+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. (/thread-61.html)
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - playwrite - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 02:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-17-2016, 12:00 PM)playwrite Wrote: As to the dollar losing its appeal, do you think it's better for oil producers to sit on millions of barrel of black goo held in expensive supertankers off shore just waiting for a natural disaster or ISIS to spill it all over their shores? If you want to sell the stuff and keep your population happy, you're going to have to take somebody's currency one way or another. If you take the Chinese Yuan instead of US dollars, you're just going to have to buy some Chinese stuff or convert it n the FX markets so you can buy some US or Euro stuff.
Maybe you haven't noticed but the Chinese sell lots of stuff. As for buying US stuff the chief US exports are grain and lumber...last I checked raw materials. Those can be found elsewhere.
Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
And again, the U.S. is much more a self-contained economy. China is trying to emulate us.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - radind - 05-17-2016
(05-17-2016, 09:18 PM)playwrite Wrote:(05-17-2016, 02:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-17-2016, 12:00 PM)playwrite Wrote: As to the dollar losing its appeal, do you think it's better for oil producers to sit on millions of barrel of black goo held in expensive supertankers off shore just waiting for a natural disaster or ISIS to spill it all over their shores? If you want to sell the stuff and keep your population happy, you're going to have to take somebody's currency one way or another. If you take the Chinese Yuan instead of US dollars, you're just going to have to buy some Chinese stuff or convert it n the FX markets so you can buy some US or Euro stuff.
Maybe you haven't noticed but the Chinese sell lots of stuff. As for buying US stuff the chief US exports are grain and lumber...last I checked raw materials. Those can be found elsewhere.
Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
And again, the U.S. is much more a self-contained economy. China is trying to emulate us.
The manufacturing of iPhones in China involves more than the raw costs. I have seen an article showing that most of Apple’s profits are in the USA, but did not see it in a quick search.
Quote:http://www.businessinsider.com/you-simply-must-read-this-article-that-explains-why-apple-makes-iphones-in-china-and-why-the-us-is-screwed-2012-1
… "The real reasons Apple makes iPhones in China, therefore, are as follows:https://hbr.org/2016/05/what-you-wont-hear-about-trade-and-manufacturing-on-the-campaign-trail
- Most of the components of iPhones and iPads — the supply chain — are now manufactured in China, so assembling the phones half-a-world away would create huge logistical challenges. It would also reduce flexibility — the ability to switch easily from one component supplier or manufacturer to another.
- China's factories are now far bigger and more nimble than those in the United States. They can hire (and fire) tens of thousands of workers practically overnight. Because so many of the workers live on-site, they can also press them into service at a moment's notice. And they can change production practices and speeds extremely rapidly.
- China now has a far bigger supply of appropriately-qualified engineers than the U.S. does — folks with the technical skills necessary to build complex gadgets but not so credentialed that they cost too much.
- And, lastly, China’s workforce is much hungrier and more frugal than many of their counterparts in the United States.”…
… "If you were to walk through some of those foreign factories, you would get a very different picture. Almost every sophisticated manufacturer uses some kind of lean production system that pulls raw materials in from a warehouse. And if you look at where the raw materials came from, you would find they come from all over the world. During a recent visit to an Asian factory that assembled sophisticated medical instruments, I saw sub-assemblies from Massachusetts and other parts of the United States, Singapore, China, Japan, and Malaysia.”…
… “Since there is no supply chain in the United States, you couldn’t make it in America if you wanted to — unless you imported each and every part, and by the time you packed them up and shipped them, it would cost more than importing the completed touchscreen.”…
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - radind - 05-17-2016
This article presents another aspect of international trade.
https://hbr.org/2016/04/pipelines-platforms-and-the-new-rules-of-strategy
… "Back in 2007 the five major mobile-phone manufacturers—Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, and LG—collectively controlled 90% of the industry’s global profits. That year, Apple’s iPhone burst onto the scene and began gobbling up market share.
