QuebecOverCanada

So there is a big debate among the economists. A side wants free trade, and insists that free trade by essence brings wealth to everyone, as countries with strategic advantages may sell goods for less, thus helping consumers with cheaper goods and bringing costs down as well for manufacturers. By getting cheap aluminium from Canada, the US then concentrates its manufacturing industry on transforming it, and brings added value. By contrasts, the other side wants tarriffs imposed to exterior trade partners, to stimulate industries inside their own economy. By adding a tarriff on imports on aluminium coming from Canada, some economists believe that local producers of said aluminiumi in the US will be more competitive, create more local aluminium and create jobs. The US clearly has shown signs that it would take the latter advice. Is it foolish? Is the US going to replace competitors from abroad by having at-home manufacturing, or are they just going to buy their goods for more, while nothing more will be produced inside the US? So far, markets don't like protectionism. The Dow Jones is not growing since the year started, and S&P500 dropped. What are your takes?

This attitude coming from the pseudo-intellectuals of the Democratic side indicate a tendancy to repeat the same errors as before instead of involving into a party designed to protect workers. It's a losing attitude that created a popular vote election win for the Republicans in 2024. A first in 20 years.

Biden presidency being ranked 14th out of all presidencies is a once in a lifetime joke. That's why he was reelected after all... Oh no he wasn't.

I voted for Michael, for his message to everyone here.

Exactly. Either we, the collective West, arm ourselves as we should, or we fall. It's not about Ukraine. No one sane person in the West wants to die for the interests of NATO and Ukraine, including Ukrainians themselves. The minimum draft age is 25. When France was invaded by Germany in the Great War, they drafted everyone above 18. The Ukrainians don't want to die for their country. Why should we, foreigners, die for them?

The trade deficit between China and the US fell from 418 billion a year to 307 billion a year between 2018 to 2020. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html The Democrats kept the pressure on after being elected, while they spent many years denouncing the trade war.

Ok then it is preposterous.

If what is reported here is true, it is shocking. The thing is, I will not believe this claim upfront and the source. The Heritage Foundation is a known conservative thinktank.

Pennsylvannia is THE swing State of the election. For instance, this is what happens currently according to the polls if Trump wins Pennsylvania according to Real Clear Politics. If it were Harris it would look like this. Will we have the results for Pennsylvania on November 5th?

OK, so the 2016 election was rigged by foreign campaign contributions, got it. So the 2020 elections were rigged too, or not?

Strange post. Trump gave Stingers and Javelins to Ukraine before leaving office. These weapons have helped Ukraine repel the Russian invasion. Did you know that Obama was against sending those weapons to Ukraine and even supervised Ukraine demilitarization itself? Also, there were many sanctions made by Trump against not only Russia during its administration, but he also started the trade war against China, which the Democrats at the time called the trade war suicidal and isolasionist. Then they came back into power in 2020 and pursued the exact same course; more sanctions on Russia, and maintained and even expanded the trade war against China.

So you really believe that the 2016 election results were because of Russian interference, rather than a weak Democrat candidate? If the 2016 election was rigged by Russia according to you, do you believe that any election, such as the 2020 election, could have been rigged?

On this day, the 3rd of November, two days before the election, there was a lot of discussion about a poll for Iowa, showing a lead for Harris by three points, despite other polls showing the opposite. The institute that did the polling is respected, but I am skeptical for two reasons; 1. The Democrats did not campaign a lot in the State of Iowa. It has only 6 votes in the electoral college, and it has a religious culture. Democrats would surely spend money and effort on swing States instead of Iowa. 2. A poll in 2020 showed Biden leading by 17 points against Trump in Wisconsin. This State had less than a 1% margin at the election despite this poll.

Your post is really interesting in the way that you're obliviously describing Trump as a no-no, but insist for a De Santis presidency. De Santis and Trump are very politically aligned.

Here is what the polling looks like since the start of the political campaign, season 2024 presidentials. Trump polling higher than Harris on a national level for the popular vote is really concerning for the Democrats. And the Democrats will call the election a fraud because they will say foreign influence swung the vote for the Republicans. We saw it during the Trump presidency and the alleged Russian influence on the 2016 election.