Election 2016 Thread

[pErvinalia]

He's basically what you'd expect if 42 was running for President.

[JimC]

He's basically what you'd expect if 42 was running for President.

Unfair to 42 - he can put an argument together without inconsistent rambling, and I don't think he's an indiscriminate groper...

Trump is destroying his own campaign; a cool, calm and collected Republican candidate of the old school may well have been able to sink the good ship Hillary...

[Tero]

Partly true though. 42 believes some of the Trump mantra that only a 5th grader would find convincing. "Renegotiate trade deals. I'm Trump."

[pErvinalia]

He's basically what you'd expect if 42 was running for President.

Unfair to 42 - he can put an argument together without inconsistent rambling, and I don't think he's an indiscriminate groper...

I'm more referring to the tu quoque / red-herring tendency of both.

[Brian Peacock]

But she is going to defeat Isis.

Moderator: what are you going to do about bla bla?
Trump: Hillary ruined bla bla in 2005 and Obama ruined bla bla after that.
Moderator: But Mr Trump, what are YOU going to do about bla bla?
Trump: Hillary ruined bla bla in 2005 and Obama ruined bla bla after that.

The power of Farage is strong in this one.

"What did you have for breakfast Mr Trump? "
"I'll tell you what I didn't have for breakfast; I didn't have a baby ripped from its mother's womb a day before birth like Clinton wants to make happen. That kind of thing is truly disgusting and needs to stop, which is what I've been saying all along."

[Animavore]

Trump disgraces himself yet again with more paranoid ranting.

I notice there were no "zingers" from him this time. He's only a second-rate Rodney Dangerfield.

[Forty Two]

He's basically what you'd expect if 42 was running for President.

Unfair to 42 - he can put an argument together without inconsistent rambling, and I don't think he's an indiscriminate groper...

My groping is very discriminatory.

Trump is destroying his own campaign; a cool, calm and collected Republican candidate of the old school may well have been able to sink the good ship Hillary...

Rest assured, it will all be over soon.

[Forty Two]

Partly true though. 42 believes some of the Trump mantra that only a 5th grader would find convincing. "Renegotiate trade deals. I'm Trump."

Only a child would think that trade deals aren't negotiated contracts. All of a sudden the left is all about global free trade now? Who are you folks even supporting? House of Representatives Democrats opposed NAFTA 156 to 102.

Public Citizen released a report on the twenty-year legacy of NAFTA. Public Citizen found that many of the results of NAFTA were the exact opposite of what its boosters had promised. Such results include a $181 billion trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, 1 million net U.S. jobs lost, larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and more than $360 million paid to corporations through “investor-state” suits attacking domestic policies such as toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies, and others geared toward environmental protection and the public interests. The report also highlighted how US. companies like Chrysler and Caterpillar, who promised to create specific numbers of jobs upon NAFTA's approvals, quickly fired U.S. workers and relocated to Mexico. NAFTA trade and investment trends, particularly the displacement of manufacturing jobs, have contributed to downward wage pressure and growing inequality.

NAFTA has also had a detrimental effect on Mexican workers as well. The increased export of U.S. subsidized corn destroyed the livelihoods of 1 million Mexican campesino farmers and the roughly 1.4 million workers whose livelihoods depended on such agriculture. The displacement of such workers has created downward wage pressure, and 60% of the rural population in Mexico still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA's boosters.

\

Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller -- all still in the US Senate and all Democrats - voted against it.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama has been fully willing to pass "free" trade deals despite majority opposition from his own party in Congress, particularly the House.

The United States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 262 to 167. House Democrats, however, opposed it 158 to 31.

It passed the Senate 66 to 33. However, the members of the Senate Democratic caucus opposed it 31 to 22.

The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 300 to 129. However, House Democrats opposed it 123 to 66.

It passed the Senate 77 to 22. Democratic caucus support was the inverse of what it was for the Colombia deal: 31 to 22 in favor.

The United States-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 278 to 151. However, House Democrats opposed it 130 to 59.

It passed the Senate 83 to 15. The Democratic caucus supported it 38 to 14.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/1/ ... rade-Deals

So, is there something wrong with being against these "free" trade deals? Is there something wrong with wanting to renegotiate to fix them?

Do you believe it is the prevailing Democrat position to support these free trade deals?

We had a small trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 before signing onto NAFTA. By 2007, 14 years after signing NAFTA, that surplus turned into a $91 billion deficit with Mexico. The combined deficit with Canada and Mexico together increased to $190 billion – an astounding 691 percent increase.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/why- ... or-the-u-s

Illegal immigrants in the U.S. have increased to 12 million today from 3.9 million in 1993, accounting for an overall increase of over 300 percent. Since NAFTA was implemented, 300,000 American family farms have been put out of business. Overall, net farm incomes are down 13 percent.
Obviously NAFTA has not been very beneficial to the U.S. In all reality, the trade pact has been an abject failure.

