• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Trump violated the Emoluments Clause, and do you care?a

OscarLevant said:
My political leanings are basically: (well regulated to prevent exploitation) "capitalism for wants" "Socialism for needs" (put the pendulum in the center, where it's the only place the pendulum can rest).

In my comment, I acknowledged that china is playing unfair. If Trump can negotiate with China to buy Solar panels, I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Socialism for food, because that works out well.

And yeah, you acknowledge is playing unfairly, but you don't modify your position because of it. You said:

If jobs are lost, that is due to a competitive disadvantage, but that is always the case in a free markets, some are better at bringing goods to the markets than others. If that Solar company is losing jobs, it is up to them to do better.
Click to expand...

You then dismiss the option of tariffs claiming they do more harm than good with absolutely no backup, which is a faulty absolutist stance. They do a lot of good to protect the economy from cheaters, and what does more harm than good is letting China get away with cheating without responding to protect our own industries. That's what causes lost jobs. That's what raises the cost of welfare programs and unemployment insurance.
 
Last edited:
FreeWits said:
Yeah, Socialism for food, because that works out well.

And yeah, you acknowledge is playing unfairly, but you don't modify your position because of it. You said:



You then dismiss the option of tariffs claiming they do more harm than good with absolutely no backup, which is a faulty absolutist stance. They do a lot of good to protect the economy from cheaters, and what does more harm than good is letting China get away with cheating without responding to protect our own industries. That's what causes lost jobs. That's what raises the cost of welfare programs and unemployment insurance.
Click to expand...


It's a really complicated subject. I'd have to view the subject of tariffs on a case by case basis. I don't know for a fact, at this juncture, that all tariffs are bad. In principle, I'm against them, as I am, in principle, against price controls. If I were president, I would want a thorough cost benefit analysis by both right and left and centrist economists, with historical examples, etc., before I would decide. I'm not absolute, really, on anything, though I do have a philosophical base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom