This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Couple of things....this isn't a backlash against free trade...it's a backlash against TPP which is completely understandable. I do agree she didn't see this coming and that's why she had Obama's back....until it came, people saw what was in it and she did a 180. Completely predictable.
The profit sharing comments were weird. How could you legally make that happen? I think she was just throwing red meat to her base "Wage gap", "fair share", "Profit sharing" etc just to get those key words out in the open during the debate. She sounded looney tunes in doing so. Again what exactly is a "fair share"
There's no way to make companies do this. It may be a good idea from a corporate POV but that's up to them.
- Hillary is possibly to likely lying, she loved the TPP and she loves it still. It's a Podesta Group project and they have a green light through the Clintons, that's why people hire them. Her bigger problem is with the weird amalgamation of conservatives and progressives in Congress who are against it but their numbers may not be enough to keep it from passing after the election.
Obama Promises Lame-Duck TPP Push Despite Uproar Over Pro-Corporate Provisions:
He is all in on this. Despite it being disastrous for the Democratic party to do this in a lame ducks session. Last chance to pay back those donors.
I could go on
Any democrat who votes for the TPP and hasn't already lost their seat will get primaried from the left I feel pretty certain. And may well lose. I am hoping that reality along with all the pressure they are getting staves this thing off but I just think in the end the donor class will get what it wants and those who get booted for it will slide right into a cushy high paying gig.
Which is why the reality is I just don't see it passing. You've got the base of both parties very much against, and threatening to primary. You've got both Presidential candidates against.
The question you have to ask yourself is it worth opening up trading markets at the expense of intellectual property. Few here would say it's a bad decision to open up markets (all else constant), it's when you add in what we have to give up that it becomes a question....can't have both in this situation. That's not how the agreement is written. If you do believe it's worth it, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
My reasoning isn't all that complex. I want more markets for our exports. I want more imports and cheaper prices. Both are key to economic growth, which is the key to almost everything else and worth the price IMO.
And you believe giving up what is required via intellectual property etc is a fair trade for access to more markets?
"Fair" is not the word I would use. The overall question should be, is it worth it? I think it is. I could easily be wrong though.
What's the difference?
I don't think that's what NCCommish said. He said TPP is bad for the country overall. TPP != Free Trade
Even it were, should we do it the vast majority of the benefits flow to businesses and their wealthy shareholders.
link
Let's not forget the environmental impact, and the exploitation of humans across the planet.
Baby steps....doesn't matter a whole lot if I don't have a point of agreement. If he's ok with giving away our IP rights and to some extent our sovereignty there's really no point in going down the rabbit hole any further....I'll agree to disagree and move on. Giving that sort of stuff up is a non starter for me.....especially when doing so just means I get to get more cheap stuff from other places. I'm looking for ways to support American made products. I'm not looking for access to more crap from China or from some third world sweatshop country.
The second and third ones here are decent but kind of hard to really predict. The first one, however, is very much real and important. It's something I see constantly. I don't think people realize how much an administration shapes these sort of day to day decisions that affect people's lives. If Clinton wins, I'm confident the people doing those jobs will be good people dedicated to public service, likely idealistic and sharing many of the priorities of Sanders voters.
Look, I'm voting for her, but
on the bolded. Assuming, of course, that her time in office will strongly resemble her husband's two terms, which I do.
Just for the record the most important aspect for me is being able to sell our stuff, not to buy their stuff (though that is a plus).
That sounds pollyanna-ish but there's going to be much more pressure on her from the liberal side of the Party than there was when Bill was President. Think about who they each beat in their primary - Bill over Tsongas and Hillary over Bernie. If she wants to hold her Party together (and win re-election) she will need to bring in people who supported Bernie. In true Clinton fashion I expect a 'you rub my back (get me re-elected) and I'll rub yours (help elect a Progressive in 2024)'.Coeur de Lion said:Look, I'm voting for her, but
Seems like some serious wishful thinking. Not saying that Hillary is not likily to win, but that is some pretty thin logic.
I am down with fair trade. NAFTA wasn't that. TPP isn't that. NAFTA is part of the reason its been easy to suppress wages despite massive productivity gains. Alleged "Free Trade" has been good for a few at the expense of the many. TPP will be that on steroids.cstu said:
The first of the bolded is a pretty big assumption. The second is laughable - that remaining 22 percent is just as (if not actually more) likely to stay home than vote for HRC. Stop watching MSNBC.
My economic beliefs are pretty simple:
I think that is the point of what tim was posting. They will stay at home or vote for Hillary, but no chance of voting for Trump.
Plouffe had 2008 and 12 nailed internally for Obama and has access to the same type of information this time around. When he says that's Trump ceiling, he's basing it on what he sees internally which is at least marginally different than public polls. The Obama people were spot on last time around and at this point there's no reason to suggest they aren't as well.
You've written that before. 538 has Hillary at 55.7, and Trump at 44.2. It's not over.
No, it's not. But how bout we wait until the polls start rolling in a few days with the reactions to the debate?
Technically there's still an election to be had and technically the Browns can still win their division.
