Support NeoGAF

[Makai]

Just posted that benji is correct in the politico thread, and this is also kinda the same story: It's embellishment. He can easily defend himself to his supporters with "this was 50 years ago! Do you remember what class you took 50 years ago? Liberal media devils out to get me, I swear".

But, Carson's embellishments are sort of obnoxious and he never corrects them and this will be his downfall, combined with the drip drip drip nature of so many lies embellishments stacking up in the public sphere.

He's expending most of his energy to prove that he used to be Tupac from Juice. His press conference and interviews went terribly. He's done. I can't even imagine a debate performance that saves him.

 

[sangreal]

I'm not pretending to be more knowledgeable, hence I'm asking you questions about the 6000 page agreement that seemed to have riled up opponents of the deal. So you can present why the opponents are fear mongering some of these specific points. Until proof is presented that this is the Gold Standard of trade deals I'd rather be a lot more skeptical about this 6000 page document being fast tracked. To me it appears that the bloated nature of the document and the amount of provisions that would effect both the US and adversely effect third world nations where corruption is rife.

Let me give you an example
- Vietnam tries to pass a law to protect workers and suits are filed from some of the biggest companies in the World who's profits dwarf Vietnamese GDP many times over.

To me TPP seems like a way for corporation gain complete control over smaller nations unable to maintain basic progress for their citizens because it might cut into profit. Sure corporations should be protected from aggressive nationalization of their investments, but that's not the type of suits which are being filed. For example a corrupted political establishment agrees with a deal to line their pockets that has adverse effect on the nations health. New government comes in and tries to reverse policies that were made to create a better "big business climate" and can't even control policies they enact or try to reverse disastrous leases they have made that allowed some corrupted government official to make millions.
If I'm misconstruing the possibilities of TPP, please let me know what provisions protect nations in such instances. It's a pretty specific question and it won't effect the US as much as it would effect smaller nations who can't afford the best representation against a corporate entity which some times employees thousands of lawyers across the World.

Below is an article about the type of suits corporations file against sovereign nations I recommend you read it and tell me what type of this process is advancing humanity rather than corporate profits and policies.

The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries
http://www.theguardian.com/business...stem-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid

As that article makes clear, ISDS is not new. NAFTA, for example, has the same provision

 

[Bowdz]

Foreign Policy has a very lengthy piece up following Hillary as secretary of state, accompanied by analysis of her actions as well as supplementary information of the various opinions on the table.

The Hillary Clinton Doctrine.

Warning, it is a very long article (probably the amount of words I should be writing for Nano), but quite detailed and not particularly slanted.

Only downside is that there's not much free access to FP. After reading that one article apparently I am unable to read other articles.


Ironically, the TPP specifically addresses Vietnam's workers' rights.

There is disagreement about how effectual those labor rights provisions in the agreement will be. That can be disputed.

However, you also lack the understanding of ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) and how effective they actually are for corporations. The answer is that they are actually not all that successful for corporations.

Notably, the tobacco companies were so odious to Australia that tobacco companies are explicitly excluded from being able to make an ISDS case altogether under the TPP.


I think unquestionably there are going to be aspects of the trade agreement that are bad for consumers, such as the pharmaceutical-related portions. Screaming 'corporate control', however, is just an easy, populist way to garner opposition against something that the layman (both you and me) lack significant understanding of.

Dramatis, I feel like you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Great posts bro.

 

[And_Gignac]

Politico is center-right. This is known.

And TPP, like most free trades, will fuck over the impoverished people of the minor economies signing it. Just like NAFTA basically created the conditions for the current level of narco-crisis Mexico has. But as long as urban, wealthy middle classers are richer hehe!

 

[Makai]

Politico is center-right. This is known.

And TPP, like most free trades, will fuck over the impoverished people of the minor economies signing it. Just like NAFTA basically created the conditions for the current level of narco-crisis Mexico has. But as long as urban, wealthy middle classers are richer hehe!

Huh?

 

[ucdawg12]

I feel like the discussion on TPP is governed by fear and bias confirmation rather than rationality. It's startling to see people fall into the exact patterns that hardcore right wing voters do.

It's also distinctly unpleasant, because you would like to think 'your side' is usually more reasonable about this.

