Is the plan to let Biden secure the nomination then replace him with ??????

[KG1]

Weren't we all supposed to hate this plan when it was nanny-state government, running up the national debt, etc.? I don't remember reading any positive mention of Yang anywhere on INGO when this was his idea.



Which country has been holding back the freedom, security, and prosperity of the American people?

I can think of good arguments for two, both of which are giant territories in Asia. Trump has hurt our relationships with more than those two.



Agreed. That was my point.

Trump seems to be trying to make it so that they are exclusive. He seems more interested in getting political wins than setting up win-win relationships that create longterm stability with people around the world.



I would gladly take Ryan's conservatism over Trump's nationalism.

I'll just have to disagree on this point. Trump is willing to do business but he made it known that he's not a business as usual kinda guy. That's what I like about his foreign policy. Plus he's the only one that has the nads to confront Chinese practices that have been detrimental to US national interests..

 

[marv]

Biden will select Hillary as his VP. They will be elected. She will get Bill onto the Cabinet in an important position. Then,.,.,.bye_bye Biden.

 

[Alpo]

 

[KG1]

The Oprah as VP.

 

[Alpo]

Phantom of the Oprah

 

[KellyinAvon]

The Oprah as VP.

I called The Oprah about 2 weeks ago. Not here on INGO but at home.

 

[two70]

I don't see any reason to think that "OUR national interest" has to be adversarial toward our neighbors and trade partners.

You are an active participant on a firearms forum so presumably you support self defense in at least some fashion, so I'll ask a simple question: Can you see any reason your "personal interest" in not being mugged, raped or murdered has to be adversarial toward your neighborhood criminal wishing to do those things?

I'm pretty sure one doesn't exist but just once I would like to read an at least semi-coherent explanation of why some believe it is ok for our neighbors and trade partners to act in what they determine is in their best interests but it is wrong for the US to do so. How does one even go about forming the idea that it is ok for other other countries to run roughshod over US interests while being wrong for the US to prioritize it's own?

 

[CampingJosh]

You are an active participant on a firearms forum so presumably you support self defense in at least some fashion, so I'll ask a simple question: Can you see any reason your "personal interest" in not being mugged, raped or murdered has to be adversarial toward your neighborhood criminal wishing to do those things?

I'm pretty sure one doesn't exist but just once I would like to read an at least semi-coherent explanation of why some believe it is ok for our neighbors and trade partners to act in what they determine is in their best interests but it is wrong for the US to do so. How does one even go about forming the idea that it is ok for other other countries to run roughshod over US interests while being wrong for the US to prioritize it's own?

Was the U.S. economy being mugged, raped, or murdered?

Which countries were running roughshod over U.S. interests, and how were they doing so? Again, I can think of potential explanations for Russia and China, and those are the only two. What was Canada doing? Mexico? Europe?

I think it is in the best interests of U.S. workers that low-skill, low-wage jobs are exported. I think there's more benefit in (for example) clothing costing 1/4 as much as it would if it was more here than there would be benefit in having kept those jobs here for a few more decades only to still lose most of those jobs to automation.

 

[Mikey1911]

I called The Oprah about 2 weeks ago. Not here on INGO but at home.

What did you call her???

 

[KellyinAvon]

What did you call her???

The Oprah, borrowed that from Rush.

 

[CampingJosh]

Back onto the main topic of this thread:

How have people watched the 2016 election cycle, seen Trump win the nomination (and the presidency) while clearly not the choice of party insiders, and and then four years later returned to the conspiracy theory that party insiders control the nomination process and the primaries are just for show?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Back onto the main topic of this thread:

How have people watched the 2016 election cycle, seen Trump win the nomination (and the presidency) while clearly not the choice of party insiders, and and then four years later returned to the conspiracy theory that party insiders control the nomination process and the primaries are just for show?

I don't know that anyone has claimed that about the insiders of the Republican party.

