|
Say, can anyone track down that clip from the daily show's 2008 primary coverage where the delegate counts got really close despite extreme odds and Jon stewart compared it to Luke shooting the vent on the Death Star?
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If they didn't need NAFTA then why was it lobbied for? Why did the GOP push it so hard?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Of course he isn't actually against it. He says he is, and that's enough to get posters like you to be vehemently against it. lol https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/761272734143934464 That does sound doable...
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
emdash posted:i was sympathetic to your posting until this, holy poo poo. this thread would never be for Trump lmfao I said they'd be for protectionism if Hillary was, too. I didn't say the thread would be for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
emdash posted:i was sympathetic to your posting until this, holy poo poo. this thread would never be for Trump lmfao I think you misread the post, I think the poster meant that the thread is so aligned with hillary that it would turn protectionist if she were the protectionist candidate
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I've never been persuaded by the argument that it's better to keep American jobs than it is to give Mexicans jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:They really think he's "uppity" and "smug" and that he "doesn't know his place" and "thinks he's better than me" but those terms tend to reflect poorly on the accuser. This kind of slipped from the national consciousness since Starbucks became a behemoth, but for a time in the 90s -- those bygone golden days when Coffee Shops were like beatnik bookstores and hosted round the clock Open Mic Poetry nights -- the term Latte Liberal was a pejorative. Same idea. I'll remind everyone that this was the president who had an angry white cracker shout "YOU LIE" during the loving state of the union address.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is nothing resembling logic in this question, unless you literally think NAFTA's purpose was to offshore jobs You don't think part of NAFTA's purpose was to make offshoring easier so that corporations could get access to cheaper labor and new markets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I've never been persuaded by the argument that it's better to keep American jobs than it is to give Mexicans jobs. the same is true of the many industries propped up by domestic illegal labor (construction, agriculture, foodservice, landscaping) protectionism would be building a wall and deporting undocumented persons, or penalizing businesses who employ them. or you can reform the social safety net and immigration instead of trying to ban things
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I'm going to be thoroughly disappointed if one of them doesn't refer to the other as his brother from another mother before Hillary is sworn in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think you misread the post, I think the poster meant that the thread is so aligned with hillary that it would turn protectionist if she were the protectionist candidate
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Trade deals in general almost always favor large corporations instead of the interests of a country's populace. NAFTA is no different. Global trade is also kind of a bad thing if you care about climate change because moving large amounts of goods all over the place is a pretty nasty process as far as carbon goes.Civilized Fishbot posted:I think you misread the post, I think the poster meant that the thread is so aligned with hillary that it would turn protectionist if she were the protectionist candidate This is also a true thing. Hillary's true believers in this thread are some of the most outspoken posters, its pretty crazy. Hillary and the Democratic party can do no harm. Please don't talk bad about them or their 'progressive' policies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I said they'd be for protectionism if Hillary was, too. I didn't say the thread would be for Trump. Historically protectionism is dumb though, both from an economic standpoint and a geopolitical standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:the thing that gets me here is that protectionism also requires the elite to sacrifice their wealth. In fact, because of the way that free trade boosts the wealth of all nations assuming that we maintain the same standard of living for poor people through redistribution, protectionism actually requires the elite to sacrifice more wealth than free trade combined with the social safety net. So it seems weird to treat the absence of a social safety net as more inveitable than the TPP, when I think it's acutally the other way around. To be fair, there are plenty of wealth redistributive policies out there that would benefit the wealthy overall, but they still oppose them because human beings aren't always rational actors. Plenty of business owners view wealth redistribution as giving their hard-earned money away to people that didn't earn it, rather than the community making a calculated investment designed to increase the purchasing power of their customers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think you misread the post, I think the poster meant that the thread is so aligned with hillary that it would turn protectionist if she were the protectionist candidate if your argument hinges on your opponents being in the bag for a candidate you don't personally like then your argument is poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
True, but I think there's are many valid reasons for not just finding the one place on earth that can do X the cheapest and move all X production there. It's nice to keep some variety not only as a hedge against trade issues but also because life is better when there's more diversity and options for what people can do. Difficult to find that balance, to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Sources? For which part? For warfare look at how the European Powers acted in the Far East. For totally stopping outsourcing? You would have to close the borders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
For the record, I am not pro-TPP, I'm simply against dumb protesters who shout "NO TPP!" yet couldn't tell you anything about what the TPP actually does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
SCOTUS blocked the implementation of the Obama transgender bathroom order on a 5-3?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Reason posted:Trade deals in general almost always favor large corporations instead of the interests of a country's populace. NAFTA is no different. Global trade is also kind of a bad thing if you care about climate change because moving large amounts of goods all over the place is a pretty nasty process as far as carbon goes. but it doesn't have to be that way, because trade deals aren't mutually exclusive with carbon taxes and social safety nets A Winner is Jew posted:Historically protectionism is dumb though, both from an economic standpoint and a geopolitical standpoint. protectionism is the economic equivalent of red pill guys who try to avoid cumming because they worry about surrendering their life force over to the woman
