TGHusker

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-nafta-partners-persuaded-him-to-keep-u-s-in-trade-pact-1493320127 So, Mr Trump says that he is both a nationalist and a globalist. Let's discuss Trump's trade policies in this thread. We have NAFTA, PPT, Euro Zone, etc that will develop over the next few months. His trade policies not only include trade agreements like NAFTA but also taxes and tariffs. This particular article speaks of Trump 'evolving' policy on NAFTA. His campaign pledge was to junk it and start all over. Per this article he was going to do just this during his Saturday 100 day speech - for dramatic affect it appears. However, when saner minds, the leaders of both Mexico and Canada told him of the short and mid range hardships this would cause many families and companies, Trump has appeared to back away from the cliff. All three leaders will talk about renegotiating the terms without cutting it apart in whole to start with. The benefit with globalism is that it ties all of our national communities together in trade and communication and understanding and culture. The problem with globalization is that it ties all of our national communities together in trade and communication and understanding and culture. Here is what I mean by this. The Britton Woods Conference in 1944 was a meeting of 44 allied nations that sought to repair the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of WW 2. While globalization & global trade has been with us since the earliest days of civilization, Britton Woods kicked off the modern era of cooperation between nations on these issues. The Coal and Steal Community (1951 Paris Treaty) in Europe was the forerunner of the European Union. That has lead to similar regional trade groups including NATO. With these types of global unions we become like a fabric, woven together like a nice sweater. Being woven together like this as an added benefit - it forces us to deal with our differences constructively instead of through war. I think it is one of the reasons the USA and China have not gone to war - they rely on our purchases and our citizen's and our economy relies on their cheap goods. However, with globalization comes restrictions also. We see some rebellion against those restrictions in the world today. Trump's election is one sign of this, so is the British vote to remove itself from the EU, the election in France has a nationalist running strong in its election. People want to retain some national identity and culture and feel secure behind their boarders. So they are pulling against the treads of globalization. Trump ran as a nationalist. The reality of governance is forcing his move to a globalist. His on the job training is showing him that he cannot be rash with his campaign promises - leaving NATO, tearing up the NAFTA agreement, naming China as a currency manipulator, and perhaps tearing up the Iran deal - not sure where he is on that as I thought he was going to tear it up day one (maybe that was Ted Cruz's promise only and not Trump's). Trump is perhaps seeing for the 1st time that if you pull one thread out of that nicely woven garment, the whole sweater becomes unusable. Just like health care, these are complicated 'deals' that go beyond any art he may have in deal making before. This is the problem of electing someone without govt experience. There is a lot to learn even for a self proclaimed deal maker.

Correct. I think Reagan's cuts and JFK cuts were appropriate because the tax rates were pretty regressive. However, GWB was ill timed not only because of the economics at the time but also because our taxes were not overly burdensome at the time. Yes, it would be nice to have no taxes and roads, and schools and medicare etc just magically appear but it doesn't work that way. If you like what the govt provides there is a real cost to us as individual tax playors (also true if you don't like some of what the govt does - however the govt is for all people and none of us get all that we want)

This. We can ALWAYS spend less in theory. This tax relief is purchased at a cost. And empirically I believe your "cut taxes, grow the economy" model is flawed and not supported at least recently. The economy grew dramatically under Reagan & it worked for JFK. I think the economic conditions in the 2000s are different and the tax cuts were ill advised. That is why I think it is wrong to say a certain policy is a placebo that will work at all times under all conditions. Tax cuts for tax cuts sake alone (ie fulfill a campaign pledge) will always fail. That is what Bush did and he did it at a time of fighting 2 wars, a dot.com recession and then a 911 recession. There is a balance between regressive taxes - too much taxes that steals from the nation's productivity and creativity and too little taxes which fail to support the services our society needs from the govt.

Yes living here in Tulsa this is constantly on the news. I'm blaming the repub legislature and repub governor - Mary Fallen who was on Trump's transition team. They spend money like it is water during the great fracking boom days and began to cut taxes. Money was rolling in. So what do they do - they start cutting taxes the year the bottom started to fall on the oil prices (may have been the year before). Our teachers are some of the lowest paid in the USA and many are leaving to better paying states like Texas. Yet our legislature's answer isn't to repeal the cuts but to cut school spending and shut down state parks, etc. You all know I believe in limited taxes but it has to be in relationship to the commitments made and the services that we want govt to provide. I see both parties getting drunk on power and spend like drunks to keep the power - I saw very little budget restraint in Okla under either party. However, wt Dems we know they will spend, the Repubs tell you otherwise and end up doing the same thing. At least the Dems are honest about it. Yes, I'm painting the repubs wt a broad brush (I can - I are one .... at least for now). There are some good repubs in the party who are trying to be fiscally conservative and prudent but like in DC they are a minority. Watching the repubs in Kansas and now in Okla I have taken a different view towards this 'cut taxes at all cost' mantra. Back to the national level: While I do believe in the basic principle that cutting taxes can produce increased govt revenue via economy growth, you cannot do it while spending big time like GWB did by spending on 2 wars. There has been historical data showing where JFK and Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue - however under Reagan - winning the cold war with increased spending on the military was a higher priority than a balanced budget.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANCTUARY_CITIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-04-25-16-15-56 A judge has stalled Trumps EO on sanctuary cities. His immigration fight is going no where - Sanctuary cities - tied up in court Boarder Wall - resistance in congress Ban on individuals from certain ME countries. - tied up in court

I got a feeling that N Korea is about to become one big distraction.

