Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Will Donald Trump Be The Next President?


leviathan306

Recommended Posts

My personal favourite, "I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

 

   Right ... because that will work.

 

Devils advocate.

 

They could pay for it. Just tax the hell out of everything that crosses the border from the Mexican end. Nothing Mexico could do. 80% of all Mexican exports go north. Mexico would be forced to absorb the cost vis-a-vis their economic situation. This would be pretty consistent with the Trump rhetoric.

 

$300 billion crosses that border from the Mexican side every year. If you want to generate more funds, tax not just goods but people crossing the border who don't hold an American passport. Don't kid yourself, it might sound crazy as a sound bite, but if the Americans wanted to have Mexico pay for that wall after the US put up the initial investment, Mexico would be paying for it, and literally nothing they could do would prevent it.

Edited by rogerroger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devils advocate.

 

They could pay for it. Just tax the hell out of everything that crosses the border from the Mexican end. Nothing Mexico could do. 80% of all Mexican exports go north. Mexico would be forced to absorb the cost vis-a-vis their economic situation. This would be pretty consistent with the Trump rhetoric.

 

$300 billion crosses that border from the Mexican side every year. If you want to generate more funds, tax not just goods but people crossing the border who don't hold an American passport. Don't kid yourself, it might sound crazy as a sound bite, but if the Americans wanted to have Mexico pay for that wall after the US put up the initial investment, Mexico would be paying for it, and literally nothing they could do would prevent it.

 

Well, not exactly. For one, there are several agreements the US has made - NAFTA being the big one - that says the US won't do just that. They could back out of these agreements, though there would be repercussions.

 

In particular, if the US pulled out of NAFTA, Mexico would have the ability to respond to any taxes on their goods being sent to the US with taxes on goods going the other way. The US does buy a lot of Mexican products, but Mexico buys a lot of American products too. Similarly, the US buys Mexican products for a reason, whether that's cost, quality, convenience, whatever. No NAFTA and high tariffs would blunt the flow of those products to the US, meaning they'd likely have to find other sources. Notably, they'd have to find other suppliers of petroleum products, given how much of what they use comes from Mexico now that they're trying to reduce their reliance on oil from the Middle East. Likewise, taxing individuals crossing the border would generate funds, but travel to Mexico from the US is pretty popular too and Mexico can do the exact same thing.

 

So yes, the US can start a trade war with Mexico and use the funds from taxes to buy a wall. But they'd hurt their economy so much in the process they'd not only fail to cover the cost of that wall, they'd have a lot bigger financial troubles than figuring out how to pay for that wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not exactly. For one, there are several agreements the US has made - NAFTA being the big one - that says the US won't do just that. They could back out of these agreements, though there would be repercussions.

 

In particular, if the US pulled out of NAFTA, Mexico would have the ability to respond to any taxes on their goods being sent to the US with taxes on goods going the other way. The US does buy a lot of Mexican products, but Mexico buys a lot of American products too. Similarly, the US buys Mexican products for a reason, whether that's cost, quality, convenience, whatever. No NAFTA and high tariffs would blunt the flow of those products to the US, meaning they'd likely have to find other sources. Notably, they'd have to find other suppliers of petroleum products, given how much of what they use comes from Mexico now that they're trying to reduce their reliance on oil from the Middle East. Likewise, taxing individuals crossing the border would generate funds, but travel to Mexico from the US is pretty popular too and Mexico can do the exact same thing.

 

So yes, the US can start a trade war with Mexico and use the funds from taxes to buy a wall. But they'd hurt their economy so much in the process they'd not only fail to cover the cost of that wall, they'd have a lot bigger financial troubles than figuring out how to pay for that wall.

 

Fair enough, but the suspension or renegotiation of NAFTA is consistent with the Trump rhetoric (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nafta-a-disaster-and-i-ll-renegotiate-says-donald-trump-1.3244280). If you play it all out to the end conclusion this is what you get, for better or for worse.

 

NAFTA cost the US a million jobs, and has generated a 180 billion dollar trade deficit. US manufacturing exports are 50% of what it was before 1994.  Before NAFTA the USA actually had a small trade surplus with Mexico. This disappeared with NAFTA. With NAFTA 60% of the American workforce, most those without a college education, have seen a decrease in wages by 12%. Similarly, wages in Mexico have also declined. 

