How Do You Stand on TPP Passage? I Agree With Sanders and Trump on this

[JimBowie1958]

when trump says something, he's saying it b/c he thinks it will win him votes
hillary is saying what she is told to say to win votes
bern is a socialist and therefore has no understanding of his own stance

Trump has a profit incentive to deliver on his promises since about 40% of his annual income is based on selling his brand which only increases if he DELIVERS what he PROMISED. It really isnt all that hard to understand. To say that Trump is lying is a nice way to avoid making a decision, but it is completely inaccurate.

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist,

Paul Krugman, reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[100]

while he strikes me as a globalist, it's hard to argue against a guy that has the nobel prize in economics.

You are using Krugman as a reference?

He was in YOUR link

I am not responsible for Wikipedias content and I did not reference or site Krugman no matter if he was a fart note in my source or not.

The guy cant predict his own bowel movements, let alone a national economy.

 

[Two Thumbs]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

here I was thinking; What's wrong with that guy?
Here I knew you are off your nut.

and the ignorance just went down hill from there.

nafta is sited by both parties as a bad idea that cost America greatly.

Hell, even hillary, whose husband signed it into laws claims she was always against it.

 

[Andylusion]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

When treaties are being sent to the Senate for confirmation the full text is or should be available to the public. The TPP treaty has long been noted for the extraordinary secrecy it has been enveloped in and if you are so dishonest that you refuse to admit even that, you are sadly losing this debate.

You people crack me up. Speak from total ignorance, and then proclaim victory.

You don't see "sport" written on the side of a Mustang . Why? Because everyone can see it's a sports car without you needing to tell them.

If you were winning this argument, you wouldn't need to tell everyone how you are winning this argument. The fact you have to inform everyone, is itself proof you are not.

Let's actually look at the facts.....

U.S. Senate: Treaties

In 1787, the Senate debated whether the Legislative or the Executive branch should deal with negotiating treaties. They determine the Executive branch should, with the Senate voting it up or down once the treaty was written.

In 1789, Washington went to the Senate to debate a treaty with native Americans, and the Senate delegated to a committee. Washington decided back in 1789 that he would write up treaties himself, and send them to the Senate only after being written.

To quote from the above link, which is the US Senates own web site:

The Senate approved the ratification of one of the most contentious treaties in U.S. history during the Washington administration. At the urging of Federalist Party senators, the president sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to settle open disputes with Great Britain. Washington did not consult the full Senate before requesting its advice and consent to the completed treaty, known as the Jay Treaty. The treaty's opponents, mostly Jeffersonian Republicans, supported New York senator Aaron Burr's motion to reopen the negotiations, pursuant to a set of specific proposals, but Federalist senators defeated that plan and secured the approval of the controversial Jay Treaty on June 24, 1795. Jeffersonian Republicans in control of the House of Representatives threatened to withhold the funding necessary to affect some of its provisions, but the appropriation ultimately passed the House on April 30, 1796, by a narrow margin. It was a critical victory for the Senate's unique and vital role in the making of treaties.

Originally, the Senate had conducted its sessions behind closed doors, and debates over the Jay Treaty were no exception. Even after the Senate opened a public gallery in December 1795, the tradition of debating treaties and nominations in secret session continued into the early 20th century.
​

Unlike you, I will not tell you I am winning the debate, or that you are losing it. I'll let you and everyone here, look at the facts, and the evidence presented here, and determine for themselves the answer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

When treaties are being sent to the Senate for confirmation the full text is or should be available to the public. The TPP treaty has long been noted for the extraordinary secrecy it has been enveloped in and if you are so dishonest that you refuse to admit even that, you are sadly losing this debate.

You people crack me up. Speak from total ignorance, and then proclaim victory.

View attachment 81146
You don't see "sport" written on the side of a Mustang . Why? Because everyone can see it's a sports car without you needing to tell them.

If you were winning this argument, you wouldn't need to tell everyone how you are winning this argument. The fact you have to inform everyone, is itself proof you are not.

Let's actually look at the facts.....

U.S. Senate: Treaties

In 1787, the Senate debated whether the Legislative or the Executive branch should deal with negotiating treaties. They determine the Executive branch should, with the Senate voting it up or down once the treaty was written.

In 1789, Washington went to the Senate to debate a treaty with native Americans, and the Senate delegated to a committee. Washington decided back in 1789 that he would write up treaties himself, and send them to the Senate only after being written.

