Hillary Busted in Yet Another Lie

[TNHarley]

Obama supported the Afghanistan war. What lies were said about that war Einstein?

my question is not whether obama supported it at the time BUT if not for bush and repubs would we be there at all?? I say no I say you republicans are cowards that can't admit to the horrible mistakes you made

history didn't start in 2000. You partisan hacks are fuckin pathetic.

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

and yes there was talk ,,,,bush wanted it and his israeli kiss assers wanted it too,,,,,,they got it alright
one of those be careful what you wish for it might come true moments

So did the Democrats. Fact is, ALOT of people wanted it. Everything is partisan bullshit.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

my question is not whether obama supported it at the time BUT if not for bush and repubs would we be there at all?? I say no I say you republicans are cowards that can't admit to the horrible mistakes you made

history didn't start in 2000. You partisan hacks are fuckin pathetic.

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

 

[TNHarley]

history didn't start in 2000. You partisan hacks are fuckin pathetic.

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

He called me a republican yesterday, I left them long ago

 

[TNHarley]

The battle over who is more conservative or progressive is fuckin pathetic. Who cares? Just believe in whats right and be done with it..
Whats sad is, the people claiming that are FAR from it.. hell, the only conservative I saw on that debate stage was Paul.. I havent see a progressive yet..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The battle over who is more conservative or progressive is fuckin pathetic. Who cares? Just believe in whats right and be done with it..
Whats sad is, the people claiming that are FAR from it.. hell, the only conservative I saw on that debate stage was Paul.. I didn't see a progressive yet..

I saw something funny earlier about last night's dem debate "Hillary went to the gender card early while Bernie tried to out Prog her LOL

 

[easyt65]

Hillary LIED....AGAIN?

[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/40/95/fc/4095fc068ce7012ee07baf11a8ef3a0f.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/kewmercies/surprised-face/&h=552&w=736&tbnid=JeGuZ9a0owX_NM:&docid=4wIMJELdPTWRzM&hl=en&ei=VtW0VsyuK4OWmQHZtKo4&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjMsanijOHKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgcQMwgwKBMwEw'][/URL]
[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151401/bowie15140100076/39843044-shocked-face-guy.jpg%253Fver%253D6&imgrefurl=https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/shocked_face.html&h=350&w=350&tbnid=zc1ocI2LDZAkpM:&docid=Q0QoBybp5VCp-M&hl=en&ei=VtW0VsyuK4OWmQHZtKo4&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjMsanijOHKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgcQMwgtKBAwEA']


NO WAY!


[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.igrooveradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/shocked%252Bface-400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.igrooveradio.com/beyond-terrible-the-worlds-youngest-alcoholic-is-only-2-years-old/&h=1020&w=830&tbnid=SWVByJU9XGTA9M:&docid=ueVOiicPXSuMSM&hl=en&ei=CNa0Vs_aJYTqmAGf3q-oBA&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjP_pO3jeHKAhUENSYKHR_vC0U4yAEQMwhkKGEwYQ'][/URL]
[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151401/bowie15140100076/39843044-shocked-face-guy.jpg%253Fver%253D6&imgrefurl=https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/shocked_face.html&h=350&w=350&tbnid=zc1ocI2LDZAkpM:&docid=Q0QoBybp5VCp-M&hl=en&ei=VtW0VsyuK4OWmQHZtKo4&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjMsanijOHKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgcQMwgtKBAwEA'][URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.igrooveradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/shocked%252Bface-400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.igrooveradio.com/beyond-terrible-the-worlds-youngest-alcoholic-is-only-2-years-old/&h=1020&w=830&tbnid=SWVByJU9XGTA9M:&docid=ueVOiicPXSuMSM&hl=en&ei=CNa0Vs_aJYTqmAGf3q-oBA&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjP_pO3jeHKAhUENSYKHR_vC0U4yAEQMwhkKGEwYQ'][/URL]
[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151401/bowie15140100076/39843044-shocked-face-guy.jpg%253Fver%253D6&imgrefurl=https://www.123rf.com/stock-photo/shocked_face.html&h=350&w=350&tbnid=zc1ocI2LDZAkpM:&docid=Q0QoBybp5VCp-M&hl=en&ei=VtW0VsyuK4OWmQHZtKo4&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjMsanijOHKAhUDSyYKHVmaCgcQMwgtKBAwEA']
[/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[eddiew]

my question is not whether obama supported it at the time BUT if not for bush and repubs would we be there at all?? I say no I say you republicans are cowards that can't admit to the horrible mistakes you made

history didn't start in 2000. You partisan hacks are fuckin pathetic.