 

Mexican trade is WAY more dependent on the USA than the other way around. 80% of Mexican total exports versus 15% of American. Mexico really can't do much, they are totally dependent on that border, it is their economic lifeline. Mexico might not like it, but they are totally under the American thumb. Getting a wall on that border paid by a tax would be the least of the possible economic pains that could be imposed by the States on Mexico under this scenario. The degree of economic protectionism advocated by a Trump government would make such a wall building strategy a mere drop in a bucket in a post-NAFTA situation.

Edited by rogerroger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but the suspension or renegotiation of NAFTA is consistent with the Trump rhetoric (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nafta-a-disaster-and-i-ll-renegotiate-says-donald-trump-1.3244280). If you play it all out to the end conclusion this is what you get, for better or for worse.

 

NAFTA cost the US a million jobs, and has generated a 180 billion dollar trade deficit. US manufacturing exports are 50% of what it was before 1994.  Before NAFTA the USA actually had a small trade surplus with Mexico. This disappeared with NAFTA. With NAFTA 60% of the American workforce, most those without a college education, have seen a decrease in wages by 12%. Similarly, wages in Mexico have also declined. 

 

Mexican trade is WAY more dependent on the USA than the other way around. 80% of Mexican total exports versus 15% of American. Mexico really can't do much, they are totally dependent on that border, it is their economic lifeline. Mexico might not like it, but they are totally under the American thumb. Getting a wall on that border paid by a tax would be the least of the possible economic pains that could be imposed by the States on Mexico under this scenario. The degree of economic protectionism advocated by a Trump government would make such a wall building strategy a mere drop in a bucket in a post-NAFTA situation.

 

It's totally consistent with Trump rhetoric, it's just that the Trump rhetoric is wrong.

 

Examining the effects of NAFTA on the US job market is difficult, but it likely didn't cost the US a million jobs, nor is it responsible for the trade deficit. Yes, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico just before NAFTA (though not consistently in the years before NAFTA) and now has a deficit, but the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is alive and well here. The US developed a large trade deficit with most of the world in the mid-90s, not just Mexico. There are no free trade agreements with China, Germany, or Japan, but the US developed a large trade deficit with these countries as well. Likewise, there may be some association with falling wages for non-college educated individuals and globalization (free trade with Mexico being only a part of that), but the decline in unions, increasing inequality, gutting of US education and the general failure of the US manufacturing industry to keep up or innovate in a new global marketplace all contributed as well. Withdrawing from NAFTA isn't going to make wages rise in the short or long term.

 

Where NAFTA has had an effect is entrenching economic ties between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Part of the reason Mexico has so much of its trade with the US, besides geographic convenience, is the presence of NAFTA. If the US goes from being a convenient, cheap trading partner to a convenient, expensive trading partner, Mexico will shift to other trading partners. Trade is a fluid enterprise and can change quickly with changing circumstances. Mexico benefits greatly from free trade over the US-Mexican border - as does the US - but they're not dependent on it either. Mexico's been pretty clear that they wouldn't pay for any border wall directly. Why would they accept a unilaterally imposed tariff or tax to pay for a wall either? Mexico does themselves no favours by rolling over in that situation, it would only embolden US politicians to abuse the relationship for America's gain. They'd fight back with their own tariffs or taxes to even the playing field. Neither country benefits from a trade war, and because Mexico has a smaller, less-developed, less-diversified global trade network, it would be hit harder, but arguably no harder than they would be by accepting US-imposed trade barriers without imposing some of their own.

 

In any case, Mexico probably won't have to worry about this scenario. Trump's chances of winning are pretty low, not that the situation couldn't change significantly between now and election day. Even if he gets in, he changes his mind every day and will have intense pressure on him not to start that trade war with Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's totally consistent with Trump rhetoric, it's just that the Trump rhetoric is wrong.

