Support NeoGAF

[darkace]

Likely the biggest impact will be a fall in our influence in the Asia-Pacific region and the collapse of future multi-lateral trade talks. Export industries to the US will be hurt depending on how the tariffs work. If its included on services we might be hurt very badly.

This goes back to the 60s at least. They've voted like that since - now even more so than ever! I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said here, but how can democrats do anything about people that vote for the party that fucks them over and over again? In a post facts world what can they do?

They need to stop focusing on traditionally Democratic areas. These people don't want redistribution, higher taxes on the wealthy or any of that stuff. They may even have to cede on some racist policies to make gains in the long-run.

They won't ever win these areas big, but they can swing enough undecideds to allow long-term policies a leg up and start reducing racial tensions.

 

[bomma_man]

Likely the biggest impact will be a fall in our influence in the Asia-Pacific region and the collapse of future multi-lateral trade talks. Export industries to the US will be hurt depending on how the tariffs work. If its included on services we might be hurt very badly.

I doubt it. No one cares about service jobs, just chasing that manufacturing dragon...

 

[Elaugaufein]

I doubt it. No one cares about service jobs, just chasing that manufacturing dragon...

Yeah, and the US agricultural sector is already extremely protected, we aren't competing their own Price already.

Resources will be interesting but the US was already producing more than it could use in a lot of our exports which is why we were so Asia focused.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Likely the biggest impact will be a fall in our influence in the Asia-Pacific region and the collapse of future multi-lateral trade talks. Export industries to the US will be hurt depending on how the tariffs work. If its included on services we might be hurt very badly.



They need to stop focusing on traditionally Democratic areas. These people don't want redistribution, higher taxes on the wealthy or any of that stuff. They may even have to cede on some racist policies to make gains in the long-run.

They won't ever win these areas big, but they can swing enough undecideds to allow long-term policies a leg up and start reducing racial tensions.

They do want that stuff. They just want it dressed up in the Protestant work ethic. What they want is jobs (ie money moved from the wealthy to them), and the manufacturing and coal / oil jobs are gone and not coming back unless they nuke their economy below the 3rd World. This is one of those areas where fixing public infrastructure could be a winner. That or your make your welfare program inefficient by paying people to effectively dig and fill in holes or channel it through the private sector who are going to take their pound of flesh. Though the US already does both the former things with their fucked up defense spending, building things no one wants wirh the private sector taking a cut.

 

[bomma_man]

I've been saying this in another thread but if democrats work to make people's current situations better through stronger labour laws and higher wages the reason for nostalgia disappears. There is nothing inherently attractive about mining or working on a manufacturing line that does not come back to benefits, pay and security. Easier said than done of course.

 

[bomma_man]

Gotta say I'm fucking relieved to be Australian this year, although I'm worried that our immigration policy might become our biggest export.

 

[Jintor]

Gotta say I'm fucking relieved to be Australian this year, although I'm worried that our immigration policy might become our biggest export.

Christ

 

[Quasar]

Gotta say I'm fucking relieved to be Australian this year, although I'm worried that our immigration policy might become our biggest export.

I figured before this it might get some traction in Europe anyway. But yeah, this will make it worse.

Probably emboldens Cory, Christensen and the rest of the extreme right in the lnp too.

 

[darkace]

so trump huh

Fuck this is so surreal.

 

[Arksy]

Yeah I heard there was an election in a foreign country, and someone won.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

So how do Labor/LNP learn from Trump winning?

 

[Arksy]

So how do Labor/LNP learn from Trump winning?

They don't, we have mandatory voting, preferential voting and parliamentary responsibility. (=PM is an MP).

 

[darkace]

So how do Labor/LNP learn from Trump winning?

Globalisation has consequences that can't be ignored or they will fuck your shit up.

 

[Elaugaufein]

They don't, we have mandatory voting, preferential voting and parliamentary responsibility. (=PM is an MP).

I so hope you're right on this.

Globalisation has consequences that can't be ignored or they will fuck your shit up.

I don't think anyone has ever said that Globalization has no consequences. The problem is generally failing to sell the good and appropriately manage the bad. People just don't measure how well off they were by reference to the global median, or 30 years ago, like political scientists or economists do, they measure it relative to the most well off today.

 

[Quasar]

So how do Labor/LNP learn from Trump winning?

That it's worth courting hansonites and their insane policies next election.

 

[Arksy]

I so hope you're right on this.

