Andrew Yang is the Ron Paul of 2020


#41

Nobody is “attacking immigration,” AS. We’re attacking an ILLEGAL invasion of our borders by people who are costing us taxpayers BILLIONS every year while sending BILLIONS back to their home countries in these so-called “renditions.” No amount of obfuscating the obvious differences on your part is going to work. “Every human on the planet” does NOT have some sort of “right” to come to the U.S. and suck on the taxpayer’s teats…but YOU seen to think they do.


#42

You do; you’ve stated several times that we should limit legal immigration.

I’m saying that creates the illegal problem. To solve it, you need a more energetic guest worker program.


#43

I’ve said we should CONTROL legal immigration…not “limit” it, though limiting it isn’t such a bad idea. We have enough people here already without inviting in Islamics willy-nilly.


#44

Neither he nor I support subsidizing any segment of the labor market. I absolutely oppose it.

I have no idea, but I spend a lot of time arguing with protectionist Republicans who don’t seem in the least bit fazed by trillion-dollar deficits. How did that happen?

I, of course, am already a free-market capitalist. Your insinuation otherwise is laughable.

Here’s a modern Republican though:

“The free market has been sorting it out, and America’s been losing.”


#45

Arguing for protectionism of corporations and illegal aliens is not “arguing against protectionism”, you are arguing for your preferred groups to remain protected.

And the deficit point is what’s laughable, the idea that we can cut the deficit while preserving all of your chosen protected groups is like listening to Enviro-Nazis claim that we can meet our energy demands by “conservation”; no manner of math can support either “argument”.

Deficits can only be dealt with by growing the economy, forcing all of the middle class to become welfare rats so they can work under the table for what your illegals work for is not a plan that any person who is serious about correcting the deficit problem would embrace.

You hate Trump so you cannot see or understand anything that he is doing for what it is, fortunately for everyone in the productive sectors it does not require understanding for the right ideas and execution to work; if you ever get AS’s dream government you will be ruled with an iron fist by Kalifornia Leftists in perpetuity and everything will collapse at a record pace regardless of how loudly you cheer their crony-capitalism and expansion of the dependent class.


#46

I don’t argue for protecting corporations or illegal aliens. Never have. Never will. I do not have “preferred groups” that I wish to protect. Your statement is laughably false. It’s ridiculous and likely become pointless to converse with you.

You’re making up arguments and political opinions for me. Thanks.

I don’t support illegals working under the table.

What you are seeing with illegals, as AS has told you repeatedly, is a result of bad economic planning. Unlike you and AS, I don’t obsess over this issue. I have repeatedly told you I would happily trade budget cuts and elimination of the deficit for your entire wall if we were in charge (which we’re not).

You love Trump so much you have begun to view him as God-Emperor-King, apparently, 'the symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome for supporters. Your vision of reality is warped.

I do not hate Trump. I have defended Trump’s actions. But that doesn’t mean I agree with all he does. It doesn’t make him exempt from criticism.And it doesn’t mean he knows what he’s doing or why.

As far as understanding what he is doing and why, do you get a decoder pin when you contract Trump Derangement Syndrome?

RET, this is the most idiotic post I’ve seen you write. It’s like you’re searching for an enemy. It’s an utter pile of crap. I do not cheer on crony capitalism. It is literally your ticket that does this, tax breaks here, tax increases there. Mke Pence blamed capitalism for all the suck before this ticket was elected. He knew then that he is not a free market capitalist. He didn’t apologize for it. He just offered money to a business. That’s crony capitalism or crony socialism. Same as my state full of Democrats giving Intel a $2 billion tax break just in case Intel ever thought about fleeing the state or the country. I despise crony capitalism, but just like 2008 got blamed on free market philosophy, so to will it be called crony capitalism in 2019. Black is white, up is down, and everything is double-plus good in 2019.

I have never advocated expanding the dependent class.

I don’t expect this to sink in with you. It’s OK, I know you can’t fix the Internet. You can go on and keep repeating whatever crap you like, but I’ve finished taking you seriously in any way. Have fun.


#47

The reality is that there is no support for abolishing all Welfare for non citizens and no court that would uphold that action if there was, that is what enables illegals to work for a fraction of what citizens require to survive; you want AS’s immigration policy TOMORROW knowing full well that the Welfare issue will be here to perpetuate the destruction of everyone who is not on the dole because they cannot compete.

Your declarations do not match what you advocate, claiming that you “support” things that have no chance of happening while also “supporting” things that are right on the brink of happening and cannot reap any harvest but destruction while the Protectionism is still in place is feigning support for a free market in labor.