 

Examining the effects of NAFTA on the US job market is difficult, but it likely didn't cost the US a million jobs, nor is it responsible for the trade deficit. Yes, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico just before NAFTA (though not consistently in the years before NAFTA) and now has a deficit, but the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is alive and well here. The US developed a large trade deficit with most of the world in the mid-90s, not just Mexico. There are no free trade agreements with China, Germany, or Japan, but the US developed a large trade deficit with these countries as well. Likewise, there may be some association with falling wages for non-college educated individuals and globalization (free trade with Mexico being only a part of that), but the decline in unions, increasing inequality, gutting of US education and the general failure of the US manufacturing industry to keep up or innovate in a new global marketplace all contributed as well. Withdrawing from NAFTA isn't going to make wages rise in the short or long term.

 

Where NAFTA has had an effect is entrenching economic ties between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Part of the reason Mexico has so much of its trade with the US, besides geographic convenience, is the presence of NAFTA. If the US goes from being a convenient, cheap trading partner to a convenient, expensive trading partner, Mexico will shift to other trading partners. Trade is a fluid enterprise and can change quickly with changing circumstances. Mexico benefits greatly from free trade over the US-Mexican border - as does the US - but they're not dependent on it either. Mexico's been pretty clear that they wouldn't pay for any border wall directly. Why would they accept a unilaterally imposed tariff or tax to pay for a wall either? Mexico does themselves no favours by rolling over in that situation, it would only embolden US politicians to abuse the relationship for America's gain. They'd fight back with their own tariffs or taxes to even the playing field. Neither country benefits from a trade war, and because Mexico has a smaller, less-developed, less-diversified global trade network, it would be hit harder, but arguably no harder than they would be by accepting US-imposed trade barriers without imposing some of their own.

 

In any case, Mexico probably won't have to worry about this scenario. Trump's chances of winning are pretty low, not that the situation couldn't change significantly between now and election day. Even if he gets in, he changes his mind every day and will have intense pressure on him not to start that trade war with Mexico.

Re: trumps chances being low,

Latest ipsos poll has the race at a tie as of Friday. Hilary has steadily lost her 8 point lead she had on the 25th, presumably because of bad press on the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations as well as the ever growing email scandal.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-catches-clinton-latest-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-215514755.html

 

Also lets not forget that the wiki leaks founder has what seems to be game changing revelations on her that will be released in October.

 

 

The only reason I say this is because the general population can make odd decisions. Canada had to call an election in 2011 BECAUSE Stephen Harper lied in court about the fighter jet scandal, and for some reason he actually WINS that very election handedly, So not only did he not hurt his position after lying in court but the conservatives actually increased their power and secured a majority government instead of the previously held minority. That is how the people voted. Yet the masses aren't aware of facts so they are in the dark and would never know. Harper basically slapped every Canadian in the face and the general populace is too uneducated and/or unaware to do anything about it. The guy must've honestly been laughing.

 

Canadians like to think we would never elect a trump and that we're above that. But we already did. We had Harper. Much worst actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: trumps chances being low,

Latest ipsos poll has the race at a tie as of Friday. Hilary has steadily lost her 8 point lead she had on the 25th, presumably because of bad press on the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations as well as the ever growing email scandal.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-catches-clinton-latest-reuters-ipsos-poll-finds-215514755.html

 

Also lets not forget that the wiki leaks founder has what seems to be game changing revelations on her that will be released in October.

 

 

The only reason I say this is because the general population can make odd decisions. Canada had to call an election in 2011 BECAUSE Stephen Harper lied in court about the fighter jet scandal, and for some reason he actually WINS that very election handedly, So not only did he not hurt his position after lying in court but the conservatives actually increased their power and secured a majority government instead of the previously held minority. That is how the people voted. Yet the masses aren't aware of facts so they are in the dark and would never know. Harper basically slapped every Canadian in the face and the general populace is too uneducated and/or unaware to do anything about it. The guy must've honestly been laughing.

 

Canadians like to think we would never elect a trump and that we're above that. But we already did. We had Harper. Much worst actually.

