Swordsmyth
Member

And? It takes two to tango, temptations are aimed at everyone, not everyone gives into them, adds to them, and passes them on. When a group stands out from other groups (while making an issue of itself being a group) that's on the group and any members who don't reject it, regardless of who else is at fault as well.

So a deceptive made up term meant to lend an air of antiquity to a modern group. And you still fail, because the conservative leadership of the era wanted tariffs, it was progressives who were moving left who opposed tariffs along with the leftist Democrats.

The communists have two different terms. 1 Useful Idiots: Communists who don't know what communism is about and pursue it for their own foolish ideological reasons. 2 Fellow Travelers: Noncommunists who pursue the same goals as communists for their own corrupt reasons. Both are the first against the wall when communists gain control of an area in their march towards world revolution and a borderless communist utopia where all are equal in the dirt but some are more equal than others.

Bunk. But even with that definition you fail, as the history I posted proves. It was left leaning progressives who wanted free trade and opposed tariffs.

Most communists are ignorant of what communism is about. But the Internationals are recorded in history, as are the constant calls for world revolution and the many moves to enact one and create a global government.

If the US is a major oil producer people will need dollars to buy OUR oil, among many other reasons they will need dollars, and we can also drive most other oil producers to collapse by breaking their little cartel, which will leave us with an even larger market share that people will need dollars to buy. The Petrodollar theory has never been entirely accurate, it's just one of many reasons people want dollars. Trump knows we can have a strong dollar in many different ways, and there is not a single reason the Fed is needed for it.

You just failed reading comprehension, I was damning Aldritch as insincere in supporting tariffs and doing so for ulterior motives. And I didn't cherry pick him, I posted a quote about all the old conservatives being in favor of tariffs while progressives were against them and he happened to be one of the people mentioned. The cherry pickers jumped in and tried to use him as a distraction from the rest of what I posted. But you just go ahead and take the side of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, it suits you.

Temporary barriers to maintain its territory and oppress its population don't mean what you think they mean to communism, it's always been about the International and global communism, World Revolution is the goal because it can't work without it. (or with it but they pretend otherwise) Playing ignorant of history doesn't help you.

Take an aspirin. We don't need that kind of money or military if we are a major oil producer as we should be. And we could afford it anyway if we got rid of all the unconstitutional garbage in the budget, especially if we got rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse too. Nor is there any serious threat to the dollar, all other currencies are worse and everyone knows it, BRICS can't be trusted, especially China.

You are a Cloward-Piven globalist masquerading as an anarchist. Trump is not a communist, and being a nationalist is a good thing. Globalists are communists, communism was always a borderless international revolution that LARPed as anarchists in order to destroy nationalism and pave the way for the New World Order.

I simply responded in kind, this entire thread is premised on an appeal to authority, and you are the one who brought Aldritch into it as if his happening to be on one side of the bill was a devastating damnation of it. If you want to play that game then please go ahead and play on the same team as Wilson.

The deepstate did a lot of things behind Trump's back while keeping him distracted with all the hoax attacks on him, they began preparations before he was even sworn in. Trump also had a tendency to listen to "experts" and "allies" which he has learned to not trust so easily now.

The Common Market created the EU, it would not have been possible without it. Free Traders think in terms of instant gratification of their wallets and that precludes thinking about anything else, even long term prosperity and wealth.

Your initial attack on tariff advocates is the empty ad hominem. The other post was simple misrepresentation of my argument in which I pointed out that you were projecting the sins of your side on the opposition and make a fallacious claim that an argument could be discredited because some people benefit from the policy it argues for.

It's inversion of the truth. As soon as you become interdependent (and the prophets of free trade all agree that will happen and claim it's a good thing) you have "interests" in foreign countries all over the globe that you have to "defend" for your own survival. If you aren't the interventionist "defending national interest" all over the globe your only other choice is to be dependent on and a client state of the place or places you depend on, like China.

Go ahead, throw stones while on the same side as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. I'll stand with Taft, the real conservatives, and the Founding Fathers.

Trump had no choice but to go with the flow in an election year where he was being blamed for every inflated death count, but he tried to limit the damage. And you certainly can't compare him to any administration that didn't have that globalist attack on it.

That's all you've got, empty ad hominems.

Free Traders are rent seeking globalists who want to crush the working man and native patriotic business owners to enrich themselves and bring on global government. Every position has winners and losers, you can't point out that people benefit from a position as an argument against it. With free trade the enemies of liberty and independence get all the benefits, with tariffs the American people, liberty, and independence get most of the benefits.

The result of Congress and the globalist covid scam, the same globalists who support free trade.

Bunk. Free trade was desired to make the income tax a necessity. Tariffs don't solve a government created problem, they solve a foreigner related problem, and they are the best source of the funds for the necessary functions of government.

Aldritch was following the party line, the conservative party line, that was just his cover. He also probably wanted to set up tariffs as the scapegoat when the coming fed destroyed the economy. Cherry picking him as one person does nothing to change that it was progressives who wanted free trade in order to destroy the native patriotic rich and the middle class to benefit the rootless cosmopolitan international class and bring on globalism.

That study is garbage.

There is no contradiction, you can disagree with some of the points, but they are not inherently contradictory. Enemies are not the same as friends or neutrals and we can't treat them the same, they don't treat us the same.

"Old" right. Very modern figures who had been indoctrinated in the free trade cult. All Conservatives were in favor of tariffs as how to do things if you go back to when free trade was first proposed as an innovation. But to go just a little bit back we find this: The Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 (ch. 6, 36 Stat. 11), named for Representative Sereno E. Payne (R–NY) and Senator Nelson W. Aldrich (R–RI), began in the United States House of Representatives as a bill raising certain tariffs on goods entering the United States. The high rates angered Republican reformers, and led to a deep split in the Republican Party. Protectionism was the ideological cement holding the Republican coalition together. High tariffs were used by Republicans to promise higher sales to business, higher wages to industrial workers, and higher demand for farm products. Progressive insurgents said it promoted monopoly. Democrats said it was a tax on the little man. It had greatest support in the Northeast, and greatest opposition in the South and West. The Midwest was the battle ground. President Taft was disliked by Theodore Roosevelt because he didn't reduce tariffs which led to Roosevelt running for re-election. Since there were two Republicans in the vote, it led to the party's votes being split. That soon led to Woodrow Wilson being elected. However, the United States Senate speedily substituted a bill written by Aldrich, calling for fewer reductions and more increases in tariffs. It was the first change in tariff laws since the Dingley Act of 1897. Progressive Republicans wanted to lower tariffs but Conservative leader Senator Aldrich prevailed by winning over some Democrats (despite the Democratic national platform calling for lower tariffs). These Democrats represented states with industry facing imports of iron ore, lumber, hides, coal, and other items. Senator Joseph Bailey of Texas defended the votes but Democrats William Jennings Bryan, Henry Watterson, and Josephus Daniels denounced them. In response the Democratic caucus imposed more discipline before the Democrats took control of the House in 1911.

And like "real communism" it will never happen. But it is not good for the economy beyond supplying that which we can't supply for ourselves, it creates fragility and interdependence which feed globalism. Neither a borrower nor a lender be has a corollary, neither export nor import dependent be. And what I said is not a myth, it's historical fact, and is shown by many other historical examples as well.

The Fed is not required for the Petrodollar, and the petrodollar can easily become the gold dollar.

Tariffs are an important step towards doing just that, and there's no need to wait.

Considering that they paid nicely for it back when they were the only kind of taxes I think they'll be sufficient for what government we need.

Now, conservatives support tariffs as opposed to other taxes, just like Trump.