| 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. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Lines are already over an hour in Green Bay and people are turning away or leaving part way through. Voting booths are half empty. You haven't yet admitted that you made a false statement about the Panama FTA. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:48 Ghanburighan wrote: You haven't yet admitted that you made a false statement about the Panama FTA. Really? Are you really going to just keep harping on it until he admits he was wrong? | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:49 Plansix wrote: Really? Are you really going to just keep harping on it until he admits he was wrong? That's roughly the plan, yes. Then I'll return to regular posting. I might get tired of this little crusade, but not yet. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:48 Ghanburighan wrote: You haven't yet admitted that you made a false statement about the Panama FTA. No we have different interpretations of what the numbers you posted mean regarding the quality of life changes for typical citizens in either country, as opposed to US-Panama trade numbers in isolation and that you'd be hard pressed to find the Americans or Panamanians that saw the benefit. This piece sums up my points reasonably well. The paper reads: “The FTA immediately eliminates tariffs on over 60 percent of US agricultural exports to Panama, with most remaining tariffs to be gradually eliminated over a period of 15 years or less.” The deal states that two key Panamanian products, rice and sugar, will retain limited protections in the short-term, allocating time for Panama to develop its non-traditional export crops, such as melons, palm oil, and pineapples, which some view as the future of our agricultural sector. Yet the same strategy has already been sold to Central America, with Panama’s neighboring countries currently exporting these good to the US at low prices. According to COHA, under this new regime, Panamanian farmers would be “forced to join the regional ‘race to the bottom’ in order to ensure competitive prices for its products on the global market,” to the detriment of the country’s rural economies. Given the lenient labor measures imposed by the current deal and the fact that the US is to benefit the most in decreased tariffs, COHA concludes that the US-Panama Free Trade Agreement will “inevitably be a bonanza for big business,” eliminating inconvenient hurdles that cut down on corporate profits, including that of the US agro-industry, and leaving behind workers in both countries and Panamanian farmers, to lose out. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 06 2016 01:59 oneofthem wrote: in fairness to that poster he would need another post to detail a positive program. there is no status quo justification. as far as sanders tax the two words that really sinks him is payroll tax I can't really agree with that interpretation of justification of the status quo and I think that plays a large part in what I dislike about the pro-Hillary position here (since to most people, Hillary represents one of "status quo," "status quo plus," or "status quo minus"). While Bernie's tax propositions do have enough flaws, I have yet to see why he thinks that the current overall policy is better. Perhaps it would be fair if he was able to justify that "Bernie will make things worse" but all he is really arguing is that "Bernie's system is flawed." Sure it is, and like any other policy it is subject to some revision based on reality not conforming to assumptions. Also it presumes that the state of things will not degrade, a bad assumption. Beyond his arguments against wealth redistribution, it seems a lot of the blogger's opposition boils down to "taxes hurt people who pay them." Well no shit they do, but they are necessary to raise money and it's better to justify why some other means of raising money is more effective. He doesn't do that, and it seems that he is whining on behalf of himself in his defense of small businesses, so I'm not sure what value you think that blog post adds. On April 06 2016 02:51 Ghanburighan wrote: That's roughly the plan, yes. Then I'll return to regular posting. I might get tired of this little crusade, but not yet. Let it go. It's kind of annoying and petty to do that. There comes a point where you just have to agree to disagree. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that he doesn't see this obvious consequence of his plan is another mark against his economic team. positive change is quite hard. i don't think you know what it takes but feel free to prove me wrong with some proposals. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 06 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote: I can't really agree with that interpretation of justification of the status quo and I think that plays a large part in what I dislike about the pro-Hillary position here (since to most people, Hillary represents one of "status quo," "status quo plus," or "status quo minus"). While Bernie's tax propositions do have enough flaws, I have yet to see why he thinks that the current overall policy is better. Perhaps it would be fair if he was able to justify that "Bernie will make things worse" but all he is really arguing is that "Bernie's system is flawed." Sure it is, and like any other policy it is subject to some revision based on reality not conforming to assumptions. Also it presumes that the state of things will not degrade, a bad assumption. Beyond his arguments against wealth redistribution, it seems a lot of the blogger's opposition boils down to "taxes hurt people who pay them." Well no shit they do, but they are necessary to raise money and it's better to justify why some other means of raising money is more effective. He doesn't do that, and it seems that he is whining on behalf of himself in his defense of small businesses, so I'm not sure what value you think that blog post adds. Let it go. It's kind of annoying and petty to do that. There comes a point where you just have to agree to disagree. He's saying places who have used these exact policies have failed in the past, that people who try to point to times in the US that used similar policies were actually greatly misinformed about what those past policies were, and