Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Folks, we’re reaching the point where nearly everyone is just flagging everyone else.
If the conversation is that bad, just move on.
This seems a bit overwrought. There is a distinction between holding one’s nose and voting for “not de debbil” and prostrating oneself before the Sun God.
Fact: As of today Donald Trump has named one person to serve in his administration.
Is that person a conservative or a liberal?
Is that person a Republican or a Democrat?
Does that person have executive experience and a consistent record, or not?
Is that person sober and judicious, or a hot-head and gaffe-prone?
Donald Trump’s Vice-Presidential pick is a fact. Deal with it. Everything else is speculation.
Wasn’t there some economist in the 19th century who demonstrated categorically that when faced with trade barriers, a nation still profits most from adopting free trade on their side? Or are we now trying to solve a taxes-and-regulation problem with more taxes and regulations?
He’s changed his Middle East policy enough to be incomprehensible, but his hesitancy to commit to defending NATO allies, focus on immigration screening, lamenting money lost in Iraq, and non-policy towards the South China Sea suggest someone who doesn’t want to engage abroad.
It wasn’t “what they agreed to” when he suggested it regarding Japan in the 80’s, and Estonia pays what they agreed to. I’m not convinced he wants “strong allies” so much as “tributary states”.
Guys, getting a little close the edge here.
Hartmann, it’s probably worth noting that many Ricochetians now plumping for this particular dog to win the show aren’t the ones who bought him. They’re just betting that the best shot at ridding the dog of fleas and lameness is to befriend him, or they think that in a contest between this dog, no matter how flea-bit and gimpy, and a chihuahua with sarcoptic mange and kennel cough, it’s only fair for the chihuahua to lose. Though, thank you for including “disaffected” and “disappointed” in that list – it was necessary to avoid insult.
CT, who are these nutcase cultists? The economists who happen to disagree with Trump, or the Ricochet members who happen to agree with those economists?
I find it interesting that even at this point pro-Trump forces continue to flail away at the moral depravity/arrogance of those of us who refuse to support their candidate, after we were dismissed months ago as an unimportant rump that would be overwhelmed by wave after wave of new voters aching to leap to the polls to carry Trump into the White House. I guess that’s not working out as planned.
A strategic decision was made to advance a horrible human being to a position where he could be a horrible candidate, and now we listen to shock and horror of those discovering that he is on a path to losing not only his only race but carrying others down with him.
The Never Trumpers are not going to cost Trump the election. If he loses, then it is because he cannot expand his appeal beyond his base.
Also, all these attacks on the motives of Never Trump voters all seem to avoid a central issue: I’m not opposed to the man because he has an affinity for gold-plated toilets or his love of ball caps; I’m opposed to the man because I don’t trust him and think he will be as bad as Clinton. I never hear a compelling answer to that issue, just the “Binary Choices” argument which really isn’t moving the ball.
They are open borders unilateral free traders who refuse to engage in good faith discussions.. Their behavior tends to mirror actual cults.
As for economists, please identify any specific ones and any specific articles.
Some of what Trump says on trade is wrong. For example, the focusing on iPhone manufacture is highly dubious. I can’t imagine we have any absolute or comparative advantage in manufacture of consumer electronics.
Less wrong, but probably misemphasized, is Trump’s emphasis on “currency manipulation”. The devaluation from of currency manipulation (I believe Trump is referencing this) provides very marginal advantages. The multiple exchange rate or nonconvertibility form of currency manipulation provides more significant effects as either an export subsidy, an import barrier, or both. My understanding is China has stopped doing this form.
An honest analysis of Trump would point out such faults, but then also consider things Trump missed such as tariff or non-tariff barriers in fields we have absolute and/or comparative advantage in. I submit that Trump has misdiagnosed the mechanism of the problem but not its existence and source. Certain economists have pointed to Trump’s errors and disingenuously then asserted that this proves there is no problem.
In your opinion who made the better choice for the man who will be a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Perhaps I didn’t make my question clear. Are you saying all or most of those who argue for unilateral free trade refuse to engage in good faith discussion or behave in a cultish fashion?
Or did you mean to say that, of the people arguing for unilateral free trade, the ones who argue in bad faith argue in bad faith?
Has Evan McMullin made a call yet on who will be his running mate?
I get it: who is better between Pence and Kaine. If I think Pence is the better VP, then that supports the judgment of Trump and clears up the issues with trust. Right?
The problem is that Hillary was always going to pick Generic Democrat for her VP, was never going to pick a Generic Republican for her VP, and as a conservative I am always going to lean against the Generic Democrat.