 

I voted strategically against Harper every single election. He was anti-science, anti-transparency, and power-hungry. I'd still take him over Trump. Harper looked at the issues and often came to a bad decision. Trump doesn't even look at the issues. For all his faults, Harper did want what was best for the country and routinely clamped down on the extreme parts of his party's ideology. Trump wants what's best for himself and plays into extremism whenever it suits him. Electing Harper wasn't like electing a Trump, it was like electing a more articulate George W Bush.

 

A single poll (especially an internet poll) proves nothing and the average is still decidedly in Clinton's favour. Polls can change and, certainly, Trump could still win. However, they can change in the other direction too and the only presidential candidate viewed more unfavourably in modern elections than Clinton is Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted strategically against Harper every single election. He was anti-science, anti-transparency, and power-hungry. I'd still take him over Trump. Harper looked at the issues and often came to a bad decision. Trump doesn't even look at the issues. For all his faults, Harper did want what was best for the country and routinely clamped down on the extreme parts of his party's ideology. Trump wants what's best for himself and plays into extremism whenever it suits him. Electing Harper wasn't like electing a Trump, it was like electing a more articulate George W Bush.

 

A single poll (especially an internet poll) proves nothing and the average is still decidedly in Clinton's favour. Polls can change and, certainly, Trump could still win. However, they can change in the other direction too and the only presidential candidate viewed more unfavourably in modern elections than Clinton is Trump.

Completely disagree re Harper vs trump. Harper wants to benefit himself far more than helping his country, whereas I feel trump wants to genuinely help his country. Let me ask you something, who is a bigger slimey sleazeball, Harper or trump? Harper has had so many scandals it's ridiculous, I already mentioned the fighter jets, but what about using people and robotic calls to phone liberal supporters to falsely tell them their polling station has changed in the 2011 election? Does that really sound like someone who wants what's best for the country to you? That oozes sleazy. There's other scandals as well. Not to mention minorities hate Harper. Asian immigrants are against Harper and First Nations absolutely detest Harper. I honestly think Harper is more of a bigot than trump. Let's compare the countries' two most oppressed groups. There's no way US blacks hate trump as much as Canadian First Nations hate Harper. I don't expect people to know that because First Nations don't have much of a voice here, but I can tell you I've been to the wide array of First Nations communities, and it is a certainty that they Harper.

 

Trump isn't sleazy. Trump is just an asshole. But I'd take an asshole over the sleazeball any day. The asshole at least has the ability to be competent and achieve results, whereas with the sleazeball, there's an assumption that the sleazeball is not capable enough to produce any results which forces them to lie, cheat etc. I thought I remember hearing Harper was the worst Canadian jobs president since ww2. But what I do know for a fact is he has no major accomplishments in office. This next part I will say is just conjecture as I haven't looked into it, but I think Harper just benefitted himself and his oil buddies, I think that was his main objective rather than what you said of him helping his country. I'd wager more people would agree with my view than yours.

 

As for Harper clamping down on extreme parts of his ideology, you are aware that Stephen Harper founded the current Conservative party of Canada because the old more moderate conservative parties were not far right enough for him right?

 

As for the polls,

 

I'm assuming you think a poll proves nothing because it is just one piece to the puzzle and you need all the pieces to see the puzzle. Well in regards to that, the article mentions that the polling aggregators have all seen clintons lead diminish. So it's not just the ipsos, it's actually all the major polls. The average may still be in clintons favor but not decidedly (as indicated by the aggregators) because her lead has diminished.

 

Now if you actually have a distrust towards all polls, I'm not sure if that is a founded argument because I don't know the historical political data of polls vs actual outcome of an election. But why can't it be an Internet poll? Do you think that people are lying to the polls? I don't as I don't think that makes much sense, and people with more experience in politics who do it for a living don't distrust the polls so I assumed it had some validity.

 

But I do agree that polls can change and it can swing any which way. So we could be having this conversation every week. I did bring it up but that's because I don't distrust the polls.