Fox created a culture of harassment it appears. I wonder why all the 'girls' on fox were blondes - must have been Ailes's favorite color.

Agree wt the bold -- the sooner he's out of office the better for his nation.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-backs-away-border/2017/04/24/id/786154/ As a part of the 'prevent govt shutdown' deal - Trump is backing away from - or delaying one of his primary first 100 days pledges - the boarder wall. So priority # 1 - ObamaCare and priority # 2 Boarder wall have no fixed date to complete and priority #3 Tax reform has a shifting date. I think we have to play "Keep the Eye on the Ball" here - and as we keep moving dates around - there will be a 'sense' of accomplishments but nothing really accomplished. We or this administration cannot associate activity with accomplishment. There has been more activity, words and busyness in the 100 days then any admin I know of, but we still haven't seen the top promises come to pass.

agree - they badly need our trade. NK is becoming a thorn in their sides like Cuba eventually did for the old Soviet Union who could no longer afford them as their proxy in North America.

Debbie Schlussel came out and clarified - saying she wasn't sexually harassed but felt Hannity was 'creepy'. She made the comments on the local Tulsa radio show of Pat Campbell's. I've heard her on the show before but I missed this segment. Pat said this morning that Schlussel won't settle if Fox comes after her. She, as a lawyer, will fight it out with them. Here is Pat's pod cast site which has the interview he did wt Debbie. http://www.1170kfaq.com/podcasts/patcampbell http://www.latimes.com/business/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Senate-White-House-North-Korea/2017/04/24/id/786085/ Trump, DOD, SOS, etc bringing all 100 members of the senate to the WH to "discuss". Sounds like war drums are beating louder and louder.

Agreed. Kasich was head and shoulders the best candidate the GOP fielded. I'll never understand why they didn't collectively throw their support behind him from the beginning. I would have like a Kasich/Rubio or a Kasich/Paul ticket. AT times Kasich was the only adult on the stage when 3-4 others were playing their gotcha games during the debates.

I would disagree with your assessment on the liberal/conservative spectrum. I don't think you can classify him in that spectrum. He is an 'opportunist' - He is neither conservative or liberal in his core convictions. He will slide up and down that spectrum depending on the opportunity & what it brings him. His convictions are centered on the dogma of the Trump Brand - whatever exults the brand is what he is. So, his apparent embrace of conservative ideas during the primary and GE was his ticket to promote his brand. His hard line against the 'Freedom Caucus' after the health care vote revealed this. His backing away from many of his 'core campaign pledges' are showing this. Now that he is in office, he doesn't need core conservative convictions - just enough to get him what he wants. If is best route to the presidency was via the Dem party, I am convinced we would have seen a liberal Trump. The Trump Brand is his allegiance - not a party or a core political conviction.

I really am dumbfounded over how this is allowed to fly. In my opinion Trump needs to be removed from office. Not because I think he is a massive idiot but because it is clear there are conflicts of interest happening all of the time. This is a business move not public service and I didn't think that was allowed? Could be wrong but seems to me he should be booted on those grounds even though that will never happen I'll stand up and say as a person who was critical of the Clinton Foundation, I find this equally if not more discussing. Equal because both are influence peddling & both are wrong. More, because this is now actually happening from the highest office in the land. I wonder what promises we gave China as a trade off. My guess is - not calling China a currency manipulator. Using his Florida resort, his DC hotel for govt business that profits him is full of all kinds of conflicts but this takes the cake - Ivanka personally profiting from her meeting wt the Chinese leader. If Trump remains in office for 4 or 8 years, he'll make the Clinton's look like ignorant Ark rednecks in comparison when it comes to these type of 'business' deals. The Art of the Deal has found a home in the WH.

good points zoog ^^^^^

Esp as you compare Obama's pick of Biden. Contrast Biden vs Palin and the gap is bigger than the Grand Canyon. Even though he is 'uncle joe'(we could have started a Crazy Things Joe says thread), he still pulled a lot of weight, and had a deep bank of experience behind him and could have stepped into the role seamlessly if needed. You may be correct that McCain would have won otherwise. That Katie Curic interview sunk not only Palin but McCain with her. I wonder how many times McCain has kicked himself since then

Good grief. Of all of the campaign pledges he keeps - it is this one. While I'm a gun rights person, most mass shootings have been by the mentally ill and these Obama restrictions were needed and did not violate the 2nd amendment. While there should be certain criteria (and certainly is) on defining the mentally ill that are so restricted so that Obama's restrictions were abused the other way, this reversal goes against the public safety.