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

I thought that What is it then an indy?

 

[eddiew]

No harley it sure didn't so what made the honorable GWB put our feet into that cess pool ,,the 9/11 lie ?? revenge for his daddy?? aluminum tubes ? drones? yellow cake??

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

then good for you I have no problems with that

 

[eddiew]

There was talk of war since the Gulf war. Countless aggressions against Iraq. Clinton even bombed the shit out of em for refusing to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors.
BTW, I cant stand Bush. He was a terrible fuckin President. You can quit with your cliché bullshit.

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

He called me a republican yesterday, I left them long ago

I called you a republican because that was the nastiest thing I could call you and still be gentlemanly

 

[SassyIrishLass]

THANK YOU JEEZUS I found one ,,,,,,an honest republican

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

He called me a republican yesterday, I left them long ago

I called you a republican because that was the nastiest thing I could call you and still be gentlemanly

Eddie, I've been called every name in the book by left loons, at this point nothing is going to phase me. Leftists always resort to that when their feeble arguments fail

 

[eddiew]

Who said I was a Republican? You?

He thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Republican, he needs to understand being conservative doesn't necessarily mean one is a republican

He calls me a republican. Here shortly I will called a commie or a libby or something. I believe in what I think is right. Not set ideological standards.

He called me a republican yesterday, I left them long ago

I called you a republican because that was the nastiest thing I could call you and still be gentlemanly

Eddie, I've been called every name in the book by left loons, at this point nothing is going to phase me. Leftists always resort to that when their feeble arguments fail

well I won't .....No need to

 

[Andylusion]

How can anybody vote for a gangster like Hillary Clinton is beyond me.

But some do. There you go....that answer right there tells you all you have to know about a sector of American society.

Given the fact they defended, a lying, raping, violator of federal law... who just happens to be married to Hillary, I'm not all that surprised.

The fact is, we have allowed an entire sub-group of American society to exist, which celebrates and supports people who break the law, and get away with it. OJ Simpson had people literally dancing and singing in praise of a brutal murderer.

Hillary is just another criminal that a specific ideology, Idolizes.

whooooooo andy you spout that bs while your pride and joy the murdering swine gwb goes about making speeches collecting from the pub morons who still think he did nothing wrong?

eddie, did you watch that video in post #9? Watch it and tell me where I am wrong that this woman doesn't have a problem. If you don't watch it, you cannot claim she tells the truth. Let's have a dialogue here.

jack imho the politician that always tells the truth hasn't been born yet ,,,,But one must look at the extent of those lies Bush/cheney far outdid any president in my memory in the telling of lies...and yet they served 8 years

That's more of your bias opinion, trumping fact.

 

[Bill Angel]

Hillary Rodham Clinton on CNN Wednesday brushed aside the $675,000 Goldman Sachs provided for speech appearances simply as "what they offered me," but the flip answer ignored that speech fees are negotiated by agents.

During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself "the world's leading speaker's bureau."

When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each. For example, she received $275,000 for speaking to the University of Buffalo in 2013.

According to Bloomberg, "Her contract with the University of Buffalo for an Oct. 23 speech stipulated that her $275,000 fee be paid to her speaking agency, Harry Walker Agency Inc., and then remitted to the foundation."

Read it all

Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech fee set by her agent, not 'what they offered'

Interesting to consider Hillary Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

“I will stop any trade deal that kills [American] jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”

See Hillary Clinton once called TPP the 'gold standard.' Here's why, and what she says about the trade deal now

The US Coalition for the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP includes the American Insurance Association, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

One Clinton adviser, former Goldman Sach’s vice-chairman Robert Hormats, is a big supporter of TPP. “On the base of what I’ve seen, it looks like we’re doing quite well [on TPP],” he told Bloomberg TV the day before she rejected it.
See Hillary Clinton's U-turn on TPP deal has team working overtime ahead of debate

Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

So it appears that Goldman Sachs and the big banks did NOT purchase much influence with Hillary Clinton in exchange for those generous speakers fees!