 

And if you're disregarding the polls in favor of unfavorability, I still think polls are better than that metric because at least polls are a binary choice. It's one or the other for all intensive purposes because of the two party system. I can have unfavourable views of both candidates but I still have to make a choice at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely disagree re Harper vs trump. Harper wants to benefit himself far more than helping his country, whereas I feel trump wants to genuinely help his country. Let me ask you something, who is a bigger slimey sleazeball, Harper or trump? Harper has had so many scandals it's ridiculous, I already mentioned the fighter jets, but what about using people and robotic calls to phone liberal supporters to falsely tell them their polling station has changed in the 2011 election? Does that really sound like someone who wants what's best for the country to you? That oozes sleazy. There's other scandals as well. Not to mention minorities hate Harper. Asian immigrants are against Harper and First Nations absolutely detest Harper. I honestly think Harper is more of a bigot than trump. Let's compare the countries' two most oppressed groups. There's no way US blacks hate trump as much as Canadian First Nations hate Harper. I don't expect people to know that because First Nations don't have much of a voice here, but I can tell you I've been to the wide array of First Nations communities, and it is a certainty that they Harper.

 

Trump isn't sleazy. Trump is just an asshole. But I'd take an asshole over the sleazeball any day. The asshole at least has the ability to be competent and achieve results, whereas with the sleazeball, there's an assumption that the sleazeball is not capable enough to produce any results which forces them to lie, cheat etc. I thought I remember hearing Harper was the worst Canadian jobs president since ww2. But what I do know for a fact is he has no major accomplishments in office. This next part I will say is just conjecture as I haven't looked into it, but I think Harper just benefitted himself and his oil buddies, I think that was his main objective rather than what you said of him helping his country. I'd wager more people would agree with my view than yours.

 

As for Harper clamping down on extreme parts of his ideology, you are aware that Stephen Harper founded the current Conservative party of Canada because the old more moderate conservative parties were not far right enough for him right?

 

As for the polls,

 

I'm assuming you think a poll proves nothing because it is just one piece to the puzzle and you need all the pieces to see the puzzle. Well in regards to that, the article mentions that the polling aggregators have all seen clintons lead diminish. So it's not just the ipsos, it's actually all the major polls. The average may still be in clintons favor but not decidedly (as indicated by the aggregators) because her lead has diminished.

 

Now if you actually have a distrust towards all polls, I'm not sure if that is a founded argument because I don't know the historical political data of polls vs actual outcome of an election. But why can't it be an Internet poll? Do you think that people are lying to the polls? I don't as I don't think that makes much sense, and people with more experience in politics who do it for a living don't distrust the polls so I assumed it had some validity.

 

But I do agree that polls can change and it can swing any which way. So we could be having this conversation every week. I did bring it up but that's because I don't distrust the polls.

 

And if you're disregarding the polls in favor of unfavorability, I still think polls are better than that metric because at least polls are a binary choice. It's one or the other for all intensive purposes because of the two party system. I can have unfavourable views of both candidates but I still have to make a choice at the end of the day.

 

"Who is a bigger sleazeball" isn't a debate worth having, it's entirely subjective and largely irrelevant. Still, if lying and cheating are your considerations for "sleaze", well, here's evidence for lying, here's evidence for cheating. As for racist attitudes, a recent survey puts 44% of US voters believing Trump is racist, including 7% of his own supporters and 83% of black Americans. I couldn't find similar polling for Harper, but again, it's largely irrelevant. Trump's racist, or at least believed to be so by, you know, the people who are most affected by racism. Whether Harper was more racist is splitting hairs - black Americans hate Trump plenty.

 

I trust the polls, with considerations for their own weaknesses. Yes, the poll aggregators have seen Clinton's lead fall. It's still well outside the margin of error though, she's a clear favourite. Nate Silver made his career of election predictions and puts Trump's chance at winning at only around 30%. That's better than they were even a week ago, but hardly evidence of anything close to an equal field. The recent trend towards parity could continue, but it's equally likely to reverse course and restore her previous 6+% lead. I said "especially an internet poll" because internet polls tend to be less reliable. FiveThirtyEight has multiple articles that discuss the intricacies of evaluating polls as well as why internet articles tend to be less reliable (and recently, Trump-friendly). Before speculating about my biases and ignorance of polling, please consider your own... as with the rest of your post, I'm reading a lot of opinions without supporting evidence and I have no interest in playing the "I think" game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who is a bigger sleazeball" isn't a debate worth having, it's entirely subjective and largely irrelevant. Still, if lying and cheating are your considerations for "sleaze", well, here's evidence for lying, here's evidence for cheating. As for racist attitudes, a recent survey puts 44% of US voters believing Trump is racist, including 7% of his own supporters and 83% of black Americans. I couldn't find similar polling for Harper, but again, it's largely irrelevant. Trump's racist, or at least believed to be so by, you know, the people who are most affected by racism. Whether Harper was more racist is splitting hairs - black Americans hate Trump plenty.