To quote from the above link, which is the US Senates own web site:

The Senate approved the ratification of one of the most contentious treaties in U.S. history during the Washington administration. At the urging of Federalist Party senators, the president sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to settle open disputes with Great Britain. Washington did not consult the full Senate before requesting its advice and consent to the completed treaty, known as the Jay Treaty. The treaty's opponents, mostly Jeffersonian Republicans, supported New York senator Aaron Burr's motion to reopen the negotiations, pursuant to a set of specific proposals, but Federalist senators defeated that plan and secured the approval of the controversial Jay Treaty on June 24, 1795. Jeffersonian Republicans in control of the House of Representatives threatened to withhold the funding necessary to affect some of its provisions, but the appropriation ultimately passed the House on April 30, 1796, by a narrow margin. It was a critical victory for the Senate's unique and vital role in the making of treaties.

Originally, the Senate had conducted its sessions behind closed doors, and debates over the Jay Treaty were no exception. Even after the Senate opened a public gallery in December 1795, the tradition of debating treaties and nominations in secret session continued into the early 20th century.
​

Unlike you, I will not tell you I am winning the debate, or that you are losing it. I'll let you and everyone here, look at the facts, and the evidence presented here, and determine for themselves the answer.

View attachment 81148

I didnt say I was winning the debate. I said that when you are being dishonest (i.e.lie) so much it proves that YOU are LOSING the debate. ANYONE ELSE arguing with you could be winning it.

Reading comprehension for the WIN, dude.

 

[Andylusion]

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

NAFTA has directly cost us about 700,000 jobs and indirectly through things like the rising trade deficit we have with NAFTA countries, we have lost even more.

Trade is good. Sucker trade where we lose, lose LOSE is for suckers.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

All wrong.

You claim it cost 700,000 job, but the evidence contradicts that. Employment increased in the 90s and most of the 2000s. Moreover, manufacturing almost continuously increased year over year from the start of NAFTA, to 2008, which was a record year in US manufacturing output.

Employment in manufacturing did fall, that's true, but it was due to automation, not NAFTA, and would have happened whether NAFTA was signed or not. Absolutely no one anywhere, suggests that the steady move towards automation in the manufacturing sector, would have magically reversed if NAFTA had not existed.

It's amazing how often people point to the economic growth of the 1990s, which is true, and claim it's due to Bill Clinton's administration. Yet the Clinton admininstration only had two significant economic policies changes, implemented during the 1990s.

One: Welfare reform. Pushing people off of the government dole, and into the work force, which logically... if you have someone who was not working, and thus not producing any GDP, and now is working and thus producing GDP, will by any logical and rational reasoning boost the economy.

And Two..... NAFTA.

Yet when you read the thread, the two things people scream about.... Republicans cutting government assistance, and trade. The irony is apparently lost on some.

 

[Andylusion]

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

When treaties are being sent to the Senate for confirmation the full text is or should be available to the public. The TPP treaty has long been noted for the extraordinary secrecy it has been enveloped in and if you are so dishonest that you refuse to admit even that, you are sadly losing this debate.

You people crack me up. Speak from total ignorance, and then proclaim victory.

View attachment 81146
You don't see "sport" written on the side of a Mustang . Why? Because everyone can see it's a sports car without you needing to tell them.

If you were winning this argument, you wouldn't need to tell everyone how you are winning this argument. The fact you have to inform everyone, is itself proof you are not.

Let's actually look at the facts.....

U.S. Senate: Treaties

In 1787, the Senate debated whether the Legislative or the Executive branch should deal with negotiating treaties. They determine the Executive branch should, with the Senate voting it up or down once the treaty was written.

In 1789, Washington went to the Senate to debate a treaty with native Americans, and the Senate delegated to a committee. Washington decided back in 1789 that he would write up treaties himself, and send them to the Senate only after being written.

To quote from the above link, which is the US Senates own web site:

The Senate approved the ratification of one of the most contentious treaties in U.S. history during the Washington administration. At the urging of Federalist Party senators, the president sent Chief Justice John Jay to London to settle open disputes with Great Britain. Washington did not consult the full Senate before requesting its advice and consent to the completed treaty, known as the Jay Treaty. The treaty's opponents, mostly Jeffersonian Republicans, supported New York senator Aaron Burr's motion to reopen the negotiations, pursuant to a set of specific proposals, but Federalist senators defeated that plan and secured the approval of the controversial Jay Treaty on June 24, 1795. Jeffersonian Republicans in control of the House of Representatives threatened to withhold the funding necessary to affect some of its provisions, but the appropriation ultimately passed the House on April 30, 1796, by a narrow margin. It was a critical victory for the Senate's unique and vital role in the making of treaties.

