Free trade is here, it ain't going away.Deal with it and stop living in the 50s.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2902
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
Free trade is here, it ain't going away.Deal with it and stop living in the 50s. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Shin_Gouki
United States313 Posts
On February 12 2016 14:54 Hexe wrote: theres not much bernie can do vs superdelegates. even if he wins the popular vote with 55% or something she will probably get 65%> supers Superdelegates are actually a very small percentage of total delegate pool. It's essentially a disincentive for people because it seems so large. Once bernie comes to a winner takes all state like California (assuming he doesn't run out of campaign financing) the super delegates would most like switch to bernie as they did Obama. Steve Rattler tried to be cheeky on msnbc this morning, but we know his track record isn't clean. + Show Spoiler + http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/30/news/companies/cuomo_rattner_settlement/ Keep shilling Steve, you're making some amazing analysis towards Bernie's issue. | ||
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On February 12 2016 15:25 Seuss wrote: It seems unlikely that the DNC will allow superdelegates to change the outcome. It's not impossible since Sanders, unlike Obama, is an outsider, but I'm pretty sure they recognize that overturning the outcome via superdelegates will alienate Sanders' base and likely cost them the election with significant effects downstream. Democractic leadership is frequently incompetent but they're not that incompetent. Don't forget how acrimonious the 2008 Democratic primary was. There were a significant chunk of Hillary supporters who were so enraged, and felt so cheated for some reason, that they voted Republican and then fed into the birther craze of Obama's first term. Anything could happen this election. | ||
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 12 2016 22:41 oneofthem wrote: puerk you probable non merkel voters r the reason why the alliance is precarious. both on left and right of germany Can you stop the snappy one liners when i ask you a question? You are not making an argument right now. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21670 Posts
On February 12 2016 22:54 puerk wrote: Can you stop the snappy one liners when i ask you a question? You are not making an argument right now. I dont get it either. How exactly will bernie bring down the global economie? Or whatever it is your claiming Oneofthem | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On February 12 2016 22:57 Gorsameth wrote: I dont get it either. How exactly will bernie bring down the global economie? Or whatever it is your claiming Oneofthem I'm not sure he is going to bring them down, but his opposition to free trade (and thus international trade agreements) is surely going to hurt the international economy - especially if he is going to try and revoke the previously entered deals (which it would seem). Source EDIT: I have no idea how reliable the source is, it was the first hit on google when I typed in "Bernie Sanders Trade Agreement". It does seem to have every statement as a direct, unedited quote with linked sources. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On February 12 2016 23:11 Ghostcom wrote: I'm not sure he is going to bring them down, but his opposition to free trade (and thus international trade agreements) is surely going to hurt the international economy - especially if he is going to try and revoke the previously entered deals (which it would seem). Source EDIT: I have no idea how reliable the source is, it was the first hit on google when I typed in "Bernie Sanders Trade Agreement". It does seem to have every statement as a direct, unedited quote with linked sources. He's against Americans getting hosed as a result of them, not the concept of trade deals altogether. Personally I think a booming American economy with stricter expectations benefits more people. As the deals stand they just allow for more efficient extraction of wealth and surplus value from the poorest people in the world. Contrary to how it's sold, consequences relating to increased wages or quality of life for working class folks in other nations are unavoidable losses rather than intentional benefits. It's been made abundantly clear that the reason large corporations choose to pay their employees (as opposed to slavery) has nothing to do with a feeling of moral obligation to have a fair exchange between labor and capital. Put another way, the notion that these deals help anyone other than the billionaire class is PR spin. Surely some people are benefited, but it's because it's the most effective way to make it happen. Like putting meat in a trap. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Sermokala
United States13926 Posts
If he can win over gun owners in those southern states and keep the youth and ultra liberal voters he can obama's electoral victory look soft. | ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
It's fine that you want to improve the end of the deal for the US populace, but you have to remember that the an agreement requires 2 parties and the other half should also be willing to accept the deal at the end of the day. If the US is going to impose restrictions, so is the other part. EDIT: Going back to my orginial point: all else kept equal, the international economy is not going to respond positively if TAs are revoked. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
