It will certainly be better for the US if we have more open trade with the world. But I think the world benefits even more than the US does.
Conversely, I think the world will suffer even more than the US if there is a lack of trade.
Anyway, bad news on the trade front. Trump plans to destroy global free trade. I don't like that idea very much, but there isn't much that I can do about it.
I certainly favor trying negotiations before we bomb. The Iraq war, in retrospect, makes it pretty clear that having UN inspectors crawling all over a country is actually very effective at curtailing WMD programs.
But if we had failed in the negotiations and had no other way of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, I don't see why bombing wouldn't have worked as a last resort.
I don't think even he would be stupid enough to do the things he says on trade. It would destroy the economy. That is something that would legitimately cause a revolution.
I'm not sure. But I think those signature strikes where we bomb without knowing who we are hitting are responsible for most of the damage we've done to al-Qa'ida, and al-Qa'ida might be a much more serious threat right now if we hadn't carried them out.
The fact that we no longer will be able to single-handedly dominate the entire world won't matter much to me, because that's something I never cared about doing to begin with.
Hey Berners! Still think your guy can win the nomination?
I don't identify as a Bernie guy, though I prefer Bernie to Hilary, but I've always expected Hilary to win. I've been predicting a Democratic victory and specifically her as the next president since the last election.
Bernie and Trump are the kind of outliers that can make such predictions fail, and I could not have and did not foresee them and the dynamics they bring to the election but I still see this as Hilary's election to win so far. [/q]
I didn't foresee the stir caused by Trump and Sanders either, but this doesn't mean we couldn't have. Trump has played with running for the nomination before, and the eventual outcome of those dalliances would, understandably have discounted the possibility of his being the front-runner, but predicting his interest and an attempt would not have required the gift of Nostradamus.
Sanders was talking about running for president in 2016 as far back as 2013 and as an enormous fan of Eugene Debs, it's only surprising that he hasn't already run at least once. Again, predicting his entry into the 2016 contest wouldn't have required a crystal ball.
I believe if anyone had given careful consideration to the attitude of the American people, at the time Trump and Sanders threw their hats in the ring, they could have reached the accurate conclusion that a sizeable number of them wanted to see big, dramatic changes in the way things are done in government and politics, and that they would be attracted to "outsiders."
Republicans have for quite some time been longing for a businessman to sit in the Oval Office and Romney's attraction in 2012 had a whole lot more to do with his business career over the years, than his stint as Governor of Massachusetts. In fact, one might make a good argument that his history has a public servant hurt him more than helped him with Republican voters.
Democrats have become increasingly more leftist over the years, and this includes those being elected as well as the rank & file. The "success" of OccupyWallStreet (if anything that came of that theater of the absurd can be called a "success."), among Democrats could easily have been seen as a forecast of a large and growing constituency for socialism. That Debbie Wasserman Schultz, infamously, couldn't explain the difference between a "Democrat" and a "socialist," was evidence of the advancing evolution. That she was loathe to answer the question, was a good indication that the Party insiders weren't properly gauging their constituents, and still believed that "Americans would never elect a socialist to the presidency." I appreciate that liberals considered the predictions/warnings of conservatives like me, that the Democrat Party was increasingly heading in that direction, to be hyperbole and libel rolled into one, but we have been saying this for some time now, and not just as rote criticism. Who was more likely than Sanders to run as an unabashed socialist comrade?
I do think that it would have taken some pure guesswork to predict Trump becoming the focal point of a large segment of Americans who have become sick to death of politics, the perceived weakness and betrayal of a GOP given the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, and a decaying culture where people are offended and angered by the statement that all lives matter, that a widely read periodical might fabricate or not bother to properly investigate a campus rape case, and where political leaders not only refuse to identify terrorists killing Americans as Islamic extremists, but announce they are more concerned with a backlash against Muslims that Muslim's killing non-Muslims, but that they had reached and exceeded the saturation point should have been clear to all.
You are not alone in believing that Clinton remains the favorite to win the nomination. Barring an indictment of a Grand Jury, I agree that she is because I don't think Bernie will have the same level of success in states like SC, and Texas and she's all the Democrats have, but defining her status of the election as her's to lose, as many although not you, is telling, or, at least, it doesn't have the same casual air to it as it has in the past. She is more than capable of losing an election that she should win. She will get caught in another big lie before the convention is held, she will continue to ignore the advice of her husband, and she will only listen to the sycophants in her campaign.
