The 2016 General Election Thread

[Jludo]

Here for example.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Plus it erodes our sovereignty.

Fast Track/TPP: The Death of National Sovereignty, State Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, and Democracy | naked capitalism

And it's secret, only brought to light by wikileaks, nothing good comes from secret deals between world governments, and mega corporations.

CATO? You mean the foundation formerly known as the Charles Koch Foundation?
No globalist ties there.

I agree with some of your criticisms, it's a crony capitalist field day, however I fail to see what that has to do with our First amendment as you claim?

It's not secret. Full text below.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

 

[nate77]

I didn't realize the government released it, I haven't paid it much attention lately, my mind was made up last year, and at the time, members of congress could only read the agreement at a secure location, with no recording devices allowed.

Guess wikileaks blew that up.

Fair use, and possible criminal punishment for corporately protected speech. Plus I almost forgot TPP, and TTIP are living agreements, so they can shove all sorts of liberty stealing provisions down our throat without even consulting congress.

On another note, I wonder if Johnson's support of TPP has anything to do with a recent cash infusion from the Koch Brothers.

 

[Jludo]

I didn't realize the government released it, I haven't paid it much attention lately, my mind was made up last year, and at the time, members of congress could only read the agreement at a secure location, with no recording devices allowed.

Guess wikileaks blew that up.

Fair use, and possible criminal punishment for corporately protected speech. Plus I almost forgot TPP, and TTIP are living agreements, so they can shove all sorts of liberty stealing provisions down our throat without even consulting congress.

On another note, I wonder if Johnson's support of TPP has anything to do with a recent cash infusion from the Koch Brothers.

So you're a koch brother conspiracy theorist?

On balance you don't think it liberalized trade?

Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Pact: Yes, No, and Maybe - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[T.Lex]

You do of course realize that the House of Representatives could put me in office if they so chose, with no requirement for any consent from the voting citizens?

Since when did you start rejecting the Constitution?

It is the social-compact foundation of our Republic. It has a process for deciding who gets the office if no one gets a majority.

 

[nate77]

So you're a koch brother conspiracy theorist?

On balance you don't think it liberalized trade?

Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Pact: Yes, No, and Maybe - Hit & Run : Reason.com

If it is about trade, make it about trade, don't sneak in liberty, and sovereignty zapping clauses, and don't make it top secret.

As for free trade, the US always gets the short end of the deal. Why would any company produce here, with the EPA, OSHA, high taxes, unions, astronomical power prices, and endless bureaucratic red tape.

 

[T.Lex]

As for free trade, the US always gets the short end of the deal. Why would any company produce here, with the EPA, OSHA, high taxes, unions, astronomical power prices, and endless bureaucratic red tape.

You do realize that none of those things are the result of trade deals, right?

Or are you recognizing that the legislative landscape should change?

 

[nate77]

You do realize that none of those things are the result of trade deals, right?

Or are you recognizing that the legislative landscape should change?

You do realize that endless regulation, and taxation drives production off shore right?

Trade deals just make it easier for big company's to make that move.

Just look at NAFTA, how's that working out for the American worker?

 

[T.Lex]

You do realize that endless regulation, and taxation drives production off shore right?

Oh, you want to talk profit motive. Got it.

Ultimately, companies want (in fact, are required) to make a profit. If moving to a different country means more profit, that's what they'll do.

Trade deals just make it easier for big company's to make that move.

Just look at NAFTA, how's that working out for the American worker?

You want to go back 30 years? The real problem goes back much further than that.

You specifically wordbuzzed the EPA, OSHA, high taxes, unions, power prices, and red tape.

Let's say the House decided nate77 will be the next president after the other candidates fail to get to 270. What would you do about those things? I'm being completely honest - I'm curious what you think a "fix" would look like.

 

[Jludo]

You do realize that endless regulation, and taxation drives production off shore right?

Trade deals just make it easier for big company's to make that move.

Just look at NAFTA, how's that working out for the American worker?

The solution to those problems, however, isn't protectionist trade policy.

 

[nate77]

Oh, you want to talk profit motive. Got it.

Ultimately, companies want (in fact, are required) to make a profit. If moving to a different country means more profit, that's what they'll do.



You want to go back 30 years? The real problem goes back much further than that.

You specifically wordbuzzed the EPA, OSHA, high taxes, unions, power prices, and red tape.

Let's say the House decided nate77 will be the next president after the other candidates fail to get to 270. What would you do about those things? I'm being completely honest - I'm curious what you think a "fix" would look like.

End the war on coal, lower corporate income taxes, tax breaks for company's that produce in the US, reward company's that move production back, penalize company's that produce over seas, end Obama care, nationwide right to work, and restructure trade deals, we have the leverage.

Doubt these would happen, since they don't play into the global economy, and America first is a sin, but these solutions would certainly encourage production in the US.

 

[T.Lex]

The solution to those problems, however, isn't protectionist trade policy.

