Why I Might Choose Clinton Over Trump

 

shutterstock_57845491shutterstock_155865416I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. She is a criminal that should be behind bars for life. However, nothing in her views (as fluid as they are) makes me think she would start a trade war with China. On the other hand, Donald Trump has made demagoguery of China a feature of his campaign. Larry Kudlow’s reassurances notwithstanding, there is a real significant possibility that Trump embraces the same devastating protectionism that kicked the great depression into high gear. In my opinion, nothing is as dangerous to our general prosperity and security as this. Therefore, until I can feel moderately sure that Trump won’t start a trade war, I can’t support him or even stand by and not vote against him.

Please tell me why I’m wrong, Ricochet.  I hate the idea that our system has declined to the point that we have for vote for criminals to save us from disaster.

-E

There are 183 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Though I don’t disagree with you regarding the folly of a trade war, why would you choose Hillary? Aren’t there other options other than voting for her? I will NOT vote for Trump — no way, no how — but I’m not going to actually vote for Hillary. I’ll either leave that oval un-darkened and vote for the other candidates I support in other offices, or go third party, depending on what looks possible — libertarian, maybe?

    • #1
  2. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    Because, if a trade war is as big of a danger I believe it to be, then it becomes more important to vote for the candidate most likely to win rather then register a protest vote with a 3rd party that I don’t believe can win.

    -E

    • #2
  3. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    For the love of God! Are you kidding?? Please say you’re kidding. Do you want Lesbian Muslims and transgender atheists on the Supreme Court? I don’t even want to come on here anymore, I swear. If one more Ricochet person says this, I’ll go down to the basement and jump out the window.

    • #3
  4. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    I am trying to answer your question, but I need to understand your concern on trade. The only thing keep the world economy afloat is the US having no trade restrictions, but China’s current and non reciprocal restrictions are not a threat? So as long as we buy goods from them and they buy much less from us, the world economy is stable?

    If that is what you want, vote Hillary all the way.

    • #4
  5. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    RightAngles:For the love of God! Are you kidding?? Please say you’re kidding. Do you want Lesbian Muslims and transgender atheists on the Supreme Court? I don’t even want to come on here anymore, I swear. If one more Ricochet person says this, I’ll go down to the basement and jump out the window.

    Of course I don’t want those things.  But I want a depression even less.  Sorry if this drives you to jump from your basement window.

    -E

    • #5
  6. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    TKC1101:I am trying to answer your question, but I need to understand your concern on trade. The only thing keep the world economy afloat is the US having no trade restrictions, but China’s current and non reciprocal restrictions are not a threat? So as long as we buy goods from them and they buy much less from us, the world economy is stable?

    If that is what you want, vote Hillary all the way.

    It’s one thing to hold China accountable for its bad behavior, it’s another entirely to levy a 45% tariff.

    -E

    • #6
  7. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    CandE,

    I’m not even sure I know how to approach the question.  Hillary is the ultimate American version of “L’etat, c’est moi.”

    Only the “moi” comes in waaaay before “l’etat”.

    I commiserate with anyone worried/offended/disturbed by what Trump has said.

    Everything he says pales in comparison to what Clinton has done.

    • #7
  8. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    CandE: It’s one thing to hold China accountable for its bad behavior, it’s another entirely to levy a 45% tariff.

    I really do not want to go point to point. But the 45 % has been said as ‘if necessary’ not a policy. If you go into a negotiation with a declaration that you will have zero restrictions no matter what happens, why are you bothering to have a negotiation at all? Other than to employ diplomats and economists, really no point at all.

    But this becomes a discussion that ends up on beliefs as usual, so I do not wish to have a lengthy talk. Please vote your conscience, as you should.

    I personally will do everything I can to prevent a Hillary victory. I owe that to my grandchildren.  She is responsible for letting Americans die and lying about it to protect herself.  She will hold the rest of us in similar contempt. I care far more about her shredding the bill of rights for my family than the price of frying pans at the store.

    • #8
  9. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    RightAngles:For the love of God! Are you kidding?? Please say you’re kidding. Do you want Lesbian Muslims and transgender atheists on the Supreme Court? I don’t even want to come on here anymore, I swear. If one more Ricochet person says this, I’ll go down to the basement and jump out the window.

    … and you’ll find me face down in the bird bath.

    • #9
  10. Craig Inactive
    Craig
    @Craig

    I can’t stand her either.  She would however have plenty of motivation to completely undo policy from the Obama years.  I Don’t expect she’ll keep her current ‘Bernie-Lite’ promises either.

    • #10
  11. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    TKC: “I really do not want to go point to point. But the 45 % has been said as ‘if necessary’ not a policy.”

    Let’s go point to point. It illustrates something important. It is true that China has manipulated its currency to artificially devalue the yuan in the past. However, that has not been the case for several years since the yuan has been floated on global currency exchanges. At the current moment, and for the last year or so, the Chinese central bank has been doing everything in its power to artificially prop up the yuan. If Trump were really serious about a level playing field he would be arguing that we should subsidize Chinese imports. That he still talks about Chinese currency manipulation as though it’s a problem demonstrates that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    • #11
  12. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    TKC1101: I really do not want to go point to point. But the 45 % has been said as ‘if necessary’ not a policy. If you go into a negotiation with a declaration that you will have zero restrictions no matter what happens, why are you bothering to have a negotiation at all? Other than to employ diplomats and economists, really no point at all.

