Trump Advisor: A Vote for Ted Cruz is a Vote to Offshore American Jobs

[charrob]

Trump Advisor: A Vote for Ted Cruz is a Vote to Offshore American Jobs:

Trump Campaign Senior Policy Advisor Stephen Miller addressed Friday why immigration and trade are key issues in the Republican frontrunner’s campaign.

“Well, there is very little right about our trade deals, there is virtually nothing right about our trade deals. We’ve been getting taken to the cleaners by every country we trade with. We have a trade deficit with almost all of our major trading partners. If you look at, for instance, say Japan, and our car trading deficit, or you look at China, where we have hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficits, so our entire trade policy needs to be retooled,” Miller told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo.

Miller then weighed in on some of the changes the Donald would make if elected president and how his plan differs from that of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

“One major change we have to make, is to stop foreign currency cheating, the devaluation of foreign currencies to put American companies out of business. And that is a big difference in this race. [highlight]Ted Cruz has voted consistently to protect China and protect China’s ability to devalue their currency.[/highlight] Donald Trump has pledged to crack down on currency. So a vote for Ted Cruz really is a vote to offshore American jobs to China.” said Miller.

Miller then pushed back on the concept that current trade policies make products cheaper for Americans.

“The results of our current trade policy are in and they are an epic failure. Look at Detroit, which has been completely deindustrialized and look at Shanghai which has been completely built up at the expense of the American workers. But with respect to the price of goods, keep in mind, when we ship all these jobs overseas, it drives down wages in America, it drives down the standard of living. And so the real cost of goods goes up. By comparison, if you bring these jobs back to America, you create good paying, middle-class, manufacturing jobs and incomes go up, the real price of goods goes down. So, you’re really not saving anybody any money by sending our entire middle class overseas.”

Miller also argued that the establishment politicians trying to fight Trump’s nomination want to maintain current trade and immigration policies.

“There is an all-out effort to stop Donald Trump from the establishment power brokers. The question we have to ask is ‘why?’ And the answer is that the failed political class is trying to hold onto power. And what do I mean by that? [highlight]The people who have authored our terrible trade deals, the people responsible for our disastrous immigration policies, the people who’ve put us into war after war in the Middle East. All these people want to stop Donald Trump so things can stay exactly as they are right now[/highlight].”

Miller then weighed in on the impact of current immigration policy on American workers.

“Immigration policy is about who could enter the U.S., who could live in the U.S., who could work and be part of the U.S. democracy. And right now our policy is anybody can come in, no screening, no checks, no rules – and who pays the price? American workers struggling to make ends meet, struggling to provide for their families.”

 

[CPUd]

THEY DEVALUE THEIR CURRENCY!

 

[hankrichter12]

I just want to know seriously, this is a real question has anyone in the history of these boards done a study on how people keep voting over and over again for the same people even tho they completely do the opposite of what they said they would do?

I live in a mostly conservative town, all of these people in their rhetoric and even in their own lives believe in personal responsibility and making their own way, yet they are die hard Rep/FOX news watchers and support candidates who do the opposite of what these people believe in, but they have that "R" next to their name and that seems to carry so much weight, I don't get why?

Trump has knocked them out of that spell a bit but even still, they just seem to have a loyalty to these Rep no matter what. It has to be some kind of condition.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

 

[Krugminator2]

Here is a chart of the massive devaluation in the Chinese currency. Oh whoops. That is the US dollar that has lost 30% of its value vs the Yuan. Overall Ted Cruz is good on trade. I remember him standing up to nitwit Laura Ingraham when she was spouting protectionist nonsense.

 

[hankrichter12]

So you oppose sovereignty then? OK, so if you are for freedom...do people have a right to form into groups voluntarily? Now, project that to it's logical conclusion, call them "tribes", "countries", "nations", whatever, do these people have a right to form these groups if they so choose?

Further, do they have the right to set up boundaries (borders if you will) and have rules within those boundaries? Do they have a right to say, let's work towards as much personal freedom as possible within our boundaries, you can get as rich as you please through voluntary transactions within said community, but business outside these boundaries must be done under the idea of is it good as a whole for the community first and foremost...can people set up these types of societies voluntarily or no? What say you?

