|
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. |
United States44203 Posts
On July 24 2016 03:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I think the better Gary Johnson does, the worse it is for Trump. He's much more likely to take Trump votes than Hillary votes.
Jill Stein is the reverse, but looks like she'll have a significantly smaller impact on the election than Gary Johnson. Why is Gary Johnson more likely to take votes away from Trump than Clinton? I don't know much about him.
Clinton's core support are all terrified of Trump or not paying attention. GH aside, your inner city poorly educated population aren't about to turn libertarian or green. They're just not going to be aware of those parties. And the ones who are paying attention know that a vote for a third party simply reduces Trump's bar for victory by one.
|
Hillary Clinton rolled out Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate at a campaign rally in Florida on Saturday.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee first announced the addition of the Virginia senator to the ticket in a text message to supporters Friday evening but formally — and strategically — introduced him Saturday at a rally in Miami at Florida International University.
“I have to say that Sen. Tim Kaine is everything that Donald Trump and Mike Pence are not,” Clinton said, comparing her VP to the Republican ticket. “He is qualified to step into this job and lead on Day One, and he is a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Clinton’s veep rollout, unlike Trump’s a week ago, comes before key demographics in a swing state. FIU, one of two major universities in the city, has a 60 percent Hispanic student population.
The Clinton-Kaine campaign appearance is their second in as many weeks. Kaine, a former governor and Democratic National Committee chair, first joined Clinton on the trail last Thursday in what was viewed as his veep audition.
Clinton, speaking behind a lectern branded with her signature “H” logo with Clinton’s name above Kaine’s, highlighted the tandem as a unity ticket, while painting a stark contrast to their fall rivals.
Of Trump, who in his convention address Thursday said he alone could fix America’s problems, Clinton said, “He’s not only wrong. He’s dangerously wrong. We Americans, we solve problems together. And if Donald doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand America. I know that no one does anything all alone. And part of our challenge is to make sure we do work together.”
Before introducing Kaine, Clinton hailed him as a progressive and family man who puts others first but who also has a “backbone of steel.” Clinton has said that she wanted a vice president who was ready to assume the role of the presidency.
Source
|
On July 24 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:
I want to know how you get $300,000 in fees what appears to be a simple debt collection case. Even if we assume the attorneys bill out at $300 per hour, no debt collect case should involve that much work.
Need more info. And being awarded legal fees is pretty uncommon unless they are guaranteed by statute. At least around here.
Exactly. No court around here would award full fees to a firm that had 3 attorneys billing at $500 per hour on a case like that.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 24 2016 03:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton rolled out Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate at a campaign rally in Florida on Saturday.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee first announced the addition of the Virginia senator to the ticket in a text message to supporters Friday evening but formally — and strategically — introduced him Saturday at a rally in Miami at Florida International University.
“I have to say that Sen. Tim Kaine is everything that Donald Trump and Mike Pence are not,” Clinton said, comparing her VP to the Republican ticket. “He is qualified to step into this job and lead on Day One, and he is a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Clinton’s veep rollout, unlike Trump’s a week ago, comes before key demographics in a swing state. FIU, one of two major universities in the city, has a 60 percent Hispanic student population.
The Clinton-Kaine campaign appearance is their second in as many weeks. Kaine, a former governor and Democratic National Committee chair, first joined Clinton on the trail last Thursday in what was viewed as his veep audition.
Clinton, speaking behind a lectern branded with her signature “H” logo with Clinton’s name above Kaine’s, highlighted the tandem as a unity ticket, while painting a stark contrast to their fall rivals.
Of Trump, who in his convention address Thursday said he alone could fix America’s problems, Clinton said, “He’s not only wrong. He’s dangerously wrong. We Americans, we solve problems together. And if Donald doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand America. I know that no one does anything all alone. And part of our challenge is to make sure we do work together.”
Before introducing Kaine, Clinton hailed him as a progressive and family man who puts others first but who also has a “backbone of steel.” Clinton has said that she wanted a vice president who was ready to assume the role of the presidency. Source
Kaine would be a fine pick if it was 2008.
|
Republican candidate arguing against TPP free trade agreement
Democrat candidate arguing for TPP free trade agreement
Pro free trade = anti-tariff
Tariffs increase the size and revenue of the federal government
Isn't this all backwards?
