Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[NAFTA] Renegotiation

1356711

Posts

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    We would have one sided NAFTA. The US must continue with the NAFTA provisions regardless of the outcome because it's a matter of Federal Law. We must be released from those obligations.

    Canada and Mexico would be released from the provisions if Trump withdrew

    Wait, so if Trump "withdraws" from NAFTA then Canada can do whatever the fuck it wants but the US still have to abide by the conditions of the old NAFTA deal?

    In theory. In practice if he withdraws we get a fascinating Supreme Court case.

    Never Stop Making PoastMorganVDuke 2.0DevoutlyApatheticBouwsTKayne Red Robeoverride367
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    hippofant wrote: »
    Canadian media is now openly referring to US NAFTA demands as "poison pills" now, in front-page headlines: U.S. tables NAFTA's 'poison pill' with auto sector demands

    If Trump thinks he's going to muscle the Canadians around with preposterous demands, it's not happening, as Canadian public opinion isn't just giving the Canadian government the option to walk, but is starting to push for it even. RIP NAFTA at this rate.

    And you wouldn't even need to gauge Canadian public opinion to take that position. Excoriating a bipartisan agreement like NAFTA as historically bad and publicly exclaiming "American First" as a preface to international trade negotiation is laughably dumb. It's astonishing that anyone can think fruitful negotiation can take place when one party is telling the whole world that it's their intention to screw over the other party has much as possible. Canada watched a used car dealer on TV advertise "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you!" for two years and is now taking phone calls from said car dealer.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    BouwsTAridholBeef AvengerkimeGennenalyse RuebenTubularLuggage
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Gnome-InterruptusLovelyNever Stop Making Poast
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    moniker
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    US proposals for Chapter 11 & 20 of NAFTA (the investor-state and state-state dispute resolution mechanisms):
    For example, the American proposal on chapter 11 would make the current arbitration system voluntary, meaning countries would have to opt-in.

    When it comes to the state-to-state dispute resolution process, the panels that make decisions would become advisory.

    It's light on the details besides that, but at that point they might have just requested that both sections be thrown out entirely, considering their proposals effectively accomplish the same. Also from the article, the timeline of these talks is starting to aggravate negotiations:
    One source says the pace of talks is inflaming the situation.

    Organizers have been scheduling talks in roughly two-week intervals, in the hopes of completing the renegotiation process before Christmas.

    Both the U.S. and Mexico have elections in 2018, and want the pact dealt with before that time.

    Experts and analysts have suggested the timeline is unrealistic, given the drastic changes that have already been proposed.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    shryke
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    Yeah

    Yeah, I'm gonna say removing the panels because the US constantly loses in them and doesn't want to lose anymore isn't something a non-US country is gonna be down for

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    AegisshrykeCaedwyrLaOsArdolmrondeaumonikerCouscousGennenalyse RuebenkimePsykomaKetBraMegaMekKayne Red RobeRichyButtersGnome-InterruptusHefflingSleepSkeithEl Muchonever die
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Cello wrote: »
    Yeah

    Yeah, I'm gonna say removing the panels because the US constantly loses in them and doesn't want to lose anymore isn't something a non-US country is gonna be down for

    It also guts every other portion of the agreement. If the panels decisions are not binding then there is no agreement. It would be like making civil judgements non-binding.

    The reason civil courts exist is because the two parties could not come to an agreement. If the court can't force a solution then nothing is fixed!

    Edit: that is to say that changing the language in such a way is equivalent to ending NAFTA. The American position as written is essentially "we want to end NAFTA without saying we're ending NAFTA".

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
    Knight_monikerCouscousshrykeGennenalyse RuebenCaedwyrCelloButtersGnome-Interruptusoverride367HefflingArdol
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    Or backloading provisions where he thinks he won out, but 5 years later every resident has to buy 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Butters wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    In which case the public of any country that actually elects it's leaders leaves a permanent indentation in the ass of whoever rolled over for trump at the next election.

    Edit: Also, this entirely assumes that he can be trusted to reward servility which chris christie can tell you all kinds of stories about.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauNever Stop Making Poast
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    Or backloading provisions where he thinks he won out, but 5 years later every resident has to buy 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup.

    I mean

    I could probably find a use for 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup, to be fair...

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    AridholV1mRichyGnome-InterruptusForarQuidGnizmoSorceSkeithRawkking Goodguy
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    Or backloading provisions where he thinks he won out, but 5 years later every resident has to buy 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup.

    I mean

    I could probably find a use for 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup, to be fair...

