Gingrich reverses long standing position on trade

Bill said:
Do you think he would be a good negotiator w/ China??

Doing real estate, marketing & self promotion is great, his fans eat it up, thing is, China aint no fan...
Click to expand...
negotiations would be complex, and over time (continuous). Trump would have to delegate.
Trump makes this seem like it a deal -it's entwined relations instead .It's doable in terms of improving -
especially the industrial espionage - but trade and them holding our debt....
 
Thing1 said:
It doesn't matter how blatant the flip-flop or lie. The spin on this board is A-1.
Click to expand...

How about we drop the charade that anti-Trump isn't a partisan position with its own supporting hacks lol.

Here is what Gingrich said:

“NAFTA was the final result of a process that began with Ronald Reagan in 1979,” Gingrich wrote. “It had 14 years of effort and was central to North American progress. We are now in a different era. 23 years after that vote it is clear that a lot of our trade efforts are destructive. When the director of national intelligence staff reports that China stole $360 billion in intellectual property last [y]ear, twice our total sales to China, there is something profoundly wrong.”

You can call that a flip if you want. But it's not a flip of the 'I was for the war before I was against it' variety. Flipping for purely political purposes is when you just make some crap up because it's expedient. But Gingrich is basically saying the trade deals have run their course and are currently doing more harm than good. He didn't make anything up because it's a fact.

The fact is we are getting beat because of them---it's not 1996 any more.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I think you're right.....you, cawacko and George Will are charter members......its the "We can no longer pretend to be conservative" cult......
Click to expand...

When was the definition of conservative defined as supporting a democrat? When was the definition of conservative defined as anti-trade protectionism?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
How about we drop the charade that anti-Trump isn't a partisan position with its own supporting hacks lol.

Here is what Gingrich said:

“NAFTA was the final result of a process that began with Ronald Reagan in 1979,” Gingrich wrote. “It had 14 years of effort and was central to North American progress. We are now in a different era. 23 years after that vote it is clear that a lot of our trade efforts are destructive. When the director of national intelligence staff reports that China stole $360 billion in intellectual property last [y]ear, twice our total sales to China, there is something profoundly wrong.”

You can call that a flip if you want. But it's not a flip of the 'I was for the war before I was against it' variety. Flipping for purely political purposes is when you just make some crap up because it's expedient. But Gingrich is basically saying the trade deals have run their course and are currently doing more harm than good. He didn't make anything up because it's a fact.

The fact is we are getting beat because of them---it's not 1996 any more.
Click to expand...

Gingrich is on record supporting these trade deals, even recent ones like South Korea, all the way up until he wanted to be Trump's VP.

At the end of the day politicians are basically the same and will do what it takes to get power. Newt is no different. His position here is transparent.
 
cawacko said:
When was the definition of conservative defined as supporting a democrat? When was the definition of conservative defined as anti-trade protectionism?
Click to expand...

when did the definition of conservative come to mean "attack the Republican nominee so the Democrats can win the WH".......
 
cawacko said:
Gingrich is on record supporting these trade deals, even recent ones like South Korea, all the way up until he wanted to be Trump's VP.

At the end of the day politicians are basically the same and will do what it takes to get power. Newt is no different. His position here is transparent.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad he flipped lol. The way I look at it we can accept the received wisdom that nothing can really be done to change things as far as our positioning regarding trade [which apparently, kind of sucks]; or we can make some wholesale changes and Trump appears willing to do that.

Somewhere between suck ass treaties that don't do us [insert make America great again here] any good and strict isolationism is somewhere we need to be. And though Trump talks isolation, I suspect he's enough of a pragmatist that we could wind up somewhere near the bullseye.

If Gingrich is on board with that and he flipped to get there, it doesn't matter to me. All I care about are results.
 
Isn't PMP a big pro-life guy?

And he's voting for Trump...seriously? Trump, who hosted pro-choice fundraisers, and supports funding Planned Parenthood?

And that's not even talking about his support for gov't-funded universal healthcare, support for an assault weapons ban, etc.

He's a classic NY liberal. Conservatives lose either way this election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top