 

[CowboyTed]

Hillary Rodham Clinton on CNN Wednesday brushed aside the $675,000 Goldman Sachs provided for speech appearances simply as "what they offered me," but the flip answer ignored that speech fees are negotiated by agents.

During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself "the world's leading speaker's bureau."

When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each. For example, she received $275,000 for speaking to the University of Buffalo in 2013.

According to Bloomberg, "Her contract with the University of Buffalo for an Oct. 23 speech stipulated that her $275,000 fee be paid to her speaking agency, Harry Walker Agency Inc., and then remitted to the foundation."

Read it all

Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech fee set by her agent, not 'what they offered'

Interesting to consider Hillary Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

“I will stop any trade deal that kills [American] jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”

See Hillary Clinton once called TPP the 'gold standard.' Here's why, and what she says about the trade deal now

The US Coalition for the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP includes the American Insurance Association, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

One Clinton adviser, former Goldman Sach’s vice-chairman Robert Hormats, is a big supporter of TPP. “On the base of what I’ve seen, it looks like we’re doing quite well [on TPP],” he told Bloomberg TV the day before she rejected it.
See Hillary Clinton's U-turn on TPP deal has team working overtime ahead of debate

Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

So it appears that Goldman Sachs and the big banks did NOT purchase much influence with Hillary Clinton in exchange for those generous speakers fees!

The laugh is these bunch of retards don't even know what it is about... They say they believe in Free Trade and then someone scares with a buggy man story and whoa!!!!... That was too scarey....

Can any of the Alt Right guys here tell us the pros and cons of the TPP....

 

[Andylusion]

Can any of the Alt Right guys here tell us the pros and cons of the TPP....

I consider myself to be alt-Right-wing.

The TPP, will effectively reduce tariffs and increase trade among the Pacific countries, listed as:

US
Japan
Malaysia
Vietnam
Singapore
Brunei
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Mexico
Chile
Peru

The TPP, also creates a sub-set of universal regulations on goods, that would be common among the TPP members. This should allow companies to compete more fairly in a common market, much like the EU.

The TPP has a dozen different sections that cover everything from environmental protection, intellectual property rights, good governance, regulatory co-operation, and labor standards.

Each one has pros and cons.

Therefore, unless you want a 20 page response, I'll just focus on the largest.

Starting with job losses. The problem with trying to figure out the effect trade has on jobs, is that it's easy to focus on the loss, and ignore than gain.

No one today, is standing up marching around with signs saying "If TPP is not signed, my job won't be created!". Since the jobs don't exist yet, it's impossible to see and hear the people who won't be hired into a job, because the TPP isn't passed.

Yet right now, I know of 3 companies I have worked for, and a dozen others I have not, that all rely on imported goods. The job I am at right now, as we talk, would not exist without trade. It's only because of the trade agreements of the past, that I have a job today.

But even with those companies, it is impossible to know how many jobs will be created if the market for their products is expanded.

On the other hand, it is easy for people who could lose their jobs, by opening competition with other markets. And the most obviously of these is the Unions, since unions by their nature try to push wages up beyond the market price. The only way to keep those wages above market price, is by preventing competition.

So inherently people can see the potential job loss from more trade, while they can't see the jobs gained from trade.

In theory, the TPP should allow more exports of vehicles from the US to Japan for example. The regulation and tariff controls of the TPP, should make it easy for US car companies to compete in Japan, for the Japanese auto market.

Again, since we have no idea how well US markers will be able to sell in Japan, it is impossible to determine how many jobs will be created, and of course no employees of as of yet created jobs, are marching around in support of TPP.

So will there be jobs lost to lower wage countries? Of course. Just like there are jobs lost between high-wage and low-wage states. The job I'm at right now, most of the management people were transplants from California. What are they doing in Ohio? Well a company in Ohio, was competing with a company from California. We were wining, because our wage cost was lower. So our company bought their company. Then they discovered most of what they did in California, could be done in Ohio, for a lower price. So they collected the cream of the crop in California, and moved them to Ohio.

Does that mean California is devoid of jobs? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that California lost jobs by having free trade with Ohio.

Similarly the US has been trading and competing successfully with low-wage countries for decades on end. The idea that there is this race to the bottom, and all jobs are going to low-wage countries, is bonkers. If that were true, then we should have 50% unemployment by now, and there shouldn't be any jobs in all of Europe. The only places to find work should be southeast Asia, and Africa.

