|
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. |
If someone can quantify exactly what securing the boarder is, people will agree to it. But no one will quantify it because then the ever moving goal post is gone.
|
Here is a good background on the last attempt at building a wall. It was a fence, double layer at some points. It ended up being ~695 miles in Texas and other border states. At the moated and reinforced positions in built up urban areas, yeah, it probably works. Outside of built up areas, people just cut holes in the fence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
All else failing, the watchtower and guards approach is a good time-honored way to keep the border safe.
|
|
|
On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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.
From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending.
|
On September 04 2017 15:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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. From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending.
Where you got that notion from is a mistery to at least all German frequenters of this thread. I'm virtually certain of that.
There is no left leaning organisation or party I know that supports the manner how TTIP was formed behind closed doors and basically none that in any shape or form supports those inredibly ridiculously framed above the law dispute councils.
The most dubious thing about them is that the state of affairs is to be secured against political changes. So if Germany decides by 2030 to outlaw non-organic agriculture or, more realistically, non-european soy from deforestation in husbandry, "global players" can sue Germany for a democratically legitimized decision?
If I understand it corretcly (which is not a given to be honest), something like the abovementioned is a possiblity and I simply want people and not corporations to be able to dictate the way of life.
|
On September 04 2017 15:58 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 15:26 Danglars wrote:On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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. From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending. I simply want people and not corporations to be able to dictate the way of life.
If the USA had blasphemy laws, a statement like that would certainly fall under them.
|
Yeah corporations ARE people afterall. At least in US.
|
On September 04 2017 15:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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. From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending.
Maybe you should review your notion of far left then.
|
Or, of course, a pussy grabbing session 
|
On September 04 2017 02:30 Jockmcplop wrote:
Great idea!
When the US economy crashes he can just blame Obama.
The man's a genius.
For starters, that's China. The USA's largest trade partner (as a single country, 2nd if we count the EU as a single unity). I'm sure that will work well!
|
Almost everything Trump does seems to serve the purpose of increasing his leverage in negotiations. The crazier he acts, the reasoning goes, the further to his side the negotiating balance moves.
Obviously he isn't going to cut off trade with China and crash the world economy with the snap of a finger. But from his perspective that threat is increasing the cost for China to associate with NK as well as internally positioning his stance on trade with China as a matter of national security.
The flipside is that you get a president who sounds like a madman and that carries other costs.
|
On September 04 2017 20:12 warding wrote:
Almost everything Trump does seems to serve the purpose of increasing his leverage in negotiations. The crazier he acts, the reasoning goes, the further to his side the negotiating balance moves.
Obviously he isn't going to cut off trade with China and crash the world economy with the snap of a finger. But from his perspective that threat is increasing the cost for China to associate with NK as well as internally positioning his stance on trade with China as a matter of national security.
The flipside is that you get a president who sounds like a madman and that carries other costs.
I think that reasoning may be missing a point. Kim's nuclear program and systematic policy of tension is not an exterior policy project. It's designed to keep his regime floating by telling his people they have a mortal ennemy that want to anihilate them. With his à-là-Doctor-Stragelove rhetorics, Trump is playing right into his hand. "Look, they want to nuke us!!" is exactly what the NK regime needs to stay in power.
As for China, they must be having a good laugh at the threat to cut commercial ties, and those people are probably competent enough to read through the child man empty threat and constant hyperbolic bullshit.
|
United States42275 Posts
On September 04 2017 20:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 20:12 warding wrote:
Almost everything Trump does seems to serve the purpose of increasing his leverage in negotiations. The crazier he acts, the reasoning goes, the further to his side the negotiating balance moves.
Obviously he isn't going to cut off trade with China and crash the world economy with the snap of a finger. But from his perspective that threat is increasing the cost for China to associate with NK as well as internally positioning his stance on trade with China as a matter of national security.
The flipside is that you get a president who sounds like a madman and that carries other costs. I think that reasoning may be missing a point. Kim's nuclear program and systematic policy of tension is not an exterior policy project. It's designed to keep his regime floating by telling his people they have a mortal ennemy that want to anihilate them. With his à-là-Doctor-Stragelove rhetorics, Trump is playing right into his hand. "Look, they want to nuke us!!" is exactly what the NK regime needs to stay in power. As for China, they must be having a good laugh at the threat to cut commercial ties, and those people are probably competent enough to read through the child man empty threat and constant hyperbolic bullshit.
I think it's missing the point that Trump constantly makes threats and announcements only to have his own cabinet immediately explain that they definitely won't allow him to carry them out. Trump says these things but he never bothers to build a coherent front, or even talk to the people he needs on his side. It's just embarrassing.
|
On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote: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. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more.
We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here.
|
On September 04 2017 11:03 Falling wrote:
@zlefin.
Most of the cases have to do with environmental protection. So our government tries to put certain protections in place- banning suspected neurotoxins, environmental panels blocking quarry and marine terminal in environmentally sensitive areas, temporary ban on fracking activities until further studies were completed on the impact under the St Lawrence River, three Canadian courts denying a patent extension. I would like to think a sovereign nation is in the right to require what it believes to be necessary environmental protections on its own land. Its not like foreign companies have historically demonstrated a particular interest in that area.
