Fados posted:

Kill the centrists, burn them all.

Seriously they are really bad. Progressives can probably get a lot more mileage from a huge portion of the deplorables than from this 10% of elite boot-licker democrats,

Kilroy posted:

That's funny because I think Democrats like you should be literally crushed by trapping them in a hydraulic press and flipping the switch.

Agnosticnixie posted:

The rich are not actually a put upon minority that needs to be protected from people making "eat the rich" jokes.

Brainiac Five posted:

And yet, you haven't said poo poo to any of the people suggesting equally horrific violence in this thread, almost as if you're a sanctimonious mouse of a man. In fact, this entire line of thought is extremely hypocritical in a thread where people regularly talk about "purging" centrists, killing the rich, etc.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't think you know what doubling down means.

Majorian posted:

Ah yes, the wealthy and the centrists are the real victims here.

Ze Pollack posted:

when called out for misogynistic behavior, your immediate reaction was to say it wasn't your fault that you'd upset a bunch of shrieking feminists. if you are attempting to avoid the accusation of deep-rooted misogyny, this is not THE worst imaginable response, but it makes the top ten real easy.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Here's a hot take, on the something awful forums people joke about heinous poo poo all the time and maybe you shouldn't take every post as if it's some sort of PDF their PR department released.

Brainiac Five posted:

I didn't say they needed to be, but on the other hand y'all don't need protection from me threatening to descend from heaven and burn you with the fire from my eyes, either.

Majorian posted:

We know that; you're a Clintonista, so you're ineffectual in pretty much all regards.

That doesn't make how furious you get any less hilarious.

Brainiac Five posted:

You'll be calling people Clintonistas when you're lead into the dock at your show trial, won't you?

Majorian posted:

You are so scared of the left, aren't you? No wonder you liked Clinton so much.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is "better" than "the left" in that regard. It doesn't really follow from Effectronica's posting that he believes Hillary Clinton would have been better than Bernie. At least he hasn't said as much as far as I can tell. There's no defense of anything, it's just pure attack.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Here's a hot take, on the something awful forums people joke about heinous poo poo all the time and maybe you shouldn't take every post as if it's some sort of PDF their PR department released.


I'm not trying to avoid the accusation, I really don't give a gently caress what some random internet poster accuses me of. But I can't really say more than "that post was a joke in bad taste".

Alienwarehouse posted:

I bet you believe Hillary telling the banks to "Cut it out!" was effective, too.

Condiv posted:

but in any case, you shouldn't even try to compare me not caring if NAFTA is repealed with you wanting red state dems to remain unfunded to punish people for bad choices or something.

i actually think getting rid of NAFTA will help people. you want to hurt people out of spite

NewForumSoftware posted:

Bernie was just the most left option available. I imagine more than a few of us don't actually identify as social democrats but realize that it was the most realistic chance we had to at least change course this election cycle.

SSNeoman posted:

You hurt more people with your idea btw. Way more.

Brainiac Five posted:

The other candidate for the greatest weakness of Bernieism is its belief that most Americans are secret communists who, I guess, are just waiting for the Great Maple Hope to get to revolution.

Brainiac Five posted:

The cool thing is that you can believe that the Democratic Party has failed but also disagree with the Berniecrat ideas for the future. Bernieist inability to understand that there are leftist criticisms of their beliefs

NewForumSoftware posted:

I just don't understand how Hillary Clinton is "better" than "the left" in that regard. It doesn't really follow from Effectronica's posting that he believes Hillary Clinton would have been better than Bernie. At least he hasn't said as much as far as I can tell. There's no defense of anything, it's just pure attack.

Majorian posted:

What are some of these criticisms? So far I haven't seen very many concrete criticisms.

gtrmp posted:

Effectronica isn't actually interested in supporting anyone or anything in this thread and is just amusing himself by being tediously contrarian. hth

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, of course you haven't.

SSNeoman posted:

Pathway to hell. Very centrist of you really.

You hurt more people with your idea btw. Way more.

Majorian posted:

Indeed, that would be because you haven't offered any.

Brainiac Five posted:

Well, of course you wouldn't see any criticism as valid, you shining star you!

NewForumSoftware posted:

Is there a decent article about what repealing NAFTA would even look like?

quote:

In fact, repealing NAFTA could raise costs, and therefore prices, for U.S. consumers, particularly in the automotive sector, Hufbauer said. And in general, producing consumer goods in the U.S. instead of abroad could mean higher prices for American shoppers on products like shoes, televisions, solar panels — and for other imported goods like iPhones.
...
Trump could feel backlash in particular from states like Texas — which processes 65% of the total trade between the U.S. and Mexico, according to Census Bureau data reported by the Austin American-Statesman.