By 2015 the iPhone singlehandedly generated 92% of global profits, while all but one of the former incumbents made no profit at all.How can we explain the iPhone’s rapid domination of its industry? And how can we explain its competitors’ free fall? Nokia and the others had classic strategic advantages that should have protected them: strong product differentiation, trusted brands, leading operating systems, excellent logistics, protective regulation, huge R&D budgets, and massive scale. For the most part, those firms looked stable, profitable, and well entrenched.Certainly the iPhone had an innovative design and novel capabilities. But in 2007, Apple was a weak, nonthreatening player surrounded by 800-pound gorillas. It had less than 4% of market share in desktop operating systems and none at all in mobile phones.As we’ll explain, Apple (along with Google’s competing Android system) overran the incumbents by exploiting the power of platforms and leveraging the new rules of strategy they give rise to. Platform businesses bring together producers and consumers in high-value exchanges. Their chief assets are information and interactions, which together are also the source of the value they create and their competitive advantage.
Understanding this, Apple conceived the iPhone and its operating system as more than a product or a conduit for services. It imagined them as a way to connect participants in two-sided markets—app developers on one side and app users on the other—generating value for both groups. As the number of participants on each side grew, that value increased—a phenomenon called “network effects,” which is central to platform strategy. By January 2015 the company’s App Store offered 1.4 million apps and had cumulatively generated $25 billion for developers.Apple’s success in building a platform business within a conventional product firm holds critical lessons for companies across industries. Firms that fail to create platforms and don’t learn the new rules of strategy will be unable to compete for long.”…
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-18-2016
(05-17-2016, 09:18 PM)playwrite Wrote: Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
Even if most of the profit is repatriated to the US for ishits, do you honestly think the Chinese couldn't introduce knockoff ishits on a moment's notice? How many different products do the Chinese copy directly? Quite a lot. Everything from handbags to watches, a cell phone wouldn't be a huge leap for them.
Quote:And again, the U.S. is much more a self-contained economy. China is trying to emulate us.
I'm going to require evidence for this because every time I go to Wally World I see made in China (or somewhere that isn't the US or even North America) on most things that aren't in the grocery department. Here's the truth that everyone else can see. The US exports raw materials and imports finished goods. The very sort of thing that third world countries do. I highly doubt China is trying to emulate that...the CPC understands wealth is made by doing the opposite: Importing raw materials and exporting finished goods.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Cynic Hero '86 - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 04:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-17-2016, 09:18 PM)playwrite Wrote: Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
Even if most of the profit is repatriated to the US for ishits, do you honestly think the Chinese couldn't introduce knockoff ishits on a moment's notice? How many different products do the Chinese copy directly? Quite a lot. Everything from handbags to watches, a cell phone wouldn't be a huge leap for them.
Quote:And again, the U.S. is much more a self-contained economy. China is trying to emulate us.
I'm going to require evidence for this because every time I go to Wally World I see made in China (or somewhere that isn't the US or even North America) on most things that aren't in the grocery department. Here's the truth that everyone else can see. The US exports raw materials and imports finished goods. The very sort of thing that third world countries do. I highly doubt China is trying to emulate that...the CPC understands wealth is made by doing the opposite: Importing raw materials and exporting finished goods.
Yes, Kinser is right here, china is doing the smart thing and creating wealth by exporting real industrial products and importing raw materials. It is we who are being stupid by being a primarily consumer economy.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Mikebert - 05-18-2016
(05-17-2016, 11:56 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: You do not get it; the democrats are not going against the neocon, pro-free trade, Randian GOP that we have known since 1980. They will be going against the new populist, economic protectionist GOP that Trump is creating.