The fact of the matter is any environmental protection required could potentially interfere with company profits and therefore be seen as "harass(ing) a foreign company, in violation of that country's own laws, for no other reason than disliking them personally". But it doesn't stand to reason that this is the case in the majority, but there certainly is always a financial cost, and for the company that is the entire thing. A government is hopefully thinking a little more broadly.
note: I started typing this last night; but a power outage shut me down; apparently the response was saved, as when I restored pages this morning it was here, so I'm continuing it, but I don't know how far the debate has gotten. In addition to the below point about debate, I don't know which questions have already been answered by other discussion.
I note your statements do not cover a number of my points; which of my points do you concede to and which are still under debate?
It looks like you've conceded quite a lot of them, which makes it less clear which points you're still arguing over, and what your thesis is.
onto specifics of responses:
well, apparently it wasn't in the right in those cases, under the laws of Canada. Just because those things sound nice doesn't mean they were actually sensible in those cases. These treaties also generally do have rules to allow for legitimate public interest laws.
one of the basic ways to harass a company and engage in protectionism is by making up some BS health/safety claim. How do you differentiate between legitimate ones and BS reasons? you have a court, which decides those questions.
It may not stand to reason that they're necessarily the majority; but it doesn't stand to reason they aren't either; it's a question of fact, which would need to be looked at carefully and rigorously.
|
On September 04 2017 13:08 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 10:42 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 10:21 Falling wrote: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?) I was dismissing the ridiculously broad sovereignty claim: "It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states" you've failed to establish that canada is being bullied, or that anyone is being bullied. you presented an article, which does not remotely prove that thesis. it proves it has been most sued. it does not prove that those suits were actually wrong. it does not prove that the costs outweighed the benefits of the trade deal. it does not prove that the suits were actually a serious problem in the larger picture. it also does not establish a loss of sovereignty. Here's the key point which shows there's no loss of sovereignty: you can withdraw from the trade agreement, at will, and nobody can stop you. it's no different from establishing any other court which has jurisdiction to handle disputes. the sovereignty still rests with the group that established the court. and they can also end the court if they so choose. the claim that having your country sued by a foreign company is innately bad is absurd on its face. If a country decides to harass a foreign company, in violation of that country's own laws, for no other reason than disliking them personally, then i don't see how you could call that an innately bad thing. now, I note you said generally; which does allow quite a bit of leeway; but it also means you'd still need to establish that it's true generally, which would take more than a few random anecdotes. furthermore, a treaty means a country decided to make something part of its own law, so if the country violates the terms of the treaty, they're violating their own law. How is it unreasonable to sue a country for violating their own laws in a way that hurts you? That kind of dispute resolution is exactly what lawsuits are for. and i'ts hardly uncommon for countries' to violate their own laws; they do it all the time, and get sued by domestic groups for those violations. what's wrong with allowing foreign groups that same option? on the whims of the electorate/law thing, it's simply a fact. You could also use it as an argument for technocracy; but herein it's simply presented as the fact that it is. Who said having your country sued by a foreign company is "innately" bad? It seems to me that it's a matter of perspective and personally I don't like the idea of foreign corporations having that kind of power. Why? Because those corporations are less likely to give a shit about the people in the country, so they are more likely sue for reasons that are entirely self serving and if they win the case that money leaves the country. You said the article doesn't prove that the suits were wrong, but assuming it can be trusted, it does show that suits can be filed for reasons other than "disliking them personally", but rather matters that affect the people who actually have to live in the country. So they might not be "innately bad" but certainly have the potential to be bad, and hence a legitimate concern. It might be true that the benefits of the deal would outweigh the costs, but how necessary were ISDS's to the agreement? Can you prove that the specific benefits of ISDS provisions outweigh their potential costs?
Please follow the discussion more carefully if you're going to respond.
The person I had replied to use the words "innately bad"; hence my statement on that.
Not interested in arguing your other points, as they're irrelevant to the primary theses I was arguing. (those being primarily sovereignty; and to a far lesser extent whether the treaty is good from a US perspective, as this is the US politics thread).
|
On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote: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. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant.
that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration.
at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it?
cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard?
|
On September 04 2017 15:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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. From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending. In united states, how many far lefts are there ? How would you describe the ones on the left who criticized it and who are obviously to the left of the ones who pushed for TTP and TTIP ? Far left ? Farther left ? Far farther left ?
|
On September 04 2017 15:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 07:49 kollin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:04 Danglars 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 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. 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. From the American perspective of far left, it absolutely is. It ends up being a European center-right or center-left, depending.
just letting everyone else know this is factually wrong.
These initiatives are about equally supported by the American left and right. For a few decades (up until the recent populist surge), both parties have been quite supportive of free trade and these kinds of treaties, as has the spectrum of discussion. My impression is that they tend to be more supported by the centrist wings of the parties; and that the fars, both left and right, are somewhat more apt to oppose them (at least recently).
Not going to get into it further per the avoid discussion with danglars policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
