|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 08 2018 03:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 02:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 08 2018 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:40 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 01:21 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2018 01:05 misirlou wrote:
There's a point to be made that the Democratic party isn't exactly in the brightest spot right now even between their supporters. Sure booting Manchin would loose them a state but it sends a clear message to the people on the other 49, that could help win them races there
I think people are underestimating how unpopular a move like this would be. In general the public doesn’t like purity tests. Do you really not see how it's quite possible for Republicans (we're talking suburban families) to not support the mustache style evil of Scott Pruitt, but to defend it in the same way Democrats defend the Democrat that voted to give him the power + Show Spoiler +"I don't like that person/policy, but they vote for these other things I want"
"Well, what is it that you DO need them for"
"To tell me they'll do things they never actually accomplish and give me symbolic tokens" How that undermines the incessant droning about about how foolish Republicans are? How it actually plays into both of their hands and more importantly their sponsors/owners hands like a_flyer was alluding to before. I mean I feel like this last little discussion was a pretty good window into all that. Did it really just whizz past everyone? No. I think everyone understands the theory, but sees a lot of unintended consequences to that plan and that it might not work. Or to put it another way, I'm sure a lot of Republicans don't like John McCain, Rand Paul and Olympia Snowe. There were threats to primary Snowe or have her support pulled after the healthcare vote. But it never happened, because it is very hard to tell the voters they can't vote for their senator any more because the party said so. I think the problem you're having is you're stuck imagining this through how Democrats thought 2016 should be handled. You don't tell them they can't vote for their favorite candidate. You don't beg someone like Manchin to run. You don't concede the state to the Republican, you give people a progressive they can vote for. Now I'm actually more in the revolutionary camp, but if people are claiming to be progressive (rather than more firmly "centrist" like Manchin) then actually moving the country left is more important than winning a cycle or two, particularly when it means moving to the right to do it. You embrace the leftward swing in the party, and you turn enough of the 25%+ of the country that agrees with you but doesn't vote into voters by not being sellouts who would spend their money on a Trump supporter that puts a D next to his name. Then all of you vote for them anyway otherwise you're everything you accused me of being. Presumably you guys still think that's as bad as you thought it was then. I don't see how any of this is at all relevant to West Virginia. How isn't it? So what does this hypothetical progressive that West Virginians can vote for run their platform on?
Something much closer to this than Manchin.
+ Show Spoiler +A Living Wage and Workers' Rights
Minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. It has been nearly ten years since the last modest increase the federal government was willing to pass. Over that same time, the wealth gap grew larger than ever. This is about justice and basic human decency. If you work hard and you work full time you shouldn’t live in poverty. And all workers should have their rights protected! I support strong unions and collective bargaining. I am forever proud to have stood on the lines and at rallies at the Capitol with the West Virginia teachers and public employees who helped reignite the Labor movement across the country.
Medicare For All
Every attempt made toward affordable health care, including the ACA, has been corrupted by the interests of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Many of the problems with the legislation can and should be fixed with little regard for the profit protection amendments introduced by members of both parties. We can't let the tantrums of corporate lobbyists and their sponsored members of Congress poke holes in our progress through legislative deal-making. We must start looking toward the future. The support for Medicare For All in Washington and among voters has grown to an all time high, but there's still much work to be done. Recent cost-analyses show an average annual cost savings for households and the elimination of unpredictable market-driven prices for coverage. A modernized single-payer system heads-off pharmaceutical price-fixing and takes away the insurance companies' incentives for denying your treatment to improve their bottom line. Also, universal preventative health care reduces overall costs! It's the right thing to do!
Tuition-free Pre-K and higher education
In America, every child deserves a chance to succeed. Equal and unlimited access to a quality education should be a right, not a privilege. Educating the citizenry of a nation pays dividends in the long run, with the economy getting back much more than is initially put in. Crushing student debt for higher education should no longer burden young people trying to improve their lives through hard work. We have the tools to build the best education system in the world! We just need the will to do it.
Ending Corruption in Washington
Voter turnout continues to be depressed because people feel defeated by the massive sums of money spent influencing politicians and elections. Our current campaign financing system is largely legal bribery. Representatives who gladly take huge checks from industry and special interests are not representing the will of their constituents. This has to stop! We have already seen the mess caused by dark money and unchecked corporate donations. Our goal to create free and fair elections should be a clean public financing system. A Constitutional amendment to overturn the corrupt Citizens United ruling will help stem the tide. Americans deserve free, fair, accountable, secure elections so we can trust that Washington is on the side of the people.
