Interesting article on TPP. Rand said to Trump during the debate that China is not in the TPP, which is true. However, the TPP does benefit China despite being outside the trade deal.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tpp-benefitting-china/'>https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tpp-benefitting-china/</a>


Also, China has already been invited to join the TPP since it is a fluid partnership.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/21891-secretary-john-kerry-invites-russia-and-china-into-tpp'>http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/21891-secretary-john-kerry-invites-russia-and-china-into-tpp</a>


Kind of strange that Rand would attack Trump on the TPP considering he himself is against it as well.

The why matters, Rand opposed the TPP because he has built his career on opposing Federalization and globalization, trump opposes it to get elected. Rand was attempting to expose the fraud that is Trump.

---

I think thar he has made it clear that he believes in amerivan sovereignty and his campaign is built on his competence to rebalance our 750 billion dollar annual trade deficit.


Donald Trump doesn't have to run for president to make a lot of money or exert influence. I fundamentally believe that hes taking on this challenge because he thinks he would do a great job.


Most of the trade policy that he has espoused at current is almost protectionist in nature. Hes tslked specifically about rebalancing corporate invetsions which will offset american high wages and standard of living with a much lower corporate tax and regulatory environment. Thats going to make american workers (already the most productive in the world) the most attractive labor market in an economy fueled with hundreds of billions of repatriated dollars.


Trumps candidacy is about eliminating some of the root causes of outsourcing. If he just wanted a carve out for himself it would have been a lot easier to just give Hillary a pile of money.

---

Donald Trump doesn't have to run for president to make a lot of money or exert influence. I fundamentally believe that hes taking on this challenge because he thinks he would do a great job.

---

The why matters, Rand opposed the TPP because he has built his career on opposing Federalization and globalization, trump opposes it to get elected. Rand was attempting to expose the fraud that is Trump.

How anyone without corporate interest can support the trade deal is beyond me. Those that scream about the UN, I.E every single conservative voter and political should he screaming about this as its a real and tangible violation of sovereignty.


This is a legitimate chance for outrage yes it seems to be mostly crickets.

---

How anyone without corporate interest can support the trade deal is beyond me. Those that scream about the UN, I.E every single conservative voter and political should he screaming about this as its a real and tangible violation of sovereignty.


This is a legitimate chance for outrage yes it seems to be mostly crickets.

That's how you know it's a real threat when both sides are silent outside the radicals on the outlier.


For different reasons the far left and far right can agree the TPP is a huge threat. But ask the average person what's the TPP bet most would call it a toilet paper brand.

---

I think thar he has made it clear that he believes in amerivan sovereignty and his campaign is built on his competence to rebalance our 750 billion dollar annual trade deficit.


Donald Trump doesn't have to run for president to make a lot of money or exert influence. I fundamentally believe that hes taking on this challenge because he thinks he would do a great job.


Most of the trade policy that he has espoused at current is almost protectionist in nature. Hes tslked specifically about rebalancing corporate invetsions which will offset american high wages and standard of living with a much lower corporate tax and regulatory environment. Thats going to make american workers (already the most productive in the world) the most attractive labor market in an economy fueled with hundreds of billions of repatriated dollars.


Trumps candidacy is about eliminating some of the root causes of outsourcing. If he just wanted a carve out for himself it would have been a lot easier to just give Hillary a pile of money.

You realize with the power now used in the form of executive orders Trump could just no bid contract his company trillions, you're in denial if you don't think he's looking to come out more powerful and even wealthier through the White House. Hell when was the last time trump did anything that wasn't to his direct benefit? He brags about using bankruptcy laws to skirt bad investments, brags about buying off politicians, but he comes out signing conservative lines and the low information right (gasp there's low information voters on both sides) take his bait hook line and sinker.

---

Trump has also talked about the fact that he would no longer be involved in the day to day administration of his business.  Ethically it would have to be managed by his kids without his direct knowledge or involvement.  The idea that he would be allowed by both the congress and the judiciary to just no bid his own company with trillions of dollars is a little preposterous. 

 

As the man said, there are a lot of large companies that use the laws of bankruptcy to protect their shareholders and employees.  That's not some unique anchor around his neck.  The problem that i have is with companies that pay off politicians to go around the bankruptcy process for more beneficial government bailouts for financial institutions that should no longer exist given their behavior and failure of performance.  That would be the track record of his opponent should he make it to the general.  

 

Trump is center right, but he's not a traditional conservative.  Anyone listening to him over the last few months would know that.  He's pretty much a non interventionist militarily, he was against the war in Iraq, he's talked openly about trying to charm Putin etc.  that's not the traditional conservative line on foreign policy.  He's talked about strengthening social security as is and not moving towards privatization or major reform.  In the past he has expressed even more liberal policies on things like abortion etc.  

