Republican-Conservative Catch All Thread

[GrayTide]

Only in yours and your Fuhrer's minds.

I can see this as a more anti Trump board, but this board isn't that liberal. What has happened is that Trumpers get their feelings hurt because 80% of this board really doesn't like him, and points out his moronic crap. So they start calling everyone that doesn't agree with him "libtards" or make remarks like "I wish all of you were Auburn fans" to try to take logical debates to barnyard fights.

I really want you and your so called "conservatives" that say this is a libtard echo chamber define the word "conservative" and defend why you think you are one and everyone of these anti-trumpers aren't. If yall are wanting a safe space, then make one. But stop trying to lump conservatives into your safe space, because all you are going to get is a lot of people that don't want to be lumped in with Trumpers voicing their opinions on Trump and Trumpers.

I believe the bolded sentence above is really what most of us believe this NS Mostly Politics board to be. I have been around Tidefans a very long time and I can state unequivocally that the vast majority of posters will not hesitate to call out corrupt, obstructive, self serving, constitutionally threatening, politicians without regard to party affiliation or political ideology.

You (not directed at any particular person) can label yourself anything you want, but labels are no excuse to support any person who is using the taxpayer's money to further his and/or family's personal financial gain. Labels do not offer defenses when an elected official attempts to circumvent the U. S. Constitution, destroy the rule of law, compromise the country's national security, and treat humans (not just immigrants) with hate and disdain. Labels are not going to save this country from what is happening, it will eventually come down to an each individual's character of which I will repeat for the umpteenth time, "if you have character nothing else matters, if you do not have character nothing else matters", this applies to every Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

 

[NationalTitles18]

You appear to harbor a good deal of anxiety....perhaps a competent therapist might be able to help:smile:

This steps over the line. Stop it now. Last warning.

 

[Bodhisattva]

So many things I disagree with Trump, but I'll focus on one issue here. In the hopes of having a serious discussion (no name calling or snark from me), I'd like the pro-Trump posters here to explain to me the 180 degree turn the party has taken on trade. Republicans have traditionally been the party of free trade. Now Trump has taken the party to protectionist extremes. Punishing various American industries with limited markets and American consumers with higher prices and limited choices is not sound policy. And then subsidizing ("fixing" bad policy with more bad policy) some of the harmed industries further punishes the taxpayers and skews the economy even more. The current GOP - for this and many other reasons - is not the party of Reagan. So, can a Trump voter please justify this seemingly massive contradiction in what it means to be a conservative?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

So many things I disagree with Trump, but I'll focus on one issue here. In the hopes of having a serious discussion (no name calling or snark from me), I'd like the pro-Trump posters here to explain to me the 180 degree turn the party has taken on trade. Republicans have traditionally been the party of free trade. Now Trump has taken the party to protectionist extremes. Punishing various American industries with limited markets and American consumers with higher prices and limited choices is not sound policy. And then subsidizing ("fixing" bad policy with more bad policy) some of the harmed industries further punishes the taxpayers and skews the economy even more. The current GOP - for this and many other reasons - is not the party of Reagan. So, can a Trump voter please justify this seemingly massive contradiction in what it means to be a conservative?

I've said before that I have almost none in my family, thank God. However, my two SILs are prime supporters, especially the one retired from the Billy Graham Campaign, who sees him as the leader ordained of God. (Obama's election is perplexing to her.) She could not begin to analyze the trade/tariff issue the way you have. As with most of his supporters, she couldn't begin to enunciate the traditional conservative values like trade, fiscal responsibility, etc. All she really cares about is the religious side, "Republicanism" since the religious right takeover in the late '70s - abortion (the biggie), prayer in school, etc. If it has the Trump stink on it, she doesn't question it; it's OK by her...

 

[NationalTitles18]

I've said before that I have almost none in my family, thank God. However, my two SILs are prime supporters, especially the one retired from the Billy Graham Campaign, who sees him as the leader ordained of God. (Obama's election is perplexing to her.) She could not begin to analyze the trade/tariff issue the way you have. As with most of his supporters, she couldn't begin to enunciate the traditional conservative values like trade, fiscal responsibility, etc. All she really cares about is the religious side, "Republicanism" since the religious right takeover in the late '70s - abortion (the biggie), prayer in school, etc. If it has the Trump stink on it, she doesn't question it; it's OK by her...

