US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8635

On September 04 2017 05:54 Sermokala wrote:
Anyone who supported TPP in the form that DJT killed is an idiot. It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states able to change the laws of other nations in court and get all the money they think they should have made on top. It would have started an economic war in all of Asia between China and the union states for who can expoit the nations more and better. Some of these corporations would be directly controlled by said nation states and would have made things even worse. Any advances China get will be incredibly hampered until they figure out what exactly they want with the SCS and how to get the nations around them to acept it. Something the US is happy to delay as long as possible.

Yes straight scrapping the deal was bad but accepting it in any of its current form was much worse. If it was to any of a degree to be smart not to it would have involved a complete restart on the basics of what the trade deal would look like.

Its okay to admit a broken clock strikes correct twice. Or that Trumps only possible success's in office are as a result of his ignorance or incompetence.

On September 04 2017 06:56 Falling wrote:
@zlefin

If it was anything like NAFTA, it might be good for US corporations, but not likely good for governments making laws according to their electorate.

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunal
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:

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 07:48 zlefin wrote:

that doesn't change my points at all. but noted.

preventing governments from making laws according to stupid unsound whims of their electorate is one of the points in general; so it doesn't really serve as a counterpoint. as making laws according to the electorate is not an innately good thing.

On September 04 2017 07:52 kollin wrote:

The solution is to educate the electorate more, not erode democracy by handing power to corporations lol

On September 04 2017 07:56 zlefin wrote:

i'm not sure what yuo're lol'ing about. probably something about my point wasn't clear so you made an odd interpretation.
educating the electorate more would be good at any rate; though there are strong fundamental limits involved there.
not sure what you're eroding democracy point was about; as noone was advocating that (though democracy does have substantial issues that need addressing).

On September 04 2017 08:26 kollin wrote:

'Making laws according to the electorate is not innately a good thing'. I don't think the solution to this is transferring sovereignty to corporations of all things.

On September 04 2017 08:42 ShoCkeyy wrote:


And this is when people start to realize that the EPA is actually needed. It's sad that it has to get to the point where things like this happen, and then people realize, oh shit, who's going to clean this up.

On September 04 2017 04:17 Wulfey_LA wrote:


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

Trump has decided to end DACA, with 6-month delay

President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.

Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.

Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.

In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”

Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue.

On September 04 2017 07:48 zlefin wrote:

that doesn't change my points at all. but noted.

preventing governments from making laws according to stupid unsound whims of their electorate is one of the points in general; so it doesn't really serve as a counterpoint. as making laws according to the electorate is not an innately good thing.

On September 04 2017 10:04 LegalLord wrote:

Beyond a dismissive tidbit claiming that whoever disagrees with you is just part of an anti-intellectual gangbang, got any substance to add to the matter?