 

I trust the polls, with considerations for their own weaknesses. Yes, the poll aggregators have seen Clinton's lead fall. It's still well outside the margin of error though, she's a clear favourite. Nate Silver made his career of election predictions and puts Trump's chance at winning at only around 30%. That's better than they were even a week ago, but hardly evidence of anything close to an equal field. The recent trend towards parity could continue, but it's equally likely to reverse course and restore her previous 6+% lead. I said "especially an internet poll" because internet polls tend to be less reliable. FiveThirtyEight has multiple articles that discuss the intricacies of evaluating polls as well as why internet articles tend to be less reliable (and recently, Trump-friendly). Before speculating about my biases and ignorance of polling, please consider your own... as with the rest of your post, I'm reading a lot of opinions without supporting evidence and I have no interest in playing the "I think" game.

Cool thank you for the links. Here are some for mine:

 

-Political scandals in Canada where harpers conservatives have many.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_Canada

 

-Couldn't find stats either but the best I could do is finding that many First Nations groups were critical of Harper.

Specifically "Many Aboriginal groups were critical of the Harper government for cutting funding to a number of Aboriginal organizations and programs, and for refusing to release records related to residential schools to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Anger over the Jobs and Growth Act of 2012 also directly inspired the Idle No More movement".

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephen-joseph-harper/

The reason I believe in this one without stats is because I've observed a subset of data myself. I've done work in First Nations communities, extensively at times, and invariably they either hate or don't like Harper. N is in the hundreds. Also various First Nations issues have been reported on in the media, and when Harper is involved, it is clear from reading the articles that Harper is at odds with First Nations., to put it lightly. I'm not providing links because it's easy enough to google First Nations and look at articles with this content during the conservative government time period.

 

-Unifor study that says Harper has the worst economic record since the end of ww2

http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/909-harper_economic_critique_eng_0.pdf

 

 

I did sort of assume you did not believe in polls. Sorry incorrect assumption on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump and Harper don't even remotely share policy ideas or political personas.

 

Harper aside, we are screwed. We basically have Zoolander now running our country adding over 100 billion to our debt, over four times what he promised. This is just what he admits to adding. Let's see what the numbers show in the end... I'm sure my children will enjoy paying all that back.

 

Oh well, at least Trudeau is cozying us back up the moral bastion which is the United Nations. Thank goodness Canada can now sit on the UN Human Rights Committee — together with Saudi Arabia, Cuba et al.

 

As they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

 

I think we are seeing the end of a political age in the west. Neo-liberalism, dominant since the late 1970s is fading away. What was "conservative" or "liberal" is being quickly redefined. Political correctness is rightfully being killed off. Correct is correct. The moment you add the word "political" before the word correct you are doing something sketchy. Trump may win or lose, it does not matter, this process redefining things is set in motion worldwide.

 

We see this shift with Brexit, and now in the USA and across Europe. Replacing it is something much more populistic and anti-establishment. Worldwide leadership failures on all sides of the political spectrum extending back into the 1990s and since the fall of the USSR are at fault for this. It will be interesting to see how things evolve. The outcome will probably be dramatic for better or for worse.

Edited by rogerroger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool thank you for the links. Here are some for mine:

 

-Political scandals in Canada where harpers conservatives have many.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_Canada

 

-Couldn't find stats either but the best I could do is finding that many First Nations groups were critical of Harper.

Specifically "Many Aboriginal groups were critical of the Harper government for cutting funding to a number of Aboriginal organizations and programs, and for refusing to release records related to residential schools to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Anger over the Jobs and Growth Act of 2012 also directly inspired the Idle No More movement".

