Only President Trump could get the Canadians to vote for an exit to the USMCA, and he did it brilliantly

[Swordsmyth]

Imagine holding the door open for someone, and then hearing them complain that you stole their door opening from them.

Was he the doorman who is employed to do that and gets tipped by the customers for it?

 

[acptulsa]

Yes, there is.
When someone not eligible takes the opportunity from those who are.

Spoken like the kind of liberal prog who will not only bust Christian volunteers for feeding the homeless, but will pass laws against people repairing their own cars or houses.

 

[Invisible Man]

Yes, there is.
When someone not eligible takes the opportunity from those who are.

Eligibility is up to the one hiring them to decide. It's their money being spent. Employers make good and bad decisions in hiring all the time, and they bear that risk and the cost of their bad decisions. But the people they choose not to hire aren't losing anything they're entitled to.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Spoken like the kind of liberal prog who will not only bust Christian volunteers for feeding the homeless, but will pass laws against people repairing their own cars or houses.

LOL

The Chinese are not giving Christian charity or utilizing their own assets.
They are enslaving their own people to destroy our country and people and conquer the world to create a global government with them at the head so they can enslave everyone.

Naturally you are too morally blind to see the difference.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Eligibility is up to the one hiring them to decide. It's their money being spent. Employers make good and bad decisions in hiring all the time, and they bear that risk and the cost of their bad decisions. But the people they choose not to hire aren't losing anything they're entitled to.

Thieves and slavers not not part of the free market.
And neither is international trade when it harms our independence and people.

 

[acptulsa]

Naturally you are too morally blind to see the difference.

Not me, no. But you insist on opening Pandora's Box, so unions can bribe Democrats into doing the same thing you want to do, only doing it to us instead of the Chinese.

That's why people say allegedly "conservative" statists like you only conserve Democrat tyranny--because it's true. And that's why we stand on principle. That, and the free market not only does a better job of doing the things you want done, given a chance, it requires no parasite class to support with taxes.

You keep insisting the only way to solve the problem of communist subsidies is with draconian regulations. But the draconian regulations we already have are the key to what success the Chinese have. Their wage slavery barely covers shipping costs. They still couldn't dump products on us if it weren't for OSHA, the EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup.

But you rarely talk about that. Is that because you worship power? Or is it because the Treehouse doesn't program you to respond that way?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not me, no. But you insist on opening Pandora's Box, so unions can bribe Democrats into doing the same thing you want to do, only doing it to us instead of the Chinese.

That's why people say allegedly "conservative" statists like you only conserve Democrat tyranny--because it's true. And that's why we stand on principle. That, and the free market not only does a better job of doing the things you want done, given a chance, it requires no parasite class to support with taxes.

You keep insisting the only way to solve the problem of communist subsidies is with draconian regulations. But the draconian regulations we already have are the key to what success the Chinese have. Their wage slavery barely covers shipping costs. They still couldn't dump products on us if it weren't for OSHA, the EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup.

But you rarely talk about that. Is that because you worship power? Or is it because the Treehouse doesn't program you to respond that way?

Absolute bunk.
Tariffs on imports have nothing to do with "the petition of the candlemakers" in the domestic market, nor are the left not currently pursuing such things at home whenever they can.
The "don't create a precedent" argument has always been a sham because the enemy doesn't ever observe precedent.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not me, no. But you insist on opening Pandora's Box, so unions can bribe Democrats into doing the same thing you want to do, only doing it to us instead of the Chinese.

That's why people say allegedly "conservative" statists like you only conserve Democrat tyranny--because it's true. And that's why we stand on principle. That, and the free market not only does a better job of doing the things you want done, given a chance, it requires no parasite class to support with taxes.

You keep insisting the only way to solve the problem of communist subsidies is with draconian regulations. But the draconian regulations we already have are the key to what success the Chinese have. Their wage slavery barely covers shipping costs. They still couldn't dump products on us if it weren't for OSHA, the EPA, and all the rest of the alphabet soup.

But you rarely talk about that. Is that because you worship power? Or is it because the Treehouse doesn't program you to respond that way?

