RLLD

If you have a specific question I can try to answer it. If you now want to talk about free trade I can do that as well. I think we should first find common ground with terminology. I submit that free trade is the flow of goods and services across borders without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions. So what are some benefits? I think the economic growth when we open markets can boost their economies through increased exports and access to cheaper imports. This and can stimulate competition and innovation. I can translate into lower prices, wider supply options and allows nations with some specific advantage to get entry into the global markets which naturally translates into improved worker situations around the world....and it can also enhance global relationships. Nothing is perfect of course, and we cannot ignore the imperfections of free trade as well. Globalization can be rather harmful to domestic industries, and create over-specialization in markets that later results in harmful outcomes to interruptions in supply chains. Not everyone shares our values of course, and some nations are only too happy to exploit people within their industries, which lowers wages and living experiences as well. Nations are more willing to make environmental and human sacrifices in less prosperous areas to compete with bigger economies. Is that where you are hoping to take this? Toward some kind of free trade discussion?

Government was intended to deliver basic services. It evolved into a wealth reallocation system. So you have productive people putting in the work and making money.....and then you also have others who do not put in the work, but feel as though they should have stuff anyway.....government that embraces socialism ruins progress and productivity.

I think you could have a more thoughtful reply. I see the dismissal without even considering the points to not be enough to dissuade anyone..... Many elements of NAFTA remain in place. The USMCA kept the foundation of free trade between the three countries, ensuring most goods can move across borders without tariffs. So you have many of the same things,, USMCA simply improved on them a little. Such as automobile manufacturing — increasing the percentage of car parts that must be made in North America to qualify for tariff-free status, adding stronger protections for workers and the environment and extending copyright protections and addressing digital trade, which NAFTA didn’t cover.

They do not have the money to bulk up militarily. The have used the threat capabilities of the United States to avoid military spending. Instead, they have bloated social programs......and THAT is where the money will have to come from. And those choads over there are nearly as entitled as people here.....so I wish them well.....

If I am wary of you, it is for good reason.

This thread is about tariffs

Your immediate response above warrants getting ahead of pretty much anything you might now post.

If you asserted that the sky was blue I would have to confirm with two more people.

IF.....it can likely be proven. I DO NOT.....want the novel or corrupt legal practices Democrats have conducted to be replicated here with AOC. We should not accept it if they try. We cannot allow ourselves to become as corrupt as Democrats.

This. I am hopeful that they can now handle things.....but wary of it as well.

Is this really a victory? I am not certain. Can Europe now handle their disagreements? I hope so, I would welcome that. History is not on their side.

Not sure i follow.....

I hope that my response to this thread is useful in highlighting that MDC will lie without restraint.

That is an odd response since it is not the first time. Perhaps you should reconsider your perspective.

I think Omar is absolutely a traitor..... but I think AOC is likely not. She is simply the product of an educational system that has imbued bad ideas and false narratives into her.

It might depend on your perspective, and perhaps even your economic theory......but in general.... it likely will depend on specific industries targeted and the broader economic strategy behind the tariffs. My thoughts..... 1. Protecting Domestic Industries: They always act as a buffer against cheaper imports, allowing them time to grow, invest in new technology, and create jobs without facing intense foreign competition. But they can also hide faults and not force domestics to improve....... 2. Strengthening Supply Chains: They usually result in reducing reliance on cross-border supply chains as more business relocates in the US, so we solve some of our supply chain problems that were illuminated by COVID. 3. Leveraging Trade Negotiations: Potential renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA> I do not look favorably on NAFTA and would welcome it being diminished. 4. Addressing Trade Imbalances: If there’s a significant trade deficit, tariffs may reduce the flow of imports, helping balance trade and improve the U.S.’s position in global markets.

It appears that Holman is trying to conduct this appropriately. Unlike the folks they have replaced, who were virulently corrupt. He is simply asking Bondi to weigh in and assess whether or not their actions cross the line into obstructing law enforcement.

Actually, it was proven she does not understand it.....nor the law....very well at all..... but I understand you wanting to think she actually in the right on this, which she is not.

I hope that the impacts are of course minimal (to us that is....) and the duration is short. But if this is what it takes to wrestle the US back into a better long term position, then lets get it done now I guess....

I hope the other poster is taking notes......this is how you talk to people. One of the things that distinguishes people such as myself (conservative) from others(say....(liberal) is the ability to admit when we are wrong. In this instance, I was incorrect. Its really that simple.

I agree completely. Which is why I think Bondi should think twice here. AOC is a moron in general, but she clearly understands how to use the camera, so I think it better to not allow her theatrics to be on display.

I think that argument is being used to some effect so far. If you do not want to admit here that all she and Omar are doing is trying to advise criminals how to evade ICE, then you can certainly try that. I wont buy it, but I get the usage of the tactic. The better question here for us is whether or not Bondi should really try to hold these two vile women accountable. I am not sure its a good move....

Of course you do, you have nothing meaningful to offer. Thanks for once again showing your asss.

So I sought to diffuse the premise of your question, which is false. I agree with the approach overall on the part of Trump. The notion of "cancellation" can certainly be your(liberal) move when you have issues with others, but please do not suggest I should have to submit to it. Instead, I think it more useful to have careful diplomacy. That being said, I have already noted that this movement toward having Europe handle more of its business does make me wonder if that will really work, given their history

What part of my response are you not able to understand?