Energy Diversity Creates Jobs
With forward-thinking initiatives and federal investment, West Virginia can release the grip extraction industries have on our state’s priorities. Our state can become a leader in the manufacture and installation of products in the booming renewable energy market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that solar and wind installation and maintenance jobs in the United States are growing twice as fast as ANY other industry. Solar alone expanded 17 times faster than the entire U.S. economy in 2017. Solar and wind jobs grew 12 times faster than in the rest of the entire market. Our state is also blessed with the best geothermal resources east of the Mississippi River and these remain largely untapped. The Department of Energy has also identified 18 sites in West Virginia for hydroelectric development. We can even reclaim mountaintop removal sites for hemp and solar farms. Tax subsidies for oil and gas companies must end and be transferred to initiatives for renewable energy to expand.
Clean Air and Water for All
West Virginia rivers and streams are constantly threatened by drainage, dumping, spills, and run-off from all of the industries who get tax and regulation breaks in the name of jobs. Explosions, leaks, and five-day chemical fires have filled our air with toxins. What good are those jobs if you and your family are sick from it? Even worse, most of the companies guilty of these abuses are often headquartered out-of-state and are reporting record profits! CEOs are raking in millions in salaries and bonuses at the expense of our health. Clean air and water should always be part of the cost of doing business.
etc...
|
But they are still going to have to support Trump, because that state loves Trump and people are going to ask that question.
|
Paula Jean Swearengin (as an aside, what did your family do in the past to get a title that sounds like "Swear Engine"?) is an anti-coal environmental activist.
Yes, the coal industry needs to die, but West Virginia's not going to vote against it themselves.
|
On June 08 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
But they are still going to have to support Trump, because that state loves Trump and people are going to ask that question.
No, they won't. They could win with just Obama voters. Supporting Trump doesn't automatically get the Republican his voters, as has been demonstrated many times over anyway.
They also wouldn't vote for someone like Pruitt with that platform (unless they were one of those liars you might be perfectly fine with when they're screwing voters on the other side).
Also, this isn't an anti-Trump centric strategy like you're primed to imagine. It's a generational shift that looks beyond just the last shooting next election.
On June 08 2018 03:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Paula Jean Swearengin (as an aside, what did your family do in the past to get a title that sounds like "Swear Engine"?) is an anti-coal environmental activist.
Yes, the coal industry needs to die, but West Virginia's not going to vote against it themselves.
As a complete unknown with 0 support from Democrats and up against allegedly the best possible candidate, she managed to get about as many votes as the Republican nominee.
Maybe turning an unknown into a senator in under 2 years is a little ambitious, but it's a hell of a lot better in the long term than begging Manchin to stick around and give Trump "bipartisan" support for his trash.
|
On June 08 2018 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
But they are still going to have to support Trump, because that state loves Trump and people are going to ask that question. No, they won't. They could win with just Obama voters. Supporting Trump doesn't automatically get the Republican his voters, as has been demonstrated many times over anyway. They also wouldn't vote for someone like Pruitt with that platform (unless they were one of those liars you might be perfectly fine with when they're screwing voters on the other side). Also, this isn't an anti-Trump centric strategy like you're primed to imagine. It's a generational shift that looks beyond just the last shooting next election.
The complication there is perceptual.
I believe, and I think you also believe, that the upcoming generation of Americans is a little more left leaning than the preceding one.
I also believe that the DNC believes that it's more of a Bernie Sanders cult thing, and not the sign of a true political shift.
|
On June 08 2018 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Did the DNC even give Manchin anything for this most recent primary? I can't turn anything up but admittedly it's a month old at this point and drowned out by other primaries. He kinda just always wins the primaries against opposition consistently.
Or are we talking about some sort of banning him from caucusing with Dems/not supporting him in the general deal?
The only way you'll guarantee a nationally unified party is to have national registration and mandatory closed primaries (and even that only works in a situation where everyone votes to select every Senatorial nominee which is illegal), and closed primaries seem unpalatable to the left right now, so I'm not sure what solutions there even are. Yes. They actually spent more than a million propping up a criminal Republican to hold people to Manchin's left hostage with (vote Manchin or else). As to the party giving to him directly, there was the piece I cited where they were practically begging him to run/he threatened to retire. Solutions, I mentioned earlier as well. But Democrats/Liberals/however they label largely think it's the progressives and the idea they need solutions that *is* the problem.
I really don't get it. How does running attack ads against 2/3s of the Republican candidates so that the farthest right one would be more likely to win the election drive people *away* from the progressive candidate? Having a farther-right Republican probably gives a progressive candidate *more* of an advantage in the general than it does a right-leaning Dem, since it will likely make the choice starker and give them more wiggle-room to say "hey WV, we might disagree on abortion, gun control, and the environment, but I do support X, Y, and Z unlike my opponent."
