cammac wrote:Well the Keystone Cops convention is over and what we can conclude is that Republicans hate & vilify Hillary. That was very enlightening but no policy except make" America Great Again" while most of the world thinks it still is.
And this differs from every other Republican or Democrat convention in the past 20 years how? Don't you expect Hillary to hate and vilify Trump? The only modest difference between the two parties is that Democrats have the luxury of allowing the media to do the dirty work of hate and vilification, so they can stay "above the fray". Republicans have to do the dirty work themselves.
cammac wrote:What should be disheartening is Trumps "bromance" with Putin and his efforts to weaken NATO who with it's flaws has been a effective alliance since it's inception. He seems willing to sacrifice Lithuania, Estonia & Latvia to the Kremlin since they are the outskirts of St. Petersburg. Canada, Britain & Germany have committed troops to all 3 countries and other NATO countries have committed warplanes on a rotating basis including Canada to defend those countries.
Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have significant minority populations of ethnic Russians, just as in the Crimea. There has never really been a satisfactory sorting out of ethnic groups following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. These ethnic tensions are complicated, and may be best resolved by redrawing some of the borders. For the most part, I think Western involvement in these matters should be limited. I certainly don't think they're worth risking WWIII. Russia could very well be our best ally in what I consider to be a much more important and relevant struggle - the war against the expansion of radical Islam. I think it's prudent to try and form better relations with Russia so we can work together against this mutual threat.
cammac wrote:Yes in some cases NATO allies have been less than willing to shed blood in Afghanistan really the Americans, British and Canadians shed blood while others provided support. In the fight against ISIS Canada withdrew fighter jets because of backlash to civilian casualties but substantially increase Special Forces in Kurdish regions to successfully combat ISIS. The only policy that Trump has against ISIS is to carpet bomb Syria and not send troops. In Iraq ISIS is on the run they are rapidly losing all the territory and both the leadership and fighters are in disarray and likely about election time ISIS will be defeated in Iraq. In Syria I see that ISIS will be expelled in the Kurdish areas.
I'm not nearly as optimistic as you that ISIS will be destroyed. And if they are, they will merely be replaced by some other radical Sunni group. The ideological source of this trouble is really Saudi Arabia and their funding of Wahhabism. Hillary Clinton of all people is ill-equipped to deal with the Saudi's since she is in their pocket. The Saudi's have given millions to the Clinton Foundation.
cammac wrote:Dismantling Free Trade agreements and having a isolationist policy is foolhardy since the USA benefits from trade as much as any country. People will point to China since they make many of Apple's products in Shenzhen 100,000 workers assemble I Phones etc. but that is only about 7% of the cost of the product. The majority costs are on German, Korean, Taiwan and Japanese components. Yes those 100,000 jobs could be moved to the USA maybe to a "Right To Work State" at $6.25 cents a hour since Trump doesn't believe in living wages for Americans. Obviously that would increase Apples costs to slightly more than 10% for assembly if they could find the workforce. Wouldn't it be better to spend the time doing research to produce the higher priced components that would produce higher vale jobs? "Made in America" nice concept bring back those jobs in consumer goods like clothing and shoes which do employ many people. But will the American consumer be willing to pay substantially more for clothing and the reality is those industries move because of the Walmart's of the world to cheaper labor markets. Now from China to Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and Bangladesh.
You can't make the entire country work in high value jobs because half of the country has an IQ too low for technological work. I see modest trade protectionism as a much more effective and efficient form of wealth redistribution. Instead of paying people to do nothing (welfare), you spend to artificially subsidize low skill work that would otherwise go overseas. Yes, the net costs of producing some things in America are higher than allowing them to be produced in China, but we can save a ton of money on welfare expenses while simultaneously increasing revenue via tariffs and income taxes. If administered properly, it's a net win. (Also, getting people to work so that they feel more valuable to their community is spiritually uplifting and good for social cohesion; and it keeps them out of trouble.) The trick is to know when you're pushing the protectionist policies too far. It's true that the costs of producing some things domestically are so much greater than the savings in welfare reduction/tax revenue, that it doesn't make economic sense. You have to know when to cut your losses. For example, protectionist policies have worked and continue to work for the auto industry, but I wouldn't advocate trying to reclaim the textile industry.
cammac wrote:The police I think most people of any color have respect for the police but it is also a fact that when police join a force no matter what color they turn BLUE. The majority of officers are well meaning and are there to Serve & Protect but as in any other portion of society outlaws exist. Are there more abuses by police in Black & Latino communities obviously yes but both communities have some endemic problems. But overall the crime statistics have gone down and yes murders have increased but then so has gun ownership wonder what the relationship better % of new guns to murders are??????????
The increase in crime is massive (17% in 2 years) but localized mostly to big cities (where gun control is strongest). Basically, it's blacks being whipped up into a frenzy by the BLM movement with the simultaneous "Ferguson effect" of police officers being afraid to proactively police black neighborhoods. These issues are directly related to Obama and the Democrats' rhetoric. I'm not saying the Democrats don't have a point. There are indeed problems with bad cops that need to be addressed. But Trump also has a point that overzealous prosecution of cops and excessive tolerance for black violence will drive up the crime rate.