    I'm sure I'd get tired of pancakes for breakfast eventually. Not sure it would be before I died of a heart attack.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    Theres also the fact that trump has a long history of neither honoring past agreements that his office has been a party to nor ones he himself has made, so what kind of idiot would ever think they could make any sort of arangement with him that is actually to their benefit?

    Well the threat of him reneging is real but I could totally see him getting worked over by a diplomatic group that actually knows what they're doing and aren't too proud to pretend to kiss his ass. The Saudi's proved he's not hard to win over.

    Or backloading provisions where he thinks he won out, but 5 years later every resident has to buy 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup.

    I mean

    I could probably find a use for 50 liters of tequila and maple syrup, to be fair...

    I'm sure I'd get tired of pancakes for breakfast eventually. Not sure it would be before I died of a heart attack.

    Dude, no. You also get waffles and french toasts, and a spoonful is a nice topping on oatmeal. Then you have your dinner options - pork, salmon, and sausages in particular go great with maple syrup. And then desert, in addition to pouding chomeur you'll find that the list of cakes you can make with maple syrup is endless. I've also used a cup in my breadmaker recipes to make a nice maple-flavoured loaf, and now that I have an ice cream maker maple ice cream won't be far behind.

    Man, I'd be down for 50 liters of maple syrup and a well-equipped kitchen right about now...

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusLaOsCelloV1mshrykeAridholBouwsTmrondeauSorceRawkking Goodguy
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Meanwhile, the USA made a surprise demand for Canada to abandon its supply-side management system. This is a surprise since Canada had started the negotiations by saying that was off the table, and it wasn't a planned topic for discussion in this round of negotiations. Canada brushed off the demand. More interesting however was that US negotiators, according to sources, were clearly unhappy and uncomfortable making the demand which seems to have been forced from above, with one source in another article describing the US negotiators like "lawyers who hate their client".

    This latest request, combined with other requests by the USA that basically sum up to "we'll block our market to you and you'll open your market to us and we'll remove any right you have to complain against whatever we do", raise the question of whether the US are really negotiating in good faith or whether they are deliberately sabotaging the talks.

    This, combined with the US backing out of TPP, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Paris Accord, and questioning their commitment to NATO, raises international concerns that the US is no longer a trustworthy partner or ally.

    sig.gif
    ForarPsykomaDuke 2.0EncmrondeauJragghenNever Stop Making PoastMegaMek
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    So am I missing something else nefarious here or is the US insistence on voluntary enforcement entirely at odds with their hard-line demands?

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Sunset clause. The U.S. has requested a termination clause that would end NAFTA after five years, unless all parties agree to extend the agreement.
    This is hilariously silly. What is the pretend rationale for this other than being an obvious attempt to create a hostage situation every five years? Any of the parties can withdraw from the agreement while leaving it in force for other members.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    We're not ending NAFTA but after we're done not ending NAFTA it will end in 5 years.

    Never Stop Making Poast
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Sunset clause. The U.S. has requested a termination clause that would end NAFTA after five years, unless all parties agree to extend the agreement.
    This is hilariously silly. What is the pretend rationale for this other than being an obvious attempt to create a hostage situation every five years? Any of the parties can withdraw from the agreement while leaving it in force for other members.

    Theoretically it means members need to reaffirm that the agreement is in their national interest on a regular basis instead of just keeping it forever out of beurocratic momentum.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    So am I missing something else nefarious here or is the US insistence on voluntary enforcement entirely at odds with their hard-line demands?

    It's voluntary enforcement on things that don't go their way very often, so the next time a ruling goes against them they will just choose to ignore it

    Their entire request comes down to: we get everything and we protect our {auto, dairy, other politically sensitive sectors}, you get nothing and open up all your politically sensitive sectors

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Never Stop Making Poast
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I kind of get the impression that the negotiators are trying their best to be reasonable, but much like one of those shitty hidden camera reality tv shows they have to do what the guy on the other end of the ear mic is telling them.

    Seriously though: who the hell is going to trust the US on any treaty over the next 20 years?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    IlpalashrykeNever Stop Making Poast
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Sunset clause. The U.S. has requested a termination clause that would end NAFTA after five years, unless all parties agree to extend the agreement.
    This is hilariously silly. What is the pretend rationale for this other than being an obvious attempt to create a hostage situation every five years? Any of the parties can withdraw from the agreement while leaving it in force for other members.

    Theoretically it means members need to reaffirm that the agreement is in their national interest on a regular basis instead of just keeping it forever out of beurocratic momentum.

