Ben Carson Edges Ahead Nationally in Times/CBS News Poll

donsutherland1 said:

There is some debate as to whether polling quality is declining in an era of mobile phones, the composition of the electorate is more difficult to predict, etc. The Canadian polls right before the election significantly understated the Liberals' strength. In the UK, the polls prior to the election significantly understated the Conservatives' strength.

I share Canadians' concern about trade. I strongly oppose any attempts to roll back the current bilateral trade agreements with Canada. Both the U.S. and Canada have gained from the agreements. Carson's, Cruz's, and Trump's hostility to trade is inconsistent with the traditional conservative position on trade and it is incompatible with mainstream economic thought. Of course, they are not the only candidates who have adopted unfriendly positions on the issue of trade.

Click to expand...

The fact Canada and the US have benefited does not sell in the rust belt, they blame Canada for their unemployment not Japan and China. And it's not only the Conservatives we need to fear, Hilary has said she will scrap NAFTA.

Fearandloathing said:

The fact Canada and the US have benefited does not sell in the rust belt, they blame Canada for their unemployment not Japan and China. And it's not only the Conservatives we need to fear, Hilary has said she will scrap NAFTA.

Click to expand...

Well, I've gotta say, if she's pandering for votes from her base, that's the way to do it, though I suspect she would never have made the suggestion had it not been for Bernie.

Fearandloathing said:

The fact Canada and the US have benefited does not sell in the rust belt, they blame Canada for their unemployment not Japan and China. And it's not only the Conservatives we need to fear, Hilary has said she will scrap NAFTA.

Click to expand...

That's why I noted that there are other candidates who also hold unfriendly trade positions. I'm not aware of Hillary Clinton's planning to rescind NAFTA (Obama made similar pledges during his 2008 campaign but left it in place), but she has turned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.

Finally, I agree with you regarding the U.S. Rust Belt. However, even if NAFTA had never been adopted, the Rust Belt would likely be facing conditions similar to those of today. The reality is that structural economic changes have occurred that have placed the Rust Belt at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis international rivals. Regardless of whom is elected, I don't expect Congress to repeal NAFTA. Trump, though, might use executive orders to try to impose trade barriers, mainly but not wholly tariff-based ones. I don't expect Trump to be elected, though it's too soon to be sure whether his recent dip in the polls marks the start of a fade that will ultimately end his prospects of securing the Republican nomination.

What difference does it make? Iowa is a sham. The Iowa caucuses are about as relevant to the nomination (and the election) as a pre-season game.

Click to expand...

Let's see. Huckabee won Iowa. Santorum won Iowa. You've got a point.

Can the Republicans shoot straight? Neither of the current poll leaders have really articulated a single policy or plan. "Trust me, Its gonna be great" isn't a plan. Once these yahoos show the cards in the hand the bluff that is the Republican hopeful for president will be exposed and the game will be over. The question then will be whether the damage will be irreparable.

Click to expand...

Right now the WORST Republican could do better than that lying sack of **** in charge now.

Ben Carson is just a place holder for John Kaisch, who will ultimately win this thing.

Click to expand...

Kasich will be lucky to win his own state. He has left a liberal Medicaid time bomb for Ohionans to have to deal with and it's going to cost them a fortune.

Donald Trump has done such an effective job
ripping up much of the Republican platform and many of this key candidates from inside the party. given the Trump has already run off Walker (who had a legitimate shot) and has effectively neutered Bush III.

Click to expand...

Walker didn't have the stones to stay in this race. Bush III was neutered before he decided to run. He didn't think he'd have to actually campaign. He thought he would be anointed like Obama. He didn't realize you need black skin for that.

If Donald Trump is not already the Republicans worst nightmare, he soon will be.

Click to expand...

Trump is the Republican's last chance. He is America's last chance. If he goes down, we're finished as a country. We are GREECE.

donsutherland1 said:

That's why I noted that there are other candidates who also hold unfriendly trade positions. I'm not aware of Hillary Clinton's planning to rescind NAFTA (Obama made similar pledges during his 2008 campaign but left it in place), but she has turned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement.

Finally, I agree with you regarding the U.S. Rust Belt. However, even if NAFTA had never been adopted, the Rust Belt would likely be facing conditions similar to those of today. The reality is that structural economic changes have occurred that have placed the Rust Belt at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis international rivals. Regardless of whom is elected, I don't expect Congress to repeal NAFTA. Trump, though, might use executive orders to try to impose trade barriers, mainly but not wholly tariff-based ones. I don't expect Trump to be elected, though it's too soon to be sure whether his recent dip in the polls marks the start of a fade that will ultimately end his prospects of securing the Republican nomination.

