re: There are a lot of "conservatives" who want to end the MAGA/America First Populism.

quote:

---

I do own and consume things that weren’t built in the Us but I try not to

---

"I try not to" is a helluva lot different than claiming you buy only US if it's an option. There are a lot of US options out there that you probably don't use.

The simple fact of the matter is that economically and frequently from a quality standpoint it makes sense to buy things from companies that aren't in the US. You might pay $100 for a pair of US jeans but you probably won't pay $500; everybody has their pain point where they say "screw it, I'm buying foreign". I don't know a single person who ONLY buys US if it's an option.

Double

Funny, Offshore companies are exiting China for India and Vietnam because Chinese workers "worked" themselves out of the market.

Labor costs are cheaper in Mexico than China, and it had nothing to do with Tariffs.

quote:

---

quote:

---

there really isn't much tea grown in the CONUS, is there?

---

No, there isn't, but there are 2 or 3 growers. Maybe we should make tariffs high enough that it's profitable to grow more tea in the US.

---

As I understand it, growing tea leaves is very labor intensive. They literally pick the leaves off the tea, one or two leaves at a time.

It strikes me that no country with a minimum wage could ever support that type of industry, but you say that there are a few growers in CONUS. I cannot imagine what their product must cost or how low their margins must be.

quote:

---

That's the MAGA reasoning as I understand it.

---

If you extend Trump's "tariff policy" to this type of agriculture, I think you are correct.

Ya’ll act like our national origin story doesn’t include the bit about throwing British tea into the harbor because it’s a gay drink and we like coke more

quote:

---

and saying culture, values, etc mean nothing,

---

Who is saying that? I'm talking about taxes and government intervention in the market.

Here’s an article that sums up my position entirely

quote:

---

You’re the one arguing that we should support these guys indefinitely and not to rock the boat by electing MAGA candidates who are more in line with their voters.

---

Nope. What I have argued is that y'all are low IQ conspiracy nuts who understand politics like it's professional wrestling when you allow Democrats to continue to rule.

Now that you bring it up, though, I will say that I would prefer candidates with conservative principles to candidates without them. As for the last seven words quoted above, don't look now, but there's a guiding principle in back of that sentiment (namely, the principle of representative government). Better be careful invoking principled ideals or you'll be labelled autistic.

quote:

---

Ok, if goods and services can flow freely, why not people?

---

People can flow freely, if everything else is free of too much government meddling. The only reason that it is a problem for people to flow freely into the United States right now is because we have a welfare state. Which conservative principles do not recognize as desirable.

You've never heard the classic Milton Freedman commentary on open borders vs a welfare state? Of course not, because you guys literally don't know what you're talking about when it comes to conservatism.

Again, you guys are the ones who are supposed to be for dismantling the status quo. O.k., fine. You get rid of welfare, minimum wage laws, labor laws, and no municipal, state or federal voting for non-citizens, open borders are no problem whatsoever.

quote:

---

it’s the highest law in the land.

---

What is that highest law based on, moron? The post to which I was replying literally ridiculed the idea that governments should be based on any foundational principles. If you don't think the Bill of Rights reflects basic foundational principles governing the relationship between government and citizens, then I'm going to start listening for the phone ringing with The Village on the other end asking for their idiot back.

quote:

---

The Declaration of Independence is more like the guiding principle of this land, and it agrees with me that the people rule.

---

Again, the post to which I was replying when you quoted me ridiculed the idea that governments should have any guiding principles. So which is it? They should or shouldn't? Or only the ones you like?

Additionally, this is another stellar example of exactly why you idiots are so dangerous. You argued just now exactly like a leftist wailing about "democracy." Yet again, you are on the same page as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, AOC, etc., etc., etc.

The reality of the situation is that the guys who wrote the Declaration of independence had a very ANTI-populist view of how this country should work. They didn't conceive of "the people" being low IQ members of the Great Unwashed.

"The people" to them were landowners, which means they were a minority of citizens, mostly upper middle class and above. And representatives were not elected to do what the masses wanted them to do. They were elected to do what was in the best interest of those masses, even when those masses were too dumb or uninformed to know better.

Someone may make an argument criticizing that concept, but that is the concept they had of "the people." They did NOT agree with you. The exact opposite, in fact.

quote:

---

Those pesky guiding principles.

---

I'm kind of shocked the population who requires set guiding principles for their social morality/policy rejects it for economic policy and political philosophy.