I'm glad there was no material support, though. That's actually better than I expected from the DNC.
Would you be happier if the DNC had donated millions to the progressive candidate? Or do you recognize how hypocritical that would seem?
|
On June 08 2018 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
But they are still going to have to support Trump, because that state loves Trump and people are going to ask that question. No, they won't. They could win with just Obama voters. Supporting Trump doesn't automatically get the Republican his voters, as has been demonstrated many times over anyway. They also wouldn't vote for someone like Pruitt with that platform (unless they were one of those liars you might be perfectly fine with when they're screwing voters on the other side). Also, this isn't an anti-Trump centric strategy like you're primed to imagine. It's a generational shift that looks beyond just the last shooting next election.
Those groups have some cross over in every state:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
Now, as the country lurches into another election season — this time the prize is control of Congress — a crucial question for Democrats is whether they will be able to lure these voters back. The party has had some early successes. Wins in Alabama, Pennsylvania and Virginia have given Democrats hope that voters might be souring on Mr. Trump — to the point that the party might flip control of the House and possibly even the Senate. Next week’s primary races in Ohio and West Virginia, both states that went for Mr. Trump in 2016, will also serve as tests of voter enthusiasm for Democrats...
Turnout is lower in mid terms than the general elections, as well. I get where you are coming from, but it would take a candidate of mythical proportions to both unseat a sitting senator in the same party and then win while oppose the President that won that state by like 24 points. Like Return of the King, blood of numinor returning to the throne levels of pathos.
|
On June 08 2018 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Paula Jean Swearengin (as an aside, what did your family do in the past to get a title that sounds like "Swear Engine"?) is an anti-coal environmental activist.
Yes, the coal industry needs to die, but West Virginia's not going to vote against it themselves. As a complete unknown with 0 support from Democrats and up against allegedly the best possible candidate, she managed to get about as many votes as the Republican nominee. Maybe turning an unknown into a senator in under 2 years is a little ambitious, but it's a hell of a lot better in the long term than begging Manchin to stick around and give Trump "bipartisan" support for his trash.
And Manchin got almost as many votes as the entire Republican primary, so apparently he's very popular.
Equivalent here is like an environmentalist party trying to win in Alberta on an anti-oil platform. NDP and Greens got a combined 15% of the vote last election. Of course there will be voters for those issues. Doesn't mean you can win the Province or State off of it.
|
On June 08 2018 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 02:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Did the DNC even give Manchin anything for this most recent primary? I can't turn anything up but admittedly it's a month old at this point and drowned out by other primaries. He kinda just always wins the primaries against opposition consistently.
Or are we talking about some sort of banning him from caucusing with Dems/not supporting him in the general deal?
The only way you'll guarantee a nationally unified party is to have national registration and mandatory closed primaries (and even that only works in a situation where everyone votes to select every Senatorial nominee which is illegal), and closed primaries seem unpalatable to the left right now, so I'm not sure what solutions there even are. Yes. They actually spent more than a million propping up a criminal Republican to hold people to Manchin's left hostage with (vote Manchin or else). As to the party giving to him directly, there was the piece I cited where they were practically begging him to run/he threatened to retire. Solutions, I mentioned earlier as well. But Democrats/Liberals/however they label largely think it's the progressives and the idea they need solutions that *is* the problem. I really don't get it. How does running attack ads against 2/3s of the Republican candidates so that the farthest right one would be more likely to win the election drive people *away* from the progressive candidate? Having a farther-right Republican probably gives a progressive candidate *more* of an advantage in the general than it does a right-leaning Dem, since it will likely make the choice starker and give them more wiggle-room to say "hey WV, we might disagree on abortion, gun control, and the environment, but I do support X, Y, and Z unlike my opponent." I'm glad there was no material support, though. That's actually better than I expected from the DNC. Would you be happier if the DNC had donated millions to the progressive candidate? Or do you recognize how hypocritical that would seem?
It's the same thing Hillary did in 2016.
They intentionally elevated Trump in hopes that he would win the Republican primary. Then they would be able to leverage the same argument used here on TL and everywhere else that Trump is far too bad to not vote for Hillary.
In this case. "Blankenchip is farrr to bad for you progressive purists to not vote for Manchin"
Well in Manchin's case it was easier for them to pretend like that party wasn't having a primary and that it had simply already been decided Manchin would be the nominee.