My kids' former elementary principal posted a few days ago about som "Take you Bible to school day" coming up and that they hoped the school was full of Bibles. I wanted to retort "How many of them would be able to read it?"

 

[4Q Basket Case]

So many things I disagree with Trump, but I'll focus on one issue here. In the hopes of having a serious discussion (no name calling or snark from me), I'd like the pro-Trump posters here to explain to me the 180 degree turn the party has taken on trade. Republicans have traditionally been the party of free trade. Now Trump has taken the party to protectionist extremes. Punishing various American industries with limited markets and American consumers with higher prices and limited choices is not sound policy. And then subsidizing ("fixing" bad policy with more bad policy) some of the harmed industries further punishes the taxpayers and skews the economy even more. The current GOP - for this and many other reasons - is not the party of Reagan. So, can a Trump voter please justify this seemingly massive contradiction in what it means to be a conservative?

I am a Reagan Republican, but not generally a Trump supporter.

On trade, it’s more complicated than protectionism (which I don’t like) vs. free market (which I do like).

The real issue is about state-supported foreign industries competing with American industries that are either not supported at all, or are supported to a lesser extent. Boeing vs. Airbus is an example. In the case of China, you have a whole state-driven economy and the state-supported illegal copying of technology — subsequently used to compete in the US market against US companies — complicating matters.

The frustrating thing for American companies is that the foreign competition often doesn’t play by the same rules. So while I don’t like being the international schmuck, I’m not sure that tariffs are the answer. But I also don’t have an alternative solution.

What do you think the best way to combat our own privately-owned companies having to compete against government-sponsored foreign companies?

 

[81usaf92]

I've said before that I have almost none in my family, thank God. However, my two SILs are prime supporters, especially the one retired from the Billy Graham Campaign, who sees him as the leader ordained of God. (Obama's election is perplexing to her.) She could not begin to analyze the trade/tariff issue the way you have. As with most of his supporters, she couldn't begin to enunciate the traditional conservative values like trade, fiscal responsibility, etc. All she really cares about is the religious side, "Republicanism" since the religious right takeover in the late '70s - abortion (the biggie), prayer in school, etc. If it has the Trump stink on it, she doesn't question it; it's OK by her...

Anyone that thinks Trump is a Christian...

 

[Bodhisattva]

I've said before that I have almost none in my family, thank God. However, my two SILs are prime supporters, especially the one retired from the Billy Graham Campaign, who sees him as the leader ordained of God. (Obama's election is perplexing to her.) She could not begin to analyze the trade/tariff issue the way you have. As with most of his supporters, she couldn't begin to enunciate the traditional conservative values like trade, fiscal responsibility, etc. All she really cares about is the religious side, "Republicanism" since the religious right takeover in the late '70s - abortion (the biggie), prayer in school, etc. If it has the Trump stink on it, she doesn't question it; it's OK by her...

Several years ago, I started looking into doing trade work for the government. My passion in law school was international law and I also have a M.A. in international relations. I developed some good contacts at the US Trade Representative and was close to making the jump. Working on international trade treaties seemed like a sweet spot for me. However, like with most things governmental, the theory is crushed by the reality. After many discussions with friends and other contacts who work at the USTR, my job would basically be this: work like a maniac for years reducing tariff schedules on thousands of items with another country or countries; finally reach an agreement with your foreign counterparts, then see politicians demonize the very concept of free(ish) trade, and finally see your work cast aside on the alter of political demagoguery. No thanks.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I am a Reagan Republican, but not generally a Trump supporter.

On trade, it’s more complicated than protectionism (which I don’t like) vs. free market (which I do like).

The real issue is about state-supported foreign industries competing with American industries that are either not supported at all, or are supported to a lesser extent. Boeing vs. Airbus is an example. In the case of China, you have a whole state-driven economy and the state-supported illegal copying of technology — subsequently used to compete in the US market against US companies — complicating matters.