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephen-joseph-harper/

The reason I believe in this one without stats is because I've observed a subset of data myself. I've done work in First Nations communities, extensively at times, and invariably they either hate or don't like Harper. N is in the hundreds. Also various First Nations issues have been reported on in the media, and when Harper is involved, it is clear from reading the articles that Harper is at odds with First Nations., to put it lightly. I'm not providing links because it's easy enough to google First Nations and look at articles with this content during the conservative government time period.

 

-Unifor study that says Harper has the worst economic record since the end of ww2

http://www.unifor.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/909-harper_economic_critique_eng_0.pdf

 

 

I did sort of assume you did not believe in polls. Sorry incorrect assumption on my part.

 

I won't defend Harper, and especially not his relationship with First Nations. I wasn't trying to dispute that point in the slightest, I'm well aware of that conflict in Canadian politics. I should have been more clear in my previous answer, and I definitely should have toned down the snark in that post - I apologize for the tone.

 

What I was more trying to get at was the arguments about the polls and the defense of Trump. The polling information is just as easy to Google as Harper's relationship with Canadian First Nation's groups, but instead of looking that information up, you provided speculation. This led to some arguments from ignorance (eg "But why can't it be an Internet poll?") in your post. It takes me as much time to respond to those points as it would take you to Google that information. Likewise, when you conjectured points like "There's no way US blacks hate trump as much as Canadian First Nations hate Harper", that's a statement of belief, not of fact, and again, a logical fallacy (argument from incredulity). I enjoy debates about difference of opinion, I learn a lot from them, but when it comes to shooting down fallacies, especially ones that could be corrected in less time than it takes me to write a response, I've started to get a little exasperated.

 

Moreover, it cuts to the heart of my frustrations with both Harper and Trump - namely, arguments based on feeling and belief rather than evidence. I don't think that was your intention, looking back on your posts, but that's how I took it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump and Harper don't even remotely share policy ideas or political personas.

 

Harper aside, we are screwed. We basically have Zoolander now running our country adding over 100 billion to our debt, over four times what he promised. This is just what he admits to adding. Let's see what the numbers show in the end... I'm sure my children will enjoy paying all that back.

 

Oh well, at least Trudeau is cozying us back up the moral bastion which is the United Nations. Thank goodness Canada can now sit on the UN Human Rights Committee — together with Saudi Arabia, Cuba et al.

 

As they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree.

 

I think we are seeing the end of a political age in the west. Neo-liberalism, dominant since the late 1970s is fading away. What was "conservative" or "liberal" is being quickly redefined. Political correctness is rightfully being killed off. Correct is correct. The moment you add the word "political" before the word correct you are doing something sketchy. Trump may win or lose, it does not matter, this process redefining things is set in motion worldwide.

 

We see this shift with Brexit, and now in the USA and across Europe. Replacing it is something much more populistic and anti-establishment. Worldwide leadership failures on all sides of the political spectrum extending back into the 1990s and since the fall of the USSR are at fault for this. It will be interesting to see how things evolve. The outcome will probably be dramatic for better or for worse.

Excellent insight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump vs the Neo-Cons

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-neocons-vs-donald-trump.html?_r=0

 

 

What neo-cons believe

 

  1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
  2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
  3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
  4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
  5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
  6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
  7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
  8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
  9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
  10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
  11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
  12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
  13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
  14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
  15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
  16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
  17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-05-17/ron-paul-exposes-the-neocon-agenda/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the end of the neo-liberal era now taking place, conservatism is going to return to a more historic norm. For decades conservatives and liberals have only been that in name.

 

Why this shift? How can it be understood? Well let's use an excellent analogy I copied and modified from the Gaurdian newspaper. This analogy removes judgment. It removes fact. It tells us how things feel. At the end of the day these feelings are what drives politics, for better or for worse. Such an analogy permits those on both sides of the political spectrum to stand back and explore the subjective prism through which the party on the other side sees the world.

 

This metaphorical story outlines the hopes, fears, pride, shame, resentment and anxiety held by many today throughout the western world.

 

The story goes like this.