How can one ever know whose rationality to trust? There will be rationality on both sides and there will be emotion on both sides. It's big, complex and seemingly permanent if ratified. And who knows what happens then? No one on either side can be entirely certain of that no matter how rational they are. And all this is mixed with the sense of urgency around it (it would take quite a lot of effort to resolve people's fears before the matter is resolved one way or the other, and it is hard to believe an effective effort will be made). People are people and they will be afraid. No "side" is above fear. Net neutrality is a very important issue and there is a ton of fear involved in that as well. The Democratic primary involves a lot of fear of losing the Supreme Court.

 

[noshten]

Ironically, the TPP specifically addresses Vietnam's workers' rights.

There is disagreement about how effectual those labor rights provisions in the agreement will be. That can be disputed.

However, you also lack the understanding of ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) and how effective they actually are for corporations. The answer is that they are actually not all that successful for corporations.

Notably, the tobacco companies were so odious to Australia that tobacco companies are explicitly excluded from being able to make an ISDS case altogether under the TPP.

I think unquestionably there are going to be aspects of the trade agreement that are bad for consumers, such as the pharmaceutical-related portions. Screaming 'corporate control', however, is just an easy, populist way to garner opposition against something that the layman (both you and me) lack significant understanding of.

From the article you've given

The organization where Mr. Malinowski formerly worked, Human Rights Watch, is among the skeptics who say Vietnam’s commitments are unenforceable, especially given the track record of the United States trade office. John Sifton, the group’s Asia advocacy director, said workers should have been given the same right that corporations have under this trade agreement and others: to take complaints about a country’s compliance directly to a dispute settlement panel.

“Are trade unionists who actually produce all the capital that we’re talking about here allowed to bring complaints against a country for violations?” he asked. “No, of course not.”

How effective are the disputes for corporations up until this point is beyond what I'm talking about. There is concrete proof that judicial processes that in some cases have taken several years, impede the policies countries have put in place.
Such as the example of South Africa, where they incurred 5 million in legal costs and in the end it was a net gain for corporate interests.

Tobacco companies are not the only with odious and frivolous suits being filed, it's naive to look at it that way. If TPP was really a step forward it would be protecting humanitarian interests in court and actively looking to allow people to reverse decisions by corrupt politicians and corporations. Right now they have excluded one industry but have failed to address the environmental and health impact - pandering pretty much to a suit Oliver brought up and highlighted an year ago. Like I've said you cannot compare small nation's capability to legally defend themselves from corporate interests. This 6000 page document fails to address the root cause of the problem and would only exponentially grow it as big corporations will move more business into nations that sign into the TPP and stop any meaningful attempt to curb pollution, climate change, health problems etc.
Lets say 100 corporations move their factories to a nation and a few years later they all file legal challenges due to policy being changed requiring stricter environmental control. They state that this law would require millions more than what they originally signed up for. Suddenly 5 millions of legal costs South Africa incurred from one suit seems like nothing compared to potential far larger sums of money that frankly third world countries don't have.

To me if you want a Trade deal that would govern 40 percent of the world’s economy and includes some of the biggest Human Rights violators it also needs to push humanitarian agenda to be a good deal - anything else is a half measure providing more control to corporations that already well represented.

 

[And_Gignac]

Huh?

It killed the rural communities since they couldnt compete with the agricultural products of the US and Canada. Since we all live in the capitalistic paradigma, these communities still needed money to survive, so plenty of them fell prey to the narco cartels. But I guess is their fault for not adjusting to the market needs. The invisible hand always wins.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It killed the rural communities since they couldnt compete with the agricultural products of the US and Canada. Since we all live in the capitalistic paradigma, these communities still needed money to survive, so plenty of them fell prey to the narco cartels. But I guess is their fault for not adjusting to the market needs. The invisible hand always wins.

This completely ignores the history of Mexico and drugs before NAFTA.

 

[Manmademan]

It killed the rural communities since they couldnt compete with the agricultural products of the US and Canada. Since we all live in the capitalistic paradigma, these communities still needed money to survive, so plenty of them fell prey to the narco cartels. But I guess is their fault for not adjusting to the market needs. The invisible hand always wins.

interesting analysis. never thought of the impact of NAFTA that way.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

interesting analysis. never thought of the impact of NAFTA that way.

You gotta back up analysis with some data. Never seen any consensus that NAFTA was the principle contributor to increased drugs.

 

[Tarkus]

This completely ignores the history of Mexico and drugs before NAFTA.

