|
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. |
On September 04 2017 03:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: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. 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 (1)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? (2)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 (3)labor-centric concerns.
(1) - the article you cited makes a good case for TPP. I cited wikipedia because it has both cases and puts them side by side and has many links out if someone wants to go deeper.
(2) - citation needed. The only thing out there is the Tufts study and it was junk. Contrast that with the Peterson and Brookings studies.
(3) - is DJT going to sign a card check union law? Name me a single Republican who wants to expand union rights. Further, DJT is trying to get the NLRB back to being a defender for business against labor. That is precisely the opposite of any imaginable labor-centric concerns. Republicans flatly oppose the expansion of labor rights.
|
On September 04 2017 03:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: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. 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 (1)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? (2)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 (3)labor-centric concerns. (1) - the article you cited makes a good case for TPP. I cited wikipedia because it has both cases and puts them side by side and has many links out if someone wants to go deeper. (2) - citation needed. The only thing out there is the Tufts study and it was junk. Contrast that with the Peterson and Brookings studies. (3) - is DJT going to sign a card check union law? Name me a single Republican who wants to expand union rights. Further, DJT is trying to get the NLRB back to being a defender for business against labor. That is precisely the opposite of any imaginable labor-centric concerns. Republicans flatly oppose the expansion of labor rights.
What are your thoughts on the ISDS mechanism contained in the TPP? I think that's what bore the main brunt of the criticism from the left at least, because it seems to give corporations farrrr too much power.
|
On September 04 2017 03:09 Bayaz90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 02:59 NewSunshine wrote:On September 04 2017 02:53 Bayaz90 wrote:On September 04 2017 02:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 02:41 Bayaz90 wrote:
Stronger economy, backing out of awful deals with other countries, getting tougher on NK...
God I love my president. that post doens't really make sense considernig the actual facts of the situations. unless you're being sarcastic or something; which it doens't sound like. 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. "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.
on the paris deal with other countries paying less and having to do less than the US...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hjVa8H5.png)
That's the 3billion Trump was talking about whenever he mentioned the US paying way more than other nations. Obviously that's incorrect. Or are you trying to compare the US to China/India here?
|
Canada11363 Posts
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
My problem with it is that it continues the erosion of the Public Domain. I already think the +50 years past the death of the author doesn't 'promote the progress of Science and useful Arts' because it is difficult for me to see how continuing a monopoly to a dead person will, in any way, gain us more arts or sciences. So the TPP wanting us to fall in line with the US +70 years is all bad as far as I'm concerned.
|
Regardless of whether the TPP was good or bad, the correct way forward was not to drop it like a rock and let someone else swoop in (China) to take the profit. Trump could have stepped up with his great negotiation skills (hard to say that with a strait face) and gotten a better deal instead that would have strengthened US influence in the area.
Pretty much the entire world has recognized Asia as an important area going forward. Getting a foothold there through something like the TPP would have been of great benefit to the US.
|
On September 04 2017 03:37 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:On September 04 2017 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: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. 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 (1)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? (2)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 (3)labor-centric concerns. (1) - the article you cited makes a good case for TPP. I cited wikipedia because it has both cases and puts them side by side and has many links out if someone wants to go deeper. (2) - citation needed. The only thing out there is the Tufts study and it was junk. Contrast that with the Peterson and Brookings studies. (3) - is DJT going to sign a card check union law? Name me a single Republican who wants to expand union rights. Further, DJT is trying to get the NLRB back to being a defender for business against labor. That is precisely the opposite of any imaginable labor-centric concerns. Republicans flatly oppose the expansion of labor rights. What are your thoughts on the ISDS mechanism contained in the TPP? I think that's what bore the main brunt of the criticism from the left at least, because it seems to give corporations farrrr too much power.
ISDS ... I get the fear that it would have enabled foreign lawsuits. However, reading more about it, it seems more like a vehicle for USA capitalists to dodge little country judges who don't play by our rules for property rights. From a USA perspective, that sounds good? It sounds like ISDS agreements have been around since the 60s and haven't hurt the USA in any meaningful way.
The evidence is equally clear in the United States. Despite having 50 ISDS agreements in place, the United States has never lost a case and nothing in our agreements has inhibited our response to the 2008 financial crisis, diluted the financial reforms we put in place, or has challenged signature reforms like the Affordable Care Act or any of the other new regulations that have been put in place over the last 30 years.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds
What really swayed me were the targeted labor provisions for the big 3 trouble countries (Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei). I am more of an incrementalist progressive kind of guy, and when something can make an improvement on a utilitarian level, I am for it. Sure, TPP wouldn't have solved the global labor rights problem, but making it better in at least some countries was good enough to turn me around on it. And then the foreign policy benefits and extending Pax Americana were nice bonuses as well.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/
EDIT: and to circle back to my original point, think about how much weaker DJT has made us in South Korea. Dropping TPP means the whole of SE Asia knows that the USA is pulling out eventually. We needed every bit of leverage we could get to force NK to the table, and DJT has been reducing our leverage every time he possibly could.
|
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger...
|
On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger...