We just had an election, where the same sentiment that lead to uprisings that saw a government toppled in the UK, a populist president elected in the US managed to what? See a couple of senators elected? Great whopping victory guys.

 

[Elaugaufein]

That it's worth courting hansonites and their insane policies next election.

I'm not sure if it is.

Those people are already ultimately Coalition voters (mandatory + prefernece) they have little to gain by wooing them (especially since Hanson has proved her block is ready to be effective LNP members on policy so far).

The Nationals will probably be forced into courting them though, their political power is dependent on being able to return rural seats time and time again, if they end up reduced to One Nations size the Coalition agreement is going to get veeery shakey. But that was going to happen anyway.

Labor might benefit from wooing them, but risks bleeding from their left if they got that way (I'm sure there's polling and focus groups being done to assess if its a net win) and there's definitely State and Federal seats they can lose to the Greens if they miscalculate or the distribution of the votes doesn't benefit from them (+5 to Labor in Maranoa and -3 in Melbourne Ports loses them a seat despite being a net win). .

We just had an election, where the same sentiment that lead to uprisings that saw a government toppled in the UK, a populist president elected in the US managed to what? See a couple of senators elected? Great whopping victory guys.

Oh sorry. I didn't mean you were wrong about its effect on our system, I agree with you there. Electoral systems that disenfranchise voters are bollocks and ultimately blow up in someones face. I meant I hope our political parties don't decide to run with some Trumpian policies after seeing his success.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Email from the Australian Greens:

[email subject:]We know how you feel

Share hope, not fear.

Dear Alan,

Like many of you, I’ve been glued to the news today coming out of the United States. And I am gutted by the result.

What we’ve seen tonight in the United States presidential election is shocking and disappointing. An American President has been elected on a platform of racism, xenophobia, sexism and nationalism.

Like you, I am shocked and disappointed by the result.

What this result demonstrates, more than anything, is the need for a voice of reason in a post-Brexit, post-Hanson and post-Trump world. A voice that stands with asylum seekers, values equality and supports vulnerable communities.

Together, we are that voice, standing side-by-side in these extraordinary times.

During moments like this, I’m comforted by reflecting on the difference we’ve made right around Australia over the past 30 years of Greens in Parliament. I choose to look to the future in hope, not fear.

SHARE HOPE, NOT FEAR

I’m as devastated as you are with the US result. But now is the time to stand together, ensuring nothing like Trump ever surfaces in Australia.

Richard Di Natale
Australian Greens Leader

 

[Arksy]

Ah, misunderstood you. My bad.

I don't think they will, other electoral systems spend a great deal of effort motivating their core. They don't need to do that here, instead...they have to play to swing voters...that exceptionally large group of Australians that swing between Labour and Liberal and are therefore unlikely to be courted by pushing too hard in a single direction. Australia is exceptionally centrist in that regard.

 

[JC Sera]

the only silver lining I can see from this is that the TPP will probably be trashed

Spoiler

unless Trump flip flops, but he's never been known to do that

 

[darkace]

I don't think anyone has ever said that Globalization has no consequences. The problem is generally failing to sell the good and appropriately manage the bad.

This is what they failed at. It's what we just discussed above. Non-college educated whites are worse off than their parents by practically any metric. Rust-belt voters especially.

the only silver lining I can see from this is that the TPP will probably be trashed

The TPP was the best thing for Australia to come out of the Obama presidency.

Also this is an article properly enunciating what I was trying to say before: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

 

[JC Sera]

This is what they failed at. It's what we just discussed above. Non-college educated whites are worse off than their parents by practically any metric. Rust-belt voters especially.



The TPP was the best thing for Australia to come out of the Obama presidency.

Also this is an article properly enunciating what I was trying to say before: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

extending pharmaceutical patents (which we had to negotiate down from 12 to 8 years)? best thing for Australia?

lol

 

[darkace]

extending pharmaceutical patents (which we had to negotiate down from 12 to 8 years)? best thing for Australia?

lol

tpp doesn't change pharmaceutical patents in australia

 

[Elaugaufein]

This is what they failed at. It's what we just discussed above. Non-college educated whites are worse off than their parents by practically any metric. Rust-belt voters especially.



The TPP was the best thing for Australia to come out of the Obama presidency.