The cruel reality of NAFTA is that it does not benefit the American worker. In fact, it encourages our jobs to leave the country in pursuit of lower wage rates, non-existent environmental standards and trade without restrictions.

NAFTA was a disaster when it was passed by Congress, a disaster when it was enacted and it remains a disaster today.

Huffington Post concurs - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wall ... 50207.html

You realize, Tero, that you're very conservative on free trade issues, right? You are the Tory here.

[Forty Two]

The Democrats hired agitators to go to Trump rallies and start fights.....http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... hey-hire-/

[Tero]

Only a child would think that trade deals aren't negotiated contracts. All of a sudden the left is all about global free trade now? Who are you folks even supporting? House of Representatives Democrats opposed NAFTA 156 to 102.

Absolutely. Free borders. Bring in the Mexicans, guest worker pass for all. No borders. No guns! Except

Which we will need to stop global warming.

/satire

[Forty Two]

Hillary said she wants a hemispheric common market with open borders. That's her dream. That's not in dispute. Whether one thinks that's a good idea, if you're going to have a "common market" with "open borders" then people can cross freely.

[pErvinalia]

Partly true though. 42 believes some of the Trump mantra that only a 5th grader would find convincing. "Renegotiate trade deals. I'm Trump."

Only a child would think that trade deals aren't negotiated contracts. All of a sudden the left is all about global free trade now? Who are you folks even supporting? House of Representatives Democrats opposed NAFTA 156 to 102.

Public Citizen released a report on the twenty-year legacy of NAFTA. Public Citizen found that many of the results of NAFTA were the exact opposite of what its boosters had promised. Such results include a $181 billion trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, 1 million net U.S. jobs lost, larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and more than $360 million paid to corporations through “investor-state” suits attacking domestic policies such as toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies, and others geared toward environmental protection and the public interests. The report also highlighted how US. companies like Chrysler and Caterpillar, who promised to create specific numbers of jobs upon NAFTA's approvals, quickly fired U.S. workers and relocated to Mexico. NAFTA trade and investment trends, particularly the displacement of manufacturing jobs, have contributed to downward wage pressure and growing inequality.

NAFTA has also had a detrimental effect on Mexican workers as well. The increased export of U.S. subsidized corn destroyed the livelihoods of 1 million Mexican campesino farmers and the roughly 1.4 million workers whose livelihoods depended on such agriculture. The displacement of such workers has created downward wage pressure, and 60% of the rural population in Mexico still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA's boosters.

\

Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller -- all still in the US Senate and all Democrats - voted against it.

Like Bill Clinton, Obama has been fully willing to pass "free" trade deals despite majority opposition from his own party in Congress, particularly the House.

The United States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 262 to 167. House Democrats, however, opposed it 158 to 31.

It passed the Senate 66 to 33. However, the members of the Senate Democratic caucus opposed it 31 to 22.

The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 300 to 129. However, House Democrats opposed it 123 to 66.

It passed the Senate 77 to 22. Democratic caucus support was the inverse of what it was for the Colombia deal: 31 to 22 in favor.

The United States-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 278 to 151. However, House Democrats opposed it 130 to 59.

It passed the Senate 83 to 15. The Democratic caucus supported it 38 to 14.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1/1/ ... rade-Deals

So, is there something wrong with being against these "free" trade deals? Is there something wrong with wanting to renegotiate to fix them?

Do you believe it is the prevailing Democrat position to support these free trade deals?

We had a small trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 before signing onto NAFTA. By 2007, 14 years after signing NAFTA, that surplus turned into a $91 billion deficit with Mexico. The combined deficit with Canada and Mexico together increased to $190 billion – an astounding 691 percent increase.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/why- ... or-the-u-s

Illegal immigrants in the U.S. have increased to 12 million today from 3.9 million in 1993, accounting for an overall increase of over 300 percent. Since NAFTA was implemented, 300,000 American family farms have been put out of business. Overall, net farm incomes are down 13 percent.
Obviously NAFTA has not been very beneficial to the U.S. In all reality, the trade pact has been an abject failure.

The cruel reality of NAFTA is that it does not benefit the American worker. In fact, it encourages our jobs to leave the country in pursuit of lower wage rates, non-existent environmental standards and trade without restrictions.

NAFTA was a disaster when it was passed by Congress, a disaster when it was enacted and it remains a disaster today.

Huffington Post concurs - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wall ... 50207.html

You realize, Tero, that you're very conservative on free trade issues, right? You are the Tory here.