The frustrating thing for American companies is that the foreign competition often doesn’t play by the same rules. So while I don’t like being the international schmuck, I’m not sure that tariffs are the answer. But I also don’t have an alternative solution.

What do you think the best way to combat our own privately-owned companies having to compete against government-sponsored foreign companies?

Definitely a lot of nuances to international trade. And no doubt China will cheat every chance it gets. So, the like with everything involving politics, how much of a deal is good enough? (It's why I always try to use "freeish" instead of "free" trade. Every country has it's sacred cow industries.)

Briefly, where blatantly violates its agreements, the WTO provides some remedies. More broadly, I would have free trade agreements with as many countries around the world as possible to offset China's cheating and encourage their cooperation. We had such a deal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But, Trump withdrew the US from that deal. Now we have nothing. A chance for some sizeable leverage against China (and other cheaters) was declined.

ETA: So, instead of lining up good deals to counter a bad deal, we are left with a bad deal and a lot of no deals. The US and China are facing off against each other with knives to their own throats, slowly opening an artery, with the foolish confidence of "the other guy will bleed out first." There are no winners with this strategy.

 

[CharminTide]

So many things I disagree with Trump, but I'll focus on one issue here. In the hopes of having a serious discussion (no name calling or snark from me), I'd like the pro-Trump posters here to explain to me the 180 degree turn the party has taken on trade. Republicans have traditionally been the party of free trade. Now Trump has taken the party to protectionist extremes. Punishing various American industries with limited markets and American consumers with higher prices and limited choices is not sound policy. And then subsidizing ("fixing" bad policy with more bad policy) some of the harmed industries further punishes the taxpayers and skews the economy even more. The current GOP - for this and many other reasons - is not the party of Reagan. So, can a Trump voter please justify this seemingly massive contradiction in what it means to be a conservative?

Trump's farmer bailout is already more than twice as expensive as Obama's automaker bailout

Whatever you think of the automotive bailout as a policy, at least that loan was paid back with interest. This? Gone.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Trump's farmer bailout is already more than twice as expensive as Obama's automaker bailout

Whatever you think of the automotive bailout as a policy, at least that loan was paid back with interest. This? Gone.

Yep. And IIRC the tariffs will have already cost more than 250,000 lost jobs. And that number will only climb. For no reason. Sure, the economy is still going strong (largely artificially), but to start knee-capping ourselves is just crazy policy IMO.

 

[Crimson1967]

My kids' former elementary principal posted a few days ago about som "Take you Bible to school day" coming up and that they hoped the school was full of Bibles. I wanted to retort "How many of them would be able to read it?"

A student is free to take a Bible to school whenever they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Definitely a lot of nuisances to international trade. And no doubt China will cheat every chance it gets. So, the like with everything involving politics, how much of a deal is good enough? (It's why I always try to use "freeish" instead of "free" trade. Every country has it's sacred cow industries.)

Briefly, where blatantly violates its agreements, the WTO provides some remedies. More broadly, I would have free trade agreements with as many countries around the world as possible to offset China's cheating and encourage their cooperation. We had such a deal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But, Trump withdrew the US from that deal. Now we have nothing. A chance for some sizeable leverage against China (and other cheaters) was declined.

ETA: So, instead of lining up good deals to counter a bad deal, we are left with a bad deal and a lot of no deals. The US and China are facing off against each other with knives to their own throats, slowly opening an artery, with the foolish confidence of "the other guy will bleed out first." There are no winners with this strategy.

The TPP, like so much else, was a victim of his ignorance and his primitive idea of trade resembling village bargaining over a donkey. All he knew was that Obama started it. That was enough...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Trump's farmer bailout is already more than twice as expensive as Obama's automaker bailout

Whatever you think of the automotive bailout as a policy, at least that loan was paid back with interest. This? Gone.

Most of the benefit of the farm bailout, just like his tax cuts, is going to the largest corporations, the richest of the rich...

