You do realize he has gone full fascist in his speeches

[LV426]

How can you not support NAFTA 2 -but support a more complex and less favorable TPP?
Because you have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You. Don't. Know. What. The. Fuck. You're. Talking. About.

NAFTA is a trade pact among three countries.

TPP is a trade pact among 11 nations.

The point of TPP was to provide leverage to smaller economies, so that they could not get run over by China's aggressive posture. By withdrawing from TPP, those smaller economies no longer have leverage to use against China, and now are effectively forced into doing bad deals with China because they have no bargaining power.

You fucking morons don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't understand how trade seems to work; you don't understand the importance of forming multi-national trade deals to counter aggressive trade posture.

 

[anatta]

Well, they were short-sighted and wrong about it.

Obama was 100% right.

The importance of TPP was that it put smaller economies into a trading bloc with larger ones.

By not being a part of that trade bloc, we remove any leverage the smaller nations had to negotiate better deals with major economic players like China.

These crocodile tears over corporations challenging the sovereignty of a government in court are laughable coming from Conservatives who support that very challenge to our nation's sovereignty domestically; particularly with the belief that corporations are people. So, if corporations are people, then they absolutely should have the right and ability to sue a sovereign government. That's your principles, buddy. Don't forget that you like that kind of thing.

you ignore the fact that we can sign bi-lateral or multilateral trade agreements at will. I don't want small economies dictating the terms for a giant economy like the USA. I want flexability to use our clout to pressure smaller economies to negotiate on our terms
(economic nationalism at work)

"Corporate personhood" is shorthand for the fact that putting limits on campaign contributions always runs up against the first Amendment.
It's not like SCOTUS just jumped to this position - it was the resul of case after case like when McCain-Feingold was held unConstitutional etc.

If you want to end Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -the only way to do is is public financing

 

[LV426]

link to all these claims

Don't expect that.

What I've found is that Conservatives just make this shit up as they go.

 

[LV426]

by reducing the differences in the wage gap -simple outsourcing on "cheap Mexicans" is less of a factor.

Not when the wage is still lower.

Bottom line: Mexican wage is still below that of US wages, even with this nominal bump. Narrowing the wage gap slightly still doesn't change the bottom line, which is what a business will look at, and only what a business will look at.

The bottom line is that it's still cheaper to outsource to Mexico because their wage is still lower than the wage in the US.

 

[LV426]

The fact that manufacturing in the USA can mean tax breaks, or taking advantage of state deals to draw in manufactures becomes more viable. as the difference in wages narrows; other factors become more prominate

Wrong.

The bottom line remains the same; Mexican wages are still lower than American ones.

 

[LV426]

by increasing content rules it means more NAFTA auto parts - and less Chinese - again 75% is a significant improvement that 62.5%.

No, it's not.

Most of the cars manufactured here already surpass the 75% threshold.

A significant improvement would be going from 62.5% to 100%. Why didn't he negotiate that? You expect thanks for doing something nominal? Fuck off. You get no brownie points for being terrible at negotiating, particularly when you're just using the same positions as your predecessor.

 

[anatta]

You. Don't. Know. What. The. Fuck. You're. Talking. About.

NAFTA is a trade pact among three countries.

TPP is a trade pact among 11 nations.

The point of TPP was to provide leverage to smaller economies, so that they could not get run over by China's aggressive posture. By withdrawing from TPP, those smaller economies no longer have leverage to use against China, and now are effectively forced into doing bad deals with China because they have no bargaining power.

You fucking morons don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't understand how trade seems to work; you don't understand the importance of forming multi-national trade deals to counter aggressive trade posture.

ROFL. to the big economies go the spoils. China gets it's way because of economic power.

You just made the case why the US should not be servient to the TPP. we use our economic might to negotiate
for better bi/multilateral terms because we can against smaller countries.

Look at the new KORUS FTA agreement Trump negotiated. It's superior to the FTA negotiated by Obama.
It happened because we use our economy size to improve the negotiation posture .

we saw the same thing with Trudeau's last minute captitulation to NAFTA 2 -almost all the final negotiations went favorable to the USA-Mexican agreement.

-the only thing they got was Sunset pushed back -but the trade terms all favored us.
Because we used the threat of them not being included in NAFTA - their economic size could not let them stand out in the cold

 

[LV426]

"more then 1/2" still means almost 50% are not. This should mean more NAFTA zone car parts -less Asian.

Should, but won't happen. The reason is because all the domestic parts made here are already being used in cars assembled here. You're not going to have a plant in China that makes widgets close down and re-open in Kansas, and make the same product. That's magical, fantasy thinking and I think it's what you actually believe will happen.

There's a reason those components are made overseas, and it has zero to do with NAFTA.

 

[LV426]

hen look at the other provisions of NAFTA 2 -not just autos. It's a big improvement all the way around

Not really. It's not a big improvement. It's a nominal improvement. And it's cribbed from what Obama had already negotiated with Canada and Mexico during TPP.

 

[LV426]

you ignore the fact that we can sign bi-lateral or multilateral trade agreements at will.