Click to expand...

All good and to the point. I had forgotten Obama pledging to scrap NAFTA and then called the Canadian Embassy to say it was for "Domestic consumption".

I'm sure getting congress to kill NAFTA isn't going to happen, but as you note there are other measures. Despite an existing agreement and means of resolve, Bush went to war with Canada's softwood lumber industry; it cost us 10,000 jobs --- despite there being a treaty in place.

So, forgive your trading partners who are skeptical of promises and nervous about how the knives will be deployed in the back. This time, however, I suspect Canada will retaliate. Trade with the US is less than half what it was then.

I know the rust belt would be the rust belt regardless, but tell that to the UAW workers in those states. "Blame Canada" is the SOP, despite the fact that the Canadian Auto Trade Pact results in better positioning against Japanese and European imports.

upsideguy said:

What difference does it make? Iowa is a sham. The Iowa caucuses are about as relevant to the nomination (and the election) as a pre-season game.

Can the Republicans shoot straight? Neither of the current poll leaders have really articulated a single policy or plan. "Trust me, Its gonna be great" isn't a plan. Once these yahoos show the cards in the hand the bluff that is the Republican hopeful for president will be exposed and the game will be over. The question then will be whether the damage will be irreparable.

Ben Carson is just a place holder for John Kaisch, who will ultimately win this thing. Donald Trump has done such an effective job
ripping up much of the Republican platform and many of this key candidates from inside the party. given the Trump has already run off Walker (who had a legitimate shot) and has effectively neutered Bush III.

If Donald Trump is not already the Republicans worst nightmare, he soon will be.

Click to expand...

neither is hope and change but look where that got us.

ludin said:

neither is hope and change but look where that got us.

Click to expand...

....with some semblance of a national healthcare for all, a pretty major accomplishment given all that have tried and not been successful.



None of the Republican yahoos are capable of leading us into anything but more wars...

upsideguy said:

....with some semblance of a national healthcare for all, a pretty major accomplishment given all that have tried and not been successful.

View attachment 67192128

None of these yahoos are capable of leading us into anything but more wars...

Click to expand...

you mean the system that has driven healthcare prices through the roof?
you mean the system that there are still a ton of people not covered?
you mean the system that is costing us trillions of dollars when it was supposed to cost < than that?
Obamacare program costs $50,000 for every American who gets health insurance | Daily Mail Online

I don't know about your definition of success but it differs greatly from any I have heard.

Fearandloathing said:

All good and to the point. I had forgotten Obama pledging to scrap NAFTA and then called the Canadian Embassy to say it was for "Domestic consumption".

I'm sure getting congress to kill NAFTA isn't going to happen, but as you note there are other measures. Despite an existing agreement and means of resolve, Bush went to war with Canada's softwood lumber industry; it cost us 10,000 jobs --- despite there being a treaty in place.

So, forgive your trading partners who are skeptical of promises and nervous about how the knives will be deployed in the back. This time, however, I suspect Canada will retaliate. Trade with the US is less than half what it was then.

I know the rust belt would be the rust belt regardless, but tell that to the UAW workers in those states. "Blame Canada" is the SOP, despite the fact that the Canadian Auto Trade Pact results in better positioning against Japanese and European imports.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Hopefully, the enormously beneficial trade relationship (and broader partnership) won't be damaged by short-sighted initiatives. The skepticism following the protectionist approach undertaken by the U.S. with regard to softwood lumber is both reasonable and understandable.

On the final point, that's part of the reason the U.S. needs a strong leader. Sometimes leaders need to convey messages that industries or the general public won't like to hear. Setting aside misdirected blame and focusing attention on structural realities is one of those cases. Countering populist notions that trade is a "zero sum" proposition is another.

donsutherland1 said:

I don't disagree. Hopefully, the enormously beneficial trade relationship (and broader partnership) won't be damaged by short-sighted initiatives. The skepticism following the protectionist approach undertaken by the U.S. with regard to softwood lumber is both reasonable and understandable.

On the final point, that's part of the reason the U.S. needs a strong leader. Sometimes leaders need to convey messages that industries or the general public won't like to hear. Setting aside misdirected blame and focusing attention on structural realities is one of those cases. Countering populist notions that trade is a "zero sum" proposition is another.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and a strong leader will take the long road, what is best for the country over the long term, not just during their term.

What I am sensing is that some in Canada are hoping for a trade conflict. They note that several companion agreements are up for renewal, some water sharing agreements too, and have suggested the US taking a shot could get very uncomfortable over the long term.

I think it's all election rhetoric.