right, and they lost all sense. By the 2000s, the GOP became a culturally conservative movement, led by Bible thumpers and Christian Nation Liberty University dickwads. That needs to be jettisoned, and Trump shows it's possible.

[Forty Two]

Chamber of Commerce: Trump's trade policy would cause U.S. recession

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using a recent analysis commissioned by The Washington Post to argue that Donald Trump's trade policy platform could cause a recession.
The business group, which is a consistent backer of Republican politicians, said in a blog post Friday that a recession would set in during the first year under the Republican front-runner's proposed tariffs because China and Mexico would likely impose retaliatory tariffs.

Trump has proposed a 35 percent tariff on Mexican imports to offset the $58 billion annual bilateral trade deficit and a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods to offset Beijing's alleged currency manipulation.
"Does a recession sound 'great' to you?" wrote J.D. Harrison, senior editor of digital content for the Chamber. "Does 7 million lost jobs sound like 'winning?' No, probably not. And yet, that's exactly where our country would be headed under Trump's trade policies, according to an analysis released last week."
Harrison said even if those countries decided not to retaliate — "an unlikely scenario based on recent history" — the tariffs would still result in the loss of at least 2 million jobs, and at least 1.5 million more wouldn't be created.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... z4BeJZw6vT
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Well, we had a pretty big recession or two without Trump's policies. Will Hillary's policies also cause a recession? Or, are her policies recession proof?

However, Trump has proposed the mentioned tariffs as a starting point to negotiating trade deals. He has not stated he would unilaterally impose the tariff come-what-may.

And, this, of course, are Republican leaning think tanks, that support the disproved (wasn't it? I can't keep you left wingers' arguments straight on this at the moment) notion that "free trade" and tariff elimination are good for the US worker and economy.

This is some kind of pisstake, right?

Sarcasm. Look -- Trump has advocated the high tariffs mentioned, but he has also explained that these are starting points and part of an overall trade negotiation. This is not "I get elected, and declare a 45% tariff on China." He has said that he will negotiate with China to obtain a better trade deal.

And, tariffs are traditionally things Democrats, not free trader Republicans supported. Trade Unions hate free trade. Environmentalists hate free trade. These are Democrat interest groups. It's funny to see someone prove that Trump is off base when advancing something Democrat interest groups are normally in favor of (tariffs), by citing a conservative Republican free trader opinion on the effect of tariffs on the economy. Suddenly, conservative economics are right?

[Forty Two]

The reason why the establishment is upset by Drumpf is that he is not bought and paid for -- he is not controlled by the moneyed interests, yet. If he would come to heel, they'd back him 100%. He just has to be willing to not do what he has so far said all along he wants to do.

Drumpf is moneyed interests.

He's not the establishment moneyed interest. If he was, they'd be backing him. They're backing Hillary.

They are backing him. He has the backing of the GOP.

Is that why some Republicans say they'd vote Hillary over Trump? Pressler? Collins? Lindsey Graham himself came very close.

Mitt Romeny was out there touting a possible third party candidate to defeat Trump.

That's how the GOP is backing Trump. And, good. Fuck the GOP. Fucke 'em all. Cock-a-roaches.

[pErvinalia]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

I'll issue a retraction - I forgot you said previously that you don't support Hillary either. Which is fine, too.

I don't support Trump either, per se. I just support him if given the choice between him and Hillary. Since I'm a voter, that kind of analysis is inevitable. I can vote for one, the other, or some guaranteed loser third party, or stay home. I won't stay home, so when I vote, I will either vote for Trump or a third party candidate. The problem with the third parties is that they are almost all completely nuts

And Trump isn't?!

[pErvinalia]

You are putting out a bit of a mixed message, 42. On one hand you are claiming that the left in the US are liberals, not progressives. Yet just now you are saying that the Dems somewhat support protectionism. They can't be both liberal and protectionists.

[piscator]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

He used to call himself a Conservative and believe in the power of markets. He wouldn't consider being "Left of Hillary" on anything. I guess all that shit is in the past, and it's on with the Trump Party. Can't you just feel the win?

The Republican party needs to be remade. They were hijacked in the 80s by the religious right, and they lost all sense. By the 2000s, the GOP became a culturally conservative movement, led by Bible thumpers and Christian Nation Liberty University dickwads. That needs to be jettisoned, and Trump shows it's possible.

Good. While you're at it, vote all your down-ticket Republifucks out too. You made them the Establishment, you can sweep them out too while you're cleaning up your mess and stenciling big "T"s all over everything.

[Forty Two]

You can feel free to support Hillary because she's, from your perspective, the safe, predictable choice.

You really live in your own fantasy world, don't you? It doesn't matter what anyone posts. It doesn't break through the barrier.

I'll issue a retraction - I forgot you said previously that you don't support Hillary either. Which is fine, too.

I don't support Trump either, per se. I just support him if given the choice between him and Hillary. Since I'm a voter, that kind of analysis is inevitable. I can vote for one, the other, or some guaranteed loser third party, or stay home. I won't stay home, so when I vote, I will either vote for Trump or a third party candidate. The problem with the third parties is that they are almost all completely nuts

And Trump isn't?!

Yes, but he has a chance of getting elected, over the other lying nutbag, Hillary Clinton. Lesser of two evils, and all that, plus the added bonus of destroying the prevailing GOP.

[Forty Two]

You are putting out a bit of a mixed message, 42. On one hand you are claiming that the left in the US are liberals, not progressives. Yet just now you are saying that the Dems somewhat support protectionism. They can't be both liberal and protectionists.

Most of the folks who consider themselves to be "left" are really liberals, and there is a very loud, very vocal, very active minority called "Progressives" that often liberals say they are, but aren't. Progressive, today, is a term designed to be used by leftists who know they aren't liberal.

Most of the American "left" (what the news calls the left) are really just liberal. And, there is a lot of confusion about whether liberal and progressive is the same thing, etc.

The Democrats have traditionally supported protectionism, and the Republicans were the ones who were the free traders -- NAFTA was a Republican idea, which Bill Cllinton embraced -- first it was CUFTA (Canada US Free Trade Agreement -- a Bush the Elder and Reagan thing that the Democrats weakly opposed at the time), and that expanded to NAFTA. The Democrat base screamed against NAFTA, but the Party elite supported it -- folks like Ross Perot back in 1992 vehemently opposed it, referring to the coming "giant sucking sound" that would drain US jobs --- and that giant suck of jobs actually did occur.

In the short term, NAFTA was great. Cheap products for a hungry consumer base, and US companies made money because they owned the factories in Mexico. But, the factories employed Mexicans, not Americans. We lost millions of manufacturing jobs because of that.

That's what Trump is saying -- he's saying we have had the jobs sucked out of the US, and now we can't afford to lose anymore. You can literally rattle off a list of American companies with substantial manufacturing presences in the US. We can't afford to lose much more.

That's what Trump is right about. Sure, he is not delicate. He doesn't hold anybody's hand. And, he doesn't talk about "feeling your pain" or "having your back," or "hope and change" and all that. He's not hand-wringing about progressive social issues, etc. But, what he is doing is addressing what is a more primary problem -- economics, manufacturing, industry, and jobs.

Use whatever fucking bathroom you want, he says, I'm worried about economics, manufacturing, industry and jobs.

[pErvinalia]

You just repeated the same confused message. You just said that most of the left are liberals, but that the democrats have traditionally supported protectionism. Liberals don't support protectionism.