 

Say you are patiently standing in a long line leading up a hill. You are situated in the middle of this line, along with others who are also white, older, and predominantly male, some with college degrees, some not.

 

Just over the brow of the hill is the American dream, the goal of everyone waiting in line. Many at the back of the line are minorities – poor, young and old, mainly without college degrees. It is scary to look back – there are so many behind you, and in principle you wish them well. Still, you have waited a long time, worked hard, and the line is barely moving. You deserve to move forward a little faster. You are patient but weary. You focus ahead, especially on those at the very top of the hill.

 

The American dream is a dream of progress – the idea that you are better off than your forebears, just as they superseded their parents – and it extends beyond money and stuff. You have suffered long hours, layoffs, and exposure at work. Your health has suffered because of it. You have received reduced pensions. But you have shown moral character through trial by fire, and the American dream of prosperity and security is a reward for all of this, showing who you have been and are – a badge of honour.

 

The sun is hot and the line unmoving. In fact, is it moving backwards? You have not had a raise in years, and there is no talk of one. Actually, if you are short a high school diploma, or even a bachelors degree, your income has dropped over the last 20 years.

 

You have taken the bad news in stride because you are a positive person. You are not a complainer. You count your blessings. You wish you could help your family and community more, because that is where your heart is. You would like them to feel grateful to you for being so giving to them. But this line is not moving. And after all your intense effort, all your sacrifice, you are beginning to feel stuck.

 

Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you! You are following the rules. They are not. As they cut in, it feels like you are being moved back. How can they just do that? Who are they? Some are minorities. Through affirmative action plans, pushed by the federal government, they are being given preference for places in colleges and universities, apprenticeships, jobs, welfare payments, and free lunches. Women, immigrants, refugees, public-sector workers – where will it end? Your money is running through a liberal sympathy sieve you do not control or agree with. These are opportunities you would have loved to have had in your day – and either you should have had them when you were young or the young shouldn’t be getting them now. It’s not fair.

 

Then you become suspicious. If people are cutting in line ahead of you, someone must be helping them. Who? A man is monitoring the line, walking up and down it, ensuring that the line is orderly and that access to the dream is fair. His name is President Barack Obama. But – hey – you see him waving to the line cutters. He feels extra sympathy for them that he does not feel for you. He’s on their side and not yours.

 

You can certainly be proud of being American. And anyone who criticises America – well, they are criticising you. If you can no longer feel pride in the United States through its president, you’ll have to feel American in some new way – by banding with others who feel as you do – strangers in their own land.

 

You are angry. The system has failed you. You will never reach the top of the hill. You will never have what your parents had. You are an after thought. A demographic dead end. Unless you unite and change the game then everything you believed in, the American Dream, a better future for yourself and your offspring, all of that is out of reach.

 

The truth behind the ideas described in this story are irrelevant. What is relevant is the perception and emotions the current and past establishment has created. Clinton has run on the notion of representing the status quo. The status quo is attached fundamentally to negitive emotions described in this story.

 

These are the powerful emotions behind the movement taking place. They are much more powerful than the establishment realizes. This is why Brexit surprised some people. Trump is probably going to win. These emotions don't show up in polls very well. When you are alone, in that voting booth, people find these emotional sentiments a powerful draw. Much more so than in a phone poll.

 

Furthermore, WikiLeaks is about to demolish Clinton along with the FBI. This will flame these emotions further into a frenzy. Then you will see Trump be very entertaining at Clinton's expense over three televised debates. Trump is very good in debates. His primary debate performance was impressive, it plays into his strengths as an entertainer. This will only further appeal to the emotions of the electorate. Then you have Trump riding the political wave taking place across the western world. Like it or hate it. Trump represents a new type of politics taking hold on both sides of the Atlantic. Trump has this in the bag if he doesn't do something crazier than normal. Watch.

 

We are in for a generational shift in politics. I think what politics looks like and how the political spectrum is ordered is going to look pretty different over the next decade. We are in a transitional period towards more historic norms politically. The return of class politics, traditional notions of conservatism, and the discrediting of the concepts of political correctness and the neo-liberal "social justice warrior".

Edited by rogerroger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...