Originally posted by: David Miller
And you apparenly are unable to comprehend the effect tariffs have had to trade with the nations who ripped off America for years.
Let's just wait and see if these new super tarriffs (the solution of the American Debt Desaster) will actually become effective. Even your Supreme Court sees it a little differently then the man with the orange face.
Originally posted by: David Miller
And you apparenly are unable to comprehend the effect tariffs have had to trade with the nations who ripped off America for years.
Nations usually don't trade. Companies and individuals that are residents/citizens of nations trade. If a company or individual feels a trade deal or agreement is unfair, or a "ripoff," then they don't have to make that arrangement.
The Turd babble about "nations who have ripped off America" has no foundation. There is no such thing as involuntary trade. We can terminate any agreement we have if we feel it's no longer in our best interests. But "punishing" another nation because we no longer like the agreement we have with them is petty and stupid.
The effect that tariffs have is to choke off trade. Anyone who attended high school knows that trade is an inherently good and beneficial action and adds to the wealth of both parties. Therefore, tariffs are an inherently bad and harmful action that diminishes the wealth of both parties.
The above is general knowledge and has been known by economists for 100 years. It's settled, it's basic, and when the Turd tries to deny it, he just looks like an ass and hurts people. And when you support him like a sad little puppet, you look like an ass, too.
Tell me, Millerpiggy. If Trump railed against tariffs and said he was going to cancel all of them, would you agree with him and support him? In other words, do you support whatever he does, without considering whether what he does is good or bad, wise or foolish?
Oh, please, don't answer the above question--you're far too much of a coward to do that. Insult me instead. TDS! TDS! TDS!
Originally posted by: Boris Radtke
Let's just wait and see if these new super tarriffs (the solution of the American Debt Desaster) will actually become effective. Even your Supreme Court sees it a little differently then the man with the orange face.
The trouble is that it will take at least six months to get any challenge to the Supreme Court, and there's no guarantee, given that six of them are Trump lackeys, that they will slap the Turd's wrist. In the meantime, Trump will ruin our trade (and diplomatc) relationship with Canada and stuff billions of dollars of grift into his bottomless pockets. American consumers will feel even more pain. And yeah, it'll all be "temporary" and a new Golden Age will follow. Just like it did in 1930.
Our national debt is manageable as long as we can pay the cost (interest) of carrying it. But if Trump strangles the American economy, which depends on trade? We're screwed, and suddenly, the debt becomes an out-of-control monster.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
This response of yours shows a surprising level of ignorance!
Neither collective ownership of production nor abolition of private property are tenets of socialism. You're conflating it with communism, the same way our COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE bleaters do. And modern socialism has very little to do with the works of Marx and Engels.
China isn't a paradise, but its people are far better off, and I would suspect happier, than when the entire citizenry were the property of various feudal overlords and every time there was a poor harvest, several million people died. Autocracy? Yes. Human rights? No. Success? Yes, by any measure.
"Merit accomplishment" is still the primary driving force in our society. You conservatives have been screaming for decades that policies that level the playing field unfairly disadvantage the meritorious (who, for some strange reason, are all white males). I would counter that the evaluation of said merit was horribly biased and still is, to some extent. The result has been that many, many people of merit are ignored and set aside--deprived of opportunity. But conservatives always label any attempts to rectify that as harmful to the body politic.
Per normal, the first ( and often second) thing out of your malcontented mouth is an insult. You in general are repellent and It's just who and what you are . Don't insult me again; alternatively go ahead and do so and see how it elevates your spirit and mindset. In your case it likely does elevate your being. Eventually you'll discover that it doesn't help your causes and agendas in this podunk forum or anywhere else one iota. Keep milking that bull...your bucket is still empty.
You're attempting to tell me that socialism in general does not endorse collectivism? That collectivism ( defined as a social and political view that prioritizes group goals and collective or state control vs the individual and free market competition) is not in fact a founding principle of socialism ? Abolition of private property is in fact a tenet of traditional socialism ; I'd agree definitions are critical here but your so-called modern version of socialism may not directly endorse property abolition but it surely does not endorse individualistic competition. Your reference sources are a damned sight different than mine.
China is currently under authoritarian tyrannical rule and total control no matter which lens you observe it under. You can not disprove that regardless of how you insult anybody on the alternate side of your sinking raft. Hell, move to China if you believe the population is so damned content and free from oppression.
You're still in the 50's / 60's / 70's with your oft-mentioned whites vs every other ethnicity in America spiel. There certainly was ( and in some circles still is) a general oppression of minorities in this country. Yet, much progress has been made. Civil rights legislation has allowed minorities to compete and essentially thrive in some communities. I'd be among the first to endorse that more efforts are needed to insure a fair playing field for these people and that it needs further improvement to accommodate those who are intent on real success.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Your blithe and silly statement about the DSA's platform ignores the fact that many of their policies and positions, such as universal health care and responsible stewardship of the environment, are in fact supported by a majority of Americans. And belittling and dismissing them by calling them a "miniscule minority" is stupid--they're much more numerous and much more significant than that.
You're too intelligent to join the brainless SOOOCIALISM!!! chant. There are successful (tremendously so) socialist nations. There have also been failures, when such nations slide into autocracy. Most Western societies employ some degree of socialism. As socialism does restrict individual freedoms to some extent, it has been melded with democracy to produce many present societies--ours included.
What % of the American population endorses the BULK of the DSA agenda? The universal health care approval proportion pivots on single-payer approaches vs a combo public (govt) + private approach. Which system approach are you referring to with respect to approval ratings?
I don't know anybody regardless of political persuasion who doesn't want to practice good stewardship of the environment. That's different than spending an estimated $50 - 90 trillion over 10 years on the Green New Deal as proposed by AOC a few years back.Someone asked her and I'll requestion it..how do we pay for it? In making her case regarding this legislation we're all gonna die by 2031 if we don't make sweeping environmental changes / ameliorations. One of her forerunners ( Al Gore) made a lot of debunked predictions ( including human demise and no more snow on Mt Kilimanjaro) as well. Clean air and clean water for all are mandatory; we can accomplish those ends in a methodical and regulated manner vs jumping through our collective asses with untenable legislation.
Are the successful socialist nations you referred to the Nordic ( eg Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) countries in Europe? Are they true Socialists or have they implemented free market additives , high tax rates, and large welfare programs instead? Prove it.Their populations appear to be 'happy', I'll concede.
