Rumors of McConnell's imminent demise may prove overstated.
Samurai, as much as Manchin drives you to handwringing, a challenger approaches.
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is more conservative than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a loyal ally of President Donald Trump and a national conservative icon.
That’s according to a recent ideological ranking by GovTrack.us, a nonpartisan organization that tracks government data and statistics.
The freshman Arizona senator ranked 47th on the group’s annual conservative-to-liberal scale, which is based on lawmakers’ 2019 legislative records.
That puts her to the right of all other members of her caucus — as well as McConnell, who ranked 49th, and several other Republicans.
She is considered more conservative than her fellow Democratic moderates, such as Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. She also ranked more conservative than Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
You don't know that was always a strawman?? It doesn't take long to notice that progressives apply very firm and aggressive ethical frameworks, whether or not you would agree with any. I'm pretty sure this whole "all cultures are equal" meme was invented as a petulant retort by those who felt their own cultures criticized from the left.
A self-pardon was obviously tendentious, but not even for his kids? Come on.
The best explanation I can think of is that Trump is, or was made, very sensitive to potential 5th Amendment considerations flowing from a blanket pardon of his closeco-conspiratorsfamily.
I've posted this before, but it is a fascinating diagram.
You and @spmetla might be interested in the source article/blog.
One factor you're missing, that I've learned of recently, is that China has a huge advantage as an economic hub. Inputs and outputs ALL along the supply/value chain can be produced or assembled there, an area with a common legal framework and good infrastructure and plentiful labor. And if some production moves to Vietnam or the Philippines, China still maintains its place as the hub of the entire region. Why ship all around the world when you can go from extraction to retail all in the West Pacific?Regional trading blocks with SE-Asia to set up sanctions will only grow more powerful as China's middle class grows and cheap manufacturing shifts elsewhere. China's place as the place to make everything is not set in stone and as living standards rise, Chinese labor is getting more expensive.
Apparently, the TPP was America's attempt to bypass China's development on this path by creating an alternative Asian agglomeration with itself integrated, one key upside from a business perspective (and admittedly this was an area where the TPP went too far) being that American-led economics prioritizes IP security, integrity, and rents in a way China notoriously does not. But that ship has sailed.
A relevant concept here is "economies of agglomeration," and one of America's advantages for the past ~150 years has been its own status as the premier agglomeration economy where all forms of economic activity along the industrial supply/value chain could be located under a single stable and prosperous political regime. This is seemingly also one of the objectives of the EU in integrating European economies, markets, and regulatory frameworks.
Anyway, China has decisive advantages beyond cheap(er) labor; they just used the first burst of FDI and cheap labor to bootstrap themselves into hub status, nearly a generation ago now. Ain't no going back. Remember - the Chinese littoral and riparian zone has been the densest center of population and economic activity (and often political sophistication) for almost the entire history of civilization.
And I'm not even sure the US has any enticing alternatives to present to African or Latin American - or even European! though they're still our biggest partner, for now - governments in place of Chinese investment and trade. Who wants to alienate the largest market in the world, liberal and loose-conditioned with its cash (at least in the short term), in favor of vague and measly promises from what looks ever more like a fading power? I can't imagine the level of leadership and commitment needed to make a credible attempt. To proper effect, the collapse of artificial distinctions between American domestic and foreign policy atop a comprehensive internal civilizational project (i.e. socialism).
I don't know much, but to my mind most trends point to China securing a position where it needs any given country less than they need it. That's clout. Be that as it may, industrial policy is a swell thing that the West might want to try again.
Did anyone figure out what Serbia's PM was doing?
Bookmarks