 

[BugI02]

Back onto the main topic of this thread:

How have people watched the 2016 election cycle, seen Trump win the nomination (and the presidency) while clearly not the choice of party insiders, and and then four years later returned to the conspiracy theory that party insiders control the nomination process and the primaries are just for show?

The speed with which nominees dropped out seems co-ordinated, as does their predilection to line up behind Biden despite differences during the campaign. That did not happen for/to Trump during the 2016 campaign, nor did the party apparatus immediately get behind him even when he clinched

Couple that with a proven tendency to put the fix in for the anointed candidate (leaked debate questions, superdelegate involved irregularities etc at the convention) that did not occur on the Republican side as well as the lap dog media immediately going all in for Biden and covering for his lapses and one wonders how you can label what is almost certainly fact as a 'conspiracy theory'

 

[BugI02]

Weren't we all supposed to hate this plan when it was nanny-state government, running up the national debt, etc.? I don't remember reading any positive mention of Yang anywhere on INGO when this was his idea.



Which country has been holding back the freedom, security, and prosperity of the American people?

I can think of good arguments for two, both of which are giant territories in Asia. Trump has hurt our relationships with more than those two.



Agreed. That was my point.

Trump seems to be trying to make it so that they are exclusive. He seems more interested in getting political wins than setting up win-win relationships that create longterm stability with people around the world.



I would gladly take Ryan's conservatism over Trump's nationalism.

So which countries has Trump 'hurt our relations with' that actually had balanced trade with us rather than a parasitic relationship on our markets. No wonder those countries get upset when we move to end or reduce trade agreements that favor them by a factor of three or more to one. Ticks and other bloodsucking pests struggle mightily to keep their feeding from being disrupted

 

[JettaKnight]

Back onto the main topic of this thread:

How have people watched the 2016 election cycle, seen Trump win the nomination (and the presidency) while clearly not the choice of party insiders, and and then four years later returned to the conspiracy theory that party insiders control the nomination process and the primaries are just for show?

Biases are hard to beat.

And, at least in the Dem. party it seems the insiders have more control.

With the republicans, there were too many factions fighting and by the time they realized they had to put that aside, it was too late; Trump was unstoppable then.



EDIT: Someone bring some salt, no cayenne pepper, this thread is spicy enough.

 

[two70]

Was the U.S. economy being mugged, raped, or murdered?

Which countries were running roughshod over U.S. interests, and how were they doing so? Again, I can think of potential explanations for Russia and China, and those are the only two. What was Canada doing? Mexico? Europe?

I think it is in the best interests of U.S. workers that low-skill, low-wage jobs are exported. I think there's more benefit in (for example) clothing costing 1/4 as much as it would if it was more here than there would be benefit in having kept those jobs here for a few more decades only to still lose most of those jobs to automation.

So basically, it is ok to look out for your own self interest but not ok for the US to look out for our collective best interests? The only way I can see that making any kind of sense is if you benefit personally in some way from the former status quo of other countries taking advantage of the US.

Mexico- Uses the US as a dumping ground for it's undesirables, whether Mexican citizens or foreign refugees, and has taken advantage of NAFTA, the lack of labor and environmental regulations to steal US manufacturing.

Europe- The European Union was formed in part to create, maximize and exploit trade advantages with the US. France and Germany more specifically have long worked to actively undermine our diplomatic efforts directed at curbing Chinese, Russian, and Iranian aggression.

Canada- has some protectionism built into their "free trade" but they are much less of a concern than others.

I would be fascinated to hear how it is more beneficial for the US to export those "low skill" jobs (note: it is largely not the low wage jobs that are being exported) instead of keeping them here until the much talked about automation becomes a reality.

 

[CampingJosh]

So which countries has Trump 'hurt our relations with' that actually had balanced trade with us rather than a parasitic relationship on our markets. No wonder those countries get upset when we move to end or reduce trade agreements that favor them by a factor of three or more to one. Ticks and other bloodsucking pests struggle mightily to keep their feeding from being disrupted

Trade deficits aren't bad unless you have a mercantilist view of the economy.

