- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
There are many things that frighten me about Trump, but I'll illustrate just one of them
Trump says he'll level the playing field with China. China has devalued its currency which artificially causes their prices to be lower and therefore more competitive. Trump wants them to stop this practice, but how will he make them do so? The only way he can is to place a tariff on their products. China then has many retaliatory options, none of them good. They can start a tariff war. As the prices rise it will slow down the purchase of both countries goods and caught in the middle will be the American consumer. Worst of all, if the battle gets hotter still, China can turn to selling the billions in American bonds that it holds. In the end, because of our great size and China's great size not only will our economies suffer, but world-wide economies will start sliding, which can lead to a hot war, and the villain would be us.This illustrates that either Trump cannot comprehend basic global economics, or he is just spouting rhetoric. Either way, I wouldn't trust him to be president. When he realizes his true position in the world, he well might turn to Fascism.
As to Cruz: He's way too religious in his proclamations -- but, no one knows or understands the Constitution better than him. He has won cases at Supreme Court level and is the only senator to stick up for the promises he's made to constituents, even to his own peril. Of all of the bison herd of Republican contenders, he has the most integrity. No, he's not perfect. You'll not find Howard Roark or John Galt, or Hank Reardon running for office, but Cruz is as close as you're going to get with any chance of winning.
Appricate your comments. I to wish Cruz would dial back the religion in his proclamations, but at the same time like him more for it. Its part of who he is, its not the most expedient way to speak or behave and it causes him problems, but it shows he will state what he thinks and believes and do what he says. I find that very refreshing.
We are going to witness an interesting thing with the death of Scalia. If the senate allows Obama to get away with a leftist nominee, we'll quickly know what they are full of, bull, dog or chicken.
I think he is right unless you can change the culture first to a constitutional culture, then repeal the needed amendments and add a very explicit one removing all other taxes constitutionally, your going to just get an additional tax.
Given the choice between Rubio or Cruz, I would support Cruz, because he's a staunch supporter of "originalism," the belief that government must abide by the original arguments of the writers of the Constitution, or seek legal modification of those arguments through the amendment process. Rubio is the real "anti-Trump," in that he's a very smooth, persuasive speaker that hides his real intent in an attempt to appeal to the broadest audience.
If it were so, I'd rather have a president in fear of those consequences, even if he only understood them in a pagan sense rather than someone like obobo with no moral guide, no mind, no conscience nor the slightest knowledge of our constitution and the rule of law.
The problem with progressives and establishment types alike is they have no respect or mutuality for conscious human life.
In spite of what were taught, there is much to admire about us. Those that have caused the world problems, those that blame mankind are in fact the problem and are nothing like the majority of men. (historically includes women also)
What does that say about our Presidents, since?
Calvin Coolidge cut government but more than 50% and dealt with the crash of 1920 in a very free market way, that's why we had the roaring 20ies rather than a depression. He was, IMO the best president of the last 100 years or so.
With those two exceptions I agree. Wilson and Obama are really close between who was worse, but they are clearly the two presidents who have done the most damage to individualism and free trade.
As has the media, the education system. What does it say about the citizens? Most of them aren't.
They are just little insignificant particles of a great entity.
People in general deserve exactly what they ask for. The only cure for stupidity is they don't outlive old age.
I think every one of the GOP candidates except Trump has been tripped up by at least the appearance, if not the actual evidence, of hypocrisy, from contradictory statements made, not in the distant past, but in the course of the current campaign. The insistence by the media of a candidate making sworn concrete, immutable statements on every position is a trap that a real leader with any sense avoids.
I've spent a lot of time reviewing statements of every potential candidate, and of all of them, as outrageous as it may sound to others in this forum, Trump exhibits more common sense than all the others. Taking just one issue, taxation, to which every other candidate has rigidly endorsed one or the other attractive-sounding position. I've heard proposals for a flat tax, fair tax (my favorite), no tax, or a simplified version of the current tax. When asked his position on taxes, Trump simply acknowledged that all of those proposals have the possibility of helping the economy, and that he would work to implement the best, most achievable changes as quickly as possible. While he makes inflammatory public statements to draw media attention and discover the public's deepest motivations, he's pragmatic, rather than rigidly ideological.
Ideologues either fail, or lead people into catastrophic historical events. It takes real skill to induce people to stop waiting for government to take care of them, and get them excited about what they can accomplish if the government does its best to remove barriers. Perverse as it may sound to some here, Donald Trump seems to be the only political figure sending that message.
You may want to look a bit further back than the last month on trump. He is a long road of contradiction, theft by relationship to politicians through government programs, theft through bankrupcy. Yes his actions are legal, but still theft.
Perhaps the worst thing he will do is the thing I dislike most about Obama, and he has made it clear he will do it. He has stated he will use executive order to get things done, he will just do good things. A tyrant who does good things is still a tyrant, and we cannot have another or it will be so cemented in our culture that we will never remove the tyrants power.
No Trump has clearly told us he is a tyrant, but he will be a good tyrant. I want no more tyrants.
cui bono
------
- A principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain
or
- Usefulness or utility as a principle in estimating the value of an act or policy
Which do you mean and why?
