92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
89
You are distorting facts. President Trump had NAFTA rewritten. Again none of the established d.c. swamp reps and dems thought it was possible. He did. Ross Perot and President Trump were never against free trade agreements . They were and are against UNFAIR free trade agreement. That is the main difference uhlaw97. President Reagan too was for "FAIR free trade agreements. Not what NAFTA and other trades agreements became to be over the years.
Should we add the intellectual property and how the ccp has taken us to the cleaners? That alone again and again speaks volume on how the dirty d.c. prostitutes politicians are to be blamed. Yes both political parties are in the same ccp cookie jar. Who promoted this?
His tag line was about there being a big “sucking sound.” It was a foundation of his campaign, well, that, AND abortion. He was anathema to traditional American conservative values.
Being a conservative in America has traditionally meant being a) in favor of smaller government in the fields of business and commerce, and b) being in favor of lower taxes.
A tariff is a TAX. As such, you can’t claim to be in favor of lower taxes if you want higher tariffs, and that makes any claim for a pro-tariff anti-free trade guy to be a “conservative” a non-starter.
Likewise, trade restrictions and regulations are exactly that: restrictions and regulations against free enterprise.
That likewise is contrary to traditional American understanding of conservatism.
Trump was anti-free trade, but had no choice but to keep a new version of NAFTA after the true conservatives around him pulled him aside, and said…uh…sir…that’s a really dumb idea to want to do away with it. Thus, he reversed his campaign position from ending NAFTA to simply revising it.
Unfortunately, Trump insisted on piling tariffs (i.e., HIGHER TAXES) in a lot of other areas.
Didn’t do any good. Jobs didn’t come back to the USA as a result. In fact, he hurt our markets for American goods overseas because a lot of countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own.
Perot would have been EVEN WORSE than that.
As I said…HARD PASS!!!
1 Like
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
91
Where are you getting your facts uhlaw97? Just a quick fact for you.
“Under the USMCA, in order for a car or truck to be exempt from tariffs, 75 percent of its components would have to be manufactured in North America. Under NAFTA, the corresponding requirement had been only 62.5 percent. The agreement also required that at least 30 percent of work on tariff-exempt vehicles must have been done by workers earning at least $16 per hour (significantly more than Mexican laborers received).”
You call that tarriff or tax? Why and how the minimum wage got implemented and for what reasons? The two are 100% connected. Politicians can’t impose salary requirements while knowing full well that our neighbors or the ccp is not doing one. By doing so you automatically negate and castrate your own manufacturing industry. Do you remember when Toyota was accused of DUMPING? What happened there? Yes Toyota was selling Lexus at a lesser cost than the actual production cost. How do you think the chinese manufacturing has been so successful? Maybe using a magic wand? Forced labor and stealing intellectual properties IS the reason why we are where we are. d.c. politicians had and have a choice. Why do they not act on it?
President Trump’s victory was a catastrophe for the dirty d.c. swamp. That is why they keep going after him.
Since as you say you are confused, perhaps reading these will help you understand it better. It’s not just
the left that find this ruling very lacking.
A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.
What was the rationale for the ruling?
In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.
With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United , a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.
Are you advocating for “dark money” in our elections ?
Who knows, he is an advocate for the teenager/theory freedom. Freedom without regards for consequences. Which is what this ruling was, a freedom victory for the wealthiest and already most powerful. To continue buying their influence, and corrupting the system because unlike the ivory tower dunderheads everyone knows money is corrupting.