Similarly, Trump was always going to pick the Generic Republican for VP, was never going to pick a Generic Democrat for his VP, and as a conservative I am always going to be more favorable to a Generic Republican.
As we have not had a president die in office in over 50 years, it’s simply not the most compelling point on Trump’s judgment except that he is not politically insane.
Pence is a fine fellow, but I still don’t trust Trump’s instincts, I can’t rely on anything he says (because he is as likely to tell an audience what they want to hear as much as Hillary does), and all of this is compounded by an undisciplined and erratic temperament. Given that no one can seem to get Trump to get a control of himself during the campaign, why am I supposed to think that Pence will have a Svengali affect on him after the inauguration?
Here’s where we start playing word games.
In my experience, there are very few people who actually will argue in good faith for open borders and unilateral free trade.
There are more people who will in bad faith argue other things but who really are for open borders and unilateral free trade. Some of these, after you swat down all their strawman arguments, will finally admit that it all was a sham and they are for open borders and unilateral free trade. Some won’t. Of those who admit, most will end the discussion there. It is effectively a religious view and not an economic view and they will not discuss the merits.
Actually there are, they are typically called Democrats and a number of Libertarians. For this last year, the problem for me is the way the term “open borders” gets thrown around. It seems to encompass everything from (a) indifference to border security and immigration enforcement, to (b) strong enforcement of border security and a path to citizenship for the people here, to (c) strong enforcement of border security and anything short of immediate deportation. These debates have turned “open borders” into a meaningless term.
I don’t know what this is. I realize that people think the US gets the short end of the stick on trade deals, but that is hardly the result of unilateral concessions. These trade agreements are immense and not only provide reciprocal access into markets as well, but also resolve and normalize the mechanisms for conducting trade. I don’t know of anyone who has ever advocated for allowing any country to simply land their products on our shores without limit, control, or reciprocating access.
But they almost always do not argue in good faith.
That’s pretty much what we are dealing with.
There are multiple aspects of bad faith here.
We have the basic bad faith that goes back to Simpson-Mazolli. The people who argue for this use it as a stalking horse. They have no desire for the enforcement. They declare the strong enforcement when none exists and then go for the amnesty.
The whole “path to citizenship” is a bizarre bad faith argument. Why citizenship and not permanent residency? We only seem to talk about a “path to citizenship” for those least likely to contribute and those least likely to want it. Has anyone asked these people who fly foreign flags, etc. whether they want to be US citizens? No, it is a stampede to the Democratic party voter roles.
No matter what country x does to restrict our participation in their market or to subsidize their sales into ours, we should allow it.
You have not been dealing with the same people I deal with.
You don’t rely on anything Trump says (understandable) and you don’t trust anything he does, even when what he does should please you as a conservative. (Like @manwiththeaxe you have a theory – “Trump was always going to pick the Generic Republican for VP” – to explain away the good action.)
So there’s no point in discussing this with you. You’re unreachable.
Well, okay.
Who is talking in good faith on these matters? We have to throw down a benchmark somewhere.
So, for example, you’re saying that it’s your observation that conservatives who claim to be for free trade but not for unrestricted immigration aren’t arguing in good faith?
Am I correct in getting the impression that you don’t really believe it’s possible to be for unilateral free trade and against unrestricted immigration? Are you worried that free trade is generally just a cover for unrestricted immigration?
I am getting the impression CTLaw believes practically no-one is.
Please give an example of this.
Here’s one.
Oh, does that mean we can stop having these posts and debates over the moral character of Never Trumpers? Please, please, please …
Like I said, selecting Pence only meant that Trump was not politically insane. He knew he was dealing with a split party and he needed someone credible to a lot of dissenters and he picked a good running mate. That doesn’t mean that I still don’t trust Trump to negotiate away judicial nominees to Chuck Schumer or to suddenly decide that Eastern Europe can slip into Russia’s sphere of influence because Putin cooed sweet nothings to him. I expect Trump to be as unilateral and abusive of authority as Obama, and just as isolationist in his foreign policy.
He’s delivered some good speeches recently, I will grant you that. But I watched all the debates and he was breathtakingly ignorant and ill-informed. I don’t think his fundamental understanding of issues is any better now.
I just read that his plans for a deportation force is currently “TBD”. That seems to be the standard for his campaign. Make a bold statement to rally around, and then back off when it gets hard to explain. You point to all these actions that you say should prove our trust him, but you ignore his constant back and filling. He’s the one who says that everything is negotiable; I do take him at his word on that. I just wonder why that expectation is out of reach to his supporters.
Midge, I think you are confusing the two.
I claim to be for free trade (generally) and not for unrestricted immigration.