I am very uneducated on on the greater complexities of trade, but it seems like the party lines have gone beyond being redrawn here and just completely reversed.
|
On July 24 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Republican candidate arguing against TPP free trade agreement
Democrat candidate arguing for TPP free trade agreement
Isn't this backwards?
not that much. iirc both parties have been pretty pro-free trade for awhile.
also, tariffs don't necessarily affect government revenue/size all that much. especially since, when tariffs were in use, they tended to substitue for other forms of revenue rather than being an add-on. and despite the rhetoric, republicans aren't really notably different in practice on government size.
|
So, do we have any RNC leaks this campaign or is the DNC the only one that's really bad at keeping their data safe?
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 24 2016 03:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Republican candidate arguing against TPP free trade agreement
Democrat candidate arguing for TPP free trade agreement
Pro free trade = anti-tariff
Tariffs increase the size and revenue of the federal government
Isn't this all backwards?
I am very uneducated on on the greater complexities of trade, but it seems like the party lines have gone beyond being redrawn here and just completely reversed.
Tariffs don't increase the size of the Federal government anymore than charging guests to come into your house increases the size of the homeowner. A tariff is effectively a tax on consumption of foreign goods. If you slap a tariff on imported cars then the price of imported cars to the consumer must increase to build that tariff cost into the price so that the manufacturer can still make money. This means that whenever anyone buys an imported car they are transferring wealth from themselves to the Federal government, ie a tax. In practice it works like any other sin tax on selective consumables, the purpose of it is to create an artificial distortion in the market which will favour domestic manufacturers. By hindering the ability of imported goods to compete effectively on price with your own domestic manufacturers you increase the sales and market shares of your own businesses at the expense of others.
One of the issues with tariffs is that other countries almost always retaliate against your businesses when you introduce them. That's one of the reasons you make free trade agreements, they let your manufacturers into their country and you let theirs into yours. So although you can hurt Honda's sale's in the US they can hurt Ford's sales in Japan. It's pretty shortsighted.
It also hurts consumers. If the foreign company could provide a car at $17,000 and the domestic a comparable car at $20,000 then slapping a $4,000 tariff on car imports will make the cheapest car $20,000 which is great for the manufacturer of that car but shitty for the consumer. When Trump says things like Mexico or China will pay for it and threatens tariffs he's living in a world where trade barriers only impact their profits, not the prices of goods on shelves. It's people buying Christmas presents in Walmart who will pay for it.
It's also an inefficient distortion of the free market. Ideally the better product wins, not the one who pays the Federal government more in campaign contributions in order to have them directly intervene to save them from open competition. Capitalism and tariffs are about as far from each other as things get. From an ideological point of view Republicans should be pro free trade and Democrats more protectionist to keep local jobs in spite of capitalist price competition. Trump's populism has brought him into strange territory.
It also ignores the value of free trade agreements as a means of projecting American power and values through bargaining. America doesn't simply open it's market to foreign nations for kicks, these deals are negotiated with a full understanding that they need us more than we need them and always come at a price. Things like child labour laws, forced labour laws, mandatory fire escapes and so forth are all built into these agreements Trump wants to dispose of.
And it's not just American values, it's protecting American markets. The rights of American trademarks and, in particular, the rights of American pharmaceuticals are all enshrined into these agreements to give their lawyers the standing and the national laws in these nations to protect their own patents and property. If you ask yourself "what is to stop some Vietnamese company mass producing a drug invented by Pfizer and then selling it all around the globe without any R&D costs?", well, the only way you stop that is if the Vietnamese government is willing to play ball. These aren't altruistic agreements, American companies build these as a way to protect their markets.
That's the shit Trump is trying to break when he attacks trade agreements and threatens Mexico, China and other nations with trade barriers. Both parties have been pro free-trade in recent years because both parties understand the value of free trade agreements to protecting and furthering American interests abroad, to strengthening the American export economy and both parties are generally pro-capitalist. Some manufacturing unions which historically would have been in the Dems have always been anti-trade but they don't control the party.
|
Whats there too leak?
Trump has openly done worse anyway.
|
On July 24 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:
So, do we have any RNC leaks this campaign or is the DNC the only one that's really bad at keeping their data safe?
My impression has been that RNC leaks have all been people and not data security issues, but I think there have been far more targets painted on the DNC relative to the RNC this cycle (and there's greater payoff hacking the DNC since the only candidate the RNC tried to sabotage ended up winning so they clearly did a piss-poor job if they did anything).