    You could achieve that by having a mandatory joint NAFTA press conference every five years.

    What this would really achieve is create a recurring five-year cycle of economic uncertainty that would cripple all three of our national economies. And it would make NAFTA a permanent political wedge issue.

    sig.gif
    V1mCelloGnome-InterruptusshrykeAridholAegisCauldCouscousForarmonikerKnight_KetBramrondeauMillArdolSkeith
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I kind of get the impression that the negotiators are trying their best to be reasonable, but much like one of those shitty hidden camera reality tv shows they have to do what the guy on the other end of the ear mic is telling them.

    Seriously though: who the hell is going to trust the US on any treaty over the next 20 years?

    I think that Russia would feel fine signing a treaty currently.

    Realistically it is going to come down to what happens in 2020 and what direction we go from there.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Businesses make relatively long term decisions based on this, people get NATFA visas and move based on this. Adding in an "oh this may just become invalid if we do nothing" clause ruins all of that

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    a5ehrenmonikermrondeauArdolSkeith
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the USA made a surprise demand for Canada to abandon its supply-side management system. This is a surprise since Canada had started the negotiations by saying that was off the table, and it wasn't a planned topic for discussion in this round of negotiations. Canada brushed off the demand. More interesting however was that US negotiators, according to sources, were clearly unhappy and uncomfortable making the demand which seems to have been forced from above, with one source in another article describing the US negotiators like "lawyers who hate their client".

    This latest request, combined with other requests by the USA that basically sum up to "we'll block our market to you and you'll open your market to us and we'll remove any right you have to complain against whatever we do", raise the question of whether the US are really negotiating in good faith or whether they are deliberately sabotaging the talks.

    This, combined with the US backing out of TPP, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Paris Accord, and questioning their commitment to NATO, raises international concerns that the US is no longer a trustworthy partner or ally.

    They aren't deliberately sabotaging the talks. The US negotiators are just being forced to work according to the instructions of a blowhard and moron who doesn't understand trade, soft power or foreign relations.

    monikerArdol
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Isn't like the number one rule of buisness "don't rock the boat"?

    Like, the whole point of trade agreements is to establish long term stability between yourself and someone else so that buisnesses can establish supply lines, distribution, manufacturing and a host of other crucial factors.

    So why in the fuck would you want to present yourself as being wildly unstable at a time when you are already hemorrhaging good faith to your most important trading partners?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Isn't like the number one rule of buisness "don't rock the boat"?

    Like, the whole point of trade agreements is to establish long term stability between yourself and someone else so that buisnesses can establish supply lines, distribution, manufacturing and a host of other crucial factors.

    So why in the fuck would you want to present yourself as being wildly unstable at a time when you are already hemorrhaging good faith to your most important trading partners?

    Trump doesn't believe in mutally benefical arrangements and has the buisness sense of a con artist.

    Duke 2.0shrykeGnome-InterruptusKnight_KetBraSiliconStewGennenalyse RuebenArdolPsykomaNever Stop Making PoastSorcekimeMegaMekSkeithRawkking Goodguy
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Isn't like the number one rule of buisness "don't rock the boat"?

    Like, the whole point of trade agreements is to establish long term stability between yourself and someone else so that buisnesses can establish supply lines, distribution, manufacturing and a host of other crucial factors.

    So why in the fuck would you want to present yourself as being wildly unstable at a time when you are already hemorrhaging good faith to your most important trading partners?

    Trump doesn't believe in mutally benefical arrangements and has the buisness sense of a con artist.

    Yup. Everything about the US position on NAFTA makes perfect sense once you understand how little Trump understands about trade and how his mind works when it comes to deals.

    He basically thinks he can bully Canada and Mexico into eating America's shit because clearly they should because America. His negotiators are stuck pushing this position even though they know it's bullshit.

    AridholNever Stop Making Poast
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Isn't like the number one rule of buisness "don't rock the boat"?

    Like, the whole point of trade agreements is to establish long term stability between yourself and someone else so that buisnesses can establish supply lines, distribution, manufacturing and a host of other crucial factors.

    So why in the fuck would you want to present yourself as being wildly unstable at a time when you are already hemorrhaging good faith to your most important trading partners?

    Trump doesn't believe in mutally benefical arrangements and has the buisness sense of a con artist.

    Yup. Everything about the US position on NAFTA makes perfect sense once you understand how little Trump understands about trade and how his mind works when it comes to deals.