You don't know what Trump is creating because they is no evidence of what Trump believes. You cannot go by what he says, because he says diametrically opposing things all the time. For example some think Trump is promoting a more isolationist policy. One can find lots of things that Trump says that supports this idea. But then there is that hat Trump wears, displaying his slogan Make America Great Again (like the Donald is). When asked when was America great, Trump responds with periods when the US was kicking ass militarily overseas. Kicking ass overseas and isolationism are mutually incompatible. So what does Trump really want to do, withdraw from the world, or kick ass?
Trumps signature policy is his wall. But now he is saying maybe half a wall, or maybe the wall with have a door in it. Is he really serious about the wall, or is this just a talking point? After all, everybody uses them.
One thing I think Trump is serious about is restricting trade. He expressed this same position in the 1980's and at various times since then. It's the one thing on which he has been consistent.
As for social issues, Trump is both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. He is pro-gay and anti-gay at the same time. He is anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, depending on the situation. As he says, he makes deals and will be whatever he needs to be to make deals.
One thing is pretty clear. Trump knows little about policy, suggesting a lack of interest. It is unlikely he will develop an interest in policy, which means he will have no particular policy beliefs (with the possible exception of trade). Since he is a Republican, I would expect him to pretty much go along with whatever the GOP establishment wants, once in power. He will probably make a deal with them to do whatever they want in exchange for some project that will establish his own greatness. And maybe that will be the wall, or a major war against ISIS that will consumer his administration like it did with Bush II, who knows.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Mikebert - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 04:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:Platform companies was a concept proposed by GaveKal research. I wrote an article in 2005 about these where I made this very point. Others have made the same sort of argument in a more formal way.(05-17-2016, 09:18 PM)playwrite Wrote: Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
Even if most of the profit is repatriated to the US for ishits, do you honestly think the Chinese couldn't introduce knockoff ishits on a moment's notice? How many different products do the Chinese copy directly? Quite a lot. Everything from handbags to watches, a cell phone wouldn't be a huge leap for them.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - pbrower2a - 05-18-2016
There's more money in services than in manufacturing. The phone companies can practically give cell phones away so long as people subscribe to the service. $60 a month for two years is $1440. Is it any wonder that they can 'give' you a cell phone? Likewise the satellite dish.
I am surprised that the cable companies aren't 'giving' us televisions, ideally so set that they could receive only one cable service. Thus one would never be able to unhook from the cable and go to an antenna, dish, or the rival cable company.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 05:05 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(05-18-2016, 04:44 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:Platform companies was a concept proposed by GaveKal research. I wrote an article in 2005 about these where I made this very point. Others have made the same sort of argument in a more formal way.(05-17-2016, 09:18 PM)playwrite Wrote: Really? When an Chinese-manufactured iPhone sells anywhere in the world, how much of the revenue goes to China v. US?
Even if most of the profit is repatriated to the US for ishits, do you honestly think the Chinese couldn't introduce knockoff ishits on a moment's notice? How many different products do the Chinese copy directly? Quite a lot. Everything from handbags to watches, a cell phone wouldn't be a huge leap for them.
Interesting links. The formalized economics jargon most of the time flies over people's heads here so should I use them in the future I'd still have to dumb it down. That being said a trip to Wal-Mart or a walk down the aisle in the local flea market one will find things that aren't food all come from China (though even the Chinese are outsourcing textiles these days--the labor content in cotton clothing is so great that wages have to be minimized and automation is difficult).
In that very same flea market they will find everything from fake rolexes to fake gucci handbags and yes even Chinese pirated DVDs. I can't tell you how many times people have tried to sell me shit I don't need on my way to "The Pickleman's" stall at the flea market.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 05:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: There's more money in services than in manufacturing. The phone companies can practically give cell phones away so long as people subscribe to the service. $60 a month for two years is $1440. Is it any wonder that they can 'give' you a cell phone? Likewise the satellite dish.
I am surprised that the cable companies aren't 'giving' us televisions, ideally so set that they could receive only one cable service. Thus one would never be able to unhook from the cable and go to an antenna, dish, or the rival cable company.