The increase in drug activity was probably more due to the Mexican middlemen capitalizing on the demise of the Colombian cartels (Escobar & Cali) in the 90's than NAFTA.

 

[dramatis]

From the article you've given

How effective are the disputes for corporations up until this point is beyond what I'm talking about. There is concrete proof that judicial processes that in some cases have taken several years, impede the policies countries have put in place.
Such as the example of South Africa, where they incurred 5 million in legal costs and in the end it was a net gain for corporate interests.

Tobacco companies are not the only with odious and frivolous suits being filed, it's naive to look at it that way. If TPP was really a step forward it would be protecting humanitarian interests in court and actively looking to allow people to reverse decisions by corrupt politicians and corporations. Right now they have excluded one industry but have failed to address the environmental and health impact - pandering pretty much to a suit Olive brought up and highlighted an year ago. Like I've said you cannot compare small nation's capability to legally defend themselves from corporate interests. This 6000 page document fails to address the root cause of the problem and would only exponentially grow it as big corporations will move more business into nations that sign into the TPP and stop any meaningful attempt to curb pollution, climate change, health problems etc.
Lets say 100 corporations move their factories to a nation and a few years later they all file legal challenges due to policy being changed requiring stricter environmental control. They state that this law would require millions more than what they originally signed up for. Suddenly 5 millions of legal costs South Africa incurred from one suit seems like nothing compared to potential far larger sums of money that frankly third world countries don't have.

To me if you want a Trade deal that would govern 40 percent of the world’s economy and includes some of the biggest Human Rights violators it also needs to push humanitarian agenda to be a good deal - anything else is a half measure providing more control to corporations that already well represented.

I don't see any links in your claims.

And I specifically noted, after I linked and gave you a chunk of the article, that yes, how effective the provisions for workers' rights in the TPP can be disputed. That's why the NYTimes reported it, because they are reporting the news. That's why I noted it, because I read the articles I link, with the full understanding that there are multiple sides to the issue.

But you fail to address how these corporations actually change good laws and policies in the country they're suing. As noted, an ISDS case cannot change the country's laws; at best they only get fined by the tribunal. These disputes also work outside the normal court order; Australia, for instance, is still in the ISDS case with tobacco suing them, but they've enacted and put into action their tobacco plain packaging act all the same. It's in effect right now, which means an ISDS case is actually unable to halt countries from continuing on with their domestic legislation.

You admitted you haven't read the 6000 page document, you showed that you don't know what ISDS even is, and you still assert you know that "This 6000 page document fails to address the root cause of the problem and would only exponentially grow it as big corporations will move more business into nations that sign into the TPP and stop any meaningful attempt to curb pollution, climate change, health problems etc."?

In your hypothetical situation where 100 corporations move their factories to a nation they would be in high competition with each other. Clearly the demand there is high enough that 100 of them are all jostling to be there, so if they want to stay to vacuum the demand they would update their equipment.

But suppose your nightmare scenario of 100 corporations suing that one country happens. The litigation costs for 100 different corporations would be pretty tremendous. They'd probably either consolidate to one or two corporations, or even wait for one of the other corporations to do most of the litigation first so that they can avoid the costly and long process of ISDS. But the law still has to be followed during this time. So these 100 corporations have to fix up their factories anyway while the dispute is ongoing.

They went to that country to do business and profit. What is there to profit off of if they piss off the country? Ultimately they still have to negotiate with that country and not get 100% of what they want. Your hypothetical situation is not particularly airtight.

 

[sangreal]

Even if you believe ISDS is odious, I don't see why that would be an political issue in the US. The other signatories can decide on their own if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of the deal. They don't need the US to look out for their best interests

 

[noshten]

I don't see any links in your claims.

Sure, TPP Is 'Win-Win'... Unless You Care About Human Rights

The problem, however, is that little of this will have real-world impact. Administration officials, and President Obama himself, repeat the word “enforceable” almost every time they talk about the TPP’s labor provisions. The truth, however, is that the TPP’s labor chapter is not enforceable in practice. And the administration’s broader efforts to use the agreement to leverage improvements in human rights records—in problem countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei—have largely been ineffective.

