America is a resource rich country, it always had enough resources to provide the best standard of living for its people. when you redistribute those resources to foreign countries in trade, you must do so by respecting the leverage of America's natural wealth. when you increase the population for labor and demand with immigration, you must do so lawfully by respecting and maintaining the high native American standard of living. the fact that a huge minority of Americans are not experiencing the American dream the same way as those who are benefiting from unfair trade, as evidenced by this election, just shows that tariffs aren't being properly negotiated on behalf of all of us. the unfair trade policies are only benefiting the rich cities, and even there its going straight to the top to the richest.
The reason that economic growth in the US has stagnated is the economic policies of the Obama administration that have increased the costs of production. Your argument is protectionism which is economic disaster. It was true in the '30's (Smoot Hawley), in the 00's (steel tariff), and today. If protectionism was the key to economic success the Great Depression would have been the Great Expansion. Tariffs on imports into the US is economic disaster - has been and will always be. Your argument is devoid of facts. - - - Updated - - - Who makes the decision about what each individual really needs for everyone?
ROFL you left out the "Cmon, man THIS IS ABOUT ME AND MY LEGACY! That I will view it as a personal insult if Trump wins" Well he just got a big middle finger didn't he! - - - Updated - - - Interesting trivia but of no meaning. - - - Updated - - - It balances the states. The People do not elect the President the States do.
No, it's a key point that more Americans voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. It goes directly to the notion that Trump has some sort of mandate to make major change - a notion that is obviously false.
More people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. You can not claim a mandate based on no more than a victory provided by the electoral college design. Let's remember that Democrats have gotten a majority of the votes for president in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections.
It's a power balance. Republicans have it now, they are going to pursue their agenda. We will see what happens 2018 if the country is happy with the direction.
I agree with that. What I disagreed with is the "mandate" thing. What we've seen is that pure, scorched earth partisanship works. By supporting McConnell and Boehner in preventing all meaningful progress, people became frustrated and handed our government to the very people who CAUSED THAT FAILURE.
The Dems are responsible for the Republican leaders in congress stating that the president is their enemy that they must cause to fail??? Really??? I agree we're in uncharted water. But, I don't agree with the start date you propose. And, we now have the most divisive president we have had in decades while also having a congress that is unprecedented in its unwillingness to negotiate or compromise. That bodes no more than disaster.
Dems put into place the housing policy that caused the Great Recession. Bush and republicans expanded on the policy. Dems left Iraq too early, republicans thought they could nation build. We need a new approach that will break gridlock and get this country moving. With unilateral control of essentially all 3 branches, we will.
When the electorate gave him control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House, as well as the selections on vacancies for the SCOTUS, that strongly suggests a mandate. They gave the same to Obama, but just once.
Yes, but perhaps the President elect can heal those wounds. Perhaps you should wait for a few months before getting yourself in knots.
The first is a common argument. And, there is no question that the R's have consistently resisted the regulation that would prevent that happening again. In fact, Trump has stated that removing the progress that has been made is an OBJECTIVE!! Bush left Iraq. He signed us out about exactly one month before Obama became president. That deal included a detailed plan for leaving - including disposition of materials, order of exit, division of responsibility of costs of leaving, etc. Bush was and remains a Republican. The primary gridlock has been the refusal of Republicans in congress to work together with Democrats on ANY issue. What we're seeing today is affirmation that refusal to allow congress to progress, even when there are clear majorities, is not just possible, but is the winning direction. Suggesting that leads to a functioning congress is totally preposterous.
Obama got the majority of US votes, had super majority in the Senate and had an advantage in the House. Yet, Republicans still did not see that as a mandate - not even close. Their reaction was to declare the president is enemy #1 who must be made to fail. Today, the Republicans have a razor thing margin in the Senate and Trump lost the majority of voters.
That's more silly than suggesting that Al Sharpton will bring America together. He spent his entire campaign promoting a dramatically divisive agenda, denigrating every minority we have in graphic terms. Trump has so far to go that any guess he would put in the amount of effort to do that is just plain stupid.
Which Republicans declared Obama public enemy #1? Do you have links to either of these claims? "The voters" are the States, and he received the majority of the States. You should know the meaning of State Rights and how the Electoral College works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Both candidates were 'divisive' but now that the election is over it's time to work together under the new Administration. If they don't do the job well there'll be another election in just four years. Then another change can take place if the citizens aren't happy. Theere is always the possibility that that those who voted for Trump to 'drain the swamp' were right and you are wrong. Perhaps you should give it a rest and watch what happens. He hasn't even been sworn in yet.
That's incorrect. Obama pulled the troops from Iraq in 2011, which is easily researched. Are you referring to the SOFA here? If so Obama wasn't interested in a new SOFA, which is negotiable with any new Administration. It's designed that way. Would be using Obamacare as an example? The new Administration hasn't even been sworn in yet. Time for some patience.
McConnell and Boehner both stated that causing the president to fail was their number one objective as leaders in congress. No, the people are voters. You can not deny that. We went to polling places and had these absentee ballots, marked them and then did something with them, followed by folks counting them.
No, Trump made a full time effort in denigrating minority groups throughout the US. We haven't seen anything like that in modern times. You have to go back in history to find anything similar to that - probably at least as far back as those fighting for segregation. He poured hate on Muslims, Mexicans, Hispanics in general, African Americans, those with physical disability, women, those who are same sex oriented, etc. No US office holder has EVER been elected with Trump's public affirmation of his attitude toward women. If you think there has been anything like that, you need to supply some support for that. Who the heck are you thinking of?
That is again ridiculous. Michael Moore got it right - the election of Donald Trump is the biggest FU in the history of politics. He represents that segment of the US population which was not represented by anyone in either political party.