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Of course he isn't actually against it. He says he is, and that's enough to get posters like you to be vehemently against it. This is categorically wrong. Noam Chomsky posted:If you have an answer to my question feel free to post one with sources. You don't, though, so you just attack.  but also, I already told you why your question is flawed.You're trying to make a connection that BECAUSE PEOPLE LOBBIED FOR IT means that the OUTCOME THAT HAPPENED would not have happened otherwise, which is really flawed logic. As was already posted, there was already a decline in manufacturing occurring owing to changes in the global economy and in manufacturing in general (like greater automation). It's possible that the number of manufacturing jobs wouldn't have gone down by the same amount if NAFTA hadn't passed, but it's impossible and wrong to say that it wouldn't have gone down at all if NAFTA hadn't passed. So not only are you making dumb, unhelpful to your cause assertions about the motivations of posters ITT, but you're also making dumb leap of logic questions/statements that are easily refuted and then screaming about how we're not paying attention to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Yes, the jobs they get are lower paid and have less worker rights than American equivalents, but the improvement of the Mexican worker's life against the harm to the American worker's life seems, to me, to overwhelmingly cause a net good. Yes, it's absolutely better than selling chiclets on the side of the road. That doesn't change the fact that some of these jobs cause terrible side-effects. The counter-argument is that, if we are to engage in that kind of offshoring, we should ensure that the organizations that benefit from this do their best to raise working conditions to a more humane/equitable/healthy standard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. I'd assume, but I wasn't paying attention in 1994, that the lobby in favor of NAFTA represented interests that knew how to profit off of trade, and saw the opportunity to increase their profits by increasing trade. Integrating economies increases trade, seems straightforward to me. Edit: holy gently caress this thread moves fast. I have to either start putting shitposters on ignore or just stop reading d&d Hermsgervørden fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Pretty typical array of posters - PTD, Zoux, BI NOW GAY LATER, a few others - that come out hard for: trade agreements, anything Hillary related, the DNC, and against anyone who talks too mean about Republicans. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I said they'd be for protectionism if Hillary was, too. I didn't say the thread would be for Trump. this doesn't really help. D&D has never been the hivemind of which people like to draw rhetorical caricatures. There were plenty of Sanders supporters, months back, saying things like "well the TPP opposition is dumb, but I still prefer Bernie"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:To be fair, there are plenty of wealth redistributive policies out there that would benefit the wealthy overall, but they still oppose them because human beings aren't always rational actors. Fair enough, but the point stands that it's really weird when people act like standing in the way of TPP is easier or better than creating a social safety net
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:SCOTUS blocked the implementation of the Obama transgender bathroom order on a 5-3? I thought they weren't taking this case until the next session? When did they do this? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty typical array of posters - PTD, Zoux, BI NOW GAY LATER, a few others - that come out hard for: trade agreements, anything Hillary related, the DNC, and against anyone who talks too mean about Republicans. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
hey poster noam chomsky, what is your question
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty typical array of posters - PTD, Zoux, BI NOW GAY LATER, a few others - that come out hard for: trade agreements, anything Hillary related, the DNC, and against anyone who talks too mean about Republicans. because you're whiny, and a bad poster who is committed to forcing through a logically flawed argument because of your own personal biases and you'd rather blame people you see as villans rather than reflect upon your own positions maybe, could it be possible, in theory, perhaps, that you are... wrong? is that even possible? have you been wrong before?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:it also is a scenario in which the concept of trickle down economics may actually be valuable because of diminishing returns to quality of life after a certain point. Yeah, that's a big part of it. If we took somebody's yearly salary from $5,000 a year to $10,000 a year VS a person in the US had to sell their house because they lost a job, our instinct is to think how horrible it is that the person lost their house. But the person who went from "crushing poverty" to "merely poverty" has had his life radically transformed, whereas it is sad that a person lost their house but their day-to-day living might be nearly identical. I'm obviously just making numbers up off the top of my head, so don't take this as a real example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
me, in the last thread: "i really hate how democrats pretend to be against free trade every four years and i think it's a dumb rhetorical dance."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty typical array of posters - PTD, Zoux, BI NOW GAY LATER, a few others - that come out hard for: trade agreements, anything Hillary related, the DNC, and against anyone who talks too mean about Republicans. Would you like some nails for your cross? I'll even make sure they're American Made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I thought they weren't taking this case until the next session? When did they do this? Looks like just now, staying the order until they hear it next session http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/04/488683938/high-court-temporarily-blocks-transgender-student-from-using-male-bathroom
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You don't think part of NAFTA's purpose was to make offshoring easier so that corporations could get access to cheaper labor and new markets? Are you aware of the concept of comparative advantage and David Ricardo's work on trade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage quote:In a famous example, Ricardo considers a world economy consisting of two countries, Portugal and England, which produce two goods of identical quality. In Portugal, the a priori more efficient country, it is possible to produce wine and cloth with less labor than it would take to produce the same quantities in England. However, the relative costs of producing those two goods differ between the countries. No one is nefariously trying to run people out of jobs; they're trying to make sure America focuses on the industries in which we have a comparative labor advantage. That is not low-skills manufacturing. All that NAFTA did was make the transition go faster by making it easier to procure goods made outside of America. Goods that the other countries happened to have a comparative advantage in. Free trade benefits everyone on the aggregate. This is basic, Econ 101 kind of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
I'm a paid globalist shill, myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty typical array of posters - PTD, Zoux, BI NOW GAY LATER, a few others - that come out hard for: trade agreements, anything Hillary related, the DNC, and against anyone who talks too mean about Republicans. They're all secret republicans. I mean you got em dead to rights here with this logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
the liberal something awful media never gave trump a chance
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Tulsi Gabbard is voting for Hillary https://twitter.com/GideonResnick/status/761185514871525376
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I thought they weren't taking this case until the next session? When did they do this? Oh, here's what CNN said about it: quote:Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have left the lower court decision undisturbed. It took five justices to act, and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that he concurred in the decision in part because granting the stay would "preserve the status quo" until the court has a chance to consider a petition for cert. "I vote to grant the application as a courtesy," Breyer wrote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:00
|
|