 

[Jon]

Most of the benefit of the farm bailout, just like his tax cuts, is going to the largest corporations, the richest of the rich...

data to back that up

https://modernfarmer.com/2019/08/fa...roportionately-helping-rich-farms-get-richer/

These bailouts are supposed to have caps on how much a single farm can collect—$125,000 per individual farmer—but the guidelines for who actually counts as an “active farmer” are extremely low. The Washington Post notes that a person who simply calls into a few phone meetings per year can count as an active farmer, and thus take in up to that $125,000 mark.
The payments technically are part of what’s called the Market Facilitation Program, or MFP, which includes the bailout money as well as various risk-mitigation and insurance payouts. That has all meant an awful lot of money floating around: the EWG found that 82 farmers collected over $500,000 in MFP money in 2018-2019. Deline Farm Partnership, in Missouri, collected a whopping $2.8 million. (Deline has not responded to requests for comment from the Southeast Missourian, a local news source.)
In comparison, found the EWG, the bottom 80 percent of farmers received less than $5,000 each.

 

[81usaf92]

data to back that up

https://modernfarmer.com/2019/08/fa...roportionately-helping-rich-farms-get-richer/

Oh no facts and research. Trumpers be like

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Definitely a lot of nuisances to international trade. And no doubt China will cheat every chance it gets. So, the like with everything involving politics, how much of a deal is good enough? (It's why I always try to use "freeish" instead of "free" trade. Every country has it's sacred cow industries.)

Briefly, where blatantly violates its agreements, the WTO provides some remedies. More broadly, I would have free trade agreements with as many countries around the world as possible to offset China's cheating and encourage their cooperation. We had such a deal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But, Trump withdrew the US from that deal. Now we have nothing. A chance for some sizeable leverage against China (and other cheaters) was declined.

ETA: So, instead of lining up good deals to counter a bad deal, we are left with a bad deal and a lot of no deals. The US and China are facing off against each other with knives to their own throats, slowly opening an artery, with the foolish confidence of "the other guy will bleed out first." There are no winners with this strategy.

Assuming you meant "nuances," not "nuisances." Though, as I think about it, "nuisances" would work, too. And you're right....foreign trade policy ain't easy. Free-ish markets are about as good as we can realistically hope to have.

I admire the fact that you put something out there, as opposed to what so many people do -- just throw rocks, then when asked for a solution, you get the slipstream. My biggest pet peeve. I also like your suggestion.

It does, however, take two for it to work. Just as Saban and Byrne can't unilaterally upgrade the OOC schedule simply because a lot of people (including them) want it, you can't have a free trade agreement unless the leadership of the country on the other end of the treaty also wants it. As you point out in your evaluation of the job in federal government, those folks have their own sets of agendas, political pressures from home, sacred cow industries to protect, etc., etc. And as you also point out, those priorities change, which (1) even further complicates matters, and (2) turns the terms of the desired free trade agreement into a moving target.

To be clear, I think Trump has over-used the tariff. To me, it should be a last resort, used only when American companies are at a material competitive disadvantage due to state support of competition and/or illegal theft of intellectual property, and after everything else has failed. I don't think we're there with Europe, which is why I wish Trump would quit using tariffs on them as a first option

We may or may not be there with China. I just don't know, mainly because I don't know what sort of back-channel talks might have taken place. Or not taken place. I do know that Obama as President, and Clinton as Secretary of State couldn't get them to play fair. And holding them accountable for shoddy products is effectively impossible. Chinese wallboard, anyone?

I wish we could just appeal to the international community's rational thought processes. If only it were that simple.

 

[bamamc1]

Most of my friends are Trumpers.

They don’t believe he is linked with Putin.

They have no problem with Trump breaking tradional alliances because they believe our allies have always taken advantage of America.

They see Medicare for all as a socialist program. They saw their health insurance premiums go up when Obamacare went into effect.

They think the Dems want to pay off all student loans and and make college “free.”

They think the Dems are wanting to let all immigrants come into this country and then give them the benefits of health care and all welfare programs available.

They think Bernie and Pocahontas want to take from the rich to give to the poor and this they see as socialism.