The second big bugga boo, is the Investor-state arbitration.

Now this one, I've heard and seen dozens of complaints about, and honestly I don't understand any of them.

The basic concept is that if a company or investor, has some issue of confiscation, or some other problem, they can take their case to a neutral arbitration system, that will attempt to work out a settlement.

Now as people claim, this means another country could sue a US company, or the US government, for some wrong doing, and force them into arbitration.

And my response is... Ok? So?

Do you know how investor disputes were handled before this? Military action, or covert action. 1953, the Iranians voted to nationalize the oil refinery that British built, so we toppled their government with military force, and put in place the Shaw of Iran.

The entire purpose of the Investor-Arbitration is to avoid the need for direct intervention. Settle the disputes without blood shed, or covert action.

To me this is all a good thing. Additionally certain left-wing groups have been claiming for decades, that US corporations are abusing trade partners. If that is true, as they claim, then they should support the arbitration system. Let them bring their case before a neutral arbitrator. We'll see if there is validity.

In short, I see little that is wrong with the TPP, and many good things. I think it will be a net benefit to all involved.

 

[francoHFW]

Can any of the Alt Right guys here tell us the pros and cons of the TPP....

I consider myself to be alt-Right-wing.

The TPP, will effectively reduce tariffs and increase trade among the Pacific countries, listed as:

US
Japan
Malaysia
Vietnam
Singapore
Brunei
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Mexico
Chile
Peru

The TPP, also creates a sub-set of universal regulations on goods, that would be common among the TPP members. This should allow companies to compete more fairly in a common market, much like the EU.

The TPP has a dozen different sections that cover everything from environmental protection, intellectual property rights, good governance, regulatory co-operation, and labor standards.

Each one has pros and cons.

Therefore, unless you want a 20 page response, I'll just focus on the largest.

Starting with job losses. The problem with trying to figure out the effect trade has on jobs, is that it's easy to focus on the loss, and ignore than gain.

No one today, is standing up marching around with signs saying "If TPP is not signed, my job won't be created!". Since the jobs don't exist yet, it's impossible to see and hear the people who won't be hired into a job, because the TPP isn't passed.

Yet right now, I know of 3 companies I have worked for, and a dozen others I have not, that all rely on imported goods. The job I am at right now, as we talk, would not exist without trade. It's only because of the trade agreements of the past, that I have a job today.

But even with those companies, it is impossible to know how many jobs will be created if the market for their products is expanded.

On the other hand, it is easy for people who could lose their jobs, by opening competition with other markets. And the most obviously of these is the Unions, since unions by their nature try to push wages up beyond the market price. The only way to keep those wages above market price, is by preventing competition.

So inherently people can see the potential job loss from more trade, while they can't see the jobs gained from trade.

In theory, the TPP should allow more exports of vehicles from the US to Japan for example. The regulation and tariff controls of the TPP, should make it easy for US car companies to compete in Japan, for the Japanese auto market.

Again, since we have no idea how well US markers will be able to sell in Japan, it is impossible to determine how many jobs will be created, and of course no employees of as of yet created jobs, are marching around in support of TPP.

So will there be jobs lost to lower wage countries? Of course. Just like there are jobs lost between high-wage and low-wage states. The job I'm at right now, most of the management people were transplants from California. What are they doing in Ohio? Well a company in Ohio, was competing with a company from California. We were wining, because our wage cost was lower. So our company bought their company. Then they discovered most of what they did in California, could be done in Ohio, for a lower price. So they collected the cream of the crop in California, and moved them to Ohio.

Does that mean California is devoid of jobs? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that California lost jobs by having free trade with Ohio.

Similarly the US has been trading and competing successfully with low-wage countries for decades on end. The idea that there is this race to the bottom, and all jobs are going to low-wage countries, is bonkers. If that were true, then we should have 50% unemployment by now, and there shouldn't be any jobs in all of Europe. The only places to find work should be southeast Asia, and Africa.

The second big bugga boo, is the Investor-state arbitration.

Now this one, I've heard and seen dozens of complaints about, and honestly I don't understand any of them.

The basic concept is that if a company or investor, has some issue of confiscation, or some other problem, they can take their case to a neutral arbitration system, that will attempt to work out a settlement.