Originally, the Senate had conducted its sessions behind closed doors, and debates over the Jay Treaty were no exception. Even after the Senate opened a public gallery in December 1795, the tradition of debating treaties and nominations in secret session continued into the early 20th century.
​

Unlike you, I will not tell you I am winning the debate, or that you are losing it. I'll let you and everyone here, look at the facts, and the evidence presented here, and determine for themselves the answer.

View attachment 81148

I didnt say I was winning the debate. I said that when you are being dishonest (i.e.lie) so much it proves that YOU are LOSING the debate. ANYONE ELSE arguing with you could be winning it.

Reading comprehension for the WIN, dude.

And yet you can't show it was a lie, since I just posted proof of my claim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

NAFTA has directly cost us about 700,000 jobs and indirectly through things like the rising trade deficit we have with NAFTA countries, we have lost even more.

Trade is good. Sucker trade where we lose, lose LOSE is for suckers.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

All wrong.

You claim it cost 700,000 job, but the evidence contradicts that. Employment increased in the 90s and most of the 2000s. Moreover, manufacturing almost continuously increased year over year from the start of NAFTA, to 2008, which was a record year in US manufacturing output.

Employment in manufacturing did fall, that's true, but it was due to automation, not NAFTA, and would have happened whether NAFTA was signed or not. Absolutely no one anywhere, suggests that the steady move towards automation in the manufacturing sector, would have magically reversed if NAFTA had not existed.

It's amazing how often people point to the economic growth of the 1990s, which is true, and claim it's due to Bill Clinton's administration. Yet the Clinton admininstration only had two significant economic policies changes, implemented during the 1990s.

One: Welfare reform. Pushing people off of the government dole, and into the work force, which logically... if you have someone who was not working, and thus not producing any GDP, and now is working and thus producing GDP, will by any logical and rational reasoning boost the economy.

And Two..... NAFTA.

Yet when you read the thread, the two things people scream about.... Republicans cutting government assistance, and trade. The irony is apparently lost on some.

That you measure the success of NAFTA by how it increases manufacturing value but admit that jobs still went down, says everything about your perspective one needs to know.

You are an Oligarch shill as well as a liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And yet you can't show it was a lie, since I just posted proof of my claim.

Your reading comprehension is still failing, dude. You proved nothing more than your complete disregard for American workers, just like National Review did a while back when they published an article that said that the American working class should die off.

 

[Andylusion]

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

NAFTA has directly cost us about 700,000 jobs and indirectly through things like the rising trade deficit we have with NAFTA countries, we have lost even more.

Trade is good. Sucker trade where we lose, lose LOSE is for suckers.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

All wrong.

You claim it cost 700,000 job, but the evidence contradicts that. Employment increased in the 90s and most of the 2000s. Moreover, manufacturing almost continuously increased year over year from the start of NAFTA, to 2008, which was a record year in US manufacturing output.

Employment in manufacturing did fall, that's true, but it was due to automation, not NAFTA, and would have happened whether NAFTA was signed or not. Absolutely no one anywhere, suggests that the steady move towards automation in the manufacturing sector, would have magically reversed if NAFTA had not existed.

It's amazing how often people point to the economic growth of the 1990s, which is true, and claim it's due to Bill Clinton's administration. Yet the Clinton admininstration only had two significant economic policies changes, implemented during the 1990s.

One: Welfare reform. Pushing people off of the government dole, and into the work force, which logically... if you have someone who was not working, and thus not producing any GDP, and now is working and thus producing GDP, will by any logical and rational reasoning boost the economy.

And Two..... NAFTA.

Yet when you read the thread, the two things people scream about.... Republicans cutting government assistance, and trade. The irony is apparently lost on some.

That you measure the success of NAFTA by it increase in manufacturing value but admit that jobs still went down, says everything about your perspective one needs to know.

You are an Oligarch shill as well as a liar.

So you admit that automation was replacing workers jobs, but still want to magically pretend NAFTA caused that, even thought the trend started years before NAFTA existed. You are Socialist shill, as well as a liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you admit that automation was replacing workers jobs, but still want to magically pretend NAFTA caused that, even thought the trend started years before NAFTA existed. You are Socialist shill, as well as a liar.

Automation cause some of it, true, but NAFTA is causing alot of it also and we dont have the jobs to spare to be shipping them off shore, nor does it make NAFTA good if other things are worse for job creation.