As for the general election, that's far, far less of a sure thing and is not, at all, entirely in her hands. There's an excellent chance that Trump will not only win the GOP nomination (as much as I hate to type that statement), but attract far more minority voters than most "experts" expect, as well as a a fair number of Berners who will be totally pissed of when Clinton beats their guy. She is going to need Trump, or whomever the GOP nominee is, to make a big mistake during the last couple of months before the election. So far Trump supporters are more emboldened than repulsed by his so-called mistakes, but I do think that those who become Trumpeteers late in the games, and only with some reluctance, will be susceptible to a being chased away by a major gaffe.
Clinton will have to win the election not just not lose it. Having secured the GOP standard, Trump is likely to return to vague comments about how he likes the idea of single-payer health insurance and taxing the mega-rich. He's not going to present the stark contrast with Clinton that so many (including her) are hoping for.
I didn't think Obama has a prayer to get re-elected in 2012, for what I still believe were logical reasons, but they were all based on voters making logical decisions, not simply decisions that I approved of and thus thought were smart, but decisions that were consistent with patterns that could be seen in the voting in 2008. That they didn't, in some way makes the least logical outcome to be the most likely, because emotion, not logic drives voting decisions of a yooge number of Americans. I've said this for years but only came to believe it after 2012. The popularity of Trump and Sanders confirms the premise for me now.
It was also before it was appreciated just how many Americans believe her to be untrustworthy and before her e-mail troubles started
Sure, but I am not seeing it only through the context of competition. It is worse for everyone. It is not a good thing.
I don't think even he would be stupid enough to do the things he says on trade. It would destroy the economy. That is something that would legitimately cause a revolution.
Because it can only work insofar as it can set them back a few years, and the cost of doing so is immeasurably greater than the gain.
Ultimately if Iran wants nukes badly enough they will have them, there's nothing we can do to stop them in that case because the only options that work (invading and occupying the country for 20 years) are decidedly worse than them having nukes.
I think there's more to it than that (our average quality of life will be lower, because we also cannot dominate economically as much) but I agree with your overall outlook in that the "decline" of the USA is not a horrible thing.
Yeah it's bullshit but everyone does this on trade. The official US position is for more trade agreements but because the public (erroneously) believes that is bad for us economically they have to pretend like they hate free trade during silly season.
In any case even if he were to try, I think that business interests or the market reacting to it in advance would be pressure enough to change most people's minds.
But yeah, it's not like I want to see my opinion tested either.
I feel bad for sane Republicans these days having to deal with that clown.
I'm not sure why the subject of email supersedes so many issues that directly affects Americans. This country has gone bonkers in more ways than one!
Here's an interesting site: https://electionbettingodds.com
In general I find that betting odds are far more accurate than polls when it comes to actual results. People are far more objective with their money than they are with their opinions.
Mr. Trump is setting himself up as someone who is going to do what he says, as opposed to a typical politician who will pander and then change their minds.
I think he really does mean to do what he says.
I don't perceive any cost to the US bombing Iran's nuclear sites.
I favor negotiation because I think UN inspectors will be more effective than bombing, not because I think bombing has a cost to us.
If Iran rebuilds after being set back a few years, we could just bomb their new nuclear sites. And maybe bomb economic targets so they have to start choosing between nuclear weapons and food.
I think bombing can suffice. No need for invasions.
The costs of allowing Iran to have nukes would be catastrophic (unless we could convince the world to isolate them with sanctions like with North Korea).
If Iran were allowed to get away with having nuclear weapons, it would mean the end of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and the spread of nuclear weapons to nations around the world, with an eventual nuclear war.
I don't think the rise of other powers will necessarily decrease our average quality of life. Assuming we are able to trade with those powers, it may even increase our average quality of life.
I honestly don't see us as declining.
It's going to be worse for the Democrats than for the Republicans. Trump is going to reshape the Republican Party to fit his views, but I'm upping my electoral predictions now to say that the Republicans are guaranteed to win the next five presidential elections.