I mean, I doubt Trump supporters even know the head of the RNC, but Sanders supporters did their utmost to organize systematic opposition to Wasserman-Schultz' re-election.
|
I like to indulge the theory that it's Putin operatives trying to help Trump. Makes for some fun thoughts.
|
On July 24 2016 04:18 Introvert wrote:
I like to indulge the theory that it's Putin operatives trying to help Trump. Makes for some fun thoughts.
Maybe thats what Putin wants you to think.
|
I know the basic general idea behind what tariffs are, I just don't know much more beyond that. I just thought it was weird how the free trade/protectionist stances from the two parties typical ideologies are effectively reversed now. The democrat is advocating for lower 'trade-taxes' and the republican for higher 'trade-taxes'. As far as I understood it was typically democrats for protectionism and republicans for free-trade, but as noted, I'm very uneducated on this so I was unaware democrats had adopted free-trade recently.
I'm guessing subsidies aren't a part of these free-trade agreements though? I was under the impression that we heavily subsidized certain industries, especially the farming industry, here in the states. It's my understanding that subsidies are effectively the 'reverse of a tariff' aimed at the same goal of protecting domestic industries/markets. Rather than taxing foreign goods into being more expensive and less competitive like a tariff, a subsidy offers direct aid to domestic industries in exchange for making their goods less expensive and more competitive.
So my question is why are we in recent years so opposed to the use of tariffs but still okay with subsidies?
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 24 2016 04:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I know the basic general idea behind what tariffs are, I just don't know much more beyond that. I just thought it was weird how the free trade/protectionist stances from the two parties typical ideologies are effectively reversed now. The democrat is advocating for lower 'trade-taxes' and the republican for higher 'trade-taxes'. As far as I understood it was typically democrats for protectionism and republicans for free-trade, but as noted, I'm very uneducated on this so I was unaware democrats had adopted free-trade recently.
It's not too recent. There has been a pro-trade consensus for over 20 years now. Workers who are more protectionist don't have the kind of lobbying power that corporations do and nobody ever complains about goods being cheaper in stores, even if they're cheaper because it was your job that got outsourced.
|
On July 24 2016 04:18 Introvert wrote:
I like to indulge the theory that it's Putin operatives trying to help Trump. Makes for some fun thoughts.
All major data systems are under constant attack by many groups. If evil Russian hackers got in then that's the DNC's own fault.
|
On July 24 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2016 04:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I know the basic general idea behind what tariffs are, I just don't know much more beyond that. I just thought it was weird how the free trade/protectionist stances from the two parties typical ideologies are effectively reversed now. The democrat is advocating for lower 'trade-taxes' and the republican for higher 'trade-taxes'. As far as I understood it was typically democrats for protectionism and republicans for free-trade, but as noted, I'm very uneducated on this so I was unaware democrats had adopted free-trade recently.
It's not too recent. There has been a pro-trade consensus for over 20 years now. Workers who are more protectionist don't have the kind of lobbying power that corporations do and nobody ever complains about goods being cheaper in stores, even if they're cheaper because it was your job that got outsourced.
Edited additional question to my post above. I appreciate the responses btw I'm genuinely very interested in learning more about this because intuitively it doesn't seem so much of a 'free-trade good tariffs bad' type thing to me. It seems like a very complex issue where you would want to accordingly adjust your trade policies to changing global circumstances.
|
Since the 80's with Volcker i think, the new dealers were already toast before that tho.
|
There are some trade issues that come up as well with heavy subsidies; but I don't recall the details. Just a vague recollection that there have been some WTO cases or somesuch. Or at any rate some nations do complain if you're subsidizing stuff too heavily and it's messing with the markets.
|
Think of it this way, ending free trade doesn't increase your wage, but it does increase the price on things. Even if the "jobs" come back to the US, it won't magically make them be high paying. And if we act protectionist, other nations will do the same for our goods. We would be raising the prices on our goods while no one else is.
|
It's just the same irony that comes up with the anti-immigration and deportation rhetoric. I read somewhere that almost half of California's agriculture sector consists of illegal labour. There's probably not even close to enough reserve labour force to fill these positions up if you kick the people out. So at the end of the day you're going to end up with more expensive food and basic necessities which will hit the poor the hardest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
