Up Like Trump

[Elwar]

https://steemit.com/youtube/@acidsun/trump-goes-hard-songify-2016

I am for Trump, however, some few remain who are not.  I suggest to them that rather than making things up, why not look at his actual positions?  You will find some that you don't like.  It's easier than making stuff up. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Here is his actual position regarding trade with China.

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

    Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

    Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

    Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

    Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism

Is there something wrong with any of this?

Bargaining table? Bolstering the U.S. military presence?

What if China refuses to surrender to Trump's whims?

War with China?

[1715251515]

1715251515

[1715251515]

1715251515

[1715251515]

1715251515

[1715251515]

1715251515

[Spendulus]

https://steemit.com/youtube/@acidsun/trump-goes-hard-songify-2016

I am for Trump, however, some few remain who are not.  I suggest to them that rather than making things up, why not look at his actual positions?  You will find some that you don't like.  It's easier than making stuff up. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Here is his actual position regarding trade with China.

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

    Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

    Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

    Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

    Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism

Is there something wrong with any of this?

Bargaining table? Bolstering the U.S. military presence?

What if China refuses to surrender to Trump's whims?

War with China?

I personally don't connect dots between US presence in the South China sea and the issues of trade policy.  And war with China is impossible.  But why bring these matters up?  Wasn't the subject trade policy?  We could have a dispute about expansionism in a geographical area and have a good trade relationship.  Or not.  Isn't that a false fear?

[Elwar]

https://steemit.com/youtube/@acidsun/trump-goes-hard-songify-2016

I am for Trump, however, some few remain who are not.  I suggest to them that rather than making things up, why not look at his actual positions?  You will find some that you don't like.  It's easier than making stuff up. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Here is his actual position regarding trade with China.

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

    Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

    Protect American ingenuity and investment by forcing China to uphold intellectual property laws and stop their unfair and unlawful practice of forcing U.S. companies to share proprietary technology with Chinese competitors as a condition of entry to China’s market.

    Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. No more sweatshops or pollution havens stealing jobs from American workers.

    Strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism

Is there something wrong with any of this?

Bargaining table? Bolstering the U.S. military presence?

What if China refuses to surrender to Trump's whims?

War with China?

I personally don't connect dots between US presence in the South China sea and the issues of trade policy.  And war with China is impossible.  But why bring these matters up?  Wasn't the subject trade policy?  We could have a dispute about expansionism in a geographical area and have a good trade relationship.  Or not.  Isn't that a false fear?

Forcing any country to do anything tends to imply the use or at least the threat of force.

If a war with China is to be part of Trump's legacy count me out.

[tvbcof]

Flynn.  VP.

The trial balloons were strong enough for me to put a few hours into trying to figure the guy out.

Much of what he says in various interviews resonates with me, though that is obviously the design goal.  He doesn't seem like a very polished speaker.  Here again, it is something which is, to me, a positive and here again something that could be a shrewd design goal.  But probably is not.

I have almost a terror of 'fusion' when it comes to intel and that seems to be one of Flynn's big things.  This because it is extraordinarily dangerous.  That said, it is here already, isn't going anywhere, and is also a tool by which justice could be delivered to those who sorely need it (e.g., Hilary Clinton.)  My feelings about the NSA's database are similar in this respect.

Flynn has the kind of background which would allow him to accrue the 'protection' he would need to sustain life in a politically powerful position and do good work therein.  He would also would have a variety of contacts and again would have a lot of knowledge of 'where the bodies are buried.'

Though I have not seen it, I've heard that Flynn is an advocate of closer dialog and cooperation with Russia.  I cannot for the life of me understand how the Democrats (formerly somewhat 'my people' as is apparently the case with Flynn) could turn this into a bad thing.  I would call attention to Putin himself practically pleading with the Western press to keep their eyes on the ball because the Globalists seem to be taking us directly toward nuclear war.  I no longer believe it accurate to say 'nobody wants that' and suspect that there are a handful of people who actually do for a variety of logical, if twisted, reasons.

