The end of the Conservative movement?

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Then let's acknowledge that fact. There is no such thing as free trade and level the playing field.

In such an environment, the U.S. will bounce back and assume it's share of the market-place....

a reply to: nwtrucker

It IS interesting how we keep lying to ourselves about the idea of accomplishing "free trade", but also just because the idea of free trade in a legal society is unobtainable, doesn't mean we can't strive to get as free of trade as possible. Think of it like perfection. Perfection is unobtainable, but humans everyday strive to be as close perfection as possible in their activities. When you look at it like that, government's version of free trade makes sense.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire


Very well said, sir.

I suffer from painting with a broad stroke for overview's sake. It's never that cut and dried, in either camp.

That is worth suffering if the 'overview' mellows those extremes and opens the door to a more balanced approach.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


"Here, here"...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

It IS interesting how we keep lying to ourselves about the idea of accomplishing "free trade", but also just because the idea of free trade in a legal society is unobtainable, doesn't mean we can't strive to get as free of trade as possible. Think of it like perfection. Perfection is unobtainable, but humans everyday strive to be as close perfection as possible in their activities. When you look at it like that, government's version of free trade makes sense.

Ouch!! Thanks, but no thanks. "gov'ts version" is what we have now and it makes no sense to those of us suffering from it.

The documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad is worth a watch.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well it's either government's version or the black market. There really isn't an in between since there is no thing between free and not free. It is a binary observation. Either it is free or it isn't.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Then let's acknowledge that fact. There is no such thing as free trade and level the playing field.

In such an environment, the U.S. will bounce back and assume it's share of the market-place....

What do you see as leveling the playing field?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well it's either government's version or the black market. There really isn't an in between since there is no thing between free and not free. It is a binary observation. Either it is free or it isn't.

Even 'black market' isn't free. Try setting up shop where that black market is already in play....

Therefore, if there is no such animal, then, balance it. Enter our measures that balance it out more. Bail from the WTO...whatever it takes.

Remember the original premise was 'free trade' was a fundamental to the conservative movement. Which is obviously a fraud.

Both political sides of the citizenry agree on that one.

a reply to: daskakik


Deliberate devaluation of the Yuan would be an example that required response economically. Perhaps-and I'm no expert- a departure fee/tax on Corporations planning to move to Mexico
or China with a follow-up duty for those manufactured goods returning to the U.S. would slow or even stop further drain of quality jobs.

Perhaps specific duties on items imported rather than on nations, themselves?

Nothing would be off the table, option-wise, to get to an acceptable level economically where we have a legitimate opportunity to compete...up to and including trade war, if that's what it would take.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: daskakik


Deliberate devaluation of the Yuan would be an example that required response economically. Perhaps-and I'm no expert- a departure fee/tax on Corporations planning to move to Mexico
or China with a follow-up duty for those manufactured goods returning to the U.S. would slow or even stop further drain of quality jobs.

Perhaps specific duties on items imported rather than on nations, themselves?

Nothing would be off the table, option-wise, to get to an acceptable level economically where we have a legitimate opportunity to compete...up to and including trade war, if that's what it would take.

I think you realize you have ventured into the world of economic fantasy. If not...give us some specific solutions.
Something realistic and attainable otherwise...keep dreaming. I'm sure you realize that the big dog speculators are Republicans, profiting handsomely from the system just the way it is.

Thanks for starting this thread and addressing some serious problems. I'll bet your right wing, circle jerk crew thinks you are a traitor to the cause and consorting with the enemy.

a reply to: olaru12


As far as solutions go, I'm shooting in the dark. As I said, I'm no expert. The bar has been set much higher when it comes to 'memos' and executive orders by the current administration.

My premise includes a large voting segment OUTSIDE the party lines
.... Politicians are very pragmatic when it comes to their personal survival, politically. I can see them bailing out of the donators corner and back-pedaling with "I can't support you if I'm not re-elected"...

Also, I can't let pass your statement that the money guys are republicans only. I wasn't aware that Soros, Gates, Buffet.... on and on had switched party affiliation.....


Perhaps the whole thread's premise is a fantasy. Either way it would take a massive popular support to effect those 'fantasies' I mentioned. Not to mention a President so inclined.....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: introvert


Conservatives also believe in 'Free Trade' and where has that gotten us? It has proven, in application, to be as destructive as Communism or Federal level socialism.


Fine in theory yet destructive in result.

Nope they just tricked people into thinking we support FREE TRADE. The founding fathers were protectionists that believed in protecting the common workers. The founding fathers also made forming corporations illegal unless it could be proven to perform a function that is for the public good and their charter was only temporary. Conservatives believe in taking a LITERAL view of the constitution so all these so called conservatives today are not conservatives. BTW no where in the constitution does it talk about gay marriage which as I am concerned should be legal as long as the government didn't infringe on anyone's rights to not participate in the madness.

a reply to: jkm1864


No arguments from me on the protectionist solution. Reality says things aren't quite the same with our technology and tools we enjoy these days.

There is, in fact, no real replacement for the mechanism of 'Corporations'. An evil that must be borne in some form. Even temporary license
is unworkable due to the sheer expense of start-up for most. No, tweaking the system with more restraint seems the more pragmatic-conservative- approach to that problem.

