Is that a gross positive for a very large number of American workers, in addition to all of the indirect beneficiaries of American manufacturing?

GDP is higher. Ok. Higher than what?

The total job numbers increase with population size, for that results in more people owning small businesses... ahem... that is... if the legislation doesn't make it impossible as a result of forced competition with foreign companies from nations who do not value their workers as they ought.

All as a result of legislation which not only perpetuates, but provides the financial incentive to cultivate and perpetuate unlawful and unethical treatment of other people.

Lower consumer prices? That's bullshit. Lower than what? Lower on what?


Anyway... I'm going back to finish my response to the rest of your last post.

You don't seem to have read the article I gave you. It references analyses that estimate impact of NAFTA, so they're referring to net increase in GDP and jobs vs where we would have been without NAFTA. I applaud skepticism, but I do not applaud dismissing analysis simply because it doesn't have the answer you want.

BTW, I looked at several analyses before I posted that link. The others reflected a rosier result from NAFTA. This one was more balanced - it discusses negatives as well as positives. Still, I acknowledge that it could be wrong, but I think it's stupid to insist it's necessarily wrong. The point is: what if it's right?

The State of Anti-Trumpism in 2019

What a year. The biggest thing for me was the end of the Russia witch hunt. Not only did it fail to find any collusion, it proved Trumps opponents in the media and elsewhere to be credulous, conspiratorial, and illiberal.

But it never stopped. “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim”, wrote Santayana. Do they remember their aim? Because Trump’s opponents have redoubled their efforts with their impeachment, which now center around Russia’s opponent Ukraine, and Trump’s conversations with the president there. No crime had occurred, no victim was apparent, leaving inquisitors such as Shiff to ad lib the conversation in front of Congress and the American public, all while lying about his coordination with the alleged whistleblower, who has “arguable political bias”.

Then the IG report came out, proving the Devin Nunes memo of early 2018 mostly right, and the Adam Schiff response memo mostly wrong. We already know which of the two memos was vilified and praised by the press and their base at the time.

So in my opinion the big story of 2019 was the anti-Trumpism, which is the rot festering away at this great republic.

Don't they ever give you a day off? Chill and enjoy the fireworks ;)

In my country the situation is totally different. And they don't believe that the political environment is fixed.

Looks like the U.S and/or Israel just assassinated one of the top Iranian military officials, along with a handful of other Hezbollah commanders (and possibly from other groups) via airstrike at the Baghdad airport...

It's an outright declaration of war. And if Donnie did it, he certainly did not have congressional approval...

There could be very severe ramifications from this if there is widespread escalation.

Are you going to enlist

Too old.

ah that's always convenient

Some wise-ass once remarked that war consists of old men sending young men away to die.. (some old Roman dude IIRC)...

Some other dude once said that war seems sweet and romantic only to those who have never experienced it...

Conclusion: Old men who have never experienced war are sending young men to suffer and die; war kills the best of us, and we're then left with draft dodging cowards hypocritically waging war for frivolous and ultimately counter-national reasons.

Major NY Times story from a few days back - an inside look at what was happening in the back rooms during Trump’s 84-day illegal hold on Ukraine aid funding.

More details on same.

Questioner: ‘That is a steaming pile of s***t’

WH Press Secretary: ‘You’re wrong, sir, that is an exquisite, 11th Century Chinese porcelain vase, valued at more than a million dollars’.

Questioner: ‘But look at it! It’s a stinking pile of malodorous brown sludge, it looks and smells like a turd!’

WH Press Secretary: ‘No, you’re quite wrong. We say it’s a vase, and to say otherwise is to go against the express will of the American people. Now, give me your press pass, and you will be shown the door by Security. Good day.’

Some wise-ass once remarked that war consists of old men sending young men away to die.. (some old Roman dude IIRC)...

Some other dude once said that war seems sweet and romantic only to those who have never experienced it...

Conclusion: Old men who have never experienced war are sending young men to suffer and die; war kills the best of us, and we're then left with draft dodging cowards hypocritically waging war for frivolous and ultimately counter-national reasons.

It’s a volunteer army. It was a missile strike.

It’s a volunteer army. — NOS4A2

Oh shoot... You got me there. How can we blame politicians for starting wars? Since the soldiers voluntarily joined the army, it's not the politicians' fault...

P.S: Trump is a draft dodger...

Nothing about Biden or the 2020 election in those emails. They only suggest that all relevant actors were trying to do things legally, and in fact did so.

Oh shoot... You got me there. How can we blame politicians for starting wars? Since the soldiers voluntarily joined the army, it's not the politicians' fault...

Which war are you talking about?

Your point doesn't need to pertain to specific wars. You were suggesting that sending soldiers to die in wars isn't a negative thing because the soldiers voluntarily joined the army.

Is that not what you were suggesting?

No my point is soldiers volunteer to fight for their country and their leaders, and they do so knowing the risks involved. No one is sending them to die.

But war literally involves sending soldiers to fight and risk dying.

Are you saying that soldiers join the army knowing they risk being sent to fight and die in a frivolous war? (obviously... What's your point?)

Is it that because leaders represent the people, it's actually a good and just thing when a soldier dies in a pointless war? That the politicians cannot be blamed?

You seem to be missing the point. Soldiers are duty bound to obey orders, it's what they're for; I'm telling your the orders themselves can be stupid, for which the commander in chief can be directly blamed.

I’m just saying no one is sending them to go die, but to carry out military operations. That kind of pacifist rhetoric is false on its face.

It was a missile attack against a terrorist organization threatening American soldiers and interests. Do you think that was stupid? Why?