I agree. Mostly because trade policy is barely a factor at all in the collapse of American manufacturing.

But, it makes a convenient bogeyman for domestic politics.

End the war on coal, lower corporate income taxes, tax breaks for company's that produce in the US, reward company's that move production back, penalize company's that produce over seas, end Obama care, nationwide right to work, and restructure trade deals, we have the leverage.

Doubt these would happen, since they don't play into the global economy, and America first is a sin, but these solutions would certainly encourage production in the US.

Couple of those things are close to being international-trade issues, but most are not.

That's the thing about all the anti-TPP/NAFTA rhetoric - it distracts from the real issues that no one really wants to confront.

 

[Jludo]

End the war on coal, lower corporate income taxes, tax breaks for company's that produce in the US, reward company's that move production back, penalize company's that produce over seas, end Obama care, nationwide right to work, and restructure trade deals, we have the leverage.

Doubt these would happen, since they don't play into the global economy, and America first is a sin, but these solutions would certainly encourage production in the US.

You realize these are akin to protectionist trade policy and tariffs? products will become more expensive to the average consumer. We need to focus on new high tech jobs and jobs that can't be outsourced, stick to stuff we do well. We don't need to bring back menial jobs that the Chinese can do for pennies on the dollar.
I agree that the TPP is bad in that it's not completely free trade. I don't want to see any of those protectionist taxes/tariffs.

 

[nate77]

So you're a koch brother conspiracy theorist?

If the shoe fits.

 

[nate77]

You realize these are akin to protectionist trade policy and tariffs? products will become more expensive to the average consumer. We need to focus on new high tech jobs and jobs that can't be outsourced, stick to stuff we do well. We don't need to bring back menial jobs that the Chinese can do for pennies on the dollar.
I agree that the TPP is bad in that it's not completely free trade. I don't want to see any of those protectionist taxes/tariffs.

Tech is great, but not when all the production is outsourced to China, and all support is outsourced to India.

 

[Jludo]

Tech is great, but not when all the production is outsourced to China, and all support is outsourced to India.

Why not? Cheap electronics are a good thing, if Chinese production can bring the price of electronics down, all the better.

Very interesting article on Chinese tires. Obama tried to do just what you advocated with tires, tariffs to save a few jobs, and it backfired.
Episode 467: Tires, Taxes And The Grizz : Planet Money : NPR

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since when did you start rejecting the Constitution?

It is the social-compact foundation of our Republic. It has a process for deciding who gets the office if no one gets a majority.

I didn't say that it was wrong or contrary to the Constitution. I said that it is a dangerous thing to wish for.

You do realize that none of those things are the result of trade deals, right?

Or are you recognizing that the legislative landscape should change?

We get a lot of baggage from trade deals. Ending the requirement on stating the source of our food comes to mind.

 

[Jludo]

I didn't say that it was wrong or contrary to the Constitution. I said that it is a dangerous thing to wish for.



We get a lot of baggage from trade deals. Ending the requirement on stating the source of our food comes to mind.

Isn't it more complicated though? For example say stating the source of food is required but we'd also be dropping the tariff on food export/imports, wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[T.Lex]

I didn't say that it was wrong or contrary to the Constitution. I said that it is a dangerous thing to wish for.

Why?

I mean, isn't that like saying it is a dangerous thing to wish that the RKBA was not infringed at all?

We get a lot of baggage from trade deals. Ending the requirement on stating the source of our food comes to mind.

So is not knowing where our food comes from a good thing?

You have me very confuzelled today.

 

[T.Lex]

In other news, updated polls at RCP. No real surprises.

IN - Trump +11, so the cabal of INGO nonTrump voters and their principles are safe from compromise. (Trump also up big in Mississippi.)

VA, CO, MI - HRC ~2x+ MOE leads appear stable.

IA - HRC still with nominal lead, inside or just at the MOE. I could see this be a state where the polling is wrong and Trump might win. But, at the same time, those 6 EC delegates won't matter based on the big EC states she's winning. Wouldn't surprise me if she stops spending much money there herself, and leaves it for PACs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Since when did you start rejecting the Constitution?

It is the social-compact foundation of our Republic. It has a process for deciding who gets the office if no one gets a majority.

Why?

I mean, isn't that like saying it is a dangerous thing to wish that the RKBA was not infringed at all?


So is not knowing where our food comes from a good thing?

You have me very confuzelled today.

First, no the two are not analogous. I don't object to the vehicle in place for dealing with an absence of an electoral majority, but would rather have a candidate we chose over who the hell ever the HR wants to put in office, although at this point, I would say that most anyone a R controlled House would install would be at least marginally better than Clinton.

Second, no, on the contrary, not knowing is a bad thing, but removing the requirement to label the national origin of food was the focus of serious foreign pressure in recent memory. I don't remember how (or if) it settled out, but we are only one 'deal' away from something like this happening, if it isn't already in the works.