Check out my avatar name.You almost make sense
Check out my avatar name.You almost make sense
Marxists?? When? Where?Sounds like you are coming from a purely partisan position but it's actually more nuanced than you suggest. My point was that the populist impulse for tariffs used to be a policy position firmly embraced by Democrats. But I do generally agree that populism (or mob rule) in either party is not a good thing. Also, I'm not in favor of protectionism -- but at least understand that looking for trading balance is something a little different.
I do think, however, given your post, that you mostly misunderstand the nature of "due process" afforded for residents that are in the country illegally. That "due process," clearly defined by law, looks very different from the kind citizens and legal residents enjoy.
So, anyway, like I said, today your choices are popularism vs. Marxist progressivism. Gone is the liberal / conservative dichotomy. Pick carefully.
It always amazes me that those who complain the loudest about radical portions of the opposing political party are completely blind to the radical portions of their own political party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost indistinguishable from the official Marxist/Socialist parties of the 1960s in both tactics and ideology.Marxists?? When? Where?
There is no choice for Marxist progressivism. Not in the USA. There’s hardly any left in the US.
Sorry not sorry, but I’ll file that Epoch Times link in the same place I put their precious free subscription when it showed up in my mailbox: the dumpster.It always amazes me that those who complain the loudest about radical portions of the opposing political party are completely blind to the radical portions of their own political party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost indistinguishable from the official Marxist/Socialist parties of the 1960s in both tactics and ideology.
![]()
Congressional Progressive Caucus Has Extensive Ties to Marxist Organizations
www.theepochtimes.com
Sorry not sorry, but I’ll file that Epoch Times link in the same place I put their precious free subscription when it showed up in my mailbox: the dumpster.
Posting an opinion piece from a far right conspiracy website isn't the evidence your looking for.It always amazes me that those who complain the loudest about radical portions of the opposing political party are completely blind to the radical portions of their own political party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost indistinguishable from the official Marxist/Socialist parties of the 1960s in both tactics and ideology.
![]()
Congressional Progressive Caucus Has Extensive Ties to Marxist Organizations
www.theepochtimes.com
I don’t “have” any political party in the USA and I consider the Democratic Party a little less rightwing than the pre-Trump Republican Party. The current Republican Party is dangerously extreme rightwing. Thanks to Trump and his fans. So compared to what the Republican Party is at the moment, the Democrats surely are leftwing…still no Marxist in sight though.It always amazes me that those who complain the loudest about radical portions of the opposing political party are completely blind to the radical portions of their own political party.
🤣🤣You’re not serious, are you?The Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost indistinguishable from the official Marxist/Socialist parties of the 1960s in both tactics and ideology.
![]()
Congressional Progressive Caucus Has Extensive Ties to Marxist Organizations
www.theepochtimes.com
It always amazes me that those who complain the loudest about radical portions of the opposing political party are completely blind to the radical portions of their own political party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost indistinguishable from the official Marxist/Socialist parties of the 1960s in both tactics and ideology.
![]()
Congressional Progressive Caucus Has Extensive Ties to Marxist Organizations
www.theepochtimes.com
This. And it wasn’t even all that long ago, was it (or am I old? 😆) when the second Bush was President? I didn’t like him, but he was a far cry from Trump’s madness.Not sure how old you are but you clearly must not remember the GOP when it was sane.
This. And it wasn’t even all that long ago, was it (or am I old? 😆) when the second Bush was President? I didn’t like him, but he was a far cry from Trump’s madness.
This. And it wasn’t even all that long ago, was it (or am I old? 😆) when the second Bush was President? I didn’t like him, but he was a far cry from Trump’s madness.
Yes, that's exactly what happened - the EU has a prohibition on "state aids" - i.e., subsidies to companies from a country. The reason for the prohibition is to prevent the "race to the bottom" we see in the US of states/localities handing out goodies to companies because the company will threaten to take their business elsewhere.I personally think the rest of the EU was upset Ireland found a way to land Apple and was worried other companies would follow suit, costing them money.
As I posted above, the EU has authority to fine 10% based on worldwide turnover, but calculates the actual fine based on other factors and typically ties it primarily to EU turnover. Until the decision itself is released we don't know how the fine was determined.The EU has a right to implement their own laws / fines but why is Apple fined based on its total earnings rather than the earnings it makes in the EU ?
The EU doesn’t have a blanket prohibition of state eight in fact, allows it under a number of circumstances. For example, Airbus has been a huge recipient of subsidies. In fact the EU lost a WTO dispute with the US over Airbus subsidies, which eventually led to an agreement to reduce tariffs for five years as a settlement. I suspect the EU was more concerned that a US company and not an EU company was getting the benefits of the Irish deal, which, of course is normal for governments. Every government wants to protect its own countries industries and not allow states to protect foreign interest.Yes, that's exactly what happened - the EU has a prohibition on "state aids" - i.e., subsidies to companies from a country. The reason for the prohibition is to prevent the "race to the bottom" we see in the US of states/localities handing out goodies to companies because the company will threaten to take their business elsewhere.
The EU Commission brought a challenge to Ireland's tax regime as it benefited Apple, and won.