I’m just saying no one is sending them to go die, but to carry out military operations. That kind of pacifist rhetoric is false on its face. — NOS4A2

Right. You're just ignoring the point in favor of an irrelevant red-herring appeal to the fact that armies exist.

It was a missile attack against a terrorist organization threatening American soldiers and interests. Do you think that was stupid? Why? — NOS4A2

Because of who they killed. Apparently Soulemani was one of the most important people in Iran, protege to the Iranian Ayatollah, and one of the top-most field commanders...

Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying Trump may have just precipitated war with Iran by assassinating a member of their government.

But of course, that's neither here nor there right? War is ambivalent; blowing shit up is what soldiers are for.

Nothing about Biden or the 2020 election in those emails. — NOS4A2

Interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials, congressional aides and others, previously undisclosed emails and documents, and a close reading of thousands of pages of impeachment testimony provide the most complete account yet of the 84 days from when Mr. Trump first inquired about the money to his decision in September to relent.

What emerges is the story of how Mr. Trump’s demands sent shock waves through the White House and the Pentagon, created deep rifts within the senior ranks of his administration, left key aides like Mr. Mulvaney under intensifying scrutiny — and ended only after Mr. Trump learned of a damning whistle-blower report and came under pressure from influential Republican lawmakers.

...The interviews and documents show how Mr. Trump used the bureaucracy to advance his agenda in the face of questions about its propriety and even legality from officials in the White House budget office and the Pentagon, many of whom say they were kept in the dark about the president’s motivations and had grown used to convention-flouting requests from the West Wing. One veteran budget official who raised questions about the legal justification was pushed aside. — NY Times

All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign. So, as always, your posts on this matter are the opposite of the reality - which as I suppose as a disinformation agent, you're supposed to do.

Right. You're just ignoring the point in favor of an irrelevant red-herring appeal to the fact that armies exist.

No I’m ignoring your piffle and histrionics about this event in particular, and war in general.

Because of who they killed. Apparently Soulemani was one of the most important people in Iran, protege to the Iranian Ayatollah, and one of the top-most field commanders...

Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying Trump may have just precipitated war with Iran by assassinating a member of their government.

But of course, that's neither here nor there right? War is ambivalent; blowing shit up is what soldiers are for.

This was, according to the Whitehouse, a “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad”. So much for sending them to die. But as you know, no war has been started.

Soulemani was the commander of the Quds force, a terrorist organization. I’m sorry for your loss.

All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign. So, as always, your posts on this matter are the opposite of the reality - which as I suppose as a disinformation agent, you're supposed to do.

Completely fabricated from thin air, or Democrat propaganda, both of which suit useful idiots just perfectly.

No I’m ignoring your piffle and histrionics about this event in particular, and war in general. — NOS4A2

Right. Ignoring the point I made and substituting irrelevant nonsense. We agree.

This was, according to the Whitehouse, a “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad”. So much for sending them to die. But as you know, no war has been started.

Soulemani was the commander of the Quds force, a terrorist organization. I’m sorry for your loss. — NOS4A2

Well if according to the white house the bad terrorists are dead and we should be thanking them, maybe it's time for that military parade? Maybe in lieu of war with Iran now that the terrorist is dead?

Well if according to the white house the bad terrorists are dead and we should be thanking them, maybe it's time for that military parade?

I think filling your head with dreams of coming wars and Adolph Trump suffices enough to keep you entertained.

I think filling your head with dreams of coming wars and Adolph Trump suffices enough to keep you entertained — NOS4A2

So more irrelevant nonsense then?

So more irrelevant nonsense then?

Let me know when you find some.

Completely fabricated from thin air, or Democrat propaganda, both of which suit useful idiots just perfectly. — NOS4A2

Which was attested by several thousand pages of witness testimony.

It's a Ming vase, by the way.

All of this was in order to coerce President Zelenksy to announce an investigation into the Bidens so as to undermine his 2020 campaign...

Which was attested by several thousand pages of witness testimony.

The witness testimony says otherwise:

Rep Mike Turner: 00:56:49 Not just the President, Giuliani didn’t tell you, Mulvaney didn’t tell you. Nobody. Pompeo didn’t tell you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying aid to these investigations. Is that correct?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:04 I think I already testified-

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:05 No. Answer the question. Is it correct? No one on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations. Because if your answer is yes, then the Chairman’s wrong, and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:23 Yes.

Rep Mike Turner: 00:57:24 So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.

Gordon Sondland: 00:57:36 Other than my own presumption.

***

Mr. Castor: (01:08:42)
I want to turn back to your opener on page five under, when you talk about in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations, correct?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:05)
Correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:06)
And you acknowledge that this is speculation, right?

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:11)
It was a presumption.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:13)
Okay. That it was a guess. In fact, I think you even said this morning-

Gordon Sondland: (01:09:18)
Well, I want to say that it goes back to Mr. Goldman’s point or Chairman Schiff’s two plus two equaled four in my mind at that point.

Mr. Castor: (01:09:27)
Okay. But you didn’t have any evidence of that, correct?

***

Mr. Castor: (01:19:06)
And are you aware that he was also interested in better understanding the contributions of our European allies?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:12)
That I’m definitely aware of.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:13)
And there was some back and forth between the state department officials trying to better understand that information for the President.

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:20)
Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:21)
And how do you know that wasn’t the reason for the hold?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:24)
I don’t.

Mr. Castor: (01:19:26)
But yet you speculate that there was, you know, a link to this announcement?

Gordon Sondland: (01:19:34)
I presumed it, yes.

So how do you explain your falsehoods—credulity or lies?