Choosing lesser of two evils?

[Esaias]

The Founders didn't have a problem with tariffs on imports.

What's important? Cheap garbage from China? Or American manufacturers?

Only a leftist neotard anti American progressive would argue in favor of flooding us with cheap imports.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Founders didn't have a problem with tariffs on imports.

What's important? Cheap garbage from China? Or American manufacturers?

Only a leftist neotard anti American progressive would argue in favor of flooding us with cheap imports.

You can now stop pretending I am on your Ignore list, as we see you read my post.

To the point, imports are the reason we conduct trade. In other places, there are people who make nicer and cheaper things than we do.

Ask Donald Trump why his ties are not made in the USA. Ask Ivanka why her scarfs are made in China.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Are you struggling with the concept of choosing the lesser of two evils?

A friend shared this article with me. I am not big into the political scene going on right now, but this issue expands to much deeper things than even political, but for now, lets consider it politically.

Here is the article:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-cli...s-foolishness/

And an excerpt:

In this broken world populated exclusively by deeply flawed people, including you and me, the plain truth is that we are required to choose between the lesser of two evils all the time.

Every time you swallow a medication that causes harmful side effects, you are embracing the lesser of two evils to prevent a greater one. If you attend Harvard or Yale, you choose to endure a nonstop gauntlet of far-left indoctrination, stifling political correctness and insane sexual anarchy, all to obtain an Ivy League education. If you’re a severe diabetic and your doctor says your foot has to be amputated to give you a better chance at survival, you choose the lesser of two evils. It’s tough, but you do it. The examples are endless and everywhere.

Even our country’s revered Constitution was created and successfully ratified only because the Founding Fathers, from Madison to Washington, strategically embraced a “lesser evil” – slavery – the greater evil being the imminent dissolution of the newly born republic.

Remember your history? By 1787, under the flawed Articles of Confederation, the recently liberated union was already unraveling. States were growing increasingly hostile toward one another, engaging in tariff wars that paralyzed interstate commerce. The national government was too weak to have a usable currency or raise a decent army or navy, leaving the nation vulnerable. Escalating national and international problems threatened to destroy everything for which so many patriots had just sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

So what did our nation’s founders do in Philadelphia almost 230 years ago?

They deliberately chose to accommodate slavery, something most of them detested even more than today’s NeverTrump voters detest Trump. Yet they constitutionally protected it for the next two decades – in the newly independent United States of America. Why?

Slavery is evil. Yet, to obtain the needed unanimous state ratifications, our nation’s founders chose to allow and preserve this evil (temporarily) in the Constitution, which provided for the continued “importation” of slaves until 1808 and prohibited citizens from helping escaped slaves, requiring they be returned to their owners.

Listen up, NeverTrumpers. The founders did not have to do this. They could have proclaimed with righteous indignation, “Slavery is evil, and we refuse to enshrine it in our new Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the republic dissolves, God will not hold us blameless if we elect to support slavery!” That would have been the end of the convention – and the country – as the Southern states would have bolted immediately, and the young nation’s slide into chaos would have continued unabated. Though America would have collapsed, at least the righteous NeverSlavers would have been able to tell each other they didn’t violate their principles.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-cli...fF8EIF0PjVq.99

Eddie Bernays would be very proud!!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jito463

You mean, the same Hillary Clinton that enabled Russia to buy 20% of our Uranium rights, while she was SoS? Yeah, I'm sure they're soooooooo afraid of her.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So do you consider Hillary a better candidate than Trump? OR are you just not going to vote at all?

Eddie Bernays would be proud.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Sickening and twisted


Just really really sickening..no words honestly.

FYI - Slavery was not intended to be "preserved temporarily", and most did not detest the practice.



This reasoning is so weird. This example is really sickening.

I'm willing to bet this was not written by a person who descended from slaves.

Or perhaps a situation of extreme cognitive dissonance?

This reasoning is just so horrible and tasteless...jeez!

We have a winner!!!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Donald Trump: "I don't care" if manufacturers leave, because "we'll make a fortune" from the 35% tariff we slap on them if they do.

Spoiler Alert: Tariffs make things more expensive for consumers.

[Aquila]

Our founders didn't have any issues with regulations and limitations on corporations. When American colonists declared their independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control held by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

◾Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
◾Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
◾Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
◾Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Government governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

Frankly, our founders would not have embraced the anarcho-capitalist notions of "Free Market" economy held by many today. In addition, the founders would have fought to the death to oppose corporate personhood.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

You mean, the same Hillary Clinton that enabled Russia to buy 20% of our Uranium rights, while she was SoS? Yeah, I'm sure they're soooooooo afraid of her.

Actually, facts are important....

Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid To Approve Russia Uranium Deal
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...inton-got-pai/

[Aquila]

Here's an interesting article....

Putin on Clinton
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ue-with-women/

Let's put it this way.... Putin has already attempted to meddle in the democratic process of a United States Presidential election.... and he wasn't trying to help Clinton. This should tell you, Putin clearly feels that a Clinton Presidency would be detrimental to Russia's plans to expand it's power in the region.

Putin has found a useful idiot in Donald Trump.