<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s-s7eG2ckN4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> LMAO
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7xxgRUyzgs0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's much more than that. As both Obama and GW Bush has shown a lot can be done with executive orders. The executive branch controls law enforcement and tax collection which can have a huge affects. Since the executive controls and carries out the foreign policy a lot can happen with how military and trade issues happen. I don't think Trump is dumb or crazy enough to get the US into a major war but I do think there is very real danger of Trump creating problems between the US and the rest of the World. He's not even won the GOP nomination and his rhetoric is already causing problems with US relations with other countries including important trade partners.
It depends on the reasons for and who they are targeted at. Protectionism has proven to be a long term loser in human history but there are times when trade is blocked or slowed for various reasons such as in sanctions. Just raising tariffs for the sake of tariffs ignores that trade and investment goes both ways.
Because of economics. Tariffs result in deadweight losses in the economy, less efficient outcomes, and result in the propping up of industries or firms which aren't competitive without protectionist policies. The economic theory doesn't say anything normative (is protectionism good or bad), but empirically and theoretically, you get more efficient outcomes in the absence of protectionist policy.
Anyone remember when the Right wing accused Clinton of not being presidential and disrespecting the office because he would wear khakis and a button down shirt instead of wearing suits and ties? It now seems so minimal when looking at how unpresidential these candidates are taking it
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump declines to reject the support of ex-Klansman David Duke <a href="https://t.co/aVbdt6jdXO">https://t.co/aVbdt6jdXO</a> <a href="https://t.co/UUHPluLKVM">pic.twitter.com/UUHPluLKVM</a></p>— The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/704003201297719298">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
^^ NYTimes and CNN trying to paint Trump as a racist, when he clearly disavowed on Friday. Just shows the media bias that exists out there. <blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As I stated at the press conference on Friday regarding David Duke- I disavow. <a href="https://t.co/OIXFKPUlz2">pic.twitter.com/OIXFKPUlz2</a></p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/703996959544250373">February 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I don't see anything wrong with this. He said he knows nothing about the guy. You want him to trust the media to tell him who and what the guy represents? Donald said he'd do his own research and come to his own decision. The media wants him to denounce somebody he doesn't even know enough about.
Why does he feel so resistant to disavowing him? His tone and mannerism suggests that he did it out of wanting to stop the media from asking him the same question instead of genuinely condemning him.
Yeah it took him an entire 3 seconds to do it. What a racist. Non-racists disavow within 1.27 seconds. Therefore we can have a headline 2 days later claiming he didn't disavow.
If you're over, say, 40 years old and have been politically aware in your lifetime, you definitely know who David Duke is. So Trump is, as usual, playing it both ways. Avoiding the question, but making sure he doesn't alienate any white supremacist nutballs who will rally and vote for him. In a word: disgusting.
