|
All because Trudeau called him Donald and wouldn’t use his stupid new name for NAFTA and made him mad.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Does NAFTA have some clause in it saying that the president can withdraw without an act of congress? Or is it one of those not-actually-a-treaty agreements?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:(other than the default of "Trump is so loving stupid, literally everything he does is automatically wrong and the opposite position is by default correct") I mean that's pretty good as a general rule
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:I am extremely ready for people to stop equating him with the astrophysics community at large. Nevermind the "real scientist" fight; after Ott, Krauss, Marcy et al., astrophysics has already built itself a reputation of being particularly rapey, so NDT is doing minimal damage to the field on that front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Context: USMCA doesn't just take effect; part of the terms of USMCA is that NAFTA stays in place until USMCA is ratified by all three governments. By threatening to withdraw early from NAFTA, Trump is trying to force Congress to hand him a quick ratification process instead of, you know, doing their jobs and examining it carefully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:wait what, didn't you just renegotiate some of its terms in a surprisingly okay deal, you loving shithead He's basically blackmailing Congress into approving the USMCA (and thus reapproving the 99% of it that's NAFTA stuff). If they do, Trump's "formal termination" will mean basically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Praising a member of the British royalty and acting like they're "cool" is pretty embarrising for anyone claiming to be on the left, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:All because Trudeau called him Donald and wouldn’t use his stupid new name for NAFTA and made him mad. Unless I'm missing something, this is just Trump grabbing a media cycle by saying something provocative. Of course congress is going to ratify the treaty, it's a minor improvement over NAFTA for the USA. All it cost was signalling that America will try to roll it's closest allies on trade basically whenever it wants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Saagonsa posted:Praising a member of the British royalty and acting like they're "cool" is pretty embarrising for anyone claiming to be on the left, to be honest. Good point, but, counterpoint: Elizabeth has literally fought nazis, so
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:It's my gut feeling that NAFTA was, on net, bad because it allowed companies to more easily outsource American labor to Mexico, but what is the approved leftist take on why it is actually good and we should keep it/be outraged about Trump ending it? (other than the default of "Trump is so loving stupid, literally everything he does is automatically wrong and the opposite position is by default correct") Leftist take: it wasn't good, not because of its effect on the US, but because of its effect on Mexico. I don't really trust Trump to do anything but take a dump on the market place, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Does NAFTA have some clause in it saying that the president can withdraw without an act of congress? Or is it one of those not-actually-a-treaty agreements? quote:Article 2205: Withdrawal It's not clear as written whether this means that the President can do it personally or whether it requires an act of Congress. Article II, I think, only states that he can't make treaties without the consent of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Leftist take: it wasn't good, not because of its effect on the US, but because of its effect on Mexico. I don't really trust Trump to do anything but take a dump on the market place, however. oh right, that reminds me, it also wouldn't much bring back any staple crops et al that were outcompeted by Great Plains megafarms or whatever
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:It's not clear as written whether this means that the President can do it personally or whether it requires an act of Congress. Article II, I think, only states that he can't make treaties without the consent of the Senate. So it's basically wildly unclear how withdrawing from NAFTA is actually done and any attempt to do so would be tied up in court for at least as long as it would take for congress to do this the slow way instead of ramming it through
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:So it's basically wildly unclear how withdrawing from NAFTA is actually done and any attempt to do so would be tied up in court for at least as long as it would take for congress to do this the slow way instead of ramming it through 99% certain he's mad about how he's being seen at G20 and doing something "shocking" to get the headlines back on something that isn't either Mueller coming after his family or him being the laughingstock of G20.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Side effect of the MAGAFTA thing is it requires that the US prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (because Canada managed to slip that in there), as well as having sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender more generally sprinkled throughout as to be protected. Some on the right are also starting to hand-wring that the language requiring that the parties have statues and regulations that maintain "the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Well he wasn’t involved at all in getting the IAU to take up and vote on the resolution to change the classifications. This is not the hill to die on, dude(tte). He has been clear that he didn't demote Pluto, he was the head of a planetarium that was revising its exhibit on planets. For the previous 8 years or so Pluto was starting to be seen as something that shouldn't be called a planet. After the planetarium revised their exhibit there wasn't even any press about this "demotion" for about a year. Stereotype posted:He isn’t a scientist though. He started working as a planetarium curator almost immediately after getting his PhD. He hasn’t done any real science since his thesis work three decades ago. He is a “science communicator,” he does not further science, he just talks about it. Bill Nye is a science communicator with a BS in mechanical engineering. Carl Sagan was a science communicator with a PhD in physics/astrophysics. Neil Tyson is a science communicator with a PhD in astrophysics. The attitude that "just talking about science" is so much lesser than "furthering science" is