United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Oh My: Palin to Endorse Trump in Iowa Today?
Source:
Townhall
URL Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben ... bout-to-endorse-trump-n2106499
Published: Jan 19, 2016
Author: Guy Benson
Post Date: 2016-01-19 10:55:40 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 13264
Comments: 70
I'll admit it -- when this speculation began mounting yesterday, I wasn't remotely sold on the idea that Palin was poised jump aboard the Trump Train when so many influential figures within the conservative talk radio constellation are at long last blasting The Donald and rallying to Cruz. The Palin speculation seemed even less plausible when this rumor leaked: Multiple little birdies tell me Jerry Falwell, Jr. is going to endorse Trump for president and come to Iowa with him tomorrow.— Steve Deace (@SteveDeaceShow) January 18, 2016 Wow. Palin's jet following Trump campaign; endorsement imminent. Broken via flight records: https://t.co/BALN6KGFSE https://t.co/Z4rFX0mirY— Matt Popovich (@mpopv) January 19, 2016 @LPDonovan did you see it went to Tulsa next https://t.co/s6q4PMgPSG— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) January 19, 2016 Gonna watch the Trump/Palin rally with the largest bottle of bourbon I can find.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 19, 2016
Falwell bestowed a fulsome introduction upon Donald "Two Corinthians" Trump just yesterday -- much to the dismay of many in the evangelical community -- so Deace's report made sense. Surely that's the big announcement and "special guest" Trump's been pumping on social media, right? Not so fast, my friends:
Interesting. But so what if there's a private jet bound from Anchorage to Iowa? That could be a coincidence. Or...uh, maybe not:
Oh my. The jet is headed to Ames, then hopping over to Tulsa? Exactly mirroring Trump's campaign itinerary? Dude. This might actually be happening. And what a splash it would make less than two weeks before Iowa. Should Palin's endorsement both come to fruition (there have been clues along the way), and push Trump over the top, emotionalist nationalistic populism will have officially supplanted principled, policy-driven, limited-government conservatism as the currently dominant strain within the American right-wing. I'll leave you with this, because why not at this point?
Buckle up, amigos. If you need me, I'll be passed out under my desk:
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#4. To: cranky (#0)
Palin opposes ethanol subsidies. http://theweek.com/articles/484340/sarah-palins-brash-stand-against-ethanol- subsidies Trump favors ethanol subsidies and would expand them. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/266339-trump-calls-for-higher- ethanol-mandate Trump is the crony capitalist that Palin campaigned against for almost a decade .
You're a crony capitalist that wants NAFTA to destroy American jobs. Cruz is for new world order trade deals. Trump and Palin aren't. Trumping ethanol which isn't in the top 500 most important issues.
Cruz went to the floor of the Senate to publically call McConnell a liar . Cruz said that his vote for tpa was cast on the basis that McConnell assured him there was not a deal made with the Democrats to support the Ex-Im bank renewal. But McConnell made a separate deal with the emperor ,and the Ex-Im was added to the highway bill . Cruz has taken on the Washington establishment ,often by himself in the hall of the Senate . Trump chastised Cruz for calling McConnell a liar . Ethanol subsidies is a big deal . Cruz won't compromise his principles even if it may cost him the Iowa caucus .Trump on the other hand has no principles and is a corporatist who favors government subsidies at the tax payer expense to corporate interests.
Why do you feel the need to lie? You fear Trump like that piece of shit Eric Cantor “Unfortunately I do think that if there were to be a Trump administration the casualty would likely be trade,” said Eric Cantor, a former Republican House Majority Leader and now vice chairman of Moelis & Company. “That’s a very serious prospect for the world.”
Cantor is right in this case . The last businessman who became President ;and signed off on a trade war was Herbert Hoover . He did that right before the market crashed and the Great Depression began.
“The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.” REAGAN
NAFTA, GATT etc isn't free trade. That is a lie you bought. They are the genesis of global organizations to dictate trade terms. To force our congress to change our laws. You are an anti constitutionalist. Just like the establishment. I guess if I was like you and made my living selling out the American worker I would be for global government too.
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws . That is the lie you bought . The Constitution, through the Commerce Clause, gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities with foreign countries.
