This thread is way long in the tooth fellas.
We like to close them around 5K and this one is miles out.
Going to close it and start a new one when I can get a response from Paul F. as this is his baby.
Look for the grand opening soon.
Fox News isn't "conservative".
If by not conservative you mean not Breitbart, yeah. They're not that. But they do generally present the news from a rightward POV.
In an interview with Time magazine announcing him as "Person of the Year," Trump didn't go into specifics but signaled that he could find a way to accommodate the Dreamers.
"We’re going to work something out that’s going to make people happy and proud,” Trump told the magazine. “They got brought here at a very young age, they’ve worked here, they’ve gone to school here. Some were good students. Some have wonderful jobs. And they’re in never-never land because they don’t know what’s going to happen.”
You are wrong.I imagine that might not go well with those here that wanted them all deported
You are wrong.
Whatever Trump decides to do will not only be right, but will be tremendous.
Fox News presents news from both viewpoints. That doesn't make them "conservative". It means they at least make an attempt at being "fair and balanced".
Saying "we're fair and balanced" and actually being fair and balanced are two different things.
Trump: 'We?re going to work something out' with Dreamers - POLITICO
I imagine that might not go well with those here that wanted them all deported
You are wrong.
Whatever Trump decides to do will not only be right, but will be tremendous.
Ok. I admit to being a Navy brat.
USMC SecDef
USMC DHS
USMC CJCS
Uh.... this is actually starting to get a bit strange.
Only Nixon could go to China. Remember that.
I'm good with it
If you've made it to the upper levels of the Corps, it means you are a tough-minded go-getter who does more with less and is unlikely to be PC - I think Trump likes that.
This isn't quite true. Those ideas (the currency manipulation and our tariffs) contributed, but fundamentally, they were committed to 2 things: creating manufacturing infrastructure (not just roads and bridges, but actual factories) and buying national debt of other 1st world countries.* The currency manipulation helped, but was really a symptom of their commitment to building things.
They didn't care how many villagers were displaced or died. They didn't care about unemployment rates or election cycles. They built what they needed to build.
I had a friend working over there 10-15 years ago. Even then, China had the capacity to build 100% of the world's consumer goods. Business people would do a junket over there and discuss a possible factory. Next junket over, the factory would be built. It didn't matter if the company was going to pay for it or not, or wanted it, the Chinese knew that if this company didn't move in, another one would. Or they would just start doing it themselves.
America doesn't have that kind of commitment. Can't have, from a political perspective.
* There was a third component: foreign policy. They go/went to "3rd world" countries in Asia and Africa and built stuff for them with the understanding that China would get raw materials and the host country would be a consumer of Chinese goods.
A fair assessment for the most part, but I'm not convinced. I would point out that they have many brand new buildings and factories just sitting empty/idle. The commitment to building things could be said to be a consequence of a command economy and a conscious decision to be the world's major manufacturer of most basic goods.
I fully agree with your foreign policy point. The U.S. and the Soviets both used to do this and were quite successful. Why we stopped after the Cold War when we should have been moving the ball down the field unopposed is a mystery to me (some absurd non-sense about not wanting to be viewed as "imperialist" perhaps?). The Chinese saw a strategy that worked and stepped in to fill the void and now we are going to have to play catch-up.