Not quite true. Services consume wealth even if they are extremely profitable. One should not consume money or even profit as wealth. Wealth is an increase in total economy on the basis of commodities. As such a cell phone service does not produce wealth, while manufacturing a cell phone does. Of the two the service is more profitable because cell phones these days are small, fast to produce and largely use a tiny amount of expensive components.
In order to buy a 60 bucks a month phone service someone has to have job making things to be able to afford that 60 bucks a month service. Furthermore it is only in the West that cell phone service is purchased that way. There is nearly universal cell phone penetration these days and the fastest growing sector is for pay-as-you go type services, both here in the US and in the third world.
As for your television suggestion, the technology is not amenable to that--or they'd do it. Not that Tee-Vee is nearly as relevant as it used to be. Internet streaming will replace it eventually except perhaps for live events. In my house hold the television is practically just for my mother to watch--I wouldn't pay for it at all if I didn't also have a really cheap internet access from it.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Cynic Hero '86 - 05-18-2016
(05-18-2016, 04:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(05-17-2016, 11:56 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: You do not get it; the democrats are not going against the neocon, pro-free trade, Randian GOP that we have known since 1980. They will be going against the new populist, economic protectionist GOP that Trump is creating.
You don't know what Trump is creating because they is no evidence of what Trump believes. You cannot go by what he says, because he says diametrically opposing things all the time. For example some think Trump is promoting a more isolationist policy. One can find lots of things that Trump says that supports this idea. But then there is that hat Trump wears, displaying his slogan Make America Great Again (like the Donald is). When asked when was America great, Trump responds with periods when the US was kicking ass militarily overseas. Kicking ass overseas and isolationism are mutually incompatible. So what does Trump really want to do, withdraw from the world, or kick ass?
Trumps signature policy is his wall. But now he is saying maybe half a wall, or maybe the wall with have a door in it. Is he really serious about the wall, or is this just a talking point? After all, everybody uses them.
One thing I think Trump is serious about is restricting trade. He expressed this same position in the 1980's and at various times since then. It's the one thing on which he has been consistent.
As for social issues, Trump is both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. He is pro-gay and anti-gay at the same time. He is anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, depending on the situation. As he says, he makes deals and will be whatever he needs to be to make deals.
One thing is pretty clear. Trump knows little about policy, suggesting a lack of interest. It is unlikely he will develop an interest in policy, which means he will have no particular policy beliefs (with the possible exception of trade). Since he is a Republican, I would expect him to pretty much go along with whatever the GOP establishment wants, once in power. He will probably make a deal with them to do whatever they want in exchange for some project that will establish his own greatness. And maybe that will be the wall, or a major war against ISIS that will consumer his administration like it did with Bush II, who knows.
Whether Trump wants to be isolationist or Kick ass overseas? He wants to do both, he wants a temporary withdrawal while economic and military reforms are implemented, THEN he wants to kick ass overseas afterwards.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Ragnarök_62 - 05-18-2016
CH\86 Wrote:<huge snip>
Whether Trump wants to be isolationist or Kick ass overseas? He wants to do both, he wants a temporary withdrawal while economic and military reforms are implemented, THEN he wants to kick ass overseas afterwards.
Huh?
![[Image: s-l225.jpg]](http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/3fwAAOSwoydWpp1r/s-l225.jpg)
Trump's position today? Dunno, the answer's blowing in the wind.
Only pigeons vote for trump.#PigeonsForTrump
![[Image: 22bd71b7-0866-4b6b-814c-77c1d453a1a3.png]](https://www.cabq.gov/environmentalhealth/images/pigeons2.png/@@images/22bd71b7-0866-4b6b-814c-77c1d453a1a3.png)
#TheOtherWhiteMeat
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-19-2016
(05-18-2016, 11:19 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Only pigeons vote for trump.
