EPTOn July 26 2016 09:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
...how exactly?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4463
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
...how exactly? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
On July 26 2016 09:50 plasmidghost wrote: I'm quite pissed that the person who spoke was able to leech off the government and taxpayers without even being a citizen. I had to spend out the ass to go to an engineering school and to see someone who is a criminal being given immense benefits makes me angry Illegal immigrants pay taxes... billions in taxes. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/taxes-paid-by-undocumented-immigrants That seems to be a rather huge misconception that people have about undocumented immigrants. They're not leeching off anything. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 26 2016 09:31 FiWiFaKi wrote: This is certainly the best case, a free market in a developing country will result you selling your country to someone else. In the long term, this effect is far less pronounced, but for reasons (if someone wants to have an extremely long debate, PM me)... I think that having a free market will result you getting taken advantage of bit by bit by foreign powers, and over a 20 or 50 year period, you'll begin to suffer with the industries you have. I think an aggressive position towards benefiting your institutions is crucial, and should be continuously monitored, as you can quickly become a place of technology outflow, or become replaced with other players. @zlefin I've written a literature review on protectionism in developing markets, research suggests the same, you should take a look online. I'll take some more looks; but it looks like a pretty mixed bag; and protectionism has to be used cautiously when used from the sources I'm seeing. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
 | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
There is no middle ground. If you believe globalization will happen regardless of how deep down the sand you stick your head, then you accept trade deals. If you believe it's possible to hide your nation under a rock and pretend others don't exist, then you fight against trade deals. It's really that simple. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On July 26 2016 09:49 CorsairHero wrote: Hes the only one in his state not to endorse a candidate. Whats his relationship like with the Clintons and what happened lol. See here Relevent text: While Gore and Bill Clinton maintained a strong relationship throughout the president’s first term, things took a turn in the other direction after the Monica Lewinsky scandal emerged in 1998. Gore insisted on keeping the president away from his own White House bid in 2000. “I understand the disappointment and anger that you feel toward President Clinton, and I felt it myself,” he told New Hampshire voters during his primary campaign. The political headwinds were tough enough, the vice president reasoned, and they got only more complicated when Hillary Clinton pursued the next step of her own career. “Her Senate race complicated things,” another former White House aide said. “It took up a lot of the political oxygen and party money. It put the spotlight on the Clintons when it wasn’t focused on his race. It didn’t help.” More to it in the article | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
The argument would go Trump's overseas businesses are not a normative prescription of how he would want to conduct business, but rather a necessary measure to remain competitive. Thus, of course he's going to offshore his production when it's cheaper to do so under the current system, you can't fault him for that. His proposed changes are a means to give businesses less incentive to offshore such that it's naturally competitive to build domestic industries. It's unfair to criticize him for not 'leading by example' within the current system. He isn't blaming businesses for offshoring jobs and hypocritically asking them to come back to the states while he continues to offshore, he's blaming the system that encourages this practice. That's what he wants to change. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
The sheer quantity of pandering and stretching going on right now jfc | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2016 10:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: They got Christie on video scolding Trump for making fun of a disabled person. Christie will never get AG now! He will have to hold 3 more mob trials of Hillary just to get back in his good graces. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
On July 26 2016 10:06 Plansix wrote: He will have to hold 3 more mob trials of Hillary just to get back in his good graces. Not to mention doing the laundry, fetching his morning paper, reading him bedtime stories... | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On July 26 2016 09:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote: The argument would go Trump's overseas businesses are not a normative prescription of how he would want to conduct business, but rather a necessary measure to remain competitive. Thus, of course he's going to offshore his production when it's cheaper to do so under the current system, you can't fault him for that. His proposed changes are a means to give businesses less incentive to offshore such that it's naturally competitive to build domestic industries. It's unfair to criticize him for not 'leading by example' within the current system. He isn't blaming businesses for offshoring jobs and hypocritically asking them to come back to the states while he continues to offshore, he's blaming the system that encourages this practice. That's what he wants to change. Trump's not accountable to shareholders, so to be fair, he doesn't HAVE to outsource. It's all his own empire. What's the difference to his personal income of not outsourcing? We're just talking about a minor (and kind of silly) Trump branding item here. Kind of like Trump Steaks, does he really need this chump change if he's worth 10 billion? He can be faulted for outsourcing. He claimed credit for Ford's decision to keep a factory in America - because he shamed them into it. He has criticized companies that do it. So in fact he is not saying it's all the government's fault. "Donald Trump criticized the WTO on Sunday for standing in the way of his plans to levy penalties on companies that move production offshore and he said the U.S. could leave the organization if he becomes president." Levy penalties, huh? Is this how badly you need to contort your logic in support of Trump - so much so that you contradict his own stated policy? | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2016 10:07 Jaaaaasper wrote: Russia trying this hard to get Trump elected is the best endorsement Hillary has gotten since Kim Jong Un endorsed trump lol. They gotta get Trump elected, its the only way their investment in Trump Inc. will pay off. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
Thanks. It would really be funny if the Clintons cost Gore the election(financially) in 2000 which resulted in Bush and failed in 2016. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46235 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
| ||
