| 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. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
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. I'm not an idiot; I slightly supported the TPP as it was. Therefore I conclude that your claim is false. also, you're ignoring the evidence put forth in the past several pages on the topic; do you have a refutation for those points? i'm being generous in asking such; as your nonsense about sovereignty is grounds enough to conclude you're spouting stuff on which you have no understanding and minimal knowledge, and are only spouting talking points you've heard without ever looking at them deeply enough. but i'll give you a chance to demonstrate otherwise before finalizing a conclusion. and while this may seem a little rude; your accusation of idiocy was as well, especially since it's so unjustified. | ||
Falling
Canada11328 Posts
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 | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
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. The TTP (and by extension TTIP) are hardly far left initiatives, and I have seen them opposed on the left far more strongly than on the right for as long as they've been known about. To suggest they're far left is fairly ignorant. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
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. The solution is to educate the electorate more, not erode democracy by handing power to corporations lol | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
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 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). | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote: The TTP (and by extension TTIP) are hardly far left initiatives, and I have seen them opposed on the left far more strongly than on the right for as long as they've been known about. To suggest they're far left is fairly ignorant. I would personally describe them as coming from the centrist, faux-pragmatist status quo fellers more than anyone else. The Tea Pee Pee was killed in large part by groups such as the pure-blooded left-wing Sandernistas and I don't recall if Obama specifically blamed Sanders for that specific line item of "undermining his legacy" or not? | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
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). '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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
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. what I said was a correct, and well proven to be correct, statement. noone proposed the solution of transferring sovereignty to corporations, and that's not what these trade deals do. so you're misinterpreting things, and arguing against a strawman. the sovereignty remained entirely with the people. what changed is some omdifications to the judiciary process. and it's long been the case that one o fthe purposes of the judiciary is to act as a check on whims of the electorate. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On September 04 2017 07:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/jpaceDC/status/904109681806893056 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. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21538 Posts
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. Ask Flint, the answer is no one. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
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 We must have faith in Mattis. He clearly knows that Trump doesn't belong where he is, and is serving so that he can guard the country from catastrophe. It is good that he has his head on so straight (same with McMaster and Kelly most likely). | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
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. The rest at politico | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 04 2017 09:46 warding wrote: I've yet to hear anyone with a decent grasp of economics provide reasonable arguments against TPP. Sad to see anti-intellectualism gangbang a scientific subject like that from both political sides. 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? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11328 Posts
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. How does it not serve as a counterpoint? You were dismissing the issue of sovereignty, but if it is the case that corporations can bully another country through tribunals and lawsuits (like how Canada has been so often sued), then regardless of your opinion of the electorate, is that not an issue of sovereignty?... even if the country was a tyrannical regime. The sovereignty issue would be the same no matter the system of government because it's a corporation strong arming the government. And I think generally, having your own country sued by a foreign company is an innately bad thing, even if making laws according to the electorate is not an innately good thing (is this an argument for an technocracy?) | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
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? My claim is that no reasonable economic arguments have been offered against tpp in what It's essentially am economic subject. It's a long standing consensus in economics that free trade benefits economies overall. Estimates showed it to have a positive effect: http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/wp16-2.pdf. Arguments about job displacement make little sense in an economy running on full employment. Finally, more open borders is generally bad for corporations since it means more competition, and better for consumers. I'm parroting economics 101 here but if one's making the case against a trade deal, you really have to start here. I'm not expecting to convince you LL. I think you just want to watch the world burn. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL: GosuLeague
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Road to EWC
Replay Cast
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