I noticed with interest that Flynn and Ledeen wrote a book together.  Ledeen is classified as an 'agent of foreign influence' so much so that he is not allowed in the U.S. govt as I understand things.  Considering the various others who were invited to serve under GW Bush, this is really saying something.  And no anything particularly good.

Most of Flynn's features which could be strengths could also be disastrous weaknesses.  In this way he is like a razor sharp knife.  At this point I believe that the U.S. and the world is in such a precarious position that the rational choice is to take some risky chances.  If Trump picked a Gingrich or Giuliani or whatever I would still have to take a chance on him, but would be pretty confident that he would ultimately prove to be a sell-out like pretty much all the rest.

[Hazir]

Bargaining table? Bolstering the U.S. military presence?

What if China refuses to surrender to Trump's whims?

War with China?

Trump is not an idiot. And definitely not to the point of risking war with either China or Russia. He is very realistic person with clear vision in mind.
An he is right, America is not highly regarded anymore - he wants to rebuild that trust in power US once represented.

That doesn't mean he will suddenly start picking wars US can't win.

[Spendulus]

...

I personally don't connect dots between US presence in the South China sea and the issues of trade policy.  And war with China is impossible.  But why bring these matters up?  Wasn't the subject trade policy?  We could have a dispute about expansionism in a geographical area and have a good trade relationship.  Or not.  Isn't that a false fear?

Forcing any country to do anything tends to imply the use or at least the threat of force.

If a war with China is to be part of Trump's legacy count me out.

Having lived through and remembering the Cold War, I can't relate to this kind of thinking.  Both China and Russia are today friends of the USA. 

As far as I am concerned, you and others are welcome to attribute hostilities these countries or their people may have directly at the current POTUS of the USA, Barack Obama.  And when you look at that and it seems nonsensical, well, yah, it is.

[BADecker]

...

I personally don't connect dots between US presence in the South China sea and the issues of trade policy.  And war with China is impossible.  But why bring these matters up?  Wasn't the subject trade policy?  We could have a dispute about expansionism in a geographical area and have a good trade relationship.  Or not.  Isn't that a false fear?

Forcing any country to do anything tends to imply the use or at least the threat of force.

If a war with China is to be part of Trump's legacy count me out.

Having lived through and remembering the Cold War, I can't relate to this kind of thinking.  Both China and Russia are today friends of the USA. 

As far as I am concerned, you and others are welcome to attribute hostilities these countries or their people may have directly at the current POTUS of the USA, Barack Obama.  And when you look at that and it seems nonsensical, well, yah, it is.

Friends? It only appears that way because fascism rules.   

[Masha Sha]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein?

Edit: taking Flynn as VP would solve my doubts and be one step closer to make America great again. Flynn knows or will know if trump is involved with Epstein. Then taking him would assure that diesbold machine are working properly (the foundation will play nasty Algore is their excuses and losing isn't an option they went so far in corruption).

Flynn isn't the best orator America has ever seen however it would assure a trump presidency a sound and impartial basis to build on. For all the project to make America great again the involvement of all is necessary and Flynn would bring a lot of real support. Only downside is that trump will need to be honest. The truth and nothing else. It will be hard work to clean the mess of the previous admin.

[Elwar]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein?

Edit: taking Flynn as VP would solve my doubts and be one step closer to make America great again. Flynn knows or will know if trump is involved with Epstein. Then taking him would assure that diesbold machine are working properly (the foundation will play nasty Algore is their excuses and losing isn't an option they went so far in corruption).

Flynn isn't the best orator America has ever seen however it would assure a trump presidency a sound and impartial basis to build on. For all the project to make America great again the involvement of all is necessary and Flynn would bring a lot of real support. Only downside is that trump will need to be honest. The truth and nothing else. It will be hard work to clean the mess of the previous admin.

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

[Spendulus]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein? ...

No he is not, but expect a great more of this smearing.  That's what US Democrats do.  In the past it is always worst in the last month of a presidential campaign.

