1,788 karma · joined April 25, 2011
Not a single person voted for him because of ads. Not TV ads, not print ads, not radio ads, not internet ads, not beach banners towed behind a Cessna.
I know it’s not a popular narrative, but no one was “fooled” into voting for Trump. They knew what they were voting for. Most of those people liked his anti-PC rhetoric. Which is why doubling down on PC is a bad strategy for Dems.
“They believe it is, and you can't get them to think about it.”
Not getting someone to think about a topic is a far, far cry from not being able to utter such words for fear of violence against you.
There aren’t right leaning groups out there organizing violent protests at college campuses trying to prevent left leaning speakers from being heard.
I’ve seen no evidence of that and with the severity of your claim should you should include a source or two.
Perhaps you’re confusing people disagreeing with your view with people attempting to silence you. Those are two very different things.
Recall the Occupy Wall Street protest where they camped out in downtown NYC for a month? They broke all sorts of laws but were allowed to stay. That doesn’t sound like “extermination”.
What I do see is violence from communist and anarchists against speech that they deem fascists, but are really just moderate voices. I can provide video links if you need, but it’s common knowledge at this point.
We still live in a democracy and so long as we do, you’re going to have to live with consensus, which doesn’t see things your way.
- One bus ride in western mass with crazy drug head yelling crap.
- Six T rides in Boston, one ended with some drunk dude yelling and cursing at me. Another with some bum hassling a woman and then pretending to have a gun when my buddy stepped in.
- Four Metro train rides from CT to NY. Not too bad. Only saw two fights that didn’t involve me.
- A few metro rides in Paris, nothing bad, just a few harmless beggars.
- A few time in the Tube in London. Jolly good there.
So, my personal answer to this question is safety. Fewer crazy passengers and more security.
Which is slightly different, but none the less alternative legal means.
What part of that is confusing?
Trump has followed through on his posturing several times now. I think he’s shown the world he’s not joking around.
I think it’s legitimate to criticize his actions, but I don’t thing it’s accurate to say his posturing is empty.
Agreements that can’t be read and comprehended in one day aren’t good agreements. I stand by that, no matter what Trump says, no matter what you say.
I’m not arguing about trade imbalances on a surplus/deficit amount. I don’t care about the amount. I care about access to markets and a level playing field. There is no hypocrisy there.
The difference between you and I, is that I’m willing to admit where you are right. The US subsidizes farmers and other industries. I imagine those are up for negotiation too.
I also admit Trump acts like a horses ass. I’m just willing to let that slide if he’s an effective horses ass.
I also haven’t implied you’re stupid.
Ultimately consensus is only useful if all participants are willing to take the same action together. That is powerful.
But consensus that says “hey, China, you should have better dealings with us” but then none of the participants have the backbone to do anything, then there is no power and the concensus is worthless.
But willingness to turn your rhetoric into action is more important so that others understand that you mean what you say.
For example, if you say nice things, but demonstrate that you don’t mean what you say, then what do all those nice things you said amount to? Nothing.
Stop reading the headlines and start reading between the lines. It’s a skill that will serve you well in life.
Last time I checked most people in the US were against the TPP including Clinton.
A good trade deal doesn’t require 5,600 pages.
I’m not worried about trade imbalances in absolute dollars, I’m concerned with trade imbalances with tariffs and subsidies that make US exports unable to compete.
For Canada where did you get the higher average tariff from? What is that? A higher average of all tariffs on all goods? A higher amount of absolute dollars paid in tariffs? The number alone is meaningless without context.
In the not too distant past we had a president draw lines in the sand and dared others to cross it. Then they crossed it and we did nothing.
That did more to lose respect in the world than anything being done today.
Today we are saying we want better trade deals for US goods and we’re not asking.
There’s a big difference between the two motives.
But, and this is a big but, I also want to be able to sell to China’s growing middle and upper class.
That’s what this is about.
I also agree with your analysis of the current situation, I just don’t believe the current situation will be as it is for long.
Please be specific.
Especially your point about automation. Now imagine a world where the US can make things again at a cost competitive rate due to automation. Ok, now look at how those goods would be taxed overseas...
We still would have an export problem due to other country’s protectionist tariffs.
The point of the trade negotiations is to get better terms for US exports. This is critical as we come to a turning point in manufacturing.
If you’re going to negotiate, you don’t play all your cards at once.
I don’t think the end state of the negotiations is protectionist tariffs for the US, it’s to get China to drop their protectionist tariffs. If we reach that end goal, how is that a bad thing?
The US is throwing its weight around for the first time since Reagan. Last time it worked out pretty well.
Things have changed a lot since then with the rise of China and the EU.
With the new big players in the world it’s time the US put on its big boy pants and renegotiated its place.
Our blue collar jobs have stagnated since we’ve been off-shoring manufacturing to China.
The poor in the US were getting poorer. Not everyone has the ability to transition into a thinking job and we need a balanced economy for these people.
We need to have balanced trade agreements. Not balanced in the sense of trade amount, but balanced in the sense of tariffs and subsidies.
Access to US consumers is a big bargaining chip. If China won’t deal, there are other countries that will.
I think we all understood we had an unhealthy relationship with China.
https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/aijobscharts-1_0.p...
Then come back in 5-10 years and have a good laugh. These claims are made with ZERO evidence to back it. If you believed in the future success and hyperbole of every automation venture today, I still doubt you could get to 20%.
A cautionary tail could do a lot of good here.
Why not let something good come out of the discussion that could prevent others from ending up in this situation?
A postmortem of sorts.
I could have ended up like this guy, but I found personal finance religion when I was 28. After making six figures for six years all I had was monthly payments equal to my paycheck and not much to show for it.
It’s pathetic how many people here leap to pity. The OP wasn’t asking for it.
The OP wasn’t asking for charity either.
>What do you want him to do?
Probably what I’d do. Go get ANY job. Landscaper, McDonald’s, whatever pays the bills.
- Rent an apartment
- Don’t have a few laptops laying around
- Don’t have any savings while having no kids
Each item above, on its own, is normal but all together doesn’t make sense.
For the last 15 years you should have been making 60-200k and you obviously didn’t sink it into a house, computer hardware, or savings. Where did it all go?
That’s why this doesn’t add up, to me at least.
I’m not saying you’re lying, but that I can’t figure out how you got to this point.
95% of hydrogen is produced by splitting hydrocarbons, not by splitting water. Clearly, the assumption is the hydrogen comes from some miracle carbon-neutral source...but it doesn’t.