Here is a chart of the massive devaluation in the Chinese currency. Oh whoops. That is the US dollar that has lost 30% of its value vs the Yuan. Overall Ted Cruz is good on trade. I remember him standing up to nitwit Laura Ingraham when she was spouting protectionist nonsense.

Yeah, we got rid of that "protectionist nonsense" in the 90's, and look how wonderful it has been:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/05/31/we-need-a-tariff-not-a-corporate-income-tax/

 

[Krugminator2]

Yeah, we got rid of that "protectionist nonsense" in the 90's, and look how wonderful it has been:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/05/31/we-need-a-tariff-not-a-corporate-income-tax/

Patrick Buchanan's opinion carries no weight with me. I don't care what he says anymore than I care about what Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer has to say. I am not sure what I am supposed to see in that article. It isn't particularly persuasive.

I guess you are talking about NAFTA referring to the 90's. It had the effect that people like Milton Friedman said it would. It was a small benefit to the US economy because of how large our economy is and larger benefit to Mexico. Overall good for everyone and that is what the studies have shown.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

So you oppose sovereignty then?

You don't know what sovereignty means.

OK, so if you are for freedom...do people have a right to form into groups voluntarily?

Of course

Now, project that to it's logical conclusion, call them "tribes", "countries", "nations", whatever, do these people have a right to form these groups if they so choose? Further, do they have the right to set up boundaries (borders if you will) and have rules within those boundaries? Do they have a right to say, let's work towards as much personal freedom as possible within our boundaries, you can get as rich as you please through voluntary transactions within said community, but business outside these boundaries must be done under the idea of is it good as a whole for the community first and foremost...can people set up these types of societies voluntarily or no? What say you?

So, you're under the impression that Americans collectively own all the land in the United States?

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[CPUd]

Ron Paul on Trump: "I'm not looking for a boss"

 

[r3volution 3.0]

THEY DEVALUE THEIR CURRENCY!

Trump on Ben Bernanke's response to the banking crisis (i.e. massive money printing):

BLITZER: The Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Ben B., as you call him.

TRUMP: I think that he has -- was a little bit late on the draw, but he's come around strongly, and I would give him a B-plus. A good, strong B-plus. Look, I mean, these people inherited a mess. And they weren't necessarily to blame for it and they're trying to fix it. I would say that Ben was a little bit late, and based on the lateness, but I'm not sure there's -- you know, if he was earlier, I'm not sure if it would be any different. So I would give him a B-plus.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._supported_the_banking_and_auto_bailouts.html

Trump's only objection appears to be that Bernanke didn't start printing soon enough.

 

[hankrichter12]

You don't know what sovereignty means.

Enlighten me Zen master

Of course

OK

So, you're under the impression that Americans collectively own all the land in the United States?

Citizens based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act prior to 1965, minus the 14th Amendment (which Ron opposes) yes.

Patrick Buchanan's opinion carries no weight with me. I don't care what he says anymore than I care about what Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer has to say. I am not sure what I am supposed to see in that article. It isn't particularly persuasive.

I guess you are talking about NAFTA referring to the 90's. It had the effect that people like Milton Friedman said it would. It was a small benefit to the US economy because of how large our economy is and larger benefit to Mexico. Overall good for everyone and that is what the studies have shown.

Well, that says all I need to know about your "opinion", you compare Kristol and Krauthammer to the guy who wrote books and articles dating back to the 60's that read like they were written yesterday, but yeah, I'll take your advice, a no nothing no one who works in theory instead of reality.

You did not refute even one single thing Pat said, typical. Name me the benefit to America as a whole as a result of NAFTA (billion dollar trade imbalances).....yeah, thought so. Theory is nice in theory, grow up little boy, live in the real world

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Enlighten me Zen master

A state is sovereign if it is capable of enforcing its chosen policies within its territory.

Sovereignty has nothing to do with which policies it chooses to pursue.

Citizens based on the Immigration and Naturalization Act prior to 1965, minus the 14th Amendment (which Ron opposes) yes.

Ah, well, then we have different ethical principles.

I'm in favor of private property, not democratic socialism.

 

[hankrichter12]

A state is sovereign if it is capable of enforcing its chosen policies within its territory.