The situation with Vietnam puts the issues in sharpest relief. The United States has been pressing Vietnam for almost four years to improve its human rights record and labor rights record in particular, using not only the TPP but closer military ties as the leverage. All that the United States has received in response is a few pledges, baby steps, and a handful of political prisoner releases. (If one can call the releases that: One released prisoner was in poor health and died within weeks of his release, two others were only paroled into exile in the United States.)

The Vietnamese government still uses its penal code, which contains provisions criminalizing free speech and freedom of association, to lock up dissidents and critics. More than 150 have been convicted over the last four years, in the same period in which the US was negotiating with Vietnam on the TPP.

Meanwhile, Vietnam’s labor rights record remains abysmal. Independent unions outside the umbrella of the government-controlled Vietnam General Confederation of Labor are forbidden and the act of trying to organize one is punished as a crime against the state. Labor activists such as Nguyen Hoang Quoc Hung and Doan Huy Chuong remain behind bars. And tens of thousands in administrative detention for alleged drug use are forced to work for nothing, or near to nothing. The fact that this forced labor program of supposed “drug treatment” is operated by Vietnam’s labor ministry tells you everything you need to know.

The administration insists that the TPP’s labor chapter will compel Vietnam to improve its labor record, because Hanoi will need to change its laws to allow independent unions—factory-level unions, incidentally, not sectoral unions or federations.

But with neither a functioning and objective labor dispute system, nor an independent judiciary, it is difficult to imagine how these paper reforms would come to reality.

Worse, without additional reforms to the other problematic parts of the legal system, Vietnamese labor organizers will still be vulnerable to prosecution under penal code provisions that criminalize supposed anti-party or anti-government activities—which in the government’s view has included handing out pamphlets or having park picnics at which participants read the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The administration contends that the labor chapter is enforceable, but it’s not evident how. Should the TPP come into effect and Vietnam is still crushing workers’ rights, what will be the remedy? That non-existent unions will use non-existent labor dispute mechanisms to bring worker complaints before Vietnam’s non-existent independent judiciary?

At best, international or U.S. labor rights groups may be able to petition the United States to file a complaint against Vietnam in a trade tribunal, but this would only get to abuses in general, not specific complaints.

What’s lacking in the agreement is specific mechanisms to enforce commitments that governments make on labor rights. Why would Vietnam be compelled to do anything more, once it receives the benefits of TPP membership? The better course of action would be to negotiate an agreement where key benefits are withheld if Vietnam or other countries fail to meet their commitments.

The Obama administration needs to be more realistic in describing what can be accomplished by the TPP. It’s already bad enough to forego human rights protections for the sake of free trade. It’s even worse to attempt to sell the agreement by invoking supposed rights protections when they don’t exist.

The Obama administration needs to press harder on TPP members to improve their rights records—for real. The United States shouldn’t move ahead with the TPP until it can demonstrate more serious commitments to creating truly enforceable provisions on labor rights protections and better addressing human rights concerns generally. In the meantime, Congress should focus more closely at the specifics of the deal and exercise strong oversight. There is no need to rush, and with flaws this big, the stakes are too high.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/12/sure-tpp-win-win-unless-you-care-about-human-rights

So far I've not heard anything about the capability of corporations or nations acting against it's populace's best interests will be addressed by the TPP and thus the deal is just going to provide a platform for repressive regimes to ship cheap goods to the US and other countries. This type of enablement of regimes with so far no actual provisions that protect the citizens beyond possibly going to Hassanal Bolkiah and other dictators and requesting they cut it out.

If there are provisions that show how people can use the TPP to drive forward humanitarian causes rather than corporate profit I'd back it. Since the people that have been drafting this 6000 page documents haven't even hinted at such things beyond excluding Tobacco industry and compelling countries within the TPP to have minim wage and unions.

Even if you believe ISDS is odious, I don't see why that would be an political issue in the US. The other signatories can decide on their own if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of the deal. They don't need the US to look out for their best interests

The humanitarian reason isn't enough for you?

 

[Makai]

I feel like the discussion on TPP is governed by fear and bias confirmation rather than rationality. It's startling to see people fall into the exact patterns that hardcore right wing voters do.

It's also distinctly unpleasant, because you would like to think 'your side' is usually more reasonable about this.

This is just my pet theory:

Sanders and Trump are the only fair traders with a visible presidential campaign in recent memory. Free trade is almost universally supported in America. Fair trade advocacy groups realize they can't convince people with traditional protectionist rhetoric anymore, so they challenge scary-sounding provisions instead. Those provisions become a motivating force for a diverse group of politically-minded people.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Politico is center-right. This is known.