[WhalingWhales]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

[tvbcof]

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

The opposite is to not support 'universal health care.'  In anything remotely resembling a sane system, a desire for 'universal health care' is the only position which makes a lot of sense.  This is to say nothing whatsoever about implementation.

It is pretty clear to me that the problem we have in the U.S. is there is no mechanism by which cost controls can do their job.  I intellectually supported the idea of 'single payer' at one time, but dropped it before Obamacare because it was clear that in the U.S. the power structure is incentivized to lay a foundation of sickness in order to maximize profits for the health care industry.  It's a fallout from our legacy and growth of our crony capitalist system and 'single payer' would simply provide a nexus for more efficient exploitation by corporations.  As a side effect of my studies of vaccination, it seems to me that this model is exhibited in other quasi-socialist 'public health' systems in Europe.

Prior to Obamacare I supported a 'public option' system.  This would give entities without unlimited financial resources (states in this case) the leverage needed to implement cost controls.  Of course there are downsides to such a system as there are with any.  As best I can tell this basic strategy of giving power to entities who have the need and ability to control costs is Trump's line of reasoning as well.  These are 'market force' principles which should not be completely alien to Libertarians...I would not think...

[RoomBot]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein? ...

No he is not, but expect a great more of this smearing.  That's what US Democrats do.  In the past it is always worst in the last month of a presidential campaign.

Agreed & stocking up on *popcorn*

[RoomBot]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

Wall?

Mexican President says, No WAY JOSE:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/world/mexico-president-fareed-interview/

[Elwar]

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

The opposite is to not support 'universal health care.'  In anything remotely resembling a sane system, a desire for 'universal health care' is the only position which makes a lot of sense.  This is to say nothing whatsoever about implementation.

It is pretty clear to me that the problem we have in the U.S. is there is no mechanism by which cost controls can do their job.  I intellectually supported the idea of 'single payer' at one time, but dropped it before Obamacare because it was clear that in the U.S. the power structure is incentivized to lay a foundation of sickness in order to maximize profits for the health care industry.  It's a fallout from our legacy and growth of our crony capitalist system and 'single payer' would simply provide a nexus for more efficient exploitation by corporations.  As a side effect of my studies of vaccination, it seems to me that this model is exhibited in other quasi-socialist 'public health' systems in Europe.

Prior to Obamacare I supported a 'public option' system.  This would give entities without unlimited financial resources (states in this case) the leverage needed to implement cost controls.  Of course there are downsides to such a system as there are with any.  As best I can tell this basic strategy of giving power to entities who have the need and ability to control costs is Trump's line of reasoning as well.  These are 'market force' principles which should not be completely alien to Libertarians...I would not think...

The opposite would be to allow the free market to bring us innovation and lower prices in health care rather than a centralized system that can only end in a Venezuela type of tragedy (as centralized systems tend to do).
Clearly Trump does not support the free market.

[Masha Sha]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

[Elwar]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

[vokain]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

[tvbcof]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

To me, Elwardian Libertarians and the Sandersnista flavor of Socialists are two peas in a pod.  Run-of-the-mill utopians without enough common sense to make much of a difference one way or another.  They are basically like the large dense object found by groping about in a toolbox when a hammer has been mis-placed, and to the more shrewd actors who have that basic potential they are inevitably used as such.

[Elwar]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

To me, Elwardian Libertarians and the Sandersnista flavor of Socialists are two peas in a pod.  Run-of-the-mill utopians without enough common sense to make much of a difference one way or another.  They are basically like the large dense object found by groping about in a toolbox when a hammer has been mis-placed, and to the more shrewd actors who have that basic potential they are inevitably used as such.

There is certainly not much difference between Hillary and Trump. The last time the presidency was up for grabs by both parties Trump voted right alongside Hillary for Barack Obama.

We actually have 2 Republican governors with proven fiscally conservative track records that will likely be in the debates against the two big government Democrats. They are far from utopian and certainly would not be my first pick as a libertarian but at least they don't support centralization of power.