really disgusting. Do you know how many future scientists Carl Sagan and Bill Nye have created? Do you know how many of my students know about basic concepts in physics and chemistry thanks to Nye and Sagan and Tyson? Do you know how many "Actual Scientists" do unsung work that is only sometimes used by other scientists? I teach high school science (I have a BS in Chemistry if that matters), and I make it clear to my kids that I am not a scientist because I don't do science even though I did spend a single summer doing actual science. I have been a scientist (doing "small" research). Stereotype posted:I’m not saying that being a science communicator is bad, they are extremely important. Most scientists are not good at communicating the importance of their work to laypeople, which is often very challenging. He sure as hell is an astrophysicist. He has also been very good at communicating specific scientific discoveries and why the scientific method has provided the most useful explanation of the universe. He understands the science behind it and pauses when answering questions because he's trying to figure out how to condense the complicated explanation into something his audience can understand. This is what I do every day with my high school kids, so I recognize it. That said, if he doesn't understand why reaching under a colleague's sleeveless dress to see her tattoos is not okay or why inviting a young woman who worked for him on a documentary back to his place for cheese and wine was a bad idea then he needs to retire or admit he was a creep and explain how he is learning to not be a creep. It's Al Franken all over again. Malachi Constant fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
Saxophone posted:99% certain he's mad about how he's being seen at G20 and doing something "shocking" to get the headlines back on something that isn't either Mueller coming after his family or him being the laughingstock of G20. This strikes me as a solid read but still makes me furious. Shifty Pony posted:Side effect of the MAGAFTA thing is it requires that the US prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (because Canada managed to slip that in there), as well as having sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender more generally sprinkled throughout as to be protected. yeah, i'm not sure how that stuff made it through (yes I am, it's because President Deals is a moron) bonus: one of my family members benefits meaningfully from the whole dairy thing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Side effect of the MAGAFTA thing is it requires that the US prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (because Canada managed to slip that in there), as well as having sexual orientation, pregnancy, and gender more generally sprinkled throughout as to be protected. lol was trump so desperate to sign a trade deal he could shout maga over that he agreed to one that strengthens unions
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:07
|
|
|
Saagonsa posted:Praising a member of the British royalty and acting like they're "cool" is pretty embarrising for anyone claiming to be on the left, to be honest.  Hieronymous Alloy posted:Good point, but, counterpoint: what do you mean by this? did she actually enlist and take part in battles? edit: apparently she was a truck mechanic. how much she actually contributed is kinda questionable considering: quote:Unlike the other members of the ATS, Elizabeth returned each night to sleep in the royal residence of Windsor Castle. Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Why on Earth did he think telling those stories would make him look better? Because he is the sort of person who is incapable of saying, "I was wrong. I'm very sorry. I will never do this again."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:lol was trump so desperate to sign a trade deal he could shout maga over that he agreed to one that strengthens unions It could potentially void right-to-work laws nationwide, depending on how the inevitable dispute resolution process goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Easy Diff posted:It's my gut feeling that NAFTA was, on net, bad because it allowed companies to more easily outsource American labor to Mexico, but what is the approved leftist take on why it is actually good and we should keep it/be outraged about Trump ending it? (other than the default of "Trump is so loving stupid, literally everything he does is automatically wrong and the opposite position is by default correct") it was net bad. pulling out of it suddenly will also be bad in that it will be a shock to markets, but that's really the only bad part of getting rid of it. it'd be better to ease out of it or sign new trade deals that extended at minimum american labor protections to labor in the signatory nations Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
I wonder if that also means a termination of CUSFTA, which is superceded by NAFTA. I suppose we'll find out. Can your president even do such a thing without congress' approval?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Loving the squirming smile on Trudeau. He can’t even stand to physically be near Trump anymore Was that before or after he called him Donald. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
I'm reading all the positive news coverage of Bush and I want to blow my brains out. It's seriously depressing how everyone is falling over themselves to say nice things about him. I mean I get it, "don't speak ill of the dead" etc. etc. but this is a very serious form of the whole "decorum" disease that the media specifically suffers from whereby a famous person dies and all pretense of objective coverage goes out the window and they are made into a god drat a saint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Sure, but it's the USMCA now! USMCA!!! USMCA!!!!! Pay no attention to the fact that it's 99% the same poo poo as NAFTA. Don't you mean CUSMA?  