Trump: Fascist Statement about forcing Apple to Manufacture in US

[wetroof]

Democrats accuse trump of being a fascist for all sorts of nonsensical reasons. So I am sick of hearing that. Anyways I'm not sure this proposal by Trump is really "fascism" or not. But this is a good opportunity for a response from Rand. Maybe he can explain why this is idiotic.. and what the real problem is, and the solution..

 

[derek4ever]

Oh, the ironyyyy!!! Thanks for the pic find!!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/19/trump-apple-should-build-their-damn-things-in-us.html

"We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

To all you Trump lovers out there - please explain the logic of why you still support such a fascist person? At this point - I have no respect for any Trump supporters when he makes statements like this which against the fiber of free trade yet his Trumptards still support him.

Fascism must be popular. Get off this liberty forum.

An antagonistic tone such as this does not yield a productive debate.

Can or should Trump dictate where a company can manufacture? No. Are tariffs fascism? No.

To be completely fascist, Trump would be making secret (or open) deals behind the scenes to share in the profits, eliminate competition and advance political agendas with Apple, more like Hillary Clinton would do.

And as usual, Trump's statement was vague with no detail at all:

Technology blog Gizmodo reports that during a speech at Liberty University in Virginia late Monday, the frontrunner for the GOP ticket said, "We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul discusses this issue (Trump and Apple at 10:00 minute mark):

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Edit: Just noticed the thread title is inaccurate. I don't like Trump, but saying "We're gong to get Apple to build their damn computers in the U.S." isn't the same as saying "We're going to force Apple to build their damn computers in the U.S." Trump could come back and argue that his plan, which of course he has not specified, is to give such huge tax breaks to companies that are currently manufacturing overseas to bring those jobs to the U.S. that it would entice Apple to bring at least some manufacturing hear without raising any tariffs. I doubt that's what he meant. He never actually says exactly what he means.

And that's the key. He never gives details.

"We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

How can that statement be evaluated? There is no substance. Some will find it a feel good, pro-USA-jobs statement, some see it as protectionism or some form of tyranny.

Knowing Trump, he probably means he'll negotiate a new version of the TPP, but it will be the greatest, the best anyone has ever seen. It will be so good, you won't believe it. And the Chinese will pay for it.

 

[ApathyCuredRP]

Edit: Just noticed the thread title is inaccurate. I don't like Trump, but saying "We're gong to get Apple to build their damn computers in the U.S." isn't the same as saying "We're going to force Apple to build their damn computers in the U.S." Trump could come back and argue that his plan, which of course he has not specified, is to give such huge tax breaks to companies that are currently manufacturing overseas to bring those jobs to the U.S. that it would entice Apple to bring at least some manufacturing hear without raising any tariffs. I doubt that's what he meant. He never actually says exactly what he means.

Great - People support a candidate who never actually says exactly what he means. Sounds like a great plan.

The argument that Ron Paul Tariff Concept = Trump Statement in article is hilarious.

If jobs are cheap over seas, the solution to be competitive here is to remove minimum wage so that the skill-less labor force can have an entry level job. People are paid their value. If someone has zero skills, why would I hire them to perform a task at minimum wage? If Apple can get cheaper labor over seas at the same product quality - and the consumer still buys the product - then that is the free market at work. Why should Apple be forced to pay more for labor when the consumers are clearly happy with the current product?

You can not centralize job production anymore than you can centralize the banking system.

America is fat and lazy. What happened to applying yourself to learn a trade? What happened to the work ethic? What happened to peoples motivation?

Such a relevant quote:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

- Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[rg17]

HA! HA! Oops!

 

[jmdrake]

Better climate = reduction in regulation and taxes, not more taxes to "level the incentives." They can't level the field to pretend to be a free market, and NO ONE writing them wants that anyway.

Again, as long as our federal government exists there will be some kind of taxation. Sure, taxes should be lowered. But some taxes are worse that others. As others have pointed out here, even Ron Paul supports a moderate tariff in exchange for getting rid of the income tax. And note, I said that there should be a reduction in regulation and internal taxes.

As far as "tying tariffs to a freedom index" - why should the US Fed Gov profit off of us trading with people under more repressive regimes?

1) The federal government is going to profit anyway. That's what they do.

2) As it stands now some of our lowest tariffs are with some of the most repressive regimes. Why should a repressive country like China have lower tariffs than other countries with a better record on human rights?

3) Countries like China don't have to keep being repressive.

4) With China being repressive it can have virtual slave labor which is difficult to compete against in a labor market.

I don't need to borrow money from China, do you?

Are you just being obtuse or are you really having a hard time understanding anyone's point but your own? Our government is going to continue a favorable trade policy with China over more deserving countries because out government needs to borrow money from China. Got it?

 

[jmdrake]

Great - People support a candidate who never actually says exactly what he means. Sounds like a great plan.

The argument that Ron Paul Tariff Concept = Trump Statement in article is hilarious.

It is hilarious. It's so hilarious because I never said that! Don't be a dimwit! You and others went from attacking Trump, what I agree with, to a general attack on tariffs, which I disagree with and so does Ron Paul. Now are you ready to have an honest debate?

 

[Cabal]

"We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

I don't support Trump at all, but this statement isn't an example of fascism or using force. All it says is that he wants Apple to make their products in the states, and that he evidently intends to make this some kind of goal, and wants to achieve this. It doesn't say anything about how he intends to achieve this goal, be it through force, or whatever else.

Perhaps he does intend to use some kind of force (that's basically all any level of government is, anyway), but this statement doesn't demonstrate that.

 

[Cdn_for_liberty]

what I am curious is what is organized labor saying because they usually back the Dems and are really pro-protectionist.