Beyond that I do not know what rush would benefit, I do not really listen to him, I find him abrasive to listen to, even if I agree with him.
Cruz is the first guy in my lifetime running for president that I think just might do something to correct the course a bit. I was to young to vote for Reagan, and not alive for Coolidge and I think Cruz may be like unto those two.
Even if all he did as president is drive through a 10% flat fax for our income tax, and kick a bunch of the establishment GOPs out of power it would be a big step in the right direction. No one else running is offering as much, not even Rand Paul.
I must agree with you.
The RINO "mainstream" of the hypocrisy party I've come to despise hates Cruz for his conservative principles.
Cruz is listed as a Republican libertarian too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...
I consider voting for Cruz as making a statement.
I have Johnson under consideration for the general election.
An all or nothing approach will never work, and will never get us back. It may have in 1890 had someone opposed rail road subsidies and Sherman law. We are to far from the correct path to right it in one blow now, incremental political process is the only way it will happen.
I give you a point up but a question to ponder.
I often have to refer to a PC dictionary instead of a real one....but come away with a feeling of having waded in muck.
I am sorry about your plight...there are alternatives and most are not so honest as you. one point up.
Every presidential election since I became aware of politics has had someone on this promise. It sidesteps the tough questions of how to reduce gov't. I don't think it's realistic. OTOH, I'd rather here this than what I heard last night. I caught about 20% of the marathon Democratic debate. I heard them both say they would increase taxes by $100 billion a year, and that sounds like not enough to cover all of Sanders' spending promises. I'm disappointed that Clinton didn't say she opposed all net increases in tax.
I am not sure I trust that he will do it, but who else has even said they would do it.
he has said, and did say to those in Iowa, at meetings attempting to preserve them, that he would do away with all subsidies, including the corn/methanol subsidies. A person who will tell people this just before the big vote day is the kind of person I think we need.
He thinks he can do the 10% tax, I think he will have to settle for something more like Mike Lee's plan, but either would be a huge improvement.
Also I didn't see any specifics about how he would cut gov't. He says the payroll taxes system would be eliminated, but SS and Medicare would remain funded. How? If we suppose for the moment that we take care of SS and Medicare, the next biggest thing is military. And he has carried on about using the military more. So I don't see where the cuts could come from. Cutting the EPA is one item, but not enough to move the needle. Moreover, turning that over to the states makes it hard to fight non-local threats like global warming. If we don't do something about that, it will cost more than a few billion dollars. Maybe he has a plan to deal with that without a large federal agency, which I is something I would support.
the question is really:
a) Is global climate change caused by man?
b) Is global climate change a problem for man?
In my view the first question is more likely answered no, and the second is answered as being something we need to adapt to rather than something that will end the earth.
I agree with this. We would need to adapt some even if, contrary to our current understanding, human activities had no impact on climate. The cycle of glaciation has been going on since long before industry and before humans.
There is nothing to the "end the earth" thing. I don't know if that's just people with an honest misunderstanding of the science or a straw man invented by people who want to ignore the science. The earth will be here long after anatomically modern humans are gone.
a) A significant part of it is cause by human activities, probably more than half.
b) Yes
My question is how to calculate the best way to deal with it. If we went back to a preindustrial existence, it might only cut the problem in half. But I think the science is unclear on this point. My understanding is we're not sure if human activities are just causing the present period of deglaciation to go faster or if it's fundamentaly changing the current ice age (oscillation between glaciation and deglacation that we we've been in for a million years). We need this answer so we can calculate the costs of human activities on future generations.
Or we could just bury our heads in the sand and pretend like it's not real.
He told people in Iowa that the corn subsidies and subsidies of any kind would be removed while campaigning there. If that truly includes all subsidies of any kind, those of international flavor and UN flavor as well as domestic, that is a huge chunk of the budget pie.
Depart of Health Education and Welfare Act of Congress then broken up into separate departments or agencies by ....Act of
Congress. The newest DOHS Executive
Order followed by Act of Congress
Link for the whole picture of all of them
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepres...
Cruz specifical called out the EPA as a department he would remove. He separately stated that departments created by executive order are unconstitutional and would be removed by executive order as they were created. Two seperate statements that are not necisarily related.
Thanks for the info on the EPA.
I wonder how much. Maybe more than I think. The joke is that all politicians want to balance the budget without raising taxes or touching Social Security and Medicare, the military, or any benefits related to miitary.
It would not surprise me if our foreign subsidies were close to or possibly slightly over 1 trillion in total.
The other dangerous but far more acceptable plan is end user consumption taxing only at that point Puts people in charge of government.
Along with a few other goodies. the Cruz/Rand plan i saw was 16% on each and every business .and the danger point is getting both on the books at the same time.
What they want is both on the books at the same time.
So let's say Cruz get's his passed ....all goingi well.....and then some other Soros disciple gets in...where's the protection?
There is none except income tax goes and the end user tax comes in....no overlap
16% on business is not a business profit tax it's just more overhead to pass on to the consumer.