Now as people claim, this means another country could sue a US company, or the US government, for some wrong doing, and force them into arbitration.

And my response is... Ok? So?

Do you know how investor disputes were handled before this? Military action, or covert action. 1953, the Iranians voted to nationalize the oil refinery that British built, so we toppled their government with military force, and put in place the Shaw of Iran.

The entire purpose of the Investor-Arbitration is to avoid the need for direct intervention. Settle the disputes without blood shed, or covert action.

To me this is all a good thing. Additionally certain left-wing groups have been claiming for decades, that US corporations are abusing trade partners. If that is true, as they claim, then they should support the arbitration system. Let them bring their case before a neutral arbitrator. We'll see if there is validity.

In short, I see little that is wrong with the TPP, and many good things. I think it will be a net benefit to all involved.

Going global is inevitable, and TPP fights Chinese influence. What we need is training and ed. for the techie/good jobs these new markets can give. Blocked by the New BS GOP since NAFTA.

 

[CowboyTed]

Can any of the Alt Right guys here tell us the pros and cons of the TPP....

I consider myself to be alt-Right-wing.

The TPP, will effectively reduce tariffs and increase trade among the Pacific countries, listed as:

US
Japan
Malaysia
Vietnam
Singapore
Brunei
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Mexico
Chile
Peru

The TPP, also creates a sub-set of universal regulations on goods, that would be common among the TPP members. This should allow companies to compete more fairly in a common market, much like the EU.

The TPP has a dozen different sections that cover everything from environmental protection, intellectual property rights, good governance, regulatory co-operation, and labor standards.

Each one has pros and cons.

Therefore, unless you want a 20 page response, I'll just focus on the largest.

Starting with job losses. The problem with trying to figure out the effect trade has on jobs, is that it's easy to focus on the loss, and ignore than gain.

No one today, is standing up marching around with signs saying "If TPP is not signed, my job won't be created!". Since the jobs don't exist yet, it's impossible to see and hear the people who won't be hired into a job, because the TPP isn't passed.

Yet right now, I know of 3 companies I have worked for, and a dozen others I have not, that all rely on imported goods. The job I am at right now, as we talk, would not exist without trade. It's only because of the trade agreements of the past, that I have a job today.

But even with those companies, it is impossible to know how many jobs will be created if the market for their products is expanded.

On the other hand, it is easy for people who could lose their jobs, by opening competition with other markets. And the most obviously of these is the Unions, since unions by their nature try to push wages up beyond the market price. The only way to keep those wages above market price, is by preventing competition.

So inherently people can see the potential job loss from more trade, while they can't see the jobs gained from trade.

In theory, the TPP should allow more exports of vehicles from the US to Japan for example. The regulation and tariff controls of the TPP, should make it easy for US car companies to compete in Japan, for the Japanese auto market.

Again, since we have no idea how well US markers will be able to sell in Japan, it is impossible to determine how many jobs will be created, and of course no employees of as of yet created jobs, are marching around in support of TPP.

So will there be jobs lost to lower wage countries? Of course. Just like there are jobs lost between high-wage and low-wage states. The job I'm at right now, most of the management people were transplants from California. What are they doing in Ohio? Well a company in Ohio, was competing with a company from California. We were wining, because our wage cost was lower. So our company bought their company. Then they discovered most of what they did in California, could be done in Ohio, for a lower price. So they collected the cream of the crop in California, and moved them to Ohio.

Does that mean California is devoid of jobs? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that California lost jobs by having free trade with Ohio.

Similarly the US has been trading and competing successfully with low-wage countries for decades on end. The idea that there is this race to the bottom, and all jobs are going to low-wage countries, is bonkers. If that were true, then we should have 50% unemployment by now, and there shouldn't be any jobs in all of Europe. The only places to find work should be southeast Asia, and Africa.

The second big bugga boo, is the Investor-state arbitration.

Now this one, I've heard and seen dozens of complaints about, and honestly I don't understand any of them.

The basic concept is that if a company or investor, has some issue of confiscation, or some other problem, they can take their case to a neutral arbitration system, that will attempt to work out a settlement.

Now as people claim, this means another country could sue a US company, or the US government, for some wrong doing, and force them into arbitration.

And my response is... Ok? So?