Also to my understanding it's basically an update on NAFTA to accommodate for the changes in way the world and economic systems work since the mid 90's. The underlying provisions are supposed to remain the same but with updated rules surrounding things like labor laws and environmental standards. It's a "better" deal in Trump land because his names gonna be on it so it must be the absolute most amazing treaty ever to have the potential to be signed into law and the old deal of course one of the worst because Bill Clinton's name is on it, but really it's more of a renegotiation and update that happens every so often in international treaties. Also Trump can't understand international deals as being a benefit for a collective, only as a zero sum game where there are hard winners and losers so this could get interesting. If Canada and Mexico keep being in the for it camp no doubt he'll suspect that it's because they're getting something out of it in a way that means the United States is losing out on something, ergo he's showing weakness to his base and he'll try to torpedo the drat thing somehow in 2019 thinking he's going to score much needed political points. It's one of the many things that makes him a uniquely lovely President. To really shorten it up, for Canada and Mexico it's about what's actually in the agreement, for the United States as a result of Trump it's almost all about optics and how he gets to sell it to his base as a show of how super awesome he is at negotiating and little else. If something's in there that really isn't good for the U.S economy he'd just as soon pretend that it's fake news probably. Kale fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:I wonder if that also means a termination of CUSFTA, which is superceded by NAFTA. I suppose we'll find out. Can your president even do such a thing without congress' approval? I don't think so, but he's gonna say it until someone on his team tells him he can't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:oh right, that reminds me, it also wouldn't much bring back any staple crops et al that were outcompeted by Great Plains megafarms or whatever i really don't get this attitude. shipping stuff that can be made or grown less far away than another country is not really sustainable anymore. some jobs are going to have to come back if we want to deal with climate change. edit: also, megafarms are themselves extremely destructive to the environment and have to be done away with
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
Oh wow, my dumb joke was worthy of a thread title?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lBRXHlM/status/1068846040688791552
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i really don't get this attitude. shipping stuff that can be made or grown less far away than another country is not really sustainable anymore. some jobs are going to have to come back if we want to deal with climate change. This is actually a good point in terms of future strategy / climate philosophy, the thing I said was kinda dumb in that light. I'm not convinced that better megafarms aren't part of the answer, but shipping grain from Iowa to Mexico City is probably questionable for the future we want to reach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it was net bad. pulling out of it suddenly will also be bad in that it will be a shock to markets, but that's really the only bad part of getting rid of it. it'd be better to ease out of it or sign new trade deals that extended at minimum american labor protections to labor in the signatory nations Of the 3 signatories America is not the one with good labor protections or laws and the language in both NAFTA and the new deal that do try and protect labor have been primarily the result of Canadian efforts. So dunno wtf you’re on about here but I don’t think you’re particularly well versed on either deal if you think American labor protections are good. That said both deals also have huge issues with distribution of the resulting benefits but that’s not going to be addressed with multiple bi-lateral deals at all, in fact it would get worse. Welcome to capitalism I guess. squirrelzipper fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
squirrelzipper posted:Of the 3 signatories America is not the one with good labor protections or laws and the language in both NAFTA and the new deal that do try and protect labor have been primarily the result of Canadian efforts. So dunno wtf you’re on about here but I don’t think you’re particularly well versed on either deal if you think American labor protections are good. i know. that's why i said that a new labor deal should at minimum hold all signatories to american labor regulations. the strongest labor regulations of any of the signatories would be more preferable, but I already get enough pushback and get accused of calling for "full socialism now" when I suggest that at the very least our trade deals should force american labor regs or stronger. Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:So it's basically wildly unclear how withdrawing from NAFTA is actually done and any attempt to do so would be tied up in court for at least as long as it would take for congress to do this the slow way instead of ramming it through Well, that and terminating NAFTA doesn't actually terminate the NAFTA Implementation Act, which is the piece of legislature that implemented the procedures necessary for the US to comply with NAFTA and so almost all of the provisions that bind US trade remains law until repealed or replaced, while the ones that let them challenge Canadian and Mexican laws that violate the treaty would stop. So even if it survives a successful court challenge, terminating NAFTA over congressional objection only terminates NAFTA in the same sense that Trump making GBS threads directly into the insurance markets "fixed" Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:57
|
|
|
Guys do you think our civilization will be taught like Easter Island and summed up with, "Their obsession with consuming meat and electronics led them to cut down all the trees and die out."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Guys do you think our civilization will be taught like Easter Island and summed up with, "Their obsession with consuming meat and electronics led them to cut down all the trees and die out." who's gonna be teaching our civilization? the roaches?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Good point, but, counterpoint: Being that the British military didn't allow for women in frontline roles at the time (though quite a few served with distinction in intelligence roles on the continent), it's more accurate to say that she contributed to the war effort. Prince Philip, though, most definitely fought fascists during his career in the RN, seeing action at the Battle of Cape Matapan and elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Oh wow, my dumb joke was worthy of a thread title? Debate & Discussion › USPOL Winter: Oh wow, my dumb joke was worthy of a thread title?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:who's gonna be teaching our civilization? the roaches? don't be rude, condiv, their preferred terminology is the Ck’chk’ck
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
lets not talk about roaches, tia
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 06:23
|
|