Also this is an article properly enunciating what I was trying to say before: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

The AUSUS FTA turned out to be somewhere between neutral and mildly detrimental to us economically (not even counting the social negatives of basically enshrining significant portions of the USs problematic IP laws). Our trade negotiators are pretty hopeless against the US..

tpp doesn't change pharmaceutical patents in australia

Not for lack of desire too.

 

[bomma_man]

Obama will probably force tpp through in lame duck, fuck knows what congress will do though.

Edit: the new congress

 

[Elaugaufein]

Obama will probably force tpp through in lame duck, fuck knows what congress will do though.

Edit: the new congress

Obama's got a hostile Senate. His ability to force through the TPP depends entirely of if a bunch of pro-corporate Republicans are willing to cross their president-elect to ram it through. Considering they wouldn't even let Obama nominate a conservative Supreme Court Justice I wouldn't bet on it. But who knows. The rules are broken and convention lies shattered on the floor.

 

[bomma_man]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-donald-trump?mbid=social_facebook

 

[darkace]

The AUSUS FTA turned out to be somewhere between neutral and mildly detrimental to us economically (not even counting the social negatives of basically enshrining significant portions of the USs problematic IP laws). Our trade negotiators are pretty hopeless against the US..

We have a much smaller market. It's not our negotiators, we just lack leverage.

And recent FTA's are more about standardising regulations so we don't lose from trade divergence effects.

Not for lack of desire too.

Talking about hypotheticals isn't really useful when we have the actual agreement in front of us.

 

[Elaugaufein]

We have a much smaller market. It's not our negotiators, we just lack leverage.

And recent FTA's are more about standardising regulations so we don't lose from trade divergence effects.



Talking about hypotheticals isn't really useful when we have the actual agreement in front of us.

Sadly that "standardization" is usually in the direction most favorable to corporations, consumer protections go down, corporate protection goes up. That's another reason to be skeptical of them.

That FTAs are often used to put in things favorable to Multi-Nationals and that they actively try to do so (even if they (rarely) get knocked backed) is worth talking about, if we're discussing why I, at least, continue to be skeptical of them.


ETA -

Also we continue to be the words mirror politically. Rising tide of Nationalism the western world over = 4 Senators here. Conservative politics tightening its grip in the UK/US and parts of EU, diving in the polls here. We are a very strange country.

 

[Shandy]

I'll give Malcolm a BJ - and swallow! - if he pledges not to get wrapped up in Trump folly.

and the manufacturing and coal / oil jobs are gone and not coming back unless they nuke their economy below the 3rd World.

They'll be saluting the "Made in USA" stamped on their goods before realising they can no longer afford them because they are now the poor people in a poor country working 16 hour days for meagre amounts of money.

What a shitshow...

 

[darkace]

Sadly that "standardization" is usually in the direction most favorable to corporations, consumer protections go down, corporate protection goes up. That's another reason to be skeptical of them.

Such as? The TPP legalises independent labour unions in Malaysia and Vietnam for the first time, as well as puts in place basic labour and environmental protections.

That FTAs are often used to put in things favorable to Multi-Nationals and that they actively try to do so (even if they (rarely) get knocked backed) is worth talking about, if we're discussing why I, at least, continue to be skeptical of them.

Such as? What's favourable to multi-nationals here? Leaked documents from the industry show they hate the TPP.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Such as? The TPP legalises independent labour unions in Malaysia and Vietnam for the first time, as well as puts in place basic labour and environmental protections.



Such as? What's favourable to multi-nationals here? Leaked documents from the industry show they hate the TPP.

Sorry, the first one was a general observation, not specific to the TPP.

Which industry ? I'm guessing you mean Pharmaceutical since they didn't get everything they wanted here.

Just going to go through an area I'm interested in:

The IP Chapter allows a copyright owner to prevent parallel imports, extends Copyright lifetime to a minimum of 70 years and makes requires it to be illegal to circumvent IP protections even if its otherwise legal to do so. And requires explicit authorization for any reproduction including temporary copies, which prevents format shifting or use on unauthorized Operating Systems.

That's a big win for those industries and a massive blow to digital preservation (its never possible to preserve something digitally protected legally and even if it was 70 years is *massively* after the technology capability to do so will be anywhere in common use for most digital goods ) and consumer rights generally with regard to temporary copies, format shifting and parallel importation.

Patents are extended to include additional uses of a product, even if those uses don't actually do anything for the actual utility of the product. Which means that evergreening patents gets a significant boost too.

 

[darkace]

Which industry ? I'm guessing you mean Pharmaceutical since they didn't get everything they wanted here.