And TPP, like most free trades, will fuck over the impoverished people of the minor economies signing it. Just like NAFTA basically created the conditions for the current level of narco-crisis Mexico has. But as long as urban, wealthy middle classers are richer hehe!

I find that Politico pushes the horse race more than anything and likes to give even time to both sides. They don't challenge the Republicans on their lunacy, which in effect does make them center-right even without trying.

Btw, wealthy middle classers is an oxymoron.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Even if you believe ISDS is odious, I don't see why that would be an political issue in the US. The other signatories can decide on their own if the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of the deal. They don't need the US to look out for their best interests

Exactly. The other TPP signatories are making a calculated gamble by signing onto this agreement. It's all about geopolitics - pulling closer to the US when China is becoming increasingly aggressive and militaristic (and experiencing a slowdown in growth). From a US Citizen's position, the extension of copyrights to other nations literally has no effect on one's everyday life and the ISDS has never once been successful against the US Government. So I'm not really sure what the downside is to TPP from our perspective. I think most of it is just fear of more offshoring, but will that really happen under this treaty? I feel like any company that could offshore has done it already...

 

[PantherLotus]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...omage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[User 463088]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...omage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

I mean....I'm not surprised. I'm disgusted, but not surprised.

 

[Abinash117]

How many people read some of the pages? It seems some people just taking info from certain websites and getting scared .

 

[User 406]

"Ben, Ben, my son, it's time to stop."

"I believe that you want the guy behind the other podium."

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...omage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

Yup, that's completely normal.

Christ.

 

[Konka]

Yup, that's completely normal.

Christ.

Yep, that's Christ.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...omage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

I'm amazed that these are real. Truly amazed.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...omage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

Hmm. Looks like Dr. Carson and Jesus Christ are the same color.

Black Jesus confirmed.

 

[Tarkus]

That doesn't look like Kanye.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hmm. Looks like Dr. Carson and Jesus Christ are the same color.

Black Jesus confirmed.

Carson expressing the belief that Jesus is black would sink him faster than any other statement would in the GOP primary.

 

[Konka]

Has anyone read The Art of the Deal?

 

[Big Green Anus]

What's the difference between Hillary's Health Care Plan and Affordable Care Act?

My parents makes around $70,000(in total) in their household and are not eligible for Obamacare since they don't make less than $40,000.

 

[ICKE]

PAC Offering $5000 to Heckle Donald Trump During ‘SNL

*The Deport Racism PAC says it will pay $5,000 to anyone on the set or in the studio audience of this weekend’s “Saturday Night Live” who can be heard on camera shouting “Deport racism” or “Trump is a racist” during the live broadcast.

Read more at http://www.eurweb.com/2015/11/pac-o...-donald-trump-during-snl/#ecpxFqRGZfsv0Bom.99

This is apparently the same group that was responsible for creating that cringe worthy video with young children shouting obscenities. Knowing Trump, he will probably come out and state that everyone should scream "racist" so that they can all split the pot and buy some Mexican food.

 

[Tarkus]

Has anyone read The Art of the Deal?

Not yet but I plan to. Just picked up Crippled America for my aunt's birthday. I'll read that one after she's done with it.

 

[Konka]

What's the difference between Hillary's Health Care Plan and Affordable Care Act?

My parents makes around $70,000-80,000(in total) in their household and are not eligible for Obamacare since they don't make less than $40,000. Their insurance is going up by close to $300 dollars due to the Affordable Care Act and it's really troubling them due to other bills.

I remember hearing someone on here or another site that Hillary's plan is "Obamacare on Steroids", but I'm not sure what that means. Any advice? I'm really worried

I'm willing to bet you $40 that the price increase is not due to the Affordable Care Act.

 

[Makai]

Chris Christie: Debate change isn't a 'demotion' but a 'transfer'

 

[Big Green Anus]

I'm willing to bet you $40 that the price increase is not due to the Affordable Care Act.

I just assumed it was. It does not make since for the price to up THAT high.

 

[Joey Fox]

Has anyone read The Art of the Deal?

I read it. Interesting book that doesn't really teach you how to make deals per se. Wollman Ice Rink stuff seems most relevant to his Presidential run.

