EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8633
| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:53 Bayaz90 wrote: The economy IS doing better than it did under Obama. The trade deals and Paris climate agreement WERE deals that hurt the United States more than other countries. No need to assume someone with a different opinion than you is being sarcastic. You do realize that Trump hasn't been in office long enough to have any real effect on the economy yes? Trump has done nothing but fail his entire presidency. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:53 Bayaz90 wrote: The economy IS doing better than it did under Obama. The trade deals and Paris climate agreement WERE deals that hurt the United States more than other countries. No need to assume someone with a different opinion than you is being sarcastic. the economy IS doing about the same as it was late in Obama's term; and there's been little to no actual benefit attributable to Trump; anything now is more likely to be holdover effects from Obama's work. Not that presidents have that much effect on the economy anyways. Yoru claims about the trade deals and paris agreement are false. I was being generous and assuming something other than you being grossly uninformed about the actual facts and reality of the situation, which appears to be the case. a core part of wisdom is knowing the limitations of your own knowledge. i'm also reminded of: "you're entitled to your own opinion. you're not entitled to your own facts" | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:53 Bayaz90 wrote: The economy IS doing better than it did under Obama. The trade deals and Paris climate agreement WERE deals that hurt the United States more than other countries. No need to assume someone with a different opinion than you is being sarcastic. The base assumption is sarcasm because every one of those points has already been thoroughly discussed and debunked. Trump himself doesn't have his paws on anything genuinely positive that's happened since his assumption of office. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9505 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:58 Slaughter wrote: You do realize that Trump hasn't been in office long enough to have any real effect on the economy yes? Trump has done nothing but fail his entire presidency. Yes, but, he's so politically incorrect isn't it great?? That'll show them crybaby feminazis. Charismatic too. He's the best. You just want to focus on the fact that he has turned everything he touches to shit since taking office so that people will forget how much he's Anti-PC and awesome. | ||
|
Bayaz90
54 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:59 NewSunshine wrote: The base assumption is sarcasm because every one of those points has already been thoroughly discussed and debunked. Trump himself doesn't have his paws on anything genuinely positive that's happened since his assumption of office. "genuinely positive" is highly subjective, is it not? I think backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the transgender military ban were both positive things. In the former, other nations paid and did less than the United States. In the ladder, I think it improved our military's power in defending this country. | ||
|
brian
United States9616 Posts
we probably don't need to rehash either of those debates though eh | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
Maintains dollar dominance in SE Asia Improves labor laws across SE Asia Protects USA IP in SE Asia Improves human rights across SE Asia Shores up USA alliances across SE Asia TPP-cons: If you believe morons who are wrong (check out the criticism of the bogus Tufts study), TPP will cost jobs over time. Every other study says the opposite will happen. Populists play politics with TPP and don't back up their anti-trade arguments with data (Warren, Chomsky, Bernie, Trump). DJT's idiocy has left the USA weaker in SE Asia. Free Trade is how the USA turns its military dominance into economic dominance of other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership | ||
|
Bayaz90
54 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:12 brian wrote: latter* we probably don't need to rehash either of those debates though eh He's the one that said our president has done nothing positive though. On September 04 2017 03:12 Wulfey_LA wrote: TPP-pros: Maintains dollar dominance in SE Asia Improves labor laws across SE Asia Protects USA IP in SE Asia Improves human rights across SE Asia Shores up USA alliances across SE Asia TPP-cons: If you believe morons who are wrong (check out the criticism of the bogus Tufts study), TPP will cost jobs over time. Every other study says the opposite will happen. Populists play politics with TPP and don't back up their anti-trade arguments with data (Warren, Chomsky, Bernie, Trump). DJT's idiocy has left the USA weaker in SE Asia. Free Trade is how the USA turns its military dominance into economic dominance of other countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership Why should the United States care about conditions care about working conditions in SE Asia? How are those pros for the US? I guarantee you no country considers the well being of the US in any of these deals or agreements. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:09 Bayaz90 wrote: "genuinely positive" is highly subjective, is it not? I think backing out of the Paris Climate Agreement and the transgender military ban were both positive things. In the former, other nations paid and did less than the United States. In the ladder, I think it improved our military's power in defending this country. How did the transgender ban improve your military power? o.O Or: how did transgender weaken the defense of the US? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: He's the one that said our president has done nothing positive though. Why should the United States care about conditions care about working conditions in SE Asia? How are those pros for the US? I guarantee you no country considers the well being of the US in any of these deals or agreements. Trade agreements get the United States cheap things, why don't you want cheap stuff? You don't need to care about SE Asia, you ought to care about yourself | ||
|