So no debates or anything to make it even appear like the voting was anything more than a formality. It works when the challenger is completely unknown and the party does absolutely nothing to tell anyone they exist.
It's what they tried with Bernie, but the whole being a senator and all that stuff kept him just above the bubble. Now he's the most popular politician in the country. Which isn't something any of the Democrats that opposed him can say individually or collectively.
Hell, Democrats are less popular than Trump and Republicans. I don't know how much clearer of a signal y'all can get that Bernie's going in the right direction and Democrats in the wrong one.
EDIT: To your question about the money. They are doing it for the candidates they want. I'm suggesting if they are going to ignore that we tell them not to do it, at least do it for candidates that don't support Trump.
On June 08 2018 03:21 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 08 2018 03:11 Plansix wrote:
But they are still going to have to support Trump, because that state loves Trump and people are going to ask that question. No, they won't. They could win with just Obama voters. Supporting Trump doesn't automatically get the Republican his voters, as has been demonstrated many times over anyway. They also wouldn't vote for someone like Pruitt with that platform (unless they were one of those liars you might be perfectly fine with when they're screwing voters on the other side). Also, this isn't an anti-Trump centric strategy like you're primed to imagine. It's a generational shift that looks beyond just the last shooting next election. The complication there is perceptual. I believe, and I think you also believe, that the upcoming generation of Americans is a little more left leaning than the preceding one. I also believe that the DNC believes that it's more of a Bernie Sanders cult thing, and not the sign of a true political shift.
Meant to agree with this as well. It's worse than they want to admit though. Bernie is a centrist for millennials
|
On June 08 2018 02:42 Sermokala wrote:
It baffles me that anyone would actualy register as apart of a political party outside of the politicians themselves.
A reason to join a political party is that you support their cause and/or want to give your input on the direction of that party. You can usually have some influence locally just by being part of the community of that party. Some parties also have internal elections on core issues.
With regards to Asbestos: This is just silly. What is next? Lead piping for water? Those glowing radium dials on clocks? Laudanum to keep your children under control? X-Rays for fun? Bloodletting to cure diseases?
|
Reagan's Impact on the US Economy. Here are the details. Reagan-omics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Obviously , Reagan is not an economic specialist. He put together a team to help him manage the US economy. The team he put together did a great job and the results show it. One key negative in Reagan's economic policies was going from creditor nation to debtor nation. Thing is that is not too important when Allan Greenspan is keeping interest rates ultra low. Guess who appointed Greenspan ? 
The big saying of the day was "Reaganomics is working". I'd say "Reaganomics worked". This was the longest peacetime economic expansion in US history. If it were some small 1 or 2 year expansion i could easily see it being dismissed as luck and circumstance. This is not the case. It was a long and sustained economic boom. That ain't luck. That ain't circumstance. That is a lot of smart moves by a lot of top guys... combined with a metric tonne of hard work by the average american. No wonder the 80s are so fondly remembered.
Recession After Reagan
July 1990 marked the end of what was at the time the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Pretty amazing stuff. The recession that followed was 1 of the mildest and shortest in history going only 8 months long. This was followed by another long sustained period of strong economic growth with low interest rates being a key factor in the growth of the economy in the 1990s. Reagan appointee, Greenspan, instituted these low interest rates against the advice of many economic theorists.
Seeing the economic performance of the USA from the day Reagan took office to the turn of the century i'd say Reagan helped the US economy in both the short and long term. Of course, Clinton loyalists will say the 1990s boom was all due to his great moves and every republican has done nothing but destroy the US economy. However, that is merely partisan rhetoric. Clinton did a nice job with the economy and he was set up in a solid position to do so by his predecessors. I think both Clinton and Reagan were good presidents. Bush Sr. was "meh".
Reagan and his team's long term impact on the US economy is exemplified by the appointing of Allan Greenspan as the Head of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan lasted 19 years. A key element to the 1990s economic expansion was Greenspan's ultra low interest rate policies.
W. Bush and Obama's mis-handling of the US economy has screwed it up for the past 12 years or so. It is evident in that 80 year graph another poster put up. Here is a link to it. The last 12 years have been brutal. Fortunately, Trump is fixing things now.
|
Jimmy,
The wiki you cite does not appear to substantiate your position that it was good choices by reagan that led to the economic growth.
the rest is your unsupported and unjustified opinion.
|
he lowered taxes and increased spending. this flooded the country with cash. he followed it with Greenspan putting the clamps down on interest rates. it worked. for more economic theory on this check out the laffer curve.
anyhow, it was the longest, most sustained period of economic growth in US peace time history. that ain't luck. it was followed by one of the shortest and mildest recessions and then another long period of sustained economic growth. again, that ain't luck.
the appointment of Greenspan was brilliant. he last 18+ years and through several presidents. only 1 other federal reserve chair lasted that long. pretty sure trump insta-fired whatsherface the first chance he could get.
|
On June 08 2018 05:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
he lowered taxes and increased spending. this flooded the country with cash. he followed it with Greenspan putting the clamps down on interest rates. it worked. for more economic theory on this check out the laffer curve.
anyhow, it was the longest, most sustained period of economic growth in US peace time history. that ain't luck.
please FINISH your posts before posting. instead of typing something then constantly editing it adding in more bits.
