Greyparrot

Skeptical Minarchist. Change my mind.

China has steadily moved toward a more open and relaxed market which means it won't be long before they outproduce any other country. America's place will be 2nd.

It's inevitable.

It's not already?

>But in our zeal to embrace innovation, lots of people end up losing out.

Exactly who is losing out here? Some commissioner's cousin that desperately needs a government job regulating UBER drivers because he can't make it in the private sector?

Something to consider here, which I am sure the well educated city planners know, is that UBER has significantly reduced the amount of cars in the city. If an UBER driver carries 10 people a day in 10 trips, thats 10 other cars that are not on the road. It's not an insignificant number. The government has no clue what the optimal amount of UBER drivers should be. They don't know what kind of driver the public wants, or anything else the public wants for that matter. The only people that will ultimately lose out are the people who rely on UBER to get around once the government steps in and screws it all up.

>why do you think undocumented immigrants take such a perilous journey to get here? If I were a parent in that situation, I'd choose the same way...

As a parent I think this is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of safe places to live south of California, but the reason "Refugees" don't go there is because that is not where the money is. A bank robber makes a perilous journey to rob banks because that's where the money is. There is nothing noble what these parents are doing to their kids. Every one of these parents could have chosen to live in a safer place.

Refer to this website..http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index/

Every country south of California with the exception of Columbia, Venezuela, and of course Mexico ranks safer than the United States. Refugees are not travelling thousands of miles for safety. They want free stuff. A parent that puts their child in danger to get free stuff should have their kids confiscated.

>You can throw the idea that it "highlighted hypocrisy" out there, but if you don't have anything backing that, it doesn't even qualify as an argument. Otherwise, this is just an abstracted whataboutism.

His argument isn't anything close to whataboutism. It's about the lesser of 2 evils.

> It would be akin to describing the Republican party by the actions of Mississippi, when the most popular Republican governor in the country is in Massachusetts!

This is an apples/oranges comparison. The media has shown far fewer extreme candidates on the right jockeying for a leadership position in the party than candidates on the left. With the overwhelming party bias of the media, if there was smoke, you can be sure they would find the fire.

I wouldn't say he is extremely economic right wing. Trump supports subsidies for farmers.

A person on the extremes would have abolished all government tax-funded subsidies to businesses instead of embraced them. Subsidies are a socialist agenda, not a capitalist agenda. Government controlling the economy by selecting winners and losers in the market defines economic socialism. Government doesn't actually have to own the businesses to control them with subsidies to select favorite industries. Capitalism requires a free market free from government subsidies so that inefficient businesses can fail and free up that capital for productive ventures. Businesses influenced by the government are always relatively inefficient and unresponsive to market demand pressures. Every country with nationalized industry has found this to be the case.

Probably. When you have people wanting to redistribute the wealth from the few productive members and give to the mass of unproductive members like the Germans did with the Jews, Fascism starts to look appealing. The demonization of the white male is the first step. Next will be boxcars loaded with rich white men sent to re-education centers.

Sure, I kinda got the gist that you were a globalist when you claimed that wanting to make your nation better than others is fascist.

But nearly all other nations strive for that because we presently live in a world of competing nations, not a global alliance of egalitarian nations. The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe proves this is the case.

You are essentially labeling most nations on the planet as Fascist simply for competing with other nations for resources to ensure survival, which is in our nature as are all lifeforms on the planet. What's the purpose of having a nation if survival is a trivial goal? You won't find many people willing to give up their livelihoods simply to claim they are not Fascist.

Be nice moose!

That's such a bizarre criteria for fascism to say a nation that negotiates from a position of making their country better than other countries is what makes a nation fascist. Again, you are describing nearly every other nation on the planet. Name me one nation that pursues policies that ensure they are a vassal of another nation or deliberately hobbles themselves to ensure they are "on par" with other nations. The closest one you will find is Finland who consistently grovels before the Russians as a weak neutral border nation to make sure they do not provoke them. Is Finland the only non-fascist nation for having that policy?

Fascism is wanting to make your nation better?

Trump like every politician is flawed. You can tell when a person lacks perspective when they cannot point to either a good thing a person has done or a bad thing. Fascism should not be a label reserved for "someone you just don't like"

Fascism should actually mean something specific. If you say "Tariffs are a critical component of fascism," then all countries that have tariffs are fascist.

Perhaps you should just drop the hate labels before you shred them beyond recognition.

Another part of your assertion is very troubling that the idea that the USA exists to make other nations great. We have had long standing nation-building policies for many decades with disastrous results, especially in the Middle East and Southern/Central America. We cannot point to a single success in nation building since the Marshall Plan in 1948. If continuing these interventionista policies makes our country <NOT Fascist> ....perhaps we have to re-evaluate what our labels really mean.

It's really hard to win elections when one side's slogan is "illegal immigrants and their children first."

If imposing tariffs are a fascist action as you stated, then you must concede that almost every nation on the planet is fascist, as they have imposed tariffs on American goods for decades. 

Are there any other Fascist actions you wish to highlight? Any other specific policies? (hint, almost every policy you will point to is a watered down policy of what other nations use against us, especially concerning border control.)

Slapping a label liberally only weakens the label.

Okay...name me one Facist action. (you do know what an action is?)

When you are raised as a coddled snowflake, and a pinprick feels like a gunshot wound, then a funny looking man saying mean things will surely look like Hitler to you.

His trolling over the years has literally driven the left insane. I almost feel sorry for them, they all thought they were so well educated and strong.

Don't forget about the abolish ICE...open border, anti-wall candidates....