A group of Democratic senators, including Charles Schumer of New York and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, called on their Republican counterparts Thursday to pass emergency funding to tackle the prescription opioid and heroin crisis — the latest attempt by top politicians to address the problem on a national level. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama said he would ask for $1.1 billion in the 2017 budget for funding to fight opioid and heroin abuse, including prevention programs, prescription drug monitoring programs and efforts to expand access to the drug naloxone, which is used reverse overdoses. “All of the rhetoric in the world isn’t going to help expand access to naloxone to prevent overdose deaths and endless Senate speeches,” Schumer said. “Authorization bills won’t mean more beds at treatment centers to curb addiction.” “We need a tourniquet and that comes in the form of emergency funding," said Sen. Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, who took part in the call for emergency funding. "We are hemorrhaging lives by the day." Later, Schumer tweeted: “Beyond opioids & heroin, for Zika, for the crisis in Flint, we must give resources to those on the front lines fighting for public health.” Schumer’s remarks cast the opioid crisis, which has mostly affected white Americans, as a public health issue. That stands in stark contrast to the political rhetoric around the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980’s. Crack addiction affected mainly African-Americans and was treated as a moral failing, prompting calls for police crackdowns and long prison sentences. In an October New York Times article exploring this disparity, Michael Botticelli, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said, “Because the demographic of people affected are more white, more middle class, these are parents who are empowered … They know how to call a legislator ...” The opioid epidemic in the United States, which has been building over the past 10 years, has garnered increased attention since the presidential primaries in New Hampshire, a state that has been particularly hard hit by drug abuse. Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton wrote an op-ed in the Union Leader, a local New Hampshire newspaper, about the fight against substance abuse. Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush published an article on Medium, in which he addressed the opioid problem, and his own daughter’s struggles with addiction. Currently, 49 states have prescription drug monitoring programs, which act as electronic databases to keep track of all medications prescribed to a single patient, even if they are prescribed by several different doctors. However, those monitoring programs are not mandatory in all states. Source | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42663 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On February 12 2016 23:57 Sermokala wrote: I wonder what kind of Bernie is going to show up in the southern states for the primary. Hes got a lot of credibility from vermont on gun issues and the NRA can deliver a ton of voters in those states if he keeps to his old policies. At the same time though super Tuesday is coming up and he may think that he needs to tack a bit more left on that in order to not lose out in minority states. If he can win over gun owners in those southern states and keep the youth and ultra liberal voters he can obama's electoral victory look soft. It would certainly be interesting to see Sanders win thanks to his stance on gun control. Especially when you consider the fact that he's far left otherwise. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren has asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to consider the role legal marijuana could play in the prescription opioid epidemic. Warren asked for more research into medical marijuana and painkiller addiction in a letter to the CDC director, Thomas Friedan. “Opioid abuse is a national concern and warrants swift and immediate action,” Warren wrote. Her request comes as politicians, including the presidential nominees, search for the best response to the opioid epidemic. The use of prescription opioids doubled between 2000 and 2014, according to the CDC. And Massachusetts experienced its highest number of unintentional opioid overdose deaths in 2014, with nearly 1,100 people succumbing to overdose deaths. Warren applauded the CDC’s actions so far to curb the epidemic but called on the agency to look at whether medical marijuana could be an alternative painkiller. She also urged the agency to quickly finalize its guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain and called for increased collaboration between the CDC and other federal health agencies to determine the long-term effects of opioid use in children and the increased use of the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl. Nestled in with these recommendations is a call to consider the role of marijuana legalization in the crisis. Source | ||
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
For the super rich it would be disastrous, for the rest of the domestic population it would be a true blessing. 'Free trade agreements' during the past 40 years have been nothing but awful for basically everyone involved. | ||
| ||