You've done nothing to establish that it wasn't luck; and furthermore that if it was the result of someone, that it was the result of Reagan. and you've ignored the counterpoints.
|
my points are made and i'm done with this topic.
|
On June 08 2018 05:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
my points are made and i'm done with this topic.
you didn't make your points. You simply claimed a bunch of stuff without justification. Ok, since you're done, I'll conclude you have nothing to justify your claim, since you didn't provide anything that does so, and have stated you have nothing else to add, thus I disregard your claims entirely. Please learn to argue better and learn how evidence, truth, and argumentation work.
|
Reagan was great and that is why after the American people saw him run California for 8 years and then the nation for 4 years Reagan received a popular vote of 59% that no other prez has seen since.
Over the last 50 years I'd say the only Prez better than Reagan was probably Clinton.
On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:
In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk.
is Canada really an ally?
Canada opposed vietnam and iraq. Canada was buddies with Cuba shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mulroney said Reagan was acting "like a tin pot dictator". J. Trudeau is now just beginning the anti-US rhetoric. next to hockey.. America-bashing is Canada's #2 past time.
+ Show Spoiler +
and that BS is uncalled for because US is pretty damn good and i think we're damned lucky to have the US as neighbours.
I'd say Canada and the USA are partners of economic convenience.
|
On June 08 2018 05:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. is Canada really an ally? Canada opposed vietnam and iraq. Canada was buddies with Cuba shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say Canada and the USA are partners of economic convenience. next to hockey.. America-bashing is Canada's #2 past time. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqfpkTTy2w
Shared border, high trade, peaceability, US-influenced (compare to say China, Russia, maybe even Western Europe), five eyes, NAFTA history, cultural ties, certain shared values (from sociological studies UBC), citizen favorability (from every poll I've seen done). Add all of them up, and we're closer to allies than mere economic convenience would indicate.
Militarily, your point stands. That is, unless either of us is attacked.
|
On June 08 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 05:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 07 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On June 07 2018 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004419922380943361In an attempt to be charitable, I'm going to say that Trump just joked about Canadians being the ones to burn down the White House in the War of 1812, as he moved to impose a national security tariff on their steel that we import. Although, when he's labeling Canada as a national security risk by effecting this tariff, it's hard to imagine he's joking, and instead doesn't know middle school-level US history, or indeed anything about how to treat your allies. This bodes well. It really looks like you’re demonstrating that the rationalization is a joke, since you conclude this is no way to treat allies, not that it has implications for the defense department and homeland security. Do you really think national security isn’t just an excuse to unilaterally impose tariffs that he called for in the campaign? Contrary to your point, it’s very easy to believe Trump does not seriously take Canada to be a national security risk. is Canada really an ally? Canada opposed vietnam and iraq. Canada was buddies with Cuba shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd say Canada and the USA are partners of economic convenience. next to hockey.. America-bashing is Canada's #2 past time. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqfpkTTy2w Shared border, high trade, peaceability, US-influenced (compare to say China, Russia, maybe even Western Europe), five eyes, NAFTA history, cultural ties, certain shared values (from sociological studies UBC), citizen favorability (from every poll I've seen done). Add all of them up, and we're closer to allies than mere economic convenience would indicate. Militarily, your point stands. That is, unless either of us is attacked.
good points. thx for your reply.
|
On June 08 2018 05:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
he lowered taxes and increased spending. this flooded the country with cash. he followed it with Greenspan putting the clamps down on interest rates. it worked. for more economic theory on this check out the laffer curve.
anyhow, it was the longest, most sustained period of economic growth in US peace time history. that ain't luck. it was followed by one of the shortest and mildest recessions and then another long period of sustained economic growth. again, that ain't luck.
the appointment of Greenspan was brilliant. he last 18+ years and through several presidents. only 1 other federal reserve chair lasted that long. pretty sure trump insta-fired whatsherface the first chance he could get.
laffer curve, are you really peddling supply side economics now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