As far as gay marriage goes, I rebut with the 'slippery slope' mechanism. We've gone from "the Gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" to 'transgender rights' in a nanosecond, historically speaking.

Lines MUST be drawn. Let those that desire it have it. Let those that are revolted by it have it, as well. At the state level....

The tenth...

As far as the Constitution goes. The 'foundation' for the Constitution was the Judeo-Christian moral code. That is gone and likely isn't returning. At least federally.

Back to the Tenth Amendment, from what I can see. Or perhaps dare I say that literal interpretation of the Constitution is also gone and never to return, again federally.....


An honest assessment.

a reply to: nwtrucker

As far as gay marriage goes, I rebut with the 'slippery slope' mechanism. We've gone from "the Gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" to 'transgender rights'

"Gay marriage" in terms of the civil union with tax benefits is obvious. It should never have been sex restricted to begin with. Gay marriage as in specifically the religious practice of marriage is more murky, and I honestly think that if you're homosexual and want a Christian marriage, and your local pastor won't marry you because you're homosexual, flip him the bird and either: Find someone who will, or, stop wanting a Christian/Islamic/Whatever marriage because why do you want to be part of a religion that hates you.
Though I'm personally of the opinion that A: Organized religion is stupid, and B: The "bad" parts of religion come from people using it to justify their already held beliefs. The Christian White Supremacist Asshole isn't a white supremacist asshole because he's Christian, he's a white supremacist asshole using religion as an excuse for his awfulness. (And possibly a comfort device. "Yeah, I know I'm an absolute c*nt, but it's okay because Jesus will forgive me if I pay him lip service.)

Transgender issues is like Racism. Some people overblow it (like some people overblow just about anything) but transgenderism isn't a choice, just like race and sexuality.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well it's either government's version or the black market. There really isn't an in between since there is no thing between free and not free. It is a binary observation. Either it is free or it isn't.

Even 'black market' isn't free. Try setting up shop where that black market is already in play....

Well now we are getting into odd definitions of free. Is violent competition considered a cost of business? Usually when people talk about "free" in terms of free trade it applies to government controlling it. But I guess you bring up a good point. If one were to look at the cartels in Latin America for instance. One could easily see them setting up drug monopolies in their areas, but then again at the same time they are all in direct competition with each other for market share still.

Therefore, if there is no such animal, then, balance it. Enter our measures that balance it out more. Bail from the WTO...whatever it takes.

Remember the original premise was 'free trade' was a fundamental to the conservative movement. Which is obviously a fraud.

Both political sides of the citizenry agree on that one.

It may behoove Americans to stop calling what we are seeking "free trade" then. Maybe the idea of seeking the impossibility is distorting the reality of what we are trying to accomplish. More over, what does "balance" mean in this context? What is considered fair competition versus unfair competition? This is a rhetorical question. The reason I ask is because everyone has a different answer for that question.

Thus maybe we should work on more properly defining what "balanced" trade means.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


The OP is largely broad-stroked. I used 'level the playing field'. That could be described as no further quality job losses that out weigh the number of job high paying job gains. Likewise businesses going under measured by businesses starting up.

Please note I'm not suggesting some complete return of 50% of the world's manufacturing, merely a steady, healthy growth.

I, and I assume many others, wish for the economic survival of the U.S.. The semantics of 'balance' or 'free' sit low on the list of priorities, at this stage.

Jobs, quality jobs, are 'job one' in my estimation-immigration is only s sub-section of the free trade crowd under the heading of the" 'free' movement of labor"- that issue has broad support and might be best approached from a centrist/independent
voting base.

Put sufficient pressure on the machine and it will respond. Politicians are nothing if not adept at personal survival.

The overall health of the U.S. and it's political system is best served by returning to a centrist mentality that served us so well in days past.

Perhaps it is a fantasy as one poster suggested. It IS a route, a path to a possible solution. At least it's been said....

a reply to: nwtrucker

What about instead of trying to recapture lost manufacturing, we try to pioneer new manufacturing industries? The marijuana industry is but one such example.

I mean it seems to me if we bring back lost manufacturing it will come with the cost of reduced wages for the workers, reduced quality of the product, or drastically increased price for the product. In any case, the market share wouldn't be as extensive within the country and jobs would ultimately be lost anyways. Meanwhile, with new manufacturing processes, the only direction to go is up. You can only expand market share.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

What about instead of trying to recapture lost manufacturing, we try to pioneer new manufacturing industries? The marijuana industry is but one such example.

I mean it seems to me if we bring back lost manufacturing it will come with the cost of reduced wages for the workers, reduced quality of the product, or drastically increased price for the product. In any case, the market share wouldn't be as extensive within the country and jobs would ultimately be lost anyways. Meanwhile, with new manufacturing processes, the only direction to go is up. You can only expand market share.

That market has already been undercut by imports....

The current "capitalistic" ideal of "if you don't work you don't eat or have a place to live" isn't sustainable. The number of jobs is only going to go down, and our population is still increasing.

Jobs are going down. Less jobs, duh.
People are living longer. They keep working longer (if they don't get outsourced or replaced by technology.)
Population is going up. More competition, lower wages or lower commissions.

The millennials right now are pretty fkecud, but I'm dreading the future of the children born fifty years from now if something isn't done.
Assuming that there is a future and the world's nations pull their collective heads out of their asses and stop destroying out planet, of course.