the thing I don't understand about conservatives (liberals) is..

EdgeHead

Registered Member
#11
I'm no fan of economic protectionism either. Do you think that's where the opposition is? I would be surprised if that's true but like I said I really don't understand the objection.
I think it's normal and understandable to show some protectionism to a certain level. I think it certainly was attractive to some industry workers like those in the coal industry with everything that Trump promised them during the 2016 campaign. However, some of those protectionist measures have been bit overzealous. For instance, that 292% tax the Department of Commerce imposed on Bombardier in Canada to sell their planes. Luckily for us, today, a judge put the kibbosh on that so that means Bombardier can go forward as a few airlines like Delta Airlines will probably place massive orders for the C-Series in the relative future. There's also the news of an agreement between Hydro-Québec here and the State of Massachussets to export some electricity to for about a million households in Massachussets. The line is supposed to stretch underground on 350 km through the state of New Hampshire but of course, while the state of Massachussets have assured Hydro-Québec that there shouldn't be any problem with the state of New Hampshire, what's not to say that the Trump admin will decide that it would be better to get that electricity from another nearby state instead.

Those are measures like that that I find really overbearing from the Trump administration. Sure, Canada signed a deal with 10 other countries this week including China to cover their asses in case the NAFTA trade talks fall through but there's gotta be a point where the Trump administration cannot expect ALL the other countries to do the compromising. It has to be a win-win for everyone involved and right now, my perception is that Trump wants a win for one country and one country only: the United States.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#12
I think it's normal and understandable to show some protectionism to a certain level. I think it certainly was attractive to some industry workers like those in the coal industry with everything that Trump promised them during the 2016 campaign. However, some of those protectionist measures have been bit overzealous. For instance, that 292% tax the Department of Commerce imposed on Bombardier in Canada to sell their planes. Luckily for us, today, a judge put the kibbosh on that so that means Bombardier can go forward as a few airlines like Delta Airlines will probably place massive orders for the C-Series in the relative future. There's also the news of an agreement between Hydro-Québec here and the State of Massachussets to export some electricity to for about a million households in Massachussets. The line is supposed to stretch underground on 350 km through the state of New Hampshire but of course, while the state of Massachussets have assured Hydro-Québec that there shouldn't be any problem with the state of New Hampshire, what's not to say that the Trump admin will decide that it would be better to get that electricity from another nearby state instead.

Those are measures like that that I find really overbearing from the Trump administration. Sure, Canada signed a deal with 10 other countries this week including China to cover their asses in case the NAFTA trade talks fall through but there's gotta be a point where the Trump administration cannot expect ALL the other countries to do the compromising. It has to be a win-win for everyone involved and right now, my perception is that Trump wants a win for one country and one country only: the United States.
I haven't heard of those. I know Trump did some solar panel tariffs. I wish we would all free trade. If China or some other country wants to devalue their currency so that we buy it cheaper, let them! If they want to sell me a tv for less than the production cost, I'll buy it all day long. When they devalue their currency, it makes things cheaper for us.
 

EdgeHead

Registered Member
#13
Yeah, I know that those measures were only briefly mentioned in news cycles in the United States. But given all the difficulties that Bombardier has faced in the past couple of years, it was a rather big deal for us here, especially with the massive amount of money the federal government had funded to help Bombardier maintain that production & sell the C-Series. Been very controversial and both PM Trudeau & Quebec PM Couillard were called out on it.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#14
There is never a health risk to the mother that necessitates an abortion. That’s a lie. The birth can be induced and the baby is viable after an amount of time, killing the baby is never needed to save the mother, that’s a lie perpetuates by the abortion rights advocates.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#15
There is never a health risk to the mother that necessitates an abortion. That’s a lie. The birth can be induced and the baby is viable after an amount of time, killing the baby is never needed to save the mother, that’s a lie perpetuates by the abortion rights advocates.
This is so true. The only exception I can think of is when the mother has cancer so an abortion is needed to give kemo. Such a ridiculous argument though. There is not a single person that wants to ban abortions in this one in a million case.
 

Impaired

Registered Member
#16
The thing I don't understand is why people draw these stupid lines and then cling to them beyond all reason. Almost everyone I have ever met is partly conservative, partly liberal and partly neither, depending on the issue. We spend so much time creating teams and then pretending they are to be supported regardless.

Either the Democrats or Republicans could put forth Satan as a candidate and 30% of their base would vote for him.

That is stupidity.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#17
The thing I don't understand is why people draw these stupid lines and then cling to them beyond all reason. Almost everyone I have ever met is partly conservative, partly liberal and partly neither, depending on the issue. We spend so much time creating teams and then pretending they are to be supported regardless.

Either the Democrats or Republicans could put forth Satan as a candidate and 30% of their base would vote for him.

That is stupidity.
I think partially it's a cult of personality. I've seen allot of people support Trump and everything he proposed even though they were against those things years ago or sometimes days ago. Similarly I saw allot of people that wanted to have Obama's baby even though that administration was clearly the most corrupt administration in modern history.
That's a tough thing to break through.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#18
Absolutely it’s a cult of personality. There are many people who support everything Trump says or does, even if some of those things are not considered conservative. Same with Obama, there were many people who would defend every single thing he did or said. It’s pathetic.
 

Impaired

Registered Member
#19
I think it is far more than cult of personality. Everything is black and white, there must be a good side and if you are not on that side, you are bad, or more likely, evil.

Look at the post about Obama being the most corrupt. Trump has literally put his family members in positions of powers, sent his daughter to state meetings in his place, enriched himself at tax payer expense. Even so, I am hard pressed to find a president more corrupt than Nixon or say, Harding.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
#20
Well by modern history I was referring to the last 50 years. As far as corruption allot of people died because the administration flooded Mexico with hundreds of guns. Much of the stimulus went to Obama donors. The IRS was used against citizens that opposed Obama. I could go on with a list that far outweighs anything we've seen in a hundred years.
But the cultist refuse to even aknowlege those things happened. There's a lot of questions surrounding Trump too and I don't know where it will fall. But it will take dump trucks of corruption to match the previous.
 
Top