The U.S. gets to buy products from around the world in a currency that is made up. Seriously, the Federal Reserve has created nearly $2,000,000,000,000 so far this year. Those are dollars that did not previously exist.

 

[CampingJosh]

So basically, it is ok to look out for your own self interest but not ok for the US to look out for our collective best interests? The only way I can see that making any kind of sense is if you benefit personally in some way from the former status quo of other countries taking advantage of the US.

Mexico- Uses the US as a dumping ground for it's undesirables, whether Mexican citizens or foreign refugees, and has taken advantage of NAFTA, the lack of labor and environmental regulations to steal US manufacturing.

Europe- The European Union was formed in part to create, maximize and exploit trade advantages with the US. France and Germany more specifically have long worked to actively undermine our diplomatic efforts directed at curbing Chinese, Russian, and Iranian aggression.

Canada- has some protectionism built into their "free trade" but they are much less of a concern than others.

I would be fascinated to hear how it is more beneficial for the US to export those "low skill" jobs (note: it is largely not the low wage jobs that are being exported) instead of keeping them here until the much talked about automation becomes a reality.

How are countries taking advantage of the U.S.?

Over the last 28 years, U.S. manufacturing exports have quadrupled. It's just that all that manufacturing has been happening with fewer laborers. That is the "much talked about automation" in practice.

Have you heard the story of Henry Ford paying his workers $5 per day, basically double the wage for factory workers elsewhere. This expanded the market, and that market expansion is a big part of the economic boom that followed.

There's not a lot of market expansion still to come in the U.S. People here are already in the market. But a decent wage being common in India (to pull just one example) would increase the market for manufactured products way beyond anything the U.S. could do if we were a closed system. Everyone gets richer together.

Their median per capita income grows from $2k to $5k; ours grows from $25k to $33k. Yeah, they do better as a percentage, but it's silly to think that somehow makes us worse off or that we're being taken advantage of.

 

[Leadeye]

While I can't speak for governments I do know from experience that business people from foreign countries, allies or not politically, play to win. I would expect their governments to do the same with the US government. My experience with US politics is that all money is green, regardless of where it comes from or what's behind it. I don't think that's anymore of a problem to foreigners paying than the dc law/lobby firms receiving.

A good book to read is Factory Man, I bought it for a man's insights in manufacturing, but getting past the first half which was related more to rich family gossip and shenanigans it was interesting. Mostly for the enlightenment that Mr. Basset experiences when he discovers that he will not save his industry unless he pays dc, and just what a great ROI he gets.

Uncle Sam needs to stay away from buying drinks at the world bar and concentrate on getting groceries for the home.

 

[two70]

How are countries taking advantage of the U.S.?

Over the last 28 years, U.S. manufacturing exports have quadrupled. It's just that all that manufacturing has been happening with fewer laborers. That is the "much talked about automation" in practice.

Have you heard the story of Henry Ford paying his workers $5 per day, basically double the wage for factory workers elsewhere. This expanded the market, and that market expansion is a big part of the economic boom that followed.

There's not a lot of market expansion still to come in the U.S. People here are already in the market. But a decent wage being common in India (to pull just one example) would increase the market for manufactured products way beyond anything the U.S. could do if we were a closed system. Everyone gets richer together.

Their median per capita income grows from $2k to $5k; ours grows from $25k to $33k. Yeah, they do better as a percentage, but it's silly to think that somehow makes us worse off or that we're being taken advantage of.

So basically you want the US to support global welfare so you can get lots of cheap S and pretend to care about the well being of foreign citizens while conveniently ignoring the appalling physical and environmental conditions they frequently work in?

Free trade sounds like a good idea in theory but in practice serves most frequently as a disguise for those that seek to get a leg up on and to the expense of the US.