    Can we please not boil this down to an all or nothing dichotomy?  The alternative to a 45% tariff is not zero restrictions at all.  If you have an argument then please present it instead of demolishing strawmen.

    Aside from Kudlow’s claim that Trump talks about the tariff as a bargaining chip, is there any other reason to believe that this is just a “starting point”?  Besides, starting a negotiation with a position that is intolerable to one’s own side is absurd.

    -E

    • #12
  13. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    E: “Aside from Kudlow’s claim that Trump talks about the tariff as a bargaining chip, is there any other reason to believe that this is just a “starting point”?”

    Well, Trump seems to breath through his nose, so it’s unlikely that he is stupid enough to believe that a tariff is actually a good idea.

    • #13
  14. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    There are actual DEAD BODIES around the Clintons. We don’t even know the half of what these two have done. They must never be allowed back in the White House again. Any of your worries about Trump pale in comparison.

    • #14
  15. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Salvatore Padula: for the last year or so, the Chinese central bank has been doing everything in its power to artificially prop up the yuan

    No argument that has been a better situation. It also can revert in a heartbeat.  The issue has not gone away.

    The real issues have been the areas that never make the overall negotiations, such as artificially low material cost subsidies for very targeted industries to strip assets from the US capacity base. Using economic muscle to force Boeing to transfer plant process knowledge to local Chinese manufacturing for aircraft. And so on, target after target, especially ones without protection in the Democratic Party or the GOP.

    They view this as economic warfare while we view it as benign trade.

    • #15
  16. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    RightAngles:There are actual DEAD BODIES around the Clintons. We don’t even know the half of what these two have done. They must never be allowed back in the White House again. Any of your worries about Trump pale in comparison.

    I hear where you’re coming from.  However, I’m also thinking of the human cost of the great depression and the events that followed.  That would be far worse.  Which is why I am sincerely asking ya’ll to show me why my concerns about Trump repeating a Smoot-Hawley grade idiocy are unfounded.

    -E

    • #16
  17. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    TKC: “No argument that has been a better situation. It also can revert in a heartbeat. The issue has not gone away.”
    So the fact that Trump’s chief claim about trade is demonstrably false doesn’t give you the slightest pause?

    • #17
  18. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    I could understand a 3rd party vote, but pulling the lever FOR Clinton?  No, I’ll never understand that.   I’ll view those who do it as I view the people I know who voted Obama in 2008.

    • #18
  19. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    CandE: Can we please not boil this down to an all or nothing dichotomy? The alternative to a 45% tariff is not zero restrictions at all. If you have an argument then please present it instead of demolishing strawmen.

    I am not making it a strawman. Ask any of the free traders here if we should ever have a tariff at all under any condition, even if barriers will still exist on the other side. The theory is zero tariff for entry to the US is an infinite and unrestricted good. That is why Trump and any operational businessman thinks the diplomats and economists are crazy. They have traded away industry after industry unless they industry was donating to the right party.

    I have been down this rabbit hole with them too many times to go into it now. I am not making a strawman, and frankly am a bit offended you state that I did. This argument has been the subject of millions of words on Ricochet alone. I stand by those. And now, since you do not wish to discuss in good faith, I bid you goodbye.

    • #19
  20. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    TKC: “The real issues have been the areas that never make the overall negotiations, such as artificially low material cost subsidies for very targeted industries to strip assets from the US capacity base.”

    Those are quite literally things that are covered by current treaties. Both China and the US are WTO members. If we had evidence that those things were going on, why not bring it to the WTO? Adjudication of such disputes is one of its primary purposes.

    • #20
  21. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    TKC, there is certainly a good case to be made for dealing with Chinese practices that take advantage of our open trade.  But just as there are conventional warfare alternatives to mutually assured destruction, there are other ways to hold the Chinese accountable that don’t involve the mutual destruction of our economies.

    -E

    • #21
  22. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Salvatore Padula: So the fact that Trump’s chief claim about trade is demonstrably false doesn’t give you the slightest pause?

    Not at all. Negotiating is not a college debate. China has done currency manipulation and recently, so the fact that they are not now does not take it off the table for deals that last for decades. Trump at least wants to negotiate instead of just opening our markets and never theirs.  Every other candidate is captive to either donors or worse, unrestricted pure free trade theory which is as practical as pure communism.

    I have been picking up the wreckage of this for the last ten years. Give me anyone who starts with the premise of winning instead of giving it away and cutting side deals for donors. Besides, Trump will not do the deal, just set the parameters. Smart guys like you do the deals. Presidents only have to define the necessary outcome.