Interesting because a vote for anyone else is a vote for Shillary Cintoon who is infinitely worse.
Quote:#TheOtherWhiteMeat
Call it squab,
serve it fried with onions and butter
????
get a Michelin Star
Profit.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Anthony '58 - 05-19-2016
Quote:Whether Trump wants to be isolationist or Kick ass overseas? He wants to do both, he wants a temporary withdrawal while economic and military reforms are implemented, THEN he wants to kick ass overseas afterwards.
I wonder. Let's not forget that this is the same dude who called arch-Israel defender Pamela Geller "an obnoxious blowhard," and also said that the United States should remain "neutral" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Plus he has anti-Semitic bloodlines: His father was a notorious anti-Semite (and racist).
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - pbrower2a - 05-19-2016
(05-18-2016, 10:30 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:(05-18-2016, 04:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(05-17-2016, 11:56 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: You do not get it; the democrats are not going against the neocon, pro-free trade, Randian GOP that we have known since 1980. They will be going against the new populist, economic protectionist GOP that Trump is creating.
You don't know what Trump is creating because they is no evidence of what Trump believes. You cannot go by what he says, because he says diametrically opposing things all the time. For example some think Trump is promoting a more isolationist policy. One can find lots of things that Trump says that supports this idea. But then there is that hat Trump wears, displaying his slogan Make America Great Again (like the Donald is). When asked when was America great, Trump responds with periods when the US was kicking ass militarily overseas. Kicking ass overseas and isolationism are mutually incompatible. So what does Trump really want to do, withdraw from the world, or kick ass?
So if he can't fully disclose what he intends to do, then most likely he
(1) knows what he wants to do but dares not say it, or
(2) has no idea of what he will do
This is not the excusable situation of 'fog of war'. This is either a muddled or dishonesty.
"Make American Great Again" is just another slogan -- deliberately vague, easily interpreted many different ways. David DuKKKe has his idea of how to Make America Great Again (white supremacy, of course). So does the head of the NAACP. Would you expect them to have the same agenda?
Say what you want about Barack Obama, but he has gone far beyond "kicking ass" when it comes to murderous terrorists. He has been signing off on getting them killed, and he has kept his mouth shut about it except on Osama bin Laden.
Quote:Trumps signature policy is his wall. But now he is saying maybe half a wall, or maybe the wall with have a door in it. Is he really serious about the wall, or is this just a talking point? After all, everybody uses them.
His wall is impossible except as a wealth-draining project. The Great Wall of China, built to keep the barbarians out, was such a fiscal drain that it created internal strife due to sacrifices necessary for creating it.
Quote:One thing I think Trump is serious about is restricting trade. He expressed this same position in the 1980's and at various times since then. It's the one thing on which he has been consistent.
China is specializing in manufacturing due to far cheaper labor. America is doing services. Is there more money in selling the cell phones or selling the cell-phone service? General Electric sold off its manufacture of televisions long ago and kept NBC. Comcast bought NBC. Which sale made more money for General Electric?
Let's put it this way: Comcast has far more revenue from cable TV than the television manufacturing division of General Electric ever got.
Services can of course be dirt-cheap if the labor has little investment in it, which explains why domestic servants have often been slaves and prostitutes are treated much like slaves. But they can be very expensive if they are creating value out of sophisticated thought. CPA's and admen don't come cheaply. The solution for America is to create a more sophisticated workforce.
Quote:As for social issues, Trump is both pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. He is pro-gay and anti-gay at the same time. He is anti-Muslim or pro-Muslim, depending on the situation. As he says, he makes deals and will be whatever he needs to be to make deals.
In other words, which way does the wind blow today? Promising one thing to one audience and the diametric opposite to a different audience with no real change in the situation other than the sentiments of the audience implies that one lies at least half the time. No, you do not say one thing in San Francisco and its opposite in Amarillo the next day. The news media are good enough to catch onto that when one does that, and even at catching those who insult a large part of the American public in front of a very different crowd.