They think the Dems are going to bankrupt the entire future of our country.

They think the Dems really want to take ALL the guns and be done with it.

So there are a lot of people who vote for Trump because even though he is not a shining example of Christianity, in their mind he was by far the best choice because Hillary was also morally bankrupt. And since Trump has fought the libral Dems tooth and nail since taking office they love him.

And they think Nancy Pelosi and AOC are as evil as most here think Trump is.

You’re exactly right.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Assuming you meant "nuances," not "nuisances." Though, as I think about it, "nuisances" would work, too. And you're right....foreign trade policy ain't easy. Free-ish markets are about as good as we can realistically hope to have.

I admire the fact that you put something out there, as opposed to what so many people do -- just throw rocks, then when asked for a solution, you get the slipstream. My biggest pet peeve. I also like your suggestion.

It does, however, take two for it to work. Just as Saban and Byrne can't unilaterally upgrade the OOC schedule simply because a lot of people (including them) want it, you can't have a free trade agreement unless the leadership of the country on the other end of the treaty also wants it. As you point out in your evaluation of the job in federal government, those folks have their own sets of agendas, political pressures from home, sacred cow industries to protect, etc., etc. And as you also point out, those priorities change, which (1) even further complicates matters, and (2) turns the terms of the desired free trade agreement into a moving target.

To be clear, I think Trump has over-used the tariff. To me, it should be a last resort, used only when American companies are at a material competitive disadvantage due to state support of competition and/or illegal theft of intellectual property, and after everything else has failed. I don't think we're there with Europe, which is why I wish Trump would quit using tariffs on them as a first option

We may or may not be there with China. I just don't know, mainly because I don't know what sort of back-channel talks might have taken place. Or not taken place. I do know that Obama as President, and Clinton as Secretary of State couldn't get them to play fair. And holding them accountable for shoddy products is effectively impossible. Chinese wallboard, anyone?

I wish we could just appeal to the international community's rational thought processes. If only it were that simple.

Yes, I meant to write "nuances." LOL

I agree with you that the tariff is over-used. Trump seems to have only one tool in the toolbox relative to the situation. And that is the tool of a bully. Regarding trade, it's the use of tariffs. It seems to be his lead move and only move. How did he think China (or any country) would react? I suspect he thought China would cave. Asian countries more than any have to save face in a confrontation. Their pride will not let them look week. Is Trump wise enough to propose a solution where both sides can win? We're on the "everybody loses" path at the moment. And the average America suffers. When elephants fight the grass gets trampled.

I don't pretend to know the solution to dealing with China; I don't have access to any special inside knowledge. I've just studied the subject and have a belief that international trade is greatly beneficial to those who participate in it. It just seems to me that instead of spending time on self-harm policies, it would have been far better to develop alternatives to China. They need us more than we need them. If they see we are aggressive in courting other countries, China will be incentivized to behave better. That seems far better than going the protectionist route.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yes, I meant to write "nuances." LOL

I agree with you that the tariff is over-used. Trump seems to have only one tool in the toolbox relative to the situation. And that is the tool of a bully. Regarding trade, it's the use of tariffs. It seems to be his lead move and only move. How did he think China (or any country) would react? I suspect he thought China would cave. Asian countries more than any have to save face in a confrontation. Their pride will not let them look week. Is Trump wise enough to propose a solution where both sides can win? We're on the "everybody loses" path at the moment. And the average America suffers. When elephants fight the grass gets trampled.

I don't pretend to know the solution to dealing with China; I don't have access to any special inside knowledge. I've just studied the subject and have a belief that international trade is greatly beneficial to those who participate in it. It just seems to me that instead of spending time on self-harm policies, it would have been far better to develop alternatives to China. They need us more than we need them. If they see we are aggressive in courting other countries, China will be incentivized to behave better. That seems far better than going the protectionist route.

Well, there was that scrawled note of his in the margin of a campaign speech "TRADE IS BAD." Take that and his evinced belief that trade wars are good and easy to win and you've exhausted his knowledge about trade...