Amen on that one. Romney I think had it wrapped up after the 1st debate and only had to maintain the lead. But that 2nd debate wt the moderator taking sides was the turning point. The 3rd debate - Romney proved to be more on target on Russia than what people gave him credit for. I think he played to nice in the final debate and could have come across stronger. I think Kemp may have drawn more of the younger vote and he was seen as an 'idea, innovation' guy. Knapp mentioned Bob Dole - I agree - I think he would've been a good center right guy - not on the fringes. He knew how Washington worked but also was liked on both sides. Yes, he like Al Gore and Lurch (Kerry) were much too stiff during their respective campaigns. Again, I would have preferred Kemp on the top of the ticket instead of 2nd - but the repubs seemed to always do the 'next in line'. BRB - not sure McCain would have won even with the Pope as his running mate. People were sick of the repubs and GWB. I think that is why Newt didn't run that year - even though it would have been his best year to run. I think he would have done a much better job in the debates. McCain acted like he didn't want to step on anyone's toes during the debate. Newt would have gone after O's inexperience. Yes, Palin was a rock around McCain's neck hung their by the same crowd (anti-establishment) that elected Trump. She, like Trump, are long on red meat speeches but short on real accomplishments politically.

One had a feeling his 'vacation' was going to be a staycation in the end- stay away from fox.

That is why I added the bold: but then again it doesn't based on what I've seen so far I didn't trust him during the primaries was never a fan. He's an opportunist in every way.

What! It surprised me but then again it doesn't based on what I've seen so far. They are back peddling on almost every one of their campaign ideas. As Knapp mentioned - this was one of their top ones. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The art of the deal - perhaps - I tell you what I know you want to hear so I can get what I want - thus the election of DT. If you think about it, this is what he has done his whole life. "Honey, I love you...marry me"......cheat and divorce a few years later "Come work for me, I'll pay you"........don't pay employees "Supply my job site"......don't pay suppliers "Vote for me and I'll do.....".......doesn't give a crap about what he has said. very true

I was thinking the other day about presidential candidates through the years - about the ones that I think would have been good presidents but didn't get nominated or elected. I think of 2016 as being a missed opportunity (not for Hillary) but for others who lost out in the Dem and Rep primaries or who chose not to run (like Elizabeth Warren or in 2008 Newt - I think both would won their respective party nominations if they ran). So here is a list of some individuals who come to my mind that I think would have been good Presidents if they had won. Who is on your list? I'll surprise you by starting out with 3 Democrats: Robert Kennedy 1968 - I was 12 at the time he was shot - but even at that young age I looked up to him. LBJ had decided not to run due to the mess of Vietnam. The country was ready for a peace candidate. We ended up with Nixon's secret plan to get us out of Vietnam. Ed Muskie - 1972 - great Senator from Maine - his flaw - he cried once during or after a speech and was branded as weak. He could have beat Nixon in 72 - who wasn't very likeable but McGovern (a very good guy personally in my opinion - the first guy I ever voted for when I was of age - for Senate) was too liberal for the time. Hubert Humphrey - 68, 72, 76,80 - He tried several times but failed. Even if one didn't agree wt his politics he was a guy you couldn't help but like (and I agreed wt his politics a good portion of the time back then). I did a huge history paper on him during college and gained a lot of respect for him as a man and for the compassion of his politics. I still admire him. Jack Kemp - Unbelievable that he didn't get the repub nomination post Reagan. Like Humphrey, a very likeable man Rand Paul - while Rubio was my candidate this last time around, I think in retrospective and in light of the Middle East - I'm becoming more of a Rand fan. (Others I think could have done well - Dems Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn)

What! It surprised me but then again it doesn't based on what I've seen so far. They are back peddling on almost every one of their campaign ideas. As Knapp mentioned - this was one of their top ones. What a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The art of the deal - perhaps - I tell you what I know you want to hear so I can get what I want - thus the election of DT.

That $100 million that conservatives were so angered by will be dwarfed by what America spends on Trump. So where's the outrage? The bold should be the most galling thing to any fiscal conservative. Trump controls how much travel he and his family do. He could easily mandate that Melania & Barron live in the White House, and that his children conduct business via the internet. Instead, we're paying huge amounts of money to guard this family and Trump is profiting from it. That is what is so disturbing. We have govt meetings being held at his Florida resort, he profits from it, We have the cost of Air Force One and all of the support staff, etc. We have the cost of the NYC 'family white house' - this is beginning to make Obama look like a pretty fiscally responsible guy in comparison - a spin thrift. But it doesn't surprise me. DT was always about DT. He co-oped the conservative mantra - smaller, less expensive govt and used it for his advantage. Yet when you look at his policies, he was never a true conservative regardless of rhetoric. After the 1st 100 days of DT - all references to past presidents, including Obama, overspending on vacations - need to be struck from the public record as none compare to what we see currently. Regarding Melania and Barron living in the WH - he could set the example of lowering educational cost with the use of remote, internet education if he wanted to be linked backed to Barron's school. He of course could afford individual torturing for this semester. Good grief - being in the white house is a history, social studies education all by itself. DT needs to lead by example. If the budget calls for a hiring freeze and a 10% cut back in spending for many depts. (I understand this is in the works), then he needs to be the first example of controlling costs.