Quote:One thing is pretty clear. Trump knows little about policy, suggesting a lack of interest. It is unlikely he will develop an interest in policy, which means he will have no particular policy beliefs (with the possible exception of trade). Since he is a Republican, I would expect him to pretty much go along with whatever the GOP establishment wants, once in power. He will probably make a deal with them to do whatever they want in exchange for some project that will establish his own greatness. And maybe that will be the wall, or a major war against ISIS that will consumer his administration like it did with Bush II, who knows.
Whether Trump wants to be isolationist or Kick ass overseas? He wants to do both, he wants a temporary withdrawal while economic and military reforms are implemented, THEN he wants to kick ass overseas afterwards.[/quote]
What I highlighted in bold red explains his complete unfitness to be President. A lack of contemplation and study indicates that he could be the new George W. Bush, except with much more of a mean streak. Isn't policy everything before the deed? After eight years of an above-average President who has mostly undone the damage of his Predecessor we can go to someone far, far worse than the one who created the mess that Barack Obama inherited.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - pbrower2a - 05-19-2016
Dubya seems to be a nice guy -- at least so long as he wasn't making policy decisions. Donald Trump?
He's the sort of person who would tell a political opponent to resign for the good of the country -- in a nationally-televised press conference.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-19-2016
(05-19-2016, 08:42 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:Quote:Whether Trump wants to be isolationist or Kick ass overseas? He wants to do both, he wants a temporary withdrawal while economic and military reforms are implemented, THEN he wants to kick ass overseas afterwards.
I wonder. Let's not forget that this is the same dude who called arch-Israel defender Pamela Geller "an obnoxious blowhard," and also said that the United States should remain "neutral" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Plus he has anti-Semitic bloodlines: His father was a notorious anti-Semite (and racist).
What exactly does the US gain from involving itself in the persistent fight between cousins? (Remember the Jews claim to be the children of Issac and the Arabs the children of Ishmael)?
As for Trump's father: Yeah...so what? The man is dead. I've yet to see anyone paint Daddy with the "zomg he's a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe/whateverist" label successfully. That his opponents have to resort to such tactics reveals how little they have to offer.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-19-2016
(05-19-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Dubya seems to be a nice guy -- at least so long as he wasn't making policy decisions. Donald Trump?
He's the sort of person who would tell a political opponent to resign for the good of the country -- in a nationally-televised press conference.
Some of them should resign for the good of the country.
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - playwrite - 05-20-2016
(05-19-2016, 07:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-19-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Dubya seems to be a nice guy -- at least so long as he wasn't making policy decisions. Donald Trump?
He's the sort of person who would tell a political opponent to resign for the good of the country -- in a nationally-televised press conference.
Some of them should resign for the good of the country.
I reminded of Martin Niemöller's "...When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."
Have you thought about which one of your attributes will put you highest on their list?
Stockholm syndrome?
RE: Paul Krugman's takedown of Trump's economic blatherings. - Kinser79 - 05-20-2016
(05-20-2016, 09:46 AM)playwrite Wrote:(05-19-2016, 07:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(05-19-2016, 11:16 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Dubya seems to be a nice guy -- at least so long as he wasn't making policy decisions. Donald Trump?
He's the sort of person who would tell a political opponent to resign for the good of the country -- in a nationally-televised press conference.
Some of them should resign for the good of the country.
I reminded of Martin Niemöller's "...When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."
Have you thought about which one of your attributes will put you highest on their list?
Stockholm syndrome?
I'm not in a position of political authority so not relevant.
Nice use of the Trump is Hitler meme though. To bad it is all Daddy's opponents have to attack him with. You know because tweeting mean things on the internet is exactly like gassing 6 million Jews and starting a war that killed a further 50 million.
It does make me wonder if you realize how stupid you sound when you use that meme though...probably not. That would require being self-aware.