 

None of that matters.  Why is he running?  He's running based almost exclusively on the concept of his unique ability to impact AMERICAN TRADE POLICY.  Even his stance on immigration is based on curtailing the free flow of an excess supply of unskilled labor to stop the precipitous drop in wages and jobs at the bottom end of the economic spectrum.  In my estimation, he has those qualities and the competency to re-balance trade.  He's the only candidate to actually mention corporate inversions, and the catalyst that sends countries screaming to other labor markets.  

 

When you really listen to Trump, the things that he says he would do he can do.  

 

There are a lot of high powered wealthy boogeymen out there who want to have their piece of the annual 4 trillion dollar pie.  Most of them just write a check.  They don't actually step up and take a spot on the ballot.  I respect him for doing that!

---

Trump has also talked about the fact that he would no longer be involved in the day to day administration of his business.  Ethically it would have to be managed by his kids without his direct knowledge or involvement.

Kind of like how the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets are managed by Ann Walton Kroenke without any direct knowledge or involvement from Stan, right?

---

Trump has also talked about the fact that he would no longer be involved in the day to day administration of his business.  Ethically it would have to be managed by his kids without his direct knowledge or involvement.  The idea that he would be allowed by both the congress and the judiciary to just no bid his own company with trillions of dollars is a little preposterous. 

 

As the man said, there are a lot of large companies that use the laws of bankruptcy to protect their shareholders and employees.  That's not some unique anchor around his neck.  The problem that i have is with companies that pay off politicians to go around the bankruptcy process for more beneficial government bailouts for financial institutions that should no longer exist given their behavior and failure of performance.  That would be the track record of his opponent should he make it to the general.  

 

Trump is center right, but he's not a traditional conservative.  Anyone listening to him over the last few months would know that.  He's pretty much a non interventionist militarily, he was against the war in Iraq, he's talked openly about trying to charm Putin etc.  that's not the traditional conservative line on foreign policy.  He's talked about strengthening social security as is and not moving towards privatization or major reform.  In the past he has expressed even more liberal policies on things like abortion etc.  

 

None of that matters.  Why is he running?  He's running based almost exclusively on the concept of his unique ability to impact AMERICAN TRADE POLICY.  Even his stance on immigration is based on curtailing the free flow of an excess supply of unskilled labor to stop the precipitous drop in wages and jobs at the bottom end of the economic spectrum.  In my estimation, he has those qualities and the competency to re-balance trade.  He's the only candidate to actually mention corporate inversions, and the catalyst that sends countries screaming to other labor markets.  

 

When you really listen to Trump, the things that he says he would do he can do.  

 

There are a lot of high powered wealthy boogeymen out there who want to have their piece of the annual 4 trillion dollar pie.  Most of them just write a check.  They don't actually step up and take a spot on the ballot.  I respect him for doing that!

 

Haliburton and their no bid contracts should be enough to debunk any belief that any politician is above using the monopoly of force to get rich while in power. I mean come on let's just stay out of fantasyland and be honest with ourselves. 

 

We must be listening to different trumps, in his campaign he's openly talked about going to war in the middle east, bombing oil fields, hell just on Fox news the other night he was passively talking about engaging the Russians head on as if it was just something to say off the cuff. Trump isn't a non-interventionist, he talks about going and confiscating oil fields lol. Trump is laughably uninformed in regards to foreign policy, his typical response when pressed is I would make them do it. Well how Mr. Trump, I would just make them! I will be Great! 

 

Again you pointed out to another problem I have with him, he ignores the reality that social security is a ponzi scheme that only works when you have more workers than retirees a notion that will be completely on its head in a few years. 

 

Yes I have a problem when a man who openly brags about his Billions uses the laws (which are a bigger problem in the first place) as a buffer for crap investments, instead of paying his debts he dumps it on the public in the form of bankruptcy laws. I don't care that everyone else does it, it pisses me off that they get away with it as well, and I wouldn't support any of them either.

 

Screw trump he's the only Republican that'll have me voting democrat in hopes of just going all in on a full collapse. Trump wins the nomination bring on the apocalypse I've given up.  

---

Haliburton and their no bid contracts should be enough to debunk any belief that any politician is above using the monopoly of force to get rich while in power. I mean come on let's just stay out of fantasyland and be honest with ourselves.


We must be listening to different trumps, in his campaign he's openly talked about going to war in the middle east, bombing oil fields, hell just on Fox news the other night he was passively talking about engaging the Russians head on as if it was just something to say off the cuff. Trump isn't a non-interventionist, he talks about going and confiscating oil fields lol. Trump is laughably uninformed in regards to foreign policy, his typical response when pressed is I would make them do it. Well how Mr. Trump, I would just make them! I will be Great!


Again you pointed out to another problem I have with him, he ignores the reality that social security is a ponzi scheme that only works when you have more workers than retirees a notion that will be completely on its head in a few years.