I talk about regulations and taxes all the time, and Trump is cutting them like few others ever have.
But slavers absolutely can undermine anyone with dumping, which is why they also like to import illegal slaves here to undermine the American worker.

And tariffs will allow what taxes are necessary to be removed from domestic producers, so they help solve that end of the problem too.

 

[acptulsa]

The "don't create a precedent" argument has always been a sham because the enemy doesn't ever observe precedent.

The Left does what it can get away with. And they get away with a lot just by saying, you Republicans do it too. A lot.

If you can't see that it's just because you prefer to go through life with blinders on.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Left does what it can get away with. And they get away with a lot just by saying, you Republicans do it too. A lot.

If you can't see that it's just because you prefer to go through life with blinders on.

That's a lie they tell to keep us from ever doing anything to reverse their destruction.

And, they apply it to things that are not the same at all, like you tried to do.

The question is not "what precedent will this set?", it is "is this thing a good and correct thing to do?".

 

[acptulsa]

That's a lie they tell to keep us from ever doing anything to reverse their destruction.

Democrats tell us they use Republican willingness to use government power to keep Republicans from getting the government's nose out of our business? How does that work?

 

[nikcers]

Democrats tell us they use Republican willingness to use government power to keep Republicans from getting the government's nose out of our business? How does that work?

Its not the historical record for any government in our history not to do something because a future government might use it as a precedent to do something.

Perhaps what if thats how the American colony thought when they rebelled against the king.

They would say well we cant rebel against the king because what if a future government uses that as a precedence?

You could argue Washington didn't run for a 3rd term because he didn't want future presidents to run for 3rd terms but its just not the real reason why he didnt run for a 3rd term and it didn't stop a future president from running for a 3rd term.

 

[acptulsa]

Its not the historical record for any government in our history not to do something because a future government might use it as a precedent to do something.

Alikcers: Identify the thirtieth president of the United States, who was born on the Fourth of July.

If it's "not in the historical record" it's because communists write the history textbooks. It isn't because it never happened.

 

[Invisible Man]

Alikcers: Identify the thirtieth president of the United States, who was born on the Fourth of July.

If it's "not in the historical record" it's because communists write the history textbooks. It isn't because it never happened.

If you were able to find any meaning at all in nikcers words there, you did better than I could do.

 

[nikcers]

Alikcers: Identify the thirtieth president of the United States, who was born on the Fourth of July.

If it's "not in the historical record" it's because communists write the history textbooks. It isn't because it never happened.

Perhaps you could say that about the Louisiana purchase too. In fact no president had expanded territory before that. You could argue its not in the constitution for a president to do so. So what is a president to do? Should he just not get the deal of a century and do the Louisiana purchase?

 

[acptulsa]

Perhaps you could say that about the Louisiana purchase too.

Perhaps I could direct you to identify the thirtieth POTUS about the Louisiana Purchase?

Perhaps I could say that Jefferson was opposed to Whigs expanding the country's territory?

WTF are you trying to say? Do you know?

 

[nikcers]

If you were able to find any meaning at all in nikcers words there, you did better than I could do.

Well thats because you didnt read the context.

The context is he was arguing the government should only do something if they are comfortable with a future government doing something they wouldnt want them to do.

That the precedence is the only guiding force of example and all future governments will be binded to use such caution.

That no government therefore will do something unprecedented even when its objectively good for the nation.

 

[nikcers]

Perhaps I could direct you to identify the thirtieth POTUS about the Louisiana Purchase?

Perhaps I could say that Jefferson was opposed to Whigs expanding the country's territory?

WTF are you trying to say? Do you know?

You are blinded by pessimism.

 

[Invisible Man]

Well thats because you didnt read the context.

The context is he was arguing the government should only do something if they are comfortable with a future government doing something they wouldnt want them to do.

That the precedence is the only guiding force of example and all future governments will be binded to use such caution.

That no government therefore will do something unprecedented even when its objectively good for the nation.

Are you trying to say "precedent"?

 

[nikcers]

Are you trying to say "precedent"?

Plural precedents is pronounced just like precedence.

I see you can understand context LOL.