being that these tax policies are how is planning to pay his 3 main platforms--the moment these tax policies don't work (or worse, are unpassable) then suddenly all you have is the oldest white guy to run for president whose only job is to yell at younger people for not doing things his way. Its a big deal. Status quo democrat right now is promising to enforce the policies that has allowed the longest running job growth in recent american history plus expanding on the previous victories in healthcare reform, finance reform, civil rights reform, as well as the reprioritizing of scientific research as a primary american goal (Cancer Research specifically). The status quo is a VERY impressive resume. The main issue with the status quo is that Obama didn't lie when he said he wanted to integrate ideas from both sides of the aisle including military policy, state security policy, foreign policy, etc... It turns out when Obama showed up promising to give both sides what they wanted--he actually meant it, and its bothering idealistic liberals who mostly see morality as anything that the other side disagrees with. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 06 2016 03:02 GreenHorizons wrote: No we have different interpretations of what the numbers you posted mean regarding the quality of life changes for typical citizens in either country, as opposed to US-Panama trade numbers in isolation and that you'd be hard pressed to find the Americans or Panamanians that saw the benefit. This piece sums up my points reasonably well. Source That still doesn't satisfy the criterion. You were supposed to find paragraphs in the agreement that Panama wants and the US does not. Talking about the plight of farmers in both countries does not show that Panama got what it wanted as you stated earlier. If you had actually bothered to read the text, you'd also know that chapter 16 talks about labour regulation, and it makes the COHA (what the hell is COHA anyway?) researcher sound silly. There are 9 pages of provisions to safeguard worker conditions and rights. And just to come back to the idea that this is somehow an acceptable way to behave in a debate. You clearly accepted the criterion that Sanders used (tiny country, no significant job creation) before, especially when you made the claim that trade value of Panama's import purchases from the US and it's larger than Brazil direct investment in the US economy are "squat". So, this is just a poor attempt at justifying yourself by shifting the grounds of discussion. Now admit that you were wrong. | ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:51 Ghanburighan wrote: That's roughly the plan, yes. Then I'll return to regular posting. I might get tired of this little crusade, but not yet. Careful what you wish for! A crusade may bring PUNDEMONIUM!! : *Ba dum tss*  edit: Apologies... had to bite my tongue in the "Punama Papers" thread and I couldn't hold it any longer -.-' | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 06 2016 03:16 Ghanburighan wrote: That still doesn't satisfy the criterion. You were supposed to find paragraphs in the agreement that Panama wants and the US does not. Talking about the plight of farmers in both countries does not show that Panama got what it wanted as you stated earlier. If you had actually bothered to read the text, you'd also know that chapter 16 talks about labour regulation, and it makes the COHA (what the hell is COHA anyway?) researcher sound silly. There are 9 pages of provisions to safeguard worker conditions and rights. And just to come back to the idea that this is somehow an acceptable way to behave in a debate. You clearly accepted the criterion that Sanders used (tiny country, no significant job creation) before, especially when you made the claim that trade value of Panama's import purchases from the US and it's larger than Brazil direct investment in the US economy are "squat". So, this is just a poor attempt at justifying yourself by shifting the grounds of discussion. Now admit that you were wrong. I'll agree to disagree. We are talking past each other and I've lost interest. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
*** For GH: I'll just keep on reminding you. And I'm pretty sure I'm just using facts about the FTA from my old bookmarks folder to show that your statements are false. Like when you said that Panama's trade contribution is insignificant. Or when you suggested that their economy blossomed because of the FTA. Or now when you made the claim (by proxy) that the FTA didn't address labour laws. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 06 2016 03:23 Ghanburighan wrote: click here for a super handy visualization of ME relationships by universlabs.co.uk *** For GH: I'll just keep on reminding you. And I'm pretty sure I'm just using facts about the FTA from my old bookmarks folder to show that your statements are false. Like when you said that Panama's trade contribution is insignificant. Or when you suggested that their economy blossomed because of the FTA. Or now when you made the claim (by proxy) that the FTA didn't address labour laws. Have fun. Director of COHA though since you asked. + Show Spoiler + Larry Birns has been the director of COHA since its founding in 1975. A former defense researcher, strategist and member of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London and the All Souls College, Oxford’s military seminar, he was a senior grade public affairs officer of the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America in Santiago, Chile. Birns also taught and lectured for 15 years in the fields of Latin American studies, comparative government, and international law at a number of U.S. and British colleges and universities. Educated at Bates, Columbia, and St. Catherine’s College – Oxford, he has authored and edited a study on the overthrow of the Allende government and has published hundreds of articles on U.S.