Do you know how investor disputes were handled before this? Military action, or covert action. 1953, the Iranians voted to nationalize the oil refinery that British built, so we toppled their government with military force, and put in place the Shaw of Iran.

The entire purpose of the Investor-Arbitration is to avoid the need for direct intervention. Settle the disputes without blood shed, or covert action.

To me this is all a good thing. Additionally certain left-wing groups have been claiming for decades, that US corporations are abusing trade partners. If that is true, as they claim, then they should support the arbitration system. Let them bring their case before a neutral arbitrator. We'll see if there is validity.

In short, I see little that is wrong with the TPP, and many good things. I think it will be a net benefit to all involved.

Andy,

Good answer, I wonder how Alt Right you are... The answer you gave shows the advantages of Free Trade... I will point out that not all Unions oppose TPP, in EU (and you are right, this deal resembles more like the old EEC agreement before EU went a bit mad).

I don't think free trade in the way the TPP is a left or right issue... There is something in it for both sides...

The big thing is it levels the playing field a lot and it is the reason China is not in... I am surprised... Because of exactly the reasons you said... Your competitors today in China can ignore Human Rights, Worker Rights, Environmental Rights....... The best way to deal with this is not to go down to there level but say to them, 'If you want to trade with us , you have to come up to our level....'. This is the old EEC in a nutshell.

There is also the upside that we don't see in regular conversation. Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 as a poor country just hanging on to the bottom of the first world. Within a generation by around 1999 they became one of the richest countries in the world. Even after the crash hit hard they still retained a top ten spot.
Ireland became a country which needed help and exported cheap goods to a country which consumed goods... Ireland became a consumer of goods and increased the demand in the market... Look at Poland joining in 2004, Wages have tripled and factories in Ireland are exporting machinery and farming supplies while Polish agricultural good are being sold in Germany... Poland has countinued to improve when compared to a country like Macedonia.

Trade works and basic economics tells you that... This is not a left or right issue in IMHO, there is much for everyone in it...

 

[Andylusion]

Can any of the Alt Right guys here tell us the pros and cons of the TPP....

I consider myself to be alt-Right-wing.

The TPP, will effectively reduce tariffs and increase trade among the Pacific countries, listed as:

US
Japan
Malaysia
Vietnam
Singapore
Brunei
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
Mexico
Chile
Peru

The TPP, also creates a sub-set of universal regulations on goods, that would be common among the TPP members. This should allow companies to compete more fairly in a common market, much like the EU.

The TPP has a dozen different sections that cover everything from environmental protection, intellectual property rights, good governance, regulatory co-operation, and labor standards.

Each one has pros and cons.

Therefore, unless you want a 20 page response, I'll just focus on the largest.

Starting with job losses. The problem with trying to figure out the effect trade has on jobs, is that it's easy to focus on the loss, and ignore than gain.

No one today, is standing up marching around with signs saying "If TPP is not signed, my job won't be created!". Since the jobs don't exist yet, it's impossible to see and hear the people who won't be hired into a job, because the TPP isn't passed.

Yet right now, I know of 3 companies I have worked for, and a dozen others I have not, that all rely on imported goods. The job I am at right now, as we talk, would not exist without trade. It's only because of the trade agreements of the past, that I have a job today.

But even with those companies, it is impossible to know how many jobs will be created if the market for their products is expanded.

On the other hand, it is easy for people who could lose their jobs, by opening competition with other markets. And the most obviously of these is the Unions, since unions by their nature try to push wages up beyond the market price. The only way to keep those wages above market price, is by preventing competition.

So inherently people can see the potential job loss from more trade, while they can't see the jobs gained from trade.

In theory, the TPP should allow more exports of vehicles from the US to Japan for example. The regulation and tariff controls of the TPP, should make it easy for US car companies to compete in Japan, for the Japanese auto market.

Again, since we have no idea how well US markers will be able to sell in Japan, it is impossible to determine how many jobs will be created, and of course no employees of as of yet created jobs, are marching around in support of TPP.

So will there be jobs lost to lower wage countries? Of course. Just like there are jobs lost between high-wage and low-wage states. The job I'm at right now, most of the management people were transplants from California. What are they doing in Ohio? Well a company in Ohio, was competing with a company from California. We were wining, because our wage cost was lower. So our company bought their company. Then they discovered most of what they did in California, could be done in Ohio, for a lower price. So they collected the cream of the crop in California, and moved them to Ohio.