Yep, pharma.

The IP Chapter allows a copyright owner to prevent parallel imports

The TPP allows countries to set their own standards here. If we don't want it then we don't need to implement harsh parallel import restrictions here.

extends Copyright lifetime to a minimum of 70 years and makes requires it to be illegal to circumvent IP protections even if its otherwise legal to do so.

The first is a requirement that could be better negotiated, while the second has a whole host of allowable exceptions if the host nation wishes so.

And requires explicit authorization for any reproduction including temporary copies, which prevents format shifting or use on unauthorized Operating Systems.

Again enforcement is up to the host nation.

We don't have to change our laws at all in response to the TPP.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Yep, pharma.



The TPP allows countries to set their own standards here. If we don't want it then we don't need to implement harsh parallel import restrictions here.



The first is a requirement that could be better negotiated, while the second has a whole host of allowable exceptions if the host nation wishes so.



Again enforcement is up to the host nation.

We don't have to change our laws at all in response to the TPP.

Unless you're a country like the US where treaties explicitly have force of law enforcement is necessarily up to the host nation (and even where treaties do explicitly have the force of law enforcement is still up to the host nations executive), but signing up to a treaty generally implies that you're intending to enforce its provision.

 

[darkace]

Unless you're a country like the US where treaties explicitly have force of law enforcement is necessarily up to the host nation (and even where treaties do explicitly have the force of law enforcement is still up to the host nations executive), but signing up to a treaty generally implies that you're intending to enforce its provision.

We will enforce the provisions. The provisions allow us to enforce them as we see fit.

 

[Elaugaufein]

We will enforce the provisions. The provisions allow us to enforce them as we see fit.

I'm going to admit to being confused here:

What possible use is a provision that says

A country may or may not allow the owner of an IP / Patent to prevent parallel import ?

That's the default state without any such treaty (subject to other treaties).

I'm trying to find an up to date copy of the TPP so I can go over the current version of that section again (which may have changed since last time I read it) but not having much luck

 

[darkace]

I'm going to admit to being confused here:

What possible use is a provision that says

A country may or may not allow the owner of an IP / Patent to prevent parallel import ?

It provides a baseline that we then must meet. How exactly we meet this and whether or not we pursue more aggressive forms of copyright enforcement is up to us. Our current laws already meet it.

I'm trying to find an up to date copy of the TPP so I can go over the current version of that section again (which may have changed since last time I read it) but not having much luck

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

 

[Dryk]

but signing up to a treaty generally implies that you're intending to enforce its provision.

Maybe not enforcing the provisions of treaties can be our second major industry

Our trade negotiators are pretty hopeless against the US.

There's an understatement

 

[bobnowhere]

Brandis has walked back his direction that he is the gatekeeper to the Solicitor General to avoid the embarrassment of having it torn up by the Senate (ALP, GRN and NXT). He'll might still get censured though it seems like NXT won't push that.



Malcolm Roberts doing his best to warn people that Spring time is when the snakes wake up and go looking for a mate.

 

[Jintor]

I'm still wondering if our mandatory voting system is one of the things that keeps things centrist. It seems like every time I hear about massive Dem losses the problem is 'didn't engage the base enough'

obviously, forcing the base out to vote with $40 fines or whatever isn't the best-looking solution, but it seems to keep things roughly equivalent.

Of course american has its own heap of gerrymandering voter-ID garbage problems as well...

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'm still wondering if our mandatory voting system is one of the things that keeps things centrist. It seems like every time I hear about massive Dem losses the problem is 'didn't engage the base enough'

obviously, forcing the base out to vote with $40 fines or whatever isn't the best-looking solution, but it seems to keep things roughly equivalent.

Of course american has its own heap of gerrymandering voter-ID garbage problems as well...

In the American context it'd likely have an effect similar to the UK / Canada; the base would give you a middle finger eventually* and vote third party and you'd end up with people winning FPTP contests where most people in those seats wouldn't elect them except for the split vote or the most upset members of the base would stage a semi-hostile take over like happened with UK Labor.

It's the Alternate Vote + Compulsory voting that keep things working in Australia. People can express their displeasure and desire for other policies without needing to nuke the system.

The Senate is likely a big help too there, honestly, because it means that people can get actual representation approximately in proportion to their support which bleeds off steam and demonstrates the lack of "silent majorities".