Plus, the integrated supply chains provided by NAFTA means that even those products that are categorized as imports from Mexico may have materials and labor originating in the U.S.: 40 cents of every dollar spent on Mexican imports technically comes back to America for that reason, according to nonpartisan research group the Woodrow Wilson Center. For every dollar spent on Canadian imports, 25 cents comes back.

quote:

Pulling out of NAFTA entirely is an extreme reaction that would send the entire continent into chaos. Companies which exist in more than one country (which is many of them; in agriculture, for example, beef producers often raise cattle in Mexico and slaughter in the US) would be forced to pick up and move, at their own expense. That expense could well put them out of business. If companies decide to deal with the tariffs, they could pass those price hikes onto the consumer, raising prices on food in the US.

Increased tariffs would make for more expensive food shipped from Mexico to the US—that includes coffee, vegetables, beer, liquor, chocolate, and fruit. On the reverse side, why wouldn’t Mexico slap a retaliatory tariff on exported American agricultural goods? Mexico imports hundreds of billions of dollars worth of corn, soy, pork, dairy, and fuel, among other agricultural products, from the US. It’s true that removing those tariffs created huge agribusiness corporations, but allowing them to pop back up wouldn’t force those huge agribusiness concerns to become family farms again—it’d just depress current markets for farm goods.

Agricultural trade between the US and Canada is much smaller than between the US and Mexico, but the biggest debate between the two countries in that arena is about dairy products…which are not actually affected by NAFTA at all. It’s possible that without NAFTA, Canada would try to impose tariffs similar to the existing ones for dairy on other agricultural products, which would hurt US farmers by reducing their export market, but, you know, who knows?

quote:

Supply chains will be disrupted and US workers may be laid off or could lose their jobs permanently. Restricting supply from the major source of softwood lumber imported into the United States, namely Canada, will increase margins charged by US softwood lumber producers but will hurt both the US construction industry and US home buyers. The application of statutory powers by the president to impose duties could be challenged by Congress and in the US courts. Trading partners of the United States will retaliate, either by invoking dispute settlement procedures under the WTO or under other trade agreements, or simply resorting to self-help by erecting trade barriers against US goods. Trade retaliation sanctioned through WTO dispute settlement procedures can be very costly. For example, in the United States – Tax Treatment
for “Foreign Sales Corporations,” an arbitrator authorized the suspension by the European Communities (now the European Union) of 100 per cent ad valorem charges on imports of certain goods from the United States in a maximum amount of over US $4 billion.

quote:

Simply stated: the U.S. should not withdraw from NAFTA.

Brainiac Five posted:

A cool thing about the $15/hr minimum wage proposal is that no Bernout can explain why that number was picked.

Majorian posted:

The reason why is because cities like L.A., San Francisco, and Seattle have successfully raised their minimum wages to $15/hour.

SSNeoman posted:

Unfortunately no. The major issue is that it'll be a state-by-state problem. So the consequences will be felt differently state to state. Still, you can cobble the general idea:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nafta-us-jobs-2016-11


http://modernfarmer.com/2016/12/trumps-pledge-destroy-nafta-affect-agriculture/


I like this one a lot, despite that final sentence. Indeed if Trump did pull out of NAFTA, they why shouldn't other countries react and respond?

If you got time for some "light reading", check this:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...0022097&EXT=pdf


This also has a whole section on withdrawing from NAFTA: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...6125098&EXT=pdf

The author helpfully summarizes it though:

Brainiac Five posted:

Also the common Bernout reason for withdrawing from NAFTA

Brainiac Five posted:

Ardennes posted:

Also, I more or less started ignoring all of those shows once it began clear how limited their criticism actually was. They would skewer Republicans but often their broader criticisms were in reality fairly conservative especially after 2008/2009 and even more so around 2015-2016.

Condiv posted:

i didn't say i think trump's idea is a good plan for getting rid of nafta, but i'm not gonna cry any tears if it's gone. i think it should be phased out

Majorian posted:

The reason why is because cities like L.A., San Francisco, and Seattle have successfully raised their minimum wages to $15/hour.

Majorian posted:

This isn't a universally-held position among Bernie supporters. Bernie himself doesn't support wholesale withdrawal.