Posted on 08/26/2015 5:40:12 AM PDT by LS
Adam Smith was a big time mercantilist actually. Have you ever read his books ?
And the US became the world’s largest economy with high tariffs and no income tax.
Interesting question: if Trump ONLY cut off fed funding for PP, wouldn’t he have done more than any candidate who currently holds a national position? And in sheer effect, wouldn’t he have done more than all the governors who at the state level cut off state funding, combined?
Sure. Are the Kardashians on TV or in the pop culture news every day? Of course.
Reagan hit Japan with high tariffs and that is why there are Japanese car plants throughout the South.
I like Thomas but he has his head up his rear on this one.
Messing with the Free Traitors™, I like it.
Likewise, for better or worse, you can't have Trump "be more humble." Once you start doing that, you've taken away a major weapon of his.
Reagan had a practiced humility that was in part natural---he was just a good guy---but also he learned in the 1940s that his acting career was dying, and he had to either become bitter about it or learn to joke about it and be self-effacing. Some authors think that bitterness is seen in his deprecating humor. I don't. But you can read it that way. Regardless, Reagan would never have Trump's "I did it" bluster. It wasn't in him, and certainly wasn't in W. Bush.
Trump is like the OSU football teams that ran the ball every damn play. You destroy them if you try to just have "a little passing."
Has Cruz said he will build a wall at border?
Have it your way. Vote for your loser candidate---because all the rest are getting creamed.
No, it’s surprising how blinded you are. “Let them who have ears hear.”
Trump tells “We The People” what they have been waiting to hear for eons, the real test is yet to come, can he deliver?
**
Amen.
Look at two polls; NH and NV. In the first, he leads among Republicans in almost EVERY SINGLE SUBGROUP OR CATEGORY. Who ever did this? Men, women, indies, conservatives, liberals, young, and old.
In the NV poll, he has 39% support among GOP Hispanics. Now, someone could extrapolate nationally. If Hispanics are x percent of the voters, and if Rs are y percent of Hispanics and Trump gets 40% of them, what % does he automatically get nationally? Interesting exercise.
There is a fine line between a vanity and an editorial. I am not sure I know what the difference is yet.
You might want to look in the mirror for a "splinter" in your own eye causing temporary blindness.
"Single Issue Crowd" for which in previous years it was abortion, but now, increasingly, it's abortion and/or immigration. I'm sensing a lot of people think immigration is the greatest threat, because if you don't fix that, there won't be a country left to have abortions in.
"Not conservative enough" crowd. Over time, I've observed that no GOP candidate living has ever reached this level. Even Cruz has people turn on him for the NAFTA/fast track vote and a couple of other single votes.
"Lesser of two evils" crowd. I admit, I've been part of this at times---there really seemed no realistic option.
With Trump, you now see these lines blurring badly. I don't know if Rush's claim that 4 million conservatives stayed home in 2012 is right. There is VERY little evidence to support that, especially in key states where GOP #s were pretty much the same in 12 as in 08. So I tend to think that groups 1 & 2 eventually go #3.
Except now Trump adds a fourth category, which is "Not conservative on some issues, but is THE most conservative candidate when it comes to the 'We the People' vote, which is we the people get to choose our leaders. He is more outspokenly patriotic than anyone but Cruz or (sometimes) Rubio, and he is the least waffling of all of them on immigration. We'll see.
IMHO, he's lying. He is, after all, a longtime Democrat, who has admitted "we'll let in the good ones," as if such a filtering process could be done in less than many years. We're set amid that awful choice in which we choose to institute dictatorial and potentially unjust (deporting legal immigrants and their citizen children (however illegally conferred; it's not the kids' fault), confiscating property, etc.) emergency powers to survive (street battles to gather them). Were we to commit to this as a nation as a matter of war powers subsequent to invasion, I'd rather have a real Sulla, calm, quiet, proven, and determined, as opposed to this dishonest huckster.
He hasn't leveled with anybody as to what he would really do and how; he just promises to get it done.
I do not oppose Cruz at all on ideological grounds, but on grounds that only Trump can get anything done. Cruz has to do a lot more to show he can organize an army. For example, why did he not organize opposition to the Import-Export Bank? Not that this was critical as an issue, but it would be ONE THING you could say, "See, this is how I did it, and I actually got government rolled back on this issue." But he couldn't even (as I pointed out in the essay) get Paul, Lee, Sessions, or Ernst behind him. Why not? Does that not trouble you?
Trump can very possibly force Congress to join him just by the power of public opinion. Reagan did, often and had less of a celebrity presence than Trump did. So, no nothing is "underhanded." It's all above board and that's what bothers so many of the opponents.
Horse pucky. Under that law, every single family or individual gets a hearing. How long will that take?
ICE officials (to my surprise) WANT to do their jobs and have been hamstrung. If turned loose, they will quite legally and effectively enforce the law.
Well, it's not to my surprise, so I'm ahead of you.
Nothing happens to children. The families have to go home. If they want their children to go with them, by all means take them.
As of now, many of these children are US citizens enrolled in public schools. I want you to find me all the judges who will order that they be forced to leave with their families.
Go right ahead.
Personally, I'm enjoying watching the new Trump show and speculating about the plot, the characters and potential endings.
Some have said he’s this time’s Reagan, but, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: “I was awake during Reagan. I voted for Reagan. Reagan was a hero of mine. And Trump’s no Ronald Reagan.”
However, that near miss (“near miss”…lol) misses the point about Reagan.
The times needed and called for “The “Right” Person for the Moment.”
That was fate’s casting call and Reagan answered for the role of his, your and my lifetime.
The same was true in England when fate called and Churchill answered.
Both men only had a short, finite time in the light to dance for the stars and both men accomplished what fate sent them to do.
Like before, these interesting times also appear to need the “right person”, but what sort does fate call?
Is Trump of the sort fate calls and who can fulfill its mission of the moment?
Too early to tell and so much in life is a gamble.
I can’t see the deck fate deals its cards from, but, since Trump sat down at the table, at least I’m now watching the game again to see how to bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.