    • #22
  23. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Salvatore Padula: Those are quite literally things that are covered by current treaties. Both China and the US are WTO members. If we had evidence that those things were going on, why not bring it to the WTO? Adjudication of such disputes is one of its primary purposes.

    It is only done for very large and well connected industries. Which China smartly avoids screwing over. And by the time the WTO acts, the assets in the US are sold at bankruptcy proceedings and are on the boat to China for ten cents on the dollar to make money and earn income for them.

    • #23
  24. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    TKC1101: I have been down this rabbit hole with them too many times to go into it now. I am not making a strawman, and frankly am a bit offended you state that I did. This argument has been the subject of millions of words on Ricochet alone. I stand by those. And now, since you do not wish to discuss in good faith, I bid you goodbye.

    That’s disappointing.  I’ve been working very long hours and haven’t had the chance to glance down the rabbit holes you’ve been down.  I wouldn’t even know where to find them.

    I didn’t start this conversation off saying that we should never have any restrictions on trade, yet that was the only alternative that you addressed in your replies.  That’s a strawman, and I pointed it out precisely because I do want a good-faith discussion

    -E

    • #24
  25. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    TKC- How familiar are you with the way currency markets operate? When we were legitimately criticizing Chinese for artificially devaluing the yuan it was because they had pegged the yuan to the dollar at an artificially low rate. They have since allowed the yuan to be traded on global currency exchange markets (both because they recognize that devaluation hurt their long term growth and because they would like the yuan to become a global reserve currency). They cannot go back to a devalued dollar peg without sacrificing both of those goals. So yes, China has been a currency manipulator. Yes, we should have sanctioned it at the time as such under WTO rules like Mitt Romney proposed. The thing is that it isn’t a currency manipulator any more, and if it tried to become one again it would be more harmful to China’s economy than to ours.

    • #25
  26. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Salvatore Padula: The thing is that it isn’t a currency manipulator any more, and if it tried to become one again it would be more harmful to China’s economy than to ours.

    Sal, I understand that the trick has a price for them to repeat it, but it should also show you they are not a partner you do a deal with from a free trade perspective. Trump is reacting to past problems but the tactics are not the issue, the adversary is still going to do whatever they can to wage economic warfare to our detriment unless we get tougher than we have been.

    We have not mentioned dumping  and informal restrictions in their market. They use every trick possible while we let our small and mid sized companies fight by themselves against them.

    Trump has the right concept. I want that. He can pick the battle, he should not be driving the tank.

    Do you think Bush or Clinton did the NAFTA deal personally?

    • #26
  27. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    CandE: I didn’t start this conversation off saying that we should never have any restrictions on trade, yet that was the only alternative that you addressed in your replies. That’s a strawman, and I pointed it out precisely because I do want a good-faith discussion

    Very well, I accept you have not seen the arguments. They were bone crushingly weary making.

    Trump is arguing we need deals that open restrictions on both sides and have consequences for manipulation of currencies or material costs. That’s it. If you have been assuming that’s what has been happening, it has not. America has lost some industries that were not competitive, like textiles. But we have lost many others where we were highly competitive because the Chinese targeted them and closed them down so they could sell from China into the US. I have been personally involved in several, losses of assets and jobs that should not have occurred. They are now moving into industries where we are the best in the world, like aircraft manufacture , forcing us to turn over process knowledge  help build their aircraft production.

    They are waging economic warfare, we are buying frying pans.

    • #27
  28. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    TKC- I get it that you think that Trump’s threat of a tariff is a strong opening negotiating position, but it isn’t. Unless we want to leave the WTO (and free trader or not, you can’t possibly think that’s a good idea) we cannot just unilaterally impose a tariff on Chinese goods. It might sound good to his supporters, but Trump’s proposal has the Chinese government laughing.

    • #28
  29. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    TKC1101: Trump is arguing we need deals that open restrictions on both sides and have consequences for manipulation of currencies or material costs. That’s it. If you have been assuming that’s what has been happening, it has not. America has lost some industries that were not competitive, like textiles. But we have lost many others where we were highly competitive because the Chinese targeted them and closed them down so they could sell from China into the US. I have been personally involved in several, losses of assets and jobs that should not have occurred. They are now moving into industries where we are the best in the world, like aircraft manufacture , forcing us to turn over process knowledge help build their aircraft production.

    If this is indeed the extent of Trump’s position, then I would be comfortable supporting it.  What concerns me is his rhetoric about tariffs.  I’m with Sal – at best it’s a poor starting negotiating position; at worst it demonstrates a real protectionist mentality.

    -E

    • #29
  30. TKC1101 Inactive
    TKC1101
    @TKC1101

    Salvatore Padula: TKC- I get it that you think that Trump’s threat of a tariff is a strong opening negotiating position, but it isn’t. Unless we want to leave the WTO (and free trader or not, you can’t possibly think that’s a good idea) we cannot just unilaterally impose a tariff on Chinese goods. It might sound good to his supporters, but Trump’s proposal has the Chinese government laughing.

    Then how would you approach the need to curb their predatory actions? We cannot bleed assets and jobs forever and be a nation of Walmart shoppers.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.