OK???? What was your point?

Sovereignty has nothing to do with which policies it chooses to pursue.

Didn't say it did.

Ah, well, then we have different ethical principles.

No kidding.

I'm in favor of private property, not democratic socialism.

Having a border is "Democratic Socialism", haha. Pretty weak.

 

[klamath]

Why do we care what a trump advisor says about Trumps opponent? Should we post every statement a Cruz advisor says a Trump?

 

[erowe1]

If you're a protectionist, Trump is probably your man.

 

[erowe1]

So you oppose sovereignty then?

The problem with the way you protectionists use words like "sovereignty," "globalism," and "nationalism," is that you give them special statist meanings and then you use a rhetorical trick of equivocating between those meanings and their free market alternatives.

Ron Paul believes in individual sovereignty. And at the national level he believes in the sovereignty of the US relative to other nations, meaning that their regimes have no authority over us. But that national sovereignty is based on a prior assumption of the sovereignty of each individual. You guys turn that around and make it into a sovereignty of the regime in DC over us.

In that same sense, Ron Paul believes in nationalism. But he doesn't believe in nationalism in the sense of a nation as some entity with its own rights that need to be protected apart from the rights of each individual comprising it.

Ron Paul opposes global government. But he unabashedly supports the globalism of unimpeded commerce with everyone on the earth, including a global free market currency.

I'm with Ron Paul on all those things. You try to make it look like you are by the way you twist those terms around. But you're really the exact opposite.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

OK???? What was your point?

That sovereignty does not require protectionism

Didn't say it did.

When I mocked protectionism, you retorted "So you oppose sovereignty then?"

...as if sovereignty required protectionism.

Having a border is "Democratic Socialism", haha. Pretty weak.

When I asked you whether Americans own all of the land in the US collectively, you said yes.

That would be socialism (at least in land, we didn't discuss other types of property).

You think Americans should manage "their" property democratically (as by voting on whether Mexicans will be allowed entry to said property).

That would be democratic socialism.

...

This is in contrast to the libertarian view, by which land is owned individually, with each owner deciding for himself who will be allowed entry.

e.g. One may allow Mexicans on one's property (or not allow them), even if all of one's neighbors get together and vote to the contrary.

 

[hankrichter12]

That sovereignty does not require protectionism

When I mocked protectionism, you retorted "So you oppose sovereignty then?"

...as if sovereignty required protectionism.

If you don't have protectionism you are not going to keep your sovereignty for long.

When I asked you whether Americans own all of the land in the US collectively, you said yes.

That would be socialism (at least in land, we didn't discuss other types of property).

You think Americans should manage "their" property democratically (as by voting on whether Mexicans will be allowed entry to said property).

That would be democratic socialism.

No that's not what I believe, I misunderstood your question, I thought you were referring to things such as the millions of acres that no one owns privately but are still American territory, in addition things like the Great Lakes, etc. The people of America own those lands and should have a say in any decisions made regarding those lands.

If ever someone wants to make use of that land it should be voted on by the people in that area who will be impacted by it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If you don't have protectionism you are not going to keep your sovereignty for long.

Because reasons?

No that's not what I believe, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were referring to things such as the millions of acres that no one owns privately but are still American territory, in addition things like the Great Lakes, etc. The people of America own those lands and should have a say in any decisions made regarding those lands. If ever someone wants to make use of that land it should be voted on by the people in that area who will be impacted by it.

Well then I don't know what you meant in your original post:

do they have the right to set up boundaries (borders if you will) and have rules within those boundaries? Do they have a right to say, let's work towards as much personal freedom as possible within our boundaries, you can get as rich as you please through voluntary transactions within said community, but business outside these boundaries must be done under the idea of is it good as a whole for the community first and foremost

If the American people collectively owned the land in the US, they would have the right to decide who can enter the country, or with whom those residing in the country can trade, etc. I took this to be your position - trying to justify protectionism by claiming that Americans collectively own the land. But if that's not what you mean, then how are these protectionist measures justified? If I own my land, why do my neighbors have the right to forcibly prevent me from using it as I please: as by allowing immigrants on it, or trading it with the Chinese?