-Latin American relations for a number of publications, including The Nation, New York Review of Books, Ottawa Citizen, the Guardian, London Independent, The Village Voice, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Atlanta Constitution, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, The New York Times and Foreign Policy. He has made frequent appearances on foreign and U.S. network radio and television programs, including the Voice of America and National Public Radio (“Talk of the Nation,” “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered,” “The Kojo Nnamdi Show” and “The Diane Rehm Show”), as well as regular analyses for the BBC. He also makes frequent appearances on Radio Havana, Canadian Television (CTV), the CBC radio and TV networks (“As It Happens,” “Newswatch,” “The National,” “Counterspin” and “Morningwatch”), and has made repeated appearances on “The McNeil-Lehrer Newshour,” “Crossfire,” as well as ABC’s “Nightline,” and the CBC’s “Newsworld.” On numerous occasions, he has been quoted by Reuters, AP, UPI, EFE, and Agence France Press news wires. Birns also has appeared on “This Week With David Brinkley,” C-SPAN, “Firing Line,” CBS’s “Nightwatch,” NBC’s “Today Show,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” INN, CBS, ABC, NBC Evening News and repeatedly on CNN, along with many local TV and radio programs, as well as serving as a special news consultant to ABC. In addition, his analyses of Latin American issues have been widely cited by the U.S., Canadian, British and Latin American wire services, as well as by scores of foreign and domestic newspapers and news weeklies. His views and analyses also have been cited by almost every major newspaper, radio, and television network in Latin America, particularly on their world services. He co-authored (with Jessica Leight) an article on the Bush White House’s Latin American policy for the American Foreign Service Journal, and also co-authored (with Jessica Leight) the afterword to Dr. Paul Farmer’s The Uses of Haiti, for which Jonathan Kozol contributed the foreword and Noam Chomsky wrote the introduction (Courage Press). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 06 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Lines are already over an hour in Green Bay and people are turning away or leaving part way through. Voting booths are half empty. Have to take my word for it that people see this and say "ain't nobody got time for dat" EDIT: Remember this when Republicans point to WI and say that the high turnout indicates there wasn't voter suppression. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23250 Posts
On April 06 2016 04:01 Mohdoo wrote: An hour? That's pretty normal for trendy brunch places here in Portland You saw that they were only using 2 of 10 voting booths right? This is also before the rush. Every shot I've seen shows tons of empty booths and lines at other locations too. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On April 06 2016 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote: You saw that they were only using 2 of 10 voting booths right? This is also before the rush. No I know, I was mostly joking. More so just pointing out that we're used to waiting in long lines around here ._. ...kind of useless post on my part. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin’s requirement that voters show photo identification at the polls has survived another legal challenge after a federal judge Thursday dismissed portions of a wide-ranging lawsuit alleging the mandate burdens the right to vote. One Wisconsin Institute Inc., a liberal group; Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund, a voting rights organization; and a half-dozen individual voters filed the lawsuit in June. They argued a number of provisions Republicans have added to state election law since they took over the Legislature in 2011, most prominently the photo ID requirement, violate the federal Voting Rights Act, the First Amendment and the equal protection clause. U.S. District Judge James Peterson issued an order saying he has granted the state’s motion to dismiss the portion of the lawsuit challenging the voter ID requirements. He said the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld the mandate in a separate case in October 2014. But he added he’s not convinced that the requirement promotes any confidence in the electoral process. He also rejected another section of the lawsuit alleging that statutory changes impermissibly favor voters who move to Wisconsin from out of state. The plaintiffs argued that voters who move into the state can vote for national offices immediately even though people who move within the state in the 28 days before an election must vote in their old wards. Peterson said under federal law Wisconsin can’t prohibit someone who moves into the state in the 28 days before an election from voting for president and vice president. The judge, however, rejected the state’s request to dismiss another section of the lawsuit alleging the state has no basis for excluding technical college, out-of-state and certain expired identification cards from the list of valid photo identification. The plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the decision to exclude certain forms of ID was arbitrary, Peterson said. He also refused to grant the state’s motion to toss sections of the lawsuit alleging that the statutory changes are intended to suppress Democratic-leaning votes. He said questions about whether the changes have actually burdened Democrats can’t be determined at this stage in the case. Bobbie Wilson, the attorney representing One Wisconsin Institute, Citizen Action of Wisconsin Education Fund and the voters didn’t immediately respond to an email. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, a Republican, issued a statement saying he looks forward to voter ID law going into effect in the 2016 elections, calling it a “common sense” measure. Source | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 06 2016 04:00 Sermokala wrote: Its like democrats want to give republicans ammunition for voter ID laws. Granted I'm for a general election reform but this is getting silly this cycle. Nah, Republican policymakers will still just present it as a fix to voter fraud rather than any sort of efficiency increase. They want nothing more than the public to perceive their local government as bureaucratic and inefficient, it feeds into their political narrative that government sucks. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Online Event
SC Evo League
Online Event
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Summer Champion…
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