A “corporate court” has ruled that the U.S. must face $1 billion in tariff punishment because a law U.S. consumers wanted for protection of health and safety has cost foreign companies some profits. The U.S. Congress is being told they must repeal the law or we face billions in punishment. U.S. courts don’t get a say. We the People don’t, either. That’s what “free trade” agreements have done for us lately. COOL The U.S. has country of origin labeling (COOL) rules for meat labels as part of rules that notify customers about the source of certain foods. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that informing consumers “discriminates” against Mexican and Canadian companies, thereby violating the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The court decided that American consumers might, for one reason or another, prefer to buy meat born, raised, slaughtered and packaged in the U.S. to meat from other countries that might or might not have lower health and safety standards. Since this preference would hurt the profits of Canadian and Mexican corporations, it violates the agreement. The U.S. labeling effort began when “mad-cow disease” was discovered in cattle in other countries. That was pretty big news at the time. The rules also come out of concerns that some countries have lower health and standards than the U.S. So Congress passed a law requiring that meat and other foods be labeled so consumers can make up their minds about what to purchase. But NAFTA allows Mexican and Canadian companies to sue the U.S. if the U.S. passes laws and/or impose regulations that might hurt their profits. The WTO has decided giving consumers the ability to know where their food comes from can hurt the profits of non-U.S. corporations and is therefore a violation of NAFTA. It’s Out Of Our Hands (And Sovereignty) Ninety-two percent of the U.S. public wants the meat labeling rules. But what the WTO rules is what has to be, because we are a party to NAFTA. Congress has passed and the president has signed NAFTA, so We the People can’t do anything about this – not through our courts or our legislative bodies. No U.S. court can review this ruling. We cannot vote to overcome it. It is out of our hands and beyond our country’s sovereign ability to do anything about it because we signed that away – so corporations can increase profits. Congress is not required to change the law, but Canada and Mexico can now begin to impose tariffs that will hit U.S. jobs and communities. We cannot impose counter-tariffs to balance this out, so Canadian and Mexican goods will have an advantage in U.S. markets. (See: Taxation without representation.) How did we end up here? We were promised that NAFTA would benefit our economy, bring jobs and higher wages to U.S. workers, etc. Of course, that is not what happened. Our trade deficit increased. Manufacturing jobs went south, so shareholders and executives could pocket the wage differential (while Mexicans family farms were wiped out, forcing northward migration). And, of course, now we can’t even tell people where their meat is coming from so consumers can decide if they want to purchase it. TPP This ruling is a particular concern now, because the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is coming before Congress for approval. TPP has similar “corporate court” provisions, and would open up our country to lawsuits from corporations in many more countries – including subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. Giant multinational corporations and Wall Street stand to benefit from TPP, because it will enable even more offshoring so shareholders and executives can pocket the wage difference. Their lobbyists (both in and out of government) will tell you that TPP can’t make us change our laws. For example, in May President Obama gave a speech at Nike headquarters to promote TPP. He said that warnings that TPP could “undermine American regulation – food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations” was “just not true.” He said: “They’re making this stuff up. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” This is technically correct – but just barely. Congress doesn’t have to change the law. But the COOL case shows how we face tariff penalties that cost jobs and hit communities if Congress doesn’t. Perhaps billions of dollars of economic damage that we can’t do anything about won’t “force” Congress to change the COOL law. We should not sign way our sovereignty to corporate courts concerned only with corporate profit. This would be a good time to call your representative and senators and tell them you do not want them to vote to approve TPP. P.S.: Just last month the WTO ruled that our “dolphin-safe” tuna labels are a “technical barrier to trade.” So consumers won’t have information that lets them decide if they want to purchase tuna that is caught with or without killing dolphins. https://ourfuture.org/20151208/corporate-court-overrules-us-congress-public
There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: tomder55 (#4)
Trump is the crony capitalist that Palin campaigned against for almost a decade .
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#11. To: tomder55 (#8)
Trump on the other hand has no principles
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
"Unfortunately I do think that if there were to be a Trump administration the casualty would likely be trade,” said Eric Cantor, a former Republican House Majority Leader and now vice chairman of Moelis & Company. “That’s a very serious prospect for the world.”
#15. To: All (#13)
#21. To: tomder55 (#15)
“The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations.” REAGAN
#29. To: A K A Stone (#21)
To force our congress to change our laws.
#40. To: tomder55 (#29)
Nobody "forces " Congress to change laws . That is the lie you bought .
Replies to Comment # 40.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]