Opposing the hard ball game with China because you have decided that any and all tarrifs are “protectionism” while knowing full well that free trade is both buying and SELLING on an equal basis is just supporting protectionism for China; the number 1 economy in the world is mostly locked out of the number 2 economy in the world while number 2 can trade in both markets.

Take away half of any competitors market and see how long they last, your academic examples of small economies that are interdependent on one another does NOT apply to 2 economies that are essentially self sufficient unilaterally and make up an enormous portion of the world market.

Your condemnation of Trumps actions and your willingness to apply a ludicrous definition of “protectionism” to justify it does not match your declaration that you are “opposed to protectionism”.

And the idea that how politicians choose to phrase their policies for consumption by a public that is completely ignorant of economics takes precedent in your mind over what they actually DO means that you are hoping to have an audience that is too ignorant to catch it.

That is the basis for my statements in response to your snarky post about how “by 2020 you will be arguing with Republicans who want a guaranteed minimum income benefit”, that is why I accurately assessed your opinions regardless of whether they match your declarations.

I spent hours debating these issues with you and you IGNORED every point that you could not respond to, choosing instead to keep returning to your coffee shop, bumper sticker declarations which clearly are opposed to what you want to see happen in the modern political arena.

And you are the one who decided to back AS while he misdirects and moves goalposts while citing ridiculous comparisons that are in no way comparable; that alone says mountains about what you “support” in the actual world.

That is the basis for my comments, any search of this site will reveal the absolutely solid foundation behind what I wrote here.


#48

Have a nice day :smiley:


#49
  1. Everyone is cheating, it’s just a matter of degrees. Countries who embrace free trade anyway still prosper.

  2. Protective Tariffs are not a “I win” for China. Look at Italy, look at the Latin American economies from the '70s-'90s.

It’s a losing strategy.

I’m just seeing excuses I think you know are excuses RET.

China isn’t self-sufficient; it has to import more than 50% of its fuels and minerals to meet its energy needs, and its iron ore (they’re the largest importer of these things in the world).

It also has to import nearly all of its tooling machinery and its microchips.

China’s Belt & Road initiative has been about securing these weaknesses; to ensure we can’t cut them off at sea.

Ergo: Economic “theory” still very much applies. China certainly seems to think so.


#50

I will indeed, and with Trumps help it is shaping up to be a long stretch of them! :wink:


#51

Since it seems no one watched the video in the OP, did anyone catch the interview with Ben Shapiro?

Trump does need to gut military spending. No point in exiting all of the wars and keep spending like we’re still in them.

P.S. Self-driving trucks are being deployed by Amazon right now


#52

Got news: Cold War II is on, both with China and Russia. And radical Islam (almost a redundant term) hasn’t disappeared. Gut socialist programs, not the military.


#53

If the United States is not the sole military superpower in the world, someone else will be and you might not like the results.


#54

We spend plenty on the military. It can easily withstand a cut or three along with the rest of the public budgets in the United States and still wangle any comers – and the president rightly keeps talking about bringing the troops home – to the chagrin of all the “adults in the room” on the left and the right. Well I’m with the child president on this. Doing what he wants there would save some money just like CW says.

“The free market has been sorting it out, and America’s been losing.”

So, anyone remember who said this line, which I mentioned earlier, you know about free markets, when RET was all but calling me a commie? RET, do you remember?


#55

I watched it two weeks before you posted it; I’m a regular follower of Joe Rogan.

Oh come on, you watch Peter Zeihan talk about this. No one has the Geopolitical circumstance we do.

Russia is poor and going for broke, China is surrounded by countries either wary of it, or outright hostile.

Without us, the world would be multi-polar. That might make things dangerous in some other ways; it wouldn’t mean countries could act unilaterally the way we do.


#56

My point was that we don’t need military cuts, if anything, more spending. We had best get our butts in gear and prepare for space warfare. Loss of satellite communications would be devastating. We may rule the waves for the foreseeable future but eventually find out it is a Maginot Line.


#57

Yes we do. We enable the military industrial complex in dangerous ways it shouldn’t be. The way SpaceX is kicking Boeing and ULA’s *** right now, with a fraction of the resources, shows how overindulged this monstrosity has been.

No new spending, until you cut the crap. That should be the same standard, everywhere in Gov’t.


#58

National security is the prime purpose of government. It should be the first to fund and last to cut. Yeah waste must go, but we also need to cut the Muslim outreach crap from NASA too.


#59

I’d be very careful about this. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think Trump has restored much of what Obama cut, and the latter (as is usual for Democrats for their last three presidencies) gutted it. Also, we’re facing a few new items of military hardware that didn’t used to exist.


#60

Not one of those trucks is operating without a driver, this is one of many testing programs which will fail for obvious reasons.