A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff.
|
On September 04 2017 04:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger... A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff.
Yes, those 3 to 6 tomahawks per year they could afford extra would really boost US military power...
|
On September 04 2017 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 04:05 Gahlo wrote:On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger... A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff. Yes, those 3 to 6 tomahawks per year they could afford extra would really boost US military power...
Guess how much this study will cost while the transban is frozen? And then the inquisition needed to purge the ~1500-2500 trans people in the military? I would bet that not wasting Mattis and senior officer time with this crap and simply not asking about the shots would save more money than not buying the shots. Also, once those trans people are purged, they will need to be replaced. If they cost just 20k to replace, then the transban cost more in tomahawks than just ignoring the trans and handing out shots.
Transgender ban frozen as Mattis moves forward with new review of options
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/08/29/pentagon-chief-mattis-freezes-trumps-ban-on-transgender-troops-calls-for-more-study/?utm_term=.a443787af02e
|
United States42963 Posts
On September 04 2017 02:53 Bayaz90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 02:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 02:41 Bayaz90 wrote:
Stronger economy, backing out of awful deals with other countries, getting tougher on NK...
God I love my president. that post doens't really make sense considernig the actual facts of the situations. unless you're being sarcastic or something; which it doens't sound like. 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 economic growth under Obama was colossal. You could argue that he started at an artificially lowered point because of the great recession, you could argue that if you project the growth in the last 8 months over 96 months it'd be even more, but what you can't argue is that the economy has done better under Trump than under Obama. That's simply not true. Obama's 8 years had a 235% increase in the value of the SP500. That's remarkable. Trump has achieved a 10% increase so far.
|
On September 04 2017 04:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 04:05 Gahlo wrote:On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger... A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff. Yes, those 3 to 6 tomahawks per year they could afford extra would really boost US military power...
Never said they were good arguments, or I agreed on them.
|
On September 04 2017 04:05 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger... A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff.
By fighty stuff i assume he means male "stiffeners". Because clearly, they are important. Everyone bringing such argument to the table should be forced to google how much money the US pays to get fuckpills for their soldiers.
I saw your second post btw, not talking about you.
edit: might wanna google Kristin Beck while he's at it, would answer a lot of those "make the army stronger".
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.
No, sarcastic wasn't the first thing that sprung to mind i believe.
|
On September 04 2017 03:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 03:14 Bayaz90 wrote: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. 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.
One can hope, that's for sure. I'm also wishing a clone of the TPP won't rise like a zombie from whichever far-left government comes next.
|
On September 04 2017 04:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 04:05 Gahlo wrote:On September 04 2017 03:54 Artisreal wrote:
I'm much more interested in his perspective how a transgender ban makes him consider his military stronger... A lot of arguements for it that I've seen is the supposition that if the military isn't paying for their transitions, they can spend money on fighty stuff. By fighty stuff i assume he means male "stiffeners". Because clearly, they are important. Everyone bringing such argument to the table should be forced to google how much money the US pays to get fuckpills for their soldiers. I saw your second post btw, not talking about you. edit: might wanna google Kristin Beck while he's at it, would answer a lot of those "make the army stronger". Show nested quote +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. No, sarcastic wasn't the first thing that sprung to mind i believe.
When the ban was first announced and the viagra thing was brought up as a line of argumentation, I was watching a CNN and a current or former millitary person(sorry, details escape me) said they the overwhelming majority of it was for soldiers/vets(again details are hazy) with PTSD, because it isn't uncommon for them to uhm, not be able to be ready.
I'm not about to hold it against them for stupid decisions made by stupid people. That's just shifting the blame where it doesn't belong.
|
|
|
|
|
You also could argue that the message to soldiers, that no matter what, the country has your back is worth more than a couple of shots in a 500 something billion budget.
Maybe treating veterans a bit better would help more.
Or if you're in need of saving money, perhaps put on place an agency that has financial oversight over military spending.
I bet those woodland uniforms for Afghanistan were pretty useless.
If saving is your goal, you go for the big fish not the small fry
And the president wanted to be briefed on ALL THE MILITARY OPTIONS available.
North Korea's trade is basically China China China.
Import as export. Good on you for finally shutting down your and Ivankas' sweat shops over there. Not the way I imagined, but you take what you can. Right, Donny?
source for trade
|
NK funding isn't just china, NK laborers can be found in poland, Russia, China, middle east and some other counties as well. Those laborers do work in other counties and all their money goes to NK regime as NK holds their family hostage.
|
Makes me even more curious how he'll stop trading with companies/countries that employ/allow those kinds of work conditions.
This might be shaking up to be a huge workers' rights thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