What's that got to do with the reality of Trump trying to renegotiate trade deals? In fact, as Brian mentioned in another thread, if these deals are so good for the Mexicos and Chinas of the world, then why on Earth would they renegotiate them to make them less good for them?

[Forty Two]

What's that got to do with it? They're bad deals, which is why they need to be renegotiated. If you read the articles, you'd see that NAFTA hasn't even been very good for Mexico, either.

Why on earth would they renegotiate? Because the US can withdraw from treaties, and if they don't come to the table, the US can take action to put pressure on them to come to the table. The US can withdraw or state that it will withdraw at some point in the future. Also the US can take other economic measures against a country to provide an incentive for them to come to the table.

Treaties are not carved in stone once signed. They end, change, and are renegotiated all the time. Like in May when India and Mauritius renegotiated a tax treaty between the two countries. India also renegotiated treaties with Cyprus. Renegotiation of NAFTA was called for by the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America. http://chicagodsa.org/renafta.html You better tell them it's impossible to do that.

[pErvinalia]

What's that got to do with it? They're bad deals, which is why they need to be renegotiated.

I mean, what do democratic party views and votes on the treaties have to do with Trump's policy? This is the point we keep trying to make to you (and other Trump supporters in general). Talking about Hillary isn't a cogent answer to a question about Trump's views.

Why on earth would they renegotiate? Because the US can withdraw from treaties, and if they don't come to the table, the US can take action to put pressure on them to come to the table. The US can withdraw or state that it will withdraw at some point in the future. Also the US can take other economic measures against a country to provide an incentive for them to come to the table.

You'd have fucking riots on the streets in the US if you withdrew from these treaties. Where would you get all your consumer products from?? Remember, the US needs China/Mexico more than the other way around. China and Mexico etc need the US and other large markets to keep growing at extraodinary rates, but they can largely sustain themselves by their own production. The US (and other Western nations) can't any more.

[Forty Two]

What's that got to do with it? They're bad deals, which is why they need to be renegotiated.

I mean, what do democratic party views and votes on the treaties have to do with Trump's policy?

One of the issues was whether there is something wrong with the treaties in the first place. the articles I posted set forth the left wing position, and the Democrat position, as to what is wrong with the treaties. If the treaties are fine, we don't have to renegotiate their terms. But, if the terms are bad, then they should be fixed. Trump sides with the historical opponents of NAFTA, etc., and wants to renegotiate them. So, that's part of his policy.

If Democrats generally share Trump's view on these treaties, then one might wonder why they oppose his views on these treaties....

This is the point we keep trying to make to you (and other Trump supporters in general). Talking about Hillary isn't a cogent answer to a question about Trump's views.

I've talked about both. You'd have to read the articles I posted about the treaties and why they've been terrible ideas. You really can't understand that if a politician advocates a policy of renegotiating X, then the status/quality of X in the first place is a relevant issue? This is beyond your ken?

Why on earth would they renegotiate? Because the US can withdraw from treaties, and if they don't come to the table, the US can take action to put pressure on them to come to the table. The US can withdraw or state that it will withdraw at some point in the future. Also the US can take other economic measures against a country to provide an incentive for them to come to the table.

You'd have fucking riots on the streets in the US if you withdrew from these treaties.

Why? Wouldn't the typical rioters - the antiglobalists, the socialists, the anti-freetrade groups, etc., be very happy if the US withdrew? Who is going to riot? Ford Motor Company?

Where would you get all your consumer products from??

Not NAFTA and free trade agreements. Consumer protection comes from a variety of sources, but not NAFTA and other free trade agreements. We have statutes both at the federal and state level regulating the sales of goods and services, finance, etc. We have state and federal agencies enforcing those laws, etc.

Remember, the US needs China/Mexico more than the other way around. China and Mexico etc need the US and other large markets to keep growing at extraodinary rates, but they can largely sustain themselves by their own production. The US (and other Western nations) can't any more.

You tell me to "remember" that the US needs China and Mexico ore than the other way around, but that is an assertion you need to establish. China and Mexico rely very heavily on the US, and the US still has the capacity to send those countries down the shitter. That's the leverage. Once that power is lost, it's gone and then those countries won't give the US the time of day.

I acknowledge that the ability of the US and other western countries to do the things they should be able to do as a nation is declining. That's what I've been on about. The US manufacturing base is being depleted. Our industries are gone. We've gone information and service based economy, and we're relying a lot on military production and a few remaining major industries. This is not sustainable.

If you are correct, and the tipping point is already gone and China and Mexico can just ignore the US when the US demands a renegotiation, then maybe it's too late. I hope it's not.