US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3550

On April 05 2016 14:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't know how the man does it. Less than a year of butting heads and I already think some people are lost causes, he's been saying stuff like this and being right about it for decades.

On April 06 2016 01:27 GreenHorizons wrote:



Thank you, didn't think you guys actually had a post of me doing that.



I already said



Are you even reading what I'm saying before just hopping in the convo?

On April 06 2016 01:33 oneofthem wrote:

again, why? panama scandal?

On April 06 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:

I was digging pretty far back to find out what caused the discussion and you seem to have brought it up out of no place. And most FTA deals are supported by some business people out there in the world. I dislike Rupert Murdoch as much as anyone, but I don't think people should be scrapping or changing every FTA agreement he supports just because he supports them.

Why Panama of all things? Just because Clinton worked on it and Panama is in the news lately?

On April 06 2016 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


They should of let it die/walked away (for like the 3rd time)



Are you familiar with the concept of Conversation (big C not little c)?

On April 06 2016 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:


Because you're clearly far smarter than us and well-versed in the ways of the world and basically everything, please explain what you mean. Because all I can see there is an ad hominem.

On April 06 2016 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm literally answering the same question multiple times. Why don't you all actually read my posts if you're going to engage instead of just arguing with whatever reddit posts you read while quoting/referencing me.

On April 06 2016 01:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


What the ever living f**k is an ad hominem in that?

On April 06 2016 01:37 GreenHorizons wrote:


again, because we didn't need it and no one was pushing for it so we could wait until they put more on the table. The irony being like I showed it wasn't even very successful for them as a population either.

On April 06 2016 00:55 Ghanburighan wrote:


Let's take a look at them then (this was your job, btw):

(a) encourage expansion and diversification of trade between the Parties:

US exports to Panama in the period of 2010-2011 is $7158mln. In 2013-2014 it's $10515 mln.

Average balance of US trade in goods with Panama (US exports minus Panama imports in trade in goods) between 2010-201: $6863 mln, for 2013-2014 it's $10076 mln.

Job well done. Looks like the US gained 3 billion worth of exports from the deal.

(b) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods
and services between the territories of the Parties;

Here's a quote (you can see this in the schedules as well): "More than half of U.S. exports of agricultural commodities to Panama became duty-free on day one, including high-quality beef, frozen turkeys, sorghum, soybeans, soybean meal, crude soybean and corn oil, almost all fruit and fruit products, wheat, peanuts, whey, cotton, and many processed products."

Here's another quote from the US DoA on Panama: "The United States exported a record of nearly $667 million in agricultural products to Panama during the 2014 fiscal year, up nearly 17 percent from the prior year. Top exports included soybean meal, corn, dairy, wheat, and processed food products."

Looks like removing barriers was pretty good for the US.

(c) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;

Look at point (b), trade barriers distort competition.

(d) substantially increase investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;

Panama's FDI to the US in 2013 was 1.2 billion, more than Brazil or South Africa.

(e) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights in each Party’s territory;

It's pretty obvious that the US desires IP protection more than Panama, but here's an article decrying the draconian IP law Panama was willing to swallow as part of the FTA.

(f) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this
Agreement, for its joint administration, and for the resolution of disputes; and
(g) establish a framework for further bilateral, regional, and multilateral cooperation
to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.

The last two are just procedural stuff. Why would you even add this?

I think I've demonstrated that it was very much in the US interest to negotiate this trade deal, as is common with international trade, farmers and food processors stand to gain the most from it.

You've still failed to point out three paragraphs where the FTA was in Panama's favour and not the US's.

And I think the above text shows that it's not the case that you and Bernie have said that Panama is a small country that the US doesn't care about. A 10 billion market for export feeds a lot of people in the US, and a billion dollar investment source creates a lot of jobs.

On April 05 2016 22:43 Plansix wrote:

The better question, what is the point of this post beyond being a huge jerk? Do you want him to admit he knows nothing and can’t talk about the topic anymore? Then will you declare victory and dance around the room after winning another argument on the internet?

On April 06 2016 01:44 Ghanburighan wrote:


Really, really? You're willing to say that you "showed it wasn't even very successful" after this shit:



I think it's obvious from the facts above that both you and Sanders in the video are clearly wrong on the claims that "Panama is a tiny country, will not significantly increase jobs" and the " The US didn't need or have any desire to make the deal, Panama however benefits from all of those things in a grossly disproportionate way."

Also, I'm still waiting for you to find 3 paragraphs in the agreement that "Panama wanted but which the US does not want" or to admit that your statement "we gave them what they wanted, for practically nothing in return" is manifestly false.

On April 06 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:

I like how he spends more than half of this post justifying himself, well aware of how credible a blog post is as a substantive argument. His criticisms of Bernie's programs are legitimate - these are genuine problems and I agree that the wealthy do essentially what this post says they do - but I really don't see that he has a credible alternative. It seems more that he's saying "Sanders sucks so forget him therefore Hillary." Or maybe Trump or Cruz or some candidate that doesn't matter, but you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the two Republican candidates are better than either Democratic candidate on economics.

With its unanimous decision in Evenwel v. Abbott, the Supreme Court sent a strong message that it was not interested in upending a decades-old interpretation of the foundational principle: one person, one vote. The question is, will the conservative forces who pushed the case listen?

Voting rights advocates saw the decision as a slam-dunk victory that rejected a challenge they contended was a long-shot to begin with. However, the conservative legal activist who brought the lawsuit is claiming he has found a silver lining and is hinting at a coming crusade to take another swing at one person, one vote. While two of the justices seemed at least open to taking another look at “one person, one vote” if another lawsuit showed up at their doorstep, bringing it there would be an uphill challenge.

The case was a lawsuit brought by voters in Texas who claimed their votes had been diluted by the the state’s Senate redistricting plan, because their district had a higher percentage of eligible voters than a neighboring district. Had the Supreme Court agreed, and said the use of total population was unconstitutional, it would have ripped open an interpretation of “one person, one vote” that dates back to the 1960s and upended the near-universal practice of using total population to draw legislative districts.

Alas, the challengers could not get a single justice to agree with their argument. Furthermore, six justices -- including conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy -- signed onto the majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her opinion offered a robust defense of using total population, hailing it as “constitutional history” as well as “longstanding practice."

But her opinion saying Texas could use total population stopped short of addressing whether it could have used some other metric. That was just what Texas had argued while defending its plan, causing some to worry about the prospect of a more muddled opinion greenlighting an either/or approach that would encourage states to no longer draw districts based on total population.

On April 06 2016 01:44 ticklishmusic wrote:


Implying that I don't understand the difference between conversation and Conversation. Though if you don't consider that ad hominem, it would explain why you find Sanders' insinuations about Clinton completely okay.

Answer the question please.

On April 06 2016 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


Did you even look at the link of what their economy (beyond some nice talking points) actually looked like in the following years. Exports, Imports, employment? Increases in what we sell Panama (even if they spent their whole GDP on our shit) isn't squat.

On April 06 2016 01:53 LegalLord wrote:

Yeah, I read the actual content and it still seems like he is bashing without arguing for what's better and just implicitly says that we should maintain the status quo. Given that he doesn't justify the status quo or whatever his alternative is, I find it hard to take his criticism seriously. Obviously Bernie's policies have problems(whose policies don't?), but what makes them worse than some other candidate's program?