Bayaz90
54 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:17 Nyxisto wrote: Trade agreements get the United States cheap things, why don't you want cheap stuff? You don't need to care about SE Asia, you ought to care about yourself They also give us inferior products, cost Americans jobs, and encourage corporations to outsource or downright leave the US. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:09 Bayaz90 wrote: In the ladder, I think it improved our military's power in defending this country. lmao what Look, if the transgender military ban helps you sleep at night, that's fine. But I would challenge you to present an argument remotely based in fact to show that it represents any meaningful net positive effect on how the US military operates. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: He's the one that said our president has done nothing positive though. Why should the United States care about conditions care about working conditions in SE Asia? How are those pros for the US? I guarantee you no country considers the well being of the US in any of these deals or agreements. Wages are subject to international competition. If people in other countries live better and have higher wages, then we won't lose so many jobs to sweatshops. The better off SE Asia has it, the higher our wages can be. Check out China, it isn't cheap anymore. All the sweatshop style factories are fleeing to Vietnam because they have lower wages. TPP would have improved union and labor rights in Vietnam, thereby keeping those wages up and protecting American wages. EVIDENCE: 'Made in China' isn't so cheap anymore, and that could spell headache for Beijing https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27/chinese-wages-rise-made-in-china-isnt-so-cheap-anymore.html | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: Why should the United States care about conditions care about working conditions in SE Asia? How are those pros for the US? I guarantee you no country considers the well being of the US in any of these deals or agreements. The TPP in general is mostly valuable as a singular means by which to accomplish many of the Asia-based FP goals of the US, and to shore up its influence in the area. It's pretty much the core policy of Obama's now-laughable "Asia pivot" initiative. Rather than just using a first look at a Wikipedia article, it's better to look at what actual academics say about it if you want to see why they want it - this piece is good for that. Of course, the real problem in that bulleted list is that you can justify any argument with a quick list of things that you look at dismissively and other things that you look at uncritically, especially when you're just making up something on a first read. The concerns of who the TPP is meant to favor and who is going to be left out are genuine, not just "hurr durr people who see it another way are just debunked idiots." The document was negotiated in secrecy, with the exception of a few big interests that got to put their own line-items into it for their own benefit. Those labor/populist interests that believe that it's a largely harmful agreement for them and their own interests? They are correct. Oh well, it's dead and it ain't coming back. Good riddance, and hopefully the rest of the pro-trade bloc follows suit and crumbles apart to semi-populist labor-centric concerns. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:20 Bayaz90 wrote: They also give us inferior products, cost Americans jobs, and encourage corporations to outsource or downright leave the US. If they give you inferior products people won't demand them, in which case there's no problem, and corporations leaving for cheaper stuff isn't bad, because the rest of your economy and society will see a gain in disposable income. Why do you want to elevate a certain subset of the population (the people whose jobs you're trying to protect) over everybody else? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21538 Posts
On September 04 2017 01:59 LegalLord wrote: Trump was in charge when the NK matter finally turned into a gigantic disaster. But to be fair to him, he wasn't even in politics back when things were allowed to develop to this point. Something certainly needs to be said for his predecessors - Obama, Bush 1&2, Clinton, Reagan, possibly further back - that they let things develop to this point. It boils down to that none of them were really willing to stick their neck out for something that wasn't an immediate problem, but was about to be an international disaster in the making. What exactly did they think would happen? I would be inclined to say that NK took over the title of "most dangerous country in the world" but... you know, Pakistan probably still deserves that title as of now. NK is a bit crazy but I wouldn't call them unstable. Just provocative. Are we back to the argument that we should have sacrificed a few million SK lives to keep America 'safe'? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:25 Gorsameth wrote: Are we back to the argument that we should have sacrificed a few million SK lives to keep America 'safe'? No but we are back to ridiculous strawmen that do a great job of putting words in my mouth based on... well, nothing really. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:26 LegalLord wrote: No but we are back to ridiculous strawmen that do a great job of putting words in my mouth based on... well, nothing really. it's not a ridiculous strawman; oyu keep making the claim something shoudl have been done; but have never put forth an actual viable proposal that would plausibly have worked. which pretty much just leaves the military invasion option, with it's necessary results. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 04 2017 03:20 Bayaz90 wrote: They also give us inferior products, cost Americans jobs, and encourage corporations to outsource or downright leave the US. you are woefully underinformed on the ACTUAL effects of trade deals. please read up on their actual effects; rather than the nonsense so many politicians have been spewing about them; and the false attribution so many do about their effects on jobs. also; people may be somewaht curt with you; as we've already covered these debates quite extensively in thread by now. | ||
| ||