*The idea that the base is more likely to take being screwed over by their party then the "centre" is just weird. The base actually has an idea of what they want. The center keeps switching between two mutually exclusive options because they vote on what they perceive as best right now.

 

[Elaugaufein]

darkace got banned again I see. Looks like he was a little to careless in one of the US election results / consequences threads. Who am I going to argue with now ?

 

[Jintor]

i like darkace but man dude gets banned a lot

 

[Arksy]

It's a shame, I hope it's not permanent. The moderation policies here make it incredibly difficult for anyone with a differing viewpoint to engage in actual debate.

 

[Jintor]

It's a shame, I hope it's not permanent. The moderation policies here make it incredibly difficult for anyone with a differing viewpoint to engage in actual debate.

there's a thread going in offtopic about that, but on the whole I don't think that's true. I do think generally moderation is a bit lighter on leftist/liberal drivebys than right drivebyes though

 

[Shandy]

I think darkace is nice to have around, just to keep my filthy leftist in check. You know, he generally does explain his opinion and provide sources. And I can respect that.

Discourse is pretty woeful. I mean, if the reaction to someone saying "I don't feel comfortable with abortion because I view that tiny glob of cells as a human life." is going to be "You don't care about them after they're born and also why do you hate women?", then nothing is going to be achieved. And that's an "easy" issue as an example, because you don't even have to convince someone to like abortion, just to let women make their own decision. Most issues are a more complex than that. There's a tendency for one side to near immediately put words in someone's mouth and for the other side to just drop a bomb and shrug when people call them out on it. It's not just on GAF, either, it's everywhere.

Tangentially related, there was a story I read on ABC News a year or two ago. Maybe it was an opinion piece, I don't remember. It was about native title. The traditional owners of somewhere I don't remember had been consulted on a mining project on their land and they were okay with it going ahead. And the point of the story was that white progressives loved native title... until it was used in a way they disagreed with. Then it was "Oh those aboriginals working against their own interests." Then the white conservatives who believed they had all the answers and would save the black man from himself and the white progressives didn't seem so different. Something changed in me that day. Because I was guilty of that shit too. So, since then, I've done my best to not assume that I know why someone holds the opinion that they do. And I try to not think I know better than them and how much better off they'd be if they'd just educate themselves or let me educate them. And it's shitty and unfair and soul-sucking, but maybe you do have to sit there and let people say awful things like all gays are paedophiles and then you do have to keep your cool and ask why they think that and then you do have to educate them.

tl;dr Twitter ruined debate and darkace should have let people work through their frustrations a bit first but I think he's right.

 

[Elaugaufein]

there's a thread going in offtopic about that, but on the whole I don't think that's true. I do think generally moderation is a bit lighter on leftist/liberal drivebys than right drivebyes though

It's not just drivebys. It's not absolute or anything, it's just that disagreement with GAF consensus significantly increases your ban chance / decreases how forceful you can be in your posts without getting banned even if you don't get banned you're going to end up getting dogpiled by like 75% of the most active posters in the thread too. It's way more noticeable with drivebys though since they tend to be more forceful. Controversial political threads are conservative / right libertarian graveyards with the occasional progressive who went over the line getting banned too.

 

[D.Lo]

there's a thread going in offtopic about that, but on the whole I don't think that's true. I do think generally moderation is a bit lighter on leftist/liberal drivebys than right drivebyes though

I do, there were bloodbaths in the primary threads for Bernie supporters.

It's not left/right, it's any break from a mainstream lib-left consensus.

Edit: I should say not necessarily just with bans. Massive dogpiling is the main thing.

And right now the mainstream lib-left consensus just got annihilated by their arch enemy, an outsider right popularist, so they have some pain to work through right now, so it's not the time to stoke that fire.

 

[JC Sera]

As much as darkace rubs me the wrong way sometimes they definitely aren't a drive by poster and do usually put the effort in behind their posts

also I've seen people get away with a lot worse in some of the gaming community threads than what darkace got banned for :T

also http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

seems like Trump is sticking to this gun

 

[Elaugaufein]

As much as darkace rubs me the wrong way sometimes they definitely aren't a drive by poster and do usually put the effort in behind their posts

also I've seen people get away with a lot worse in some of the gaming community threads than what darkace got banned for :T

also http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

seems like Trump is sticking to this gun

I wonder how that works. Can the President unilaterally withdraw from a Senate ratified treaty ? That's assuming that Obama can get enough intransigent Dems / Repubs to back it before he leaves office.