Yes I have a problem when a man who openly brags about his Billions uses the laws (which are a bigger problem in the first place) as a buffer for crap investments, instead of paying his debts he dumps it on the public in the form of bankruptcy laws. I don't care that everyone else does it, it [BAD WORD REMOVED] me off that they get away with it as well, and I wouldn't support any of them either.


Screw trump he's the only Republican that'll have me voting democrat in hopes of just going all in on a full collapse. Trump wins the nomination bring on the apocalypse I've given up.

Well that's easy Eric. Who are good country and we don't like bad countries and we support good countries and take on bad countries. We'll do it well and great and fantastic and magnificent and terrific.

---

Haliburton and their no bid contracts should be enough to debunk any belief that any politician is above using the monopoly of force to get rich while in power. I mean come on let's just stay out of fantasyland and be honest with ourselves. 

 

Well in the interest of living in realville it should be pointed out that the only president to significantly intervene on behalf of haliburton was Bill Clinton.  I am not exactly sure how well that fits into your narrative.   


 

We must be listening to different trumps, in his campaign he's openly talked about going to war in the middle east, bombing oil fields, hell just on Fox news the other night he was passively talking about engaging the Russians head on as if it was just something to say off the cuff. Trump isn't a non-interventionist, he talks about going and confiscating oil fields lol. Trump is laughably uninformed in regards to foreign policy, his typical response when pressed is I would make them do it. Well how Mr. Trump, I would just make them! I will be Great! 

 

There's a few acres of space between being a full on nation builder and being an isolationist.  Whether we like it or not there are forces amassing in the middle east with the sole purpose of spreading a political caliphate and taking over the world.  there is going to have to be some form of a response to this threat.  He has talked about bombing the oil feeds to choke off ISIS means of finance and allowing our allies in the region plus russia to bomb the heck out of them.  The idea that we are going to just sit back and wait for ISIS to attack us is a little suicidal.  


 

Outside of that his main guiding principle has been stability.  He wasn't for the removal of Hussein because of how it would destabilize the region, you could argue that he has a point.  He has been against the forced removal of Assad for the same reason. He's not talking about willy nilly nation building.  He's spoken specifically about strengthening our military to respond to specific threats.   


 

Again you pointed out to another problem I have with him, he ignores the reality that social security is a ponzi scheme that only works when you have more workers than retirees a notion that will be completely on its head in a few years. 

 

So if he talks too conservative hes just playing to the base, if he espoused a moderate position then he's just an idiot?  lol.  True, Social security was a ponzi scheme.  That being said the last time a president tried to do anything about it his own party abandoned him.  Obviously i am in favor of abolishing the system (1.) not for those who are coming up on retirement in the next 15-20 years) because in reality we don't need the government to mismanage our money for us.  


 

That being said, i would much rather have someone who is going to be focused on increasing revenues through diversification (repatriated capital) and simplification of the tax code to spur growth than someone who is just going to advocate a hike in payroll/self employment taxes.  


 

Also, I am sure that he recognizes the nature of the system, just as he recognizes the political reality.  


 

Yes I have a problem when a man who openly brags about his Billions uses the laws (which are a bigger problem in the first place) as a buffer for crap investments, instead of paying his debts he dumps it on the public in the form of bankruptcy laws. I don't care that everyone else does it, it [BAD WORD REMOVED] me off that they get away with it as well, and I wouldn't support any of them either.

 

Well if the choice comes down to Him and Hillary you are looking at the woman who's husband gave birth to the incestuous relationships (Mega Banks and insurance companies) that caused the financial meltdown.  She's underwritten by these same bad actors, and those guys are 20 times worse than Trump ever thought of being.  


 

Screw trump he's the only Republican that'll have me voting democrat in hopes of just going all in on a full collapse. Trump wins the nomination bring on the apocalypse I've given up.  

 

That's a tad bit dramatic right?

 

So the fact that he made a lot of money in the private sector bothers you.  Okay, let's think about that.  Hillary Clinton has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign countries during her time as Secratary of state.  Among things that could be considered quid pro quo she approved the sale of unranium mines in this country to Russia and those materials are bing shipped outside the country to who knows where.  So you're comfortable with an avowed leftist who is openly selling influence to the highest foreign bidder WHILE IN OFFICE but a guy with a big business is a problem?  Are you jealous of the hair?

---

Jj I just prefer a fast death over the slow bleed, Hillary or Trump as president is the same result.

---

We can agree to disagree

---

I just don't see the American people electing anyone who has never served as an elected representative of the people in ANY capacity. I just don't see it happening.

 

Regards................the Chiefjag

---

I just don't see the American people electing anyone who has never served as an elected representative of the people in ANY capacity. I just don't see it happening.

 

Regards................the Chiefjag

 

Because we're doing so well with the ones who have?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato