How Do You Stand on TPP Passage? I Agree With Sanders and Trump on this

[JimBowie1958]

The TPP treaty is supported by Hillary Rodham of royal House Clinton, while both Trump and Sanders oppose it as a bad trade treaty.

Hillary is representing the Oligarchs who want their cheap chit while Trump and Sanders are populists and want what is good for the American people as the government should be trying to please 'We the People' and not the Oligarchs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do you fit in?

 

[Andylusion]

The TPP treaty is supported by Hillary Rodham of royal House Clinton, while both Trump and Sanders oppose it as a bad trade treaty.

Hillary is representing the Oligarchs who want their cheap chit while Trump and Sanders are populists and want what is good for the American people as the government should be trying to please 'We the People' and not the Oligarchs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do you fit in?

The irony of your comment, is that the exact opposite is true.

While I don't support Hillary, the TPP is going to benefit the public the most. While protectionism, and anti-trade would benefit the Oligarchs.

If we prevent trade, who would benefit? The major companies. Who would suffer? The public. How?

Think about it. Let's consider one item. Just one. The Iphone. You place tariffs on the Iphone, and Apple will be forced to build a manufacturing plant in the US. That's good. That plant will produce phones at a drastically higher cost, than the international plants. That higher cost will lower sales.

At the same time though, because fewer phones are sold, Apple can and will, charge a higher price.

Yet, Apple will not hire thousands of US workers to build those phones. It will largely be automated.

So very few jobs will be created, people will be forced to pay a much higher price for phones, and Apple will make billions of dollars in profit over it.

Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. That's the Bernie and Trump position.


Free trade on the other hand, forces companies to compete with the best quality at the lowest cost, which benefits everyone.

That's the reality of populism. Populism is convincing the public, that destroying themselves while enriching the top 1%, is the best for America.

Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. America would be in a great depression, if we cut off trade. Go look up the Great Depression. That's exactly what we did. Smoot-Hawley tariff, didn't bring us prosperity, but rather it brought us a decade of misery.

 

[DarkFury]

I myself do NOT support it and the fact that BOTH Sanders and Trump do not is a huge sign its a bad deal.

 

[Andylusion]

I myself do NOT support it and the fact that BOTH Sanders and Trump do not is a huge sign its a bad deal.

Sanders is an idiot.

Trump stands to make huge profit on jacking up prices after protectionism is in place.

It's like the CEO of McDonalds supporting raising the minimum wage. Why is that a shock? All the small restaurants who can't afford higher minimum wages, will go out of business, while McDonald's has the money to replace employees with Kiosks and robots.

McDonald's would make billions more in profit, while everyone else was unemployed and out of business. Just because the CEO supports it, doesn't make it a good move for the country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

While I don't support Hillary, the TPP is going to benefit the public the most. While protectionism, and anti-trade would benefit the Oligarchs.

The Oligarchs own the multinational companies/corporations that depend on international trade and would maximize their profits with Open Borders.

If we prevent trade, who would benefit? The major companies. Who would suffer? The public. How?

No one is proposing that we prevent trade, only that we prevent BAD trade.

Think about it. Let's consider one item. Just one. The Iphone. You place tariffs on the Iphone, and Apple will be forced to build a manufacturing plant in the US. That's good. That plant will produce phones at a drastically higher cost, than the international plants. That higher cost will lower sales.

At the same time though, because fewer phones are sold, Apple can and will, charge a higher price.

Yet, Apple will not hire thousands of US workers to build those phones. It will largely be automated.

So very few jobs will be created, people will be forced to pay a much higher price for phones, and Apple will make billions of dollars in profit over it.

The costs of labor are a very small part of the costs of making an iphone and if they were built int he USA the price would not go up significantly, certainly not enough to be a determining cause in increased prices. Slicing off some profit, reducing costs in other variations of businessmodels and delayed raises/bonuses, etc can more than easily make up the small increase in labor costs.

What most increase the costs of production here in the USA is the regulatory costs of providing safe work conditions and reducing pollution to our environment. It is no better to make Vietnamese people lose their lives or limbs/organs in working in toxic conditions and the pollution that gets dumped in East Asia eventually makes its way over to the USA, so that is no better either.

Also our tax laws are structured to encourage businesses to relocate overseas. These laws are vestigial hold overs from the early post WW2 era when the USA had the only industrial base undamaged by the war. So we put in place these laws to encourage off shoring to help rebuild the economies of our allies and potential trading partners.

That has worked, we can end the tax advantages of off shored businesses, but the Oligarchs have built most of their wealth on these tax policies and refuse to end them, hence the need for TPP and further reductions in the incomes and life style of the American people. That is what they want and will achieve by forcing Americans to work for Third World wages.

Rich get richer, and poor get poorer. That's the Bernie and Trump position.

No, it is the opposite and most experts that are advising them are trying to help the American people, as unregulated winner-take-all trade that you mislabel as free trade will obviously reduce our wages, our environmental quality of life and our work safety.

Free trade on the other hand, forces companies to compete with the best quality at the lowest cost, which benefits everyone.

Lol, that is such unadulterated false Oligarch propaganda. China does not make 'best quality' anything.

That's the reality of populism. Populism is convincing the public, that destroying themselves while enriching the top 1%, is the best for America.

You are a liar. The obvious facts make your lies plain stupid lies on their face.

Trade is inherently mutually beneficial. America would be in a great depression, if we cut off trade. Go look up the Great Depression. That's exactly what we did. Smoot-Hawley tariff, didn't bring us prosperity, but rather it brought us a decade of misery.

Smoot Hartley saved jobs and made the Great Depression shorter and we were out of it in three years. What caused the great Depression was the imbalance in incomes between the middle class and the wealthy, the latter of whom then dumped their excessive discretionary income into financial sector speculation that led to the Wall Street crash and that destroyed enormous capital that could have been used to finance new business start ups.

Shame on you, Illusion, for being such a shameless liar. How are you NOT a Clinton supporter?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sanders is an idiot.

Well he is ten times smarter than you are, so that makes him average intelligence at a minimum.

Trump stands to make huge profit on jacking up prices after protectionism is in place.

Trumps business model is based on rescuing bad real estate projects and licensing his brand on other buildings. He has nothing to gain from protectionism which is why he is not proposing protectionism, liar.

It's like the CEO of McDonalds supporting raising the minimum wage. Why is that a shock? All the small restaurants who can't afford higher minimum wages, will go out of business, while McDonald's has the money to replace employees with Kiosks and robots.

There is some truth to that, but it does not support your lie that Trump stands to profit from protectionist policies he is NOT advocating, nor that Sanders is an idiot.

McDonald's would make billions more in profit, while everyone else was unemployed and out of business.

Not everyone would be out of business, you lying jack ass.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The TPP treaty is supported by Hillary Rodham of royal House Clinton, while both Trump and Sanders oppose it as a bad trade treaty.

Hillary is representing the Oligarchs who want their cheap chit while Trump and Sanders are populists and want what is good for the American people as the government should be trying to please 'We the People' and not the Oligarchs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do you fit in?

when trump says something, he's saying it b/c he thinks it will win him votes
hillary is saying what she is told to say to win votes
bern is a socialist and therefore has no understanding of his own stance


Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[100]

while he strikes me as a globalist, it's hard to argue against a guy that has the nobel prize in economics.

 

[Two Thumbs]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

 

[JimBowie1958]

when trump says something, he's saying it b/c he thinks it will win him votes
hillary is saying what she is told to say to win votes
bern is a socialist and therefore has no understanding of his own stance

Trump has a profit incentive to deliver on his promises since about 40% of his annual income is based on selling his brand which only increases if he DELIVERS what he PROMISED. It really isnt all that hard to understand. To say that Trump is lying is a nice way to avoid making a decision, but it is completely inaccurate.

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist,

Paul Krugman, reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[100]

while he strikes me as a globalist, it's hard to argue against a guy that has the nobel prize in economics.

You are using Krugman as a reference?

 

[Andylusion]

Sanders is an idiot.

Well he is ten times smarter than you are, so that makes him average intelligence at a minimum.

Trump stands to make huge profit on jacking up prices after protectionism is in place.

Trumps business model is based on rescuing bad real estate projects and licensing his brand on other buildings. He has nothing to gain from protectionism which is why he is not proposing protectionism, liar.

It's like the CEO of McDonalds supporting raising the minimum wage. Why is that a shock? All the small restaurants who can't afford higher minimum wages, will go out of business, while McDonald's has the money to replace employees with Kiosks and robots.

There is some truth to that, but it does not support your lie that Trump stands to profit from protectionist policies he is NOT advocating, nor that Sanders is an idiot.

McDonald's would make billions more in profit, while everyone else was unemployed and out of business.

Not everyone would be out of business, you lying jack ass.

No, he's an idiot.

Trump is in business, and he understands that if you keep out cheaper goods, you can charge higher prices. Yes, you are correct that his primary business is real-estate. But Trump is involved in thousands of business projects outside of real-estate.

Of course not EVERY SINGLE store on the planet would close. But if you think that small mom & pop shops like Louie's Grill, Starliner Diner, or Chef House, are going to be able to pay $15 minimum wage, and replace workers with hundred thousand dollar kiosks like McDonald, you are wrong.

Louie's Grill - 4453 Cemetary Rd., Hilliard, OH, 43026
Welcome
Home | Diner In Hilliard, OH | Chef's House

All are local small family owned stores.

They are going out of business if you pass your populist crap. And McDonald's with Kiosks will stay open, and have more customers.

Your populist crap, is obviously supported by the public, but it will destroy the public, no matter how much of a good thing the public thinks it is.

I've worked at 6 different companies, that following your anti-trade crap, would be out of business. Trade is good for everyone.

Preventing trade is bad for everyone but the elite. The multi-national corporations that benefit from trade, would also benefit from protectionism.

Toyota Motors is going to make hundreds of billions, whether they can import cheaper parts, and sell cheaper cars to Americans, or if they have to have expensive domestic parts made, and sell expensive cars to Americans. Either way, they are going to make billions.

The only difference is how much the customer will be forced to pay for the product. Toyota would love to sell their cheapest car, for $30,000. They can't because of competition.

You reduce competition by driving up prices with your protectionist policies, and they will be more than happy to jack up the price on stupid Americans that vote themselves into poverty.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The TPP treaty is supported by Hillary Rodham of royal House Clinton, while both Trump and Sanders oppose it as a bad trade treaty.

Hillary is representing the Oligarchs who want their cheap chit while Trump and Sanders are populists and want what is good for the American people as the government should be trying to please 'We the People' and not the Oligarchs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where do you fit in?

I think Trump has a sage strategy making a direct appeal to Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Likely most of them won't vote Trump, but hopefully enough will to cancel out the Johnson vote. Nobody likes a rigged system and many are willing to vote for ANYONE they perceive is trying to undo it.

 

[Andylusion]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

 

[Two Thumbs]

when trump says something, he's saying it b/c he thinks it will win him votes
hillary is saying what she is told to say to win votes
bern is a socialist and therefore has no understanding of his own stance

Trump has a profit incentive to deliver on his promises since about 40% of his annual income is based on selling his brand which only increases if he DELIVERS what he PROMISED. It really isnt all that hard to understand. To say that Trump is lying is a nice way to avoid making a decision, but it is completely inaccurate.

Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist,

Paul Krugman, reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away", and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[100]

while he strikes me as a globalist, it's hard to argue against a guy that has the nobel prize in economics.

You are using Krugman as a reference?

He was in YOUR link

 

[Two Thumbs]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

 

[Andylusion]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

 

[Two Thumbs]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

 

[Andylusion]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

When treaties are being sent to the Senate for confirmation the full text is or should be available to the public. The TPP treaty has long been noted for the extraordinary secrecy it has been enveloped in and if you are so dishonest that you refuse to admit even that, you are sadly losing this debate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

any treaty that the PUBLIC must follow that was written in secret, is a set up.

it's a clear sign that the elites are hooking themselves up

All treaties are written out of public view. And there is a very simple reason for this.

When you are in a negotiation, if the public starts screaming about any individual aspect, the result is the other side won't trust that you will abide by the treaty.

If you and I are in negotiations, and we're doing a give and take "I'll accept X, if you accept Y", and I hear that the public of your country is screaming about Y, then I can't trust you'll accept Y, and thus I have no reason to trade off on X.

Can you imagine if every aspect of every treaty, had to be debated by both governments, and the public, of each government involved? No treaties would ever be signed, or even written, by anyone anywhere, ever. It would be ridiculous. Every time any compromise was ever achieved, it would be undermined by debate in each country.

So the way it works, and has worked for a long time now, is the president negotiates treaties, and when the treaty is finally created, it is then voted up or down by congress. That's how the system works, and should work, and it wouldn't work any other way.

so we have no say and we should just trust the government.



mmkay

Dude that's how it works. Why is this so hard for you? The presidents job is to determine treaties. You get to vote on the president. That is your say.

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

Nafta is good. Nafta has been a massive benefit. Do you have any idea how many jobs, and products, in the US today that provide wealth and benefit to this country, are dependent on imports and exports covered by NAFTA?

Roughly 1.2 Trillion dollars of imports and exports, are with NAFTA trade partners as of 2011, and I wager higher today.

NAFTA was a good thing, contrary to the screamers. Trade is inherently beneficial. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't do it. If you and I traded, and somehow you ended up worse off from the deal, you wouldn't trade with me anymore. And equally, if I was worse off, I wouldn't trade with you anymore.

The reason we continue to trade, is because we're both better off from it.

NAFTA has directly cost us about 700,000 jobs and indirectly through things like the rising trade deficit we have with NAFTA countries, we have lost even more.

Trade is good. Sucker trade where we lose, lose LOSE is for suckers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

how many times do we have to be lied to about treaties (yaknow how great nafta was) before we demand to know what's in them?

As long as we put up with it and do not demand accountability.