Does that mean California is devoid of jobs? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that California lost jobs by having free trade with Ohio.

Similarly the US has been trading and competing successfully with low-wage countries for decades on end. The idea that there is this race to the bottom, and all jobs are going to low-wage countries, is bonkers. If that were true, then we should have 50% unemployment by now, and there shouldn't be any jobs in all of Europe. The only places to find work should be southeast Asia, and Africa.

The second big bugga boo, is the Investor-state arbitration.

Now this one, I've heard and seen dozens of complaints about, and honestly I don't understand any of them.

The basic concept is that if a company or investor, has some issue of confiscation, or some other problem, they can take their case to a neutral arbitration system, that will attempt to work out a settlement.

Now as people claim, this means another country could sue a US company, or the US government, for some wrong doing, and force them into arbitration.

And my response is... Ok? So?

Do you know how investor disputes were handled before this? Military action, or covert action. 1953, the Iranians voted to nationalize the oil refinery that British built, so we toppled their government with military force, and put in place the Shaw of Iran.

The entire purpose of the Investor-Arbitration is to avoid the need for direct intervention. Settle the disputes without blood shed, or covert action.

To me this is all a good thing. Additionally certain left-wing groups have been claiming for decades, that US corporations are abusing trade partners. If that is true, as they claim, then they should support the arbitration system. Let them bring their case before a neutral arbitrator. We'll see if there is validity.

In short, I see little that is wrong with the TPP, and many good things. I think it will be a net benefit to all involved.

Andy,

Good answer, I wonder how Alt Right you are... The answer you gave shows the advantages of Free Trade... I will point out that not all Unions oppose TPP, in EU (and you are right, this deal resembles more like the old EEC agreement before EU went a bit mad).

I don't think free trade in the way the TPP is a left or right issue... There is something in it for both sides...

The big thing is it levels the playing field a lot and it is the reason China is not in... I am surprised... Because of exactly the reasons you said... Your competitors today in China can ignore Human Rights, Worker Rights, Environmental Rights....... The best way to deal with this is not to go down to there level but say to them, 'If you want to trade with us , you have to come up to our level....'. This is the old EEC in a nutshell.

There is also the upside that we don't see in regular conversation. Ireland joined the EEC in 1973 as a poor country just hanging on to the bottom of the first world. Within a generation by around 1999 they became one of the richest countries in the world. Even after the crash hit hard they still retained a top ten spot.
Ireland became a country which needed help and exported cheap goods to a country which consumed goods... Ireland became a consumer of goods and increased the demand in the market... Look at Poland joining in 2004, Wages have tripled and factories in Ireland are exporting machinery and farming supplies while Polish agricultural good are being sold in Germany... Poland has countinued to improve when compared to a country like Macedonia.

Trade works and basic economics tells you that... This is not a left or right issue in IMHO, there is much for everyone in it...

I'm as far right-wing as you can possibly get. People on the right, call me crazy.

I don't think the reason China is not in the TPP, is because they are worried about a level playing field. All the largest economic powers, want trade agreements that they control.

We like our NAFTA for example.

Greater Arab Free Trade Area. GAFTA is being pushed by of course, Saudi Arabia.
Eurasian Economic Union, is being pushed by Russia.
African Free Trade Zone, is being pushed by South Africa, the leading economy there.

Well... China of course wants to be in control of it's major trade agreements, and is pushing:
China-Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or Chian-ASEAN.

I don't think the EU would join the TPP, or Russian Federation, or Africa Union.

The major players, tend to have separate agreements with each other.

It's normally one major player, and a bunch of tiny ones, that join the large blocks.

Beyond that, yes, you are absolutely right. Trade is inherently a positive for all sides.

Trade by it's nature is a good thing. If it wasn't.... you wouldn't do it. If I have a car I want to sell for $1,000, and you need a car. If the car wasn't worth more to you, than the $1,000, you wouldn't trade me the $1,000 for the car.

If the $1,000 wasn't worth more to me, than the car.... then I wouldn't trade the car for the $1,000.

If the trade wasn't mutually beneficial, then we wouldn't engage in the trade.

And obviously the more people you can trade with, the more chances you, and me, and everyone has, of finding a trade that is mutually beneficial.

So, yeah I'm 100% in favor of free-trade.