Again a strange a la carte combination. As a practical matter, the cultish nuts are for unilateral free trade (allowing foreign countries to do whatever they want to/against us) and open borders. You appear to hypothesize a unilateral free trader who is an immigration restrictionist. We are getting into a small domain here. Perhaps if you find such a person we can discuss with him or her. This position is more likely to be a flawed economic analysis than nuttiness.
Again, you confuse me because I do not link the two except in observations that certain cultish nuts take both the open borders and the unilateral free trade position and do not argue in good faith.
It’s not primarily “moral character” for me. My main complaint with nevertrumpers, inspired by Mr. Anderson in the Weekly Standard article I cited and repeated in all 8 of my previous comments, is that they are making Hillary Clinton’s sole winning argument against the Republican nominee, that he is unfit for office, instead of focusing on the issues, which favor Trump.
As someone who wants Republicans to win up and down the ballot for myself and my children, I find this over-emphasis on our own candidate’s foibles counter-productive and demoralizing, whether it is done by Mona and Jay or fellow Ricochet members. But of course it is their privilege.
When it comes to the failings of a political candidate I prefer to concentrate on those of the other side, rather than those of my own side. Some may find this odd, but I want to win.
Here’s your error: he’s not my candidate.
My apologies, it seemed to me as if you were, for some reason.
My apologies. I got the impression you were associating the two by adding in the phrase “open borders” to “unilateral free trade” when before the conversation had only been about “unilateral free trade”. I guess I found myself confused by the bolded inclusions above.
Actually my friend, I would say that Trump makes the key argument for Clinton. I’ve noted before that those of us on the right who are opposed to Trump are not that many and we are not at the forefront. The things sinking Trump with independents and antagonizing his base are coming out of his Twitter feed.
Granted, the first-time septuagenarian politician and long-time alpha male CEO of a multi-billion dollar international real estate corporation is far too casual and erratic in his social media communications. I know that as well as you do; I just don’t see the need to dwell on it, especially when others are richly paid to do so.
That’s my complaint with conservatives who do dwell on it – what’s the point? The only good it does it to serve Hillary Clinton, by distracting us from the real issues and by demoralizing a lot of possible Republican voters. If I want to hear negative things about Trump I could skip subscribing to Ricochet, The Weekly Standard and Commentary – all of which I do – and read Slate and MSN for free. Hell, I get more balanced election coverage and fewer insults from NPR and Ezra Klein podcasts than I do from the majority of Ricochet-sponsored shows.
Does that make sense to you, my friend? Is my desire to win, even with a flawed candidate at the top of the ticket, so hard to understand?
So you picked a cursory one with little analysis and which long predated the circumstances we find ourselves in.
Much of it I agree with and is outlined above. Much is attacking the concept of tariffs for tariffs’ sake and tariffs against low wages in low productivity industries where we do not have comparative and absolute advantag. My concern is Chinese attacks on high productivity industries where we do have comparative and absolute advantage.
Worth note is that at one point, his argument against tariffs is the retaliation. But we are now told not to retaliate.
His cursory dismissal of the “fourth argument” has numerous problems. Two are that it is a static analysis. first the foreign country may be making a short term sacrifice for a long term gain. Second is the absurd unilateral disarmament nature. we lose all deterrence if we forego retaliation. Also, like all to many economic analyses, it assumes zero transactional costs. Also, it ignores scale: different trade policies may be relevant to a small foreign country than a large one.
I was being polite to another member who used that term to describe himself. I could have said “treasonous bastards” to be more descriptive. :-)
I don’t question or dispute your reasoning (or anyone else’s) for supporting Trump. After eight years of the man-child president and ideologue, I get it entirely. I just reached a point where it wasn’t even a point to hold my nose. One too many antics and insults and I reached a point where enough is enough.
I don’t think his campaign gets any better if everyone just engages in happy talk.
What you have to understand is that pro-Trump people feel exactly the same way about the insults of the nevertrumpers.
Of course it won’t. But his supporters might be more aggressive in attacking the Democratic nominee if we weren’t demoralized by fighting with friends on our own sites and being berated by our pundits. And “happy talk” isn’t required, only good, old-fashioned mother-wit:
“If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Really, what other political website/publication in the history of the world, other than some Trotskyist rag run off of a mimeograph machine in the 1930s, ever engaged in as many hatriolic assaults against so many of its own subscribers?
Maybe Lyndon LaRouche in the 1970s.
If you don’t think it’s demoralizing, check Ricochet’s new subscriber numbers for this month on the front page. Check the traffic and subscription numbers for NR and other conservative magazines and their sites. (I let lapse my long-time NR subscription.)
And cui bono? The Democrats.
You don’t have to like him or vote for him. Just tone it down, that’s all.