Yeah, we can. But our neighbors cannot. Since we rely on global exports and imports, multi-lateral trade deals are a necessity now. Collectively bargaining against a single, solitary, aggressive partner is how small nations (and even large ones like ours) can extract fair deals. Do you honestly, truly think a trade deal between China and Chile would be equal and fairly balanced?

 

[anatta]

Wrong.

The bottom line remains the same; Mexican wages are still lower than American ones.

reducing the disparity means other factors I just listed come into play. taken en toto (like state incentives) reduces outsourcing
because wage differential is not the sole driving force for manufacturing location anymore.
Plus it help Mexican workers
That's a good thing. a vibrant Mexican economy is also in our interest for obvious reasons

 

[LV426]

I don't want small economies dictating the terms for a giant economy like the USA.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Are you a fucking idiot or what?

TPP disadvantages CHINA, not US. You fucking, inbred, illiterate, posturing faker. If we collectively bargain with our smaller trade partners together vs. China, the smaller partners aren't dictating our trade terms.

This is exactly what I mean when I said you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

TPP wouldn't have set smaller nations as the ones dictating trade policy, and only a goddamned idiot would think that.

So you must be a goddamned idiot, then.

 

[anatta]

Not really. It's not a big improvement. It's a nominal improvement. And it's cribbed from what Obama had already negotiated with Canada and Mexico during TPP.

Trump improved on Obama's trade terms just like he improved on Obama's economy.

 

[LV426]

"Corporate personhood" is shorthand for the fact that putting limits on campaign contributions always runs up against the first Amendment.
It's not like SCOTUS just jumped to this position - it was the resul of case after case like when McCain-Feingold was held unConstitutional etc.
If you want to end Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -the only way to do is is public financing

Yes, and I totally think that we should have entirely publicly-financed elections and campaigns.

But that's not the point of what we were saying; it's a clever attempt at deflection, but your argument was that it is wrong (?) for corporations and lawyers to challenge the sovereignty of a nation in court. I find that position of yours wholly contradictory with the Conservative position of corporate personhood.

 

[anatta]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Are you a fucking idiot or what?

TPP disadvantages CHINA, not US. You fucking, inbred, illiterate, posturing faker. If we collectively bargain with our smaller trade partners together vs. China, the smaller partners aren't dictating our trade terms.

This is exactly what I mean when I said you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

TPP wouldn't have set smaller nations as the ones dictating trade policy, and only a goddamned idiot would think that.

So you must be a goddamned idiot, then.

you assume smaller countries would ally with us against China.
Suppose they ally with China against the USA?

The TPP locks our fate into the hands of a small economy is the point. I don't want small economies dictating to ours

 

[LV426]

ROFL. to the big economies go the spoils. China gets it's way because of economic power.

But that economic power can be mitigated by a trade pact of 11 countries, three of which have top-10 economies.

THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT OF TPP.

So if you have 11 countries collecting together into one pact, and all 11 members have the backing of the other 11 members, then that does what to China's bargaining power when dealing with a country with a small economy, like Chile?

 

[LV426]

You just made the case why the US should not be servient to the TPP. we use our economic might to negotiate
for better bi/multilateral terms because we can against smaller countries.

SIGH.

The US isn't servient to TPP you fucking know-nothing.

All TPP does is provide the 11-member nations with equal leverage to negotiate trade deals for themselves.

So Chile enters a negotiation with China, backed by the 10 other nations in TPP. That's more advantageous for them, and not for China. Now, if Chile enters into negotiations with China without being backed by the 10 other TPP countries, then who has the bargaining power in that scenario?

 

[anatta]

Yes, and I totally think that we should have entirely publicly-financed elections and campaigns.

But that's not the point of what we were saying; it's a clever attempt at deflection, but your argument was that it is wrong (?) for corporations and lawyers to challenge the sovereignty of a nation in court. I find that position of yours wholly contradictory with the Conservative position of corporate personhood.

who cares what your politics are? I sure don't.
it's extreme globalism for all I can see with a lot of TDS thrown in for good measure.

You ignore the CONSTITUTION is the fact that corporate personhood exists.
Trying to conflate that with trade deals is ludicrous

 

[LV426]

Look at the new KORUS FTA agreement Trump negotiated. It's superior to the FTA negotiated by Obama.
It happened because we use our economy size to improve the negotiation posture

But that has nothing to do with TPP you fucking idiot.

TPP wasn't for the 11 TPP countries to then negotiate individual deals and trade with each other only...TPP was a partnership among the 11 member countries that provides each with the same equal leverage and support for going out to make deals with non-TPP countries.

YOU.

FUCKING.

MORON.

 

[LV426]

we saw the same thing with Trudeau's last minute captitulation to NAFTA 2 -almost all the final negotiations went favorable to the USA-Mexican agreement.

The framing here is what you're choosing to focus on, not the fact that the terms Trudeau "agreed to" had already been agreed to as part of TPP years before Trump was President.

Conservatives are desperate for a win, going so far as to try and take credit for something Obama did.

Next thing you know, they're gonna say they protect pre-existing conditions...