 

[FiggyCal]

Not yet but I plan to. Just picked up Crippled America for my aunt's birthday. I'll read that one after she's done with it.

I was thinking of picking it up too. Is your aunt a genuine fan or was it an ironic gift?

 

[Cerium]

Hillary calls for federal reclassification of marijuana.

Threadworthy?

 

[Makai]

threadworthy

 

[B-Dubs]

I read it. Interesting book that doesn't really teach you how to make deals per se. Wollman Ice Rink stuff seems most relevant to his Presidential run.

I'd be shocked if it did teach anyone how to make a deal.

 

[Cerium]

threadworthy

Well I can't do it. :X

 

[Makai]

Well I can't do it. :X

ok, i will.

 

[Konka]

I just assumed it was. It does not make since for the price to up THAT high.

What is their insurance? Do they have it through work or have they purchased it off the exchange?

 

[Bowdz]

I didn't know Carson was friends with the Klingon Warlord Kahless.

 

[Makai]

Well I can't do it. :X

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1136759

 

[Daniel B·]

The televised MSNBC Democratic Forum, in Southern Carolina (almost full Vimeo video, with Bernie's section starting at 25:44) was an unexpected surprise (until that GAF [thread=1136414]thread[/thread], I hadn't even heard of it; didn't watch it live as was going to see Spectre - a quite stylish 7/10).

I could start with, "Fuck me! Why isn't this guy [Bernie] President already?", but, that would be too predictable (for me), so I will actually start with: despite his light hearted response to Rachel Maddow's "What is the biggest public misconcepion about you?" question, he did, in part, look grumpy and a little too serious, but only if you didn't see the complete segment, as overall, he totally manages to dispell that misconception. However, some might only get to see snippets of him, so he might want to work on that.

On the gun question, he did fine, but I thought he could have explained his Amtrak vote better. His position, which is perfectly reasonable, in a nation that allows gun ownership, is that you are permitted to transport a gun, on an Amtrak train, in your "checked-in" baggage, unloaded, and in a locked gun case, therefore denying you access, during your journey. This would, for example, allow someone to travel to an, otherwise unreachable, shooting tournament, which as far as I know, is still a respected Olympic sport. For full details on the Amtrak regulations, see here.

Taken as a whole, I thought Hillary's performance was o.k. (better than her wooden speech at the Democratic dinner, although, hardly great), but, as pointed out in the thread, I can't believe she drove right into the gaping Wall Street pot hole, by essentialy repeating her debate response, on her being too close to Wall Street:

I went to Wall Street. I went to the NASDAQ, in December of 2007, and basically said, "You guys have to stop it!"

Bernie's response to the "Dream job, that you would like to have right now, If you couldn't be a politician", was epic:

President of CNN [Hearty laughter and applause from audience]. And, if I was president of CNN, trust me, the way media deals with politics would radically change.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Trump is a "fair trader" now? I'm quite certain Trump gives no fucks about foreign workers rights, or the impact of offshoring and outsourcing.

But opposing trade deals does appeal well to people's base fears. Whether or not those fears are justified or not is another issue. Full disclosure, I've only read some analysis of the trade deal, not the actual 6000 pages. Because it's 6000 pages.

I'd say dramatis is right in that this is one of the issues (some others include vaccines, genetic engineering, nuclear power, immigration, financial systems) where people who are normally of the "rational left" can throw that rationality away for confirmation bias.

 

[Makai]

Trump is a "fair trader" now? I'm quite certain Trump gives no fucks about foreign workers rights, or the impact of offshoring and outsourcing.

But opposing trade deals does appeal well to people's base fears. Whether or not those fears are justified or not is another issue. Full disclosure, I've only read some analysis of the trade deal, not the actual 6000 pages. Because it's 6000 pages.

I'd say dramatis is right in that this is one of the issues (some others include vaccines, genetic engineering, nuclear power, immigration, financial systems) where people who are normally of the "rational left" can throw that rationality away for confirmation bias.

"Listen you motherfuckers, we're going to tax you 25%"

 

[Plinko]

I will again predict that these lies coming to light will only unite republicans behind Carson and he'll take the lead because of "Liberal media conspiracy."

 

[Manmademan]

I will again predict that these lies coming to light will only unite republicans behind Carson and he'll take the lead because of "Liberal media conspiracy."

Evangelicals? sure. Everyone else I'm not so sure.