Jump to content


Trump Foreign Policy


Recommended Posts



Just now, Frott Scost said:


Enjoy the US healthcare system. Elections have consequences. 

 

This to me serves as somewhat of a referendum on the risks of unabashed leftism. Corbyn was thought to be bit of an example for how leftism could actually win, right?

 

The fact he is seen as anti-Semitic is a personal flaw which is somewhat unique to him. But what implications can we honestly draw from this election about the Labour agenda and why far-right whackjobs keep winning?

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

This to me serves as somewhat of a referendum on the risks of unabashed leftism. Corbyn was thought to be bit of an example for how leftism could actually win, right?

 

The fact he is seen as anti-Semitic is a personal flaw which is somewhat unique to him. But what implications can we honestly draw from this election about the Labour agenda and why far-right whackjobs keep winning?

Maybe, if the only choice people are given are far right or far left, the majority relate more to the far right. 
 

Maybe, we need candidates more towards the center. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Maybe, if the only choice people are given are far right or far left, the majority relate more to the far right. 
 

Maybe, we need candidates more towards the center. 

 

I tend more towards the camp that believes Corbyn was uniquely bad (for instance, Labour seems to have gotten rolled in the Jewish vote), but I'm open to counter-arguments and yours does not seem unreasonable.

 

Some leftist ideas remain popular here. Some are very popular. However I was reading a thread earlier that pointed out that somehow, these far-right bozos have convinced a lot of people that they are going to fight for them, even if those same people know that they are in fact, corrupt, lying bozos.

 

I honestly don't get it.

Link to comment

33 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

This to me serves as somewhat of a referendum on the risks of unabashed leftism. Corbyn was thought to be bit of an example for how leftism could actually win, right?

 

The fact he is seen as anti-Semitic is a personal flaw which is somewhat unique to him. But what implications can we honestly draw from this election about the Labour agenda and why far-right whackjobs keep winning?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I tend more towards the camp that believes Corbyn was uniquely bad (for instance, Labour seems to have gotten rolled in the Jewish vote), but I'm open to counter-arguments and yours does not seem unreasonable.

 

Some leftist ideas remain popular here. Some are very popular. However I was reading a thread earlier that pointed out that somehow, these far-right bozos have convinced a lot of people that they are going to fight for them, even if those same people know that they are in fact, corrupt, lying bozos.

 

I honestly don't get it.


Human beings are mostly sheep. Propaganda  has a strong influence. Media has a strong influence. Money has a strong influence. Bloomberg, a man who banned big gulps, made stop and frisk legal and said we should tax the poor so they cant buy soda and get obese should not be anywhere near the polling he is at now but because he has so much money people think he must be good. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I've been trying to do some research in what USMCA changes from NAFTA.  Here's an interesting article.  There are some good things about this.  It's going to be interesting to see if this goes all the way through and is signed by Trump in its current form.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/nafta-us-mexico-canada-trade-deal-differences/index.html

 

 

Quote

 

Washington (CNN)After reaching a deal on the final version of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, President Donald Trump tweeted that it "will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the USA" -- and called its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement, "our Country's worst Trade Deal." 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that view, saying in her announcement that "there is no question of course that this trade agreement is much better than NAFTA."
But the two deals are far more alike than they are different -- and the impact of the renegotiated agreement may not be that big. In April, the US International Trade Commission, a federal government agency, found the initial version of the USMCA would create 176,000 jobs after six years and increase the GDP by 0.35% -- an impact the agency described as "moderate." (For comparison's sake: The US added 266,000 new jobs in November alone.) The full final version has not yet been released publicly.
Here are five key differences between the two agreements:

 

 
 
Read the rest of the article for the 5 key differences.
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...