    He basically thinks he can bully Canada and Mexico into eating America's shit because clearly they should because America. His negotiators are stuck pushing this position even though they know it's bullshit.

    I'm not so sure the negotiators aren't true believers. It smells of "America needs to assert it's dominance again like the good old days!" shit that I'd hear from my dad fresh off listening to Rush Limbaugh.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Duke 2.0
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    I almost feel like we're reaching a point where we need a major economic disaster caused by this stuff to wake up the true believers. They are so entrenched in their "America First" position they can't even see the forest for the trees. Until the pain of backing out of trade agreements becomes acute to the average low political IQ voter (e.g. they feel the pain at the Walmart register), we will keep seeing stuff like this. We're too many generations removed from the last time the US tried (and utterly failed) to fix it's economy using isolationist policies...and we all know how the average American is with our own history.

    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    True believers will never wake up. When things get worse because of actions they support, they will blame scapegoats - racial, national, political. Then they will double down and continue to support the same things.

    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
    GnomeTankRMS OceanicKetBraPhoenix-DshrykeRichyDuke 2.0mrondeauPolaritieGennenalyse RuebenMillNever Stop Making PoastSorcekimeGnome-InterruptusMegaMekSkeith
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    I almost feel like we're reaching a point where we need a major economic disaster caused by this stuff to wake up the true believers. They are so entrenched in their "America First" position they can't even see the forest for the trees. Until the pain of backing out of trade agreements becomes acute to the average low political IQ voter (e.g. they feel the pain at the Walmart register), we will keep seeing stuff like this. We're too many generations removed from the last time the US tried (and utterly failed) to fix it's economy using isolationist policies...and we all know how the average American is with our own history.

    I mean, they felt the pain of getting into NAFTA, that's why this push started. This whole thing is a classic Polanyi double movement

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    True believers will never wake up. When things get worse because of actions they support, they will blame scapegoats - racial, national, political. Then they will double down and continue to support the same things.

    Even if they wake up, it will be too late: no one will ever trust the USA in the slightest.

    Never Stop Making Poast
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    True believers will never wake up. When things get worse because of actions they support, they will blame scapegoats - racial, national, political. Then they will double down and continue to support the same things.

    The only thing that can be done about true believers is get the moderates to switch sides and drown them out in society long enough for time to get rid of them.

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Madican wrote: »
    Al_wat wrote: »
    True believers will never wake up. When things get worse because of actions they support, they will blame scapegoats - racial, national, political. Then they will double down and continue to support the same things.

    The only thing that can be done about true believers is get the moderates to switch sides and drown them out in society long enough for time to get rid of them.

    There's a whole theory of how true believers work and where they come from and this isn't really how it goes. Have you ever read Eric Hoffer?

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    So unless Trump does an about face or gets removed before really soon. Probably figure the current NAFTA is here to stay. The only question is will Trump continue being dumb fuck dick, that will trigger a bunch of unneeded crises by trying to unilateral withdraw from NAFTA when he doesn't get his way.

    For those wondering how the US maintains it's credibility after this shit stain. Depends on how the "I'm POTUS, a child and a dick and I'm pulling out of every treaty I don't like or when I feel like being a spiteful ass" issue gets resolved. If Congress and the states head it off with an amendment, it'll stay intact because sends the message that the US will stick to a treaty regardless of what the current POTUS wants and possible even what a slim majority of the tries leaders want (depends on if we leave 2/3 votes from the Senate being needed to withdraw or make it stricter than that, assuming the other treaty members are acting in good faith, seems likely). A court ruling in against the move would also achieve similar results and likely would default to either 2/3 of the Senate vote to get out or the other treaty partners do something to render the treaty moot.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Hey everybody, did you know that a weakened manufacturing sector leads to an increase in abortion, spousal abuse, divorce and infertility? No? Well the White House sure does! (Link)
    White House officials working on trade policy were alarmed last month when a top adviser to President Trump circulated a two-page document that alleged a weakened manufacturing sector leads to an increase in abortion, spousal abuse, divorce and infertility, two people familiar with the matter said.

    The documents, which were obtained by The Washington Post, were prepared and distributed by Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. They were presented without any data or information to back up the assertions, and reveal some of the materials the Trump administration reviewed as it was crafting its trade policy.

    The documents list what Navarro alleges are the problems that have resulted from a “weakened manufacturing base.” Some of the consequences are economic, including “lost jobs,” “depressed wages,” and “closed factories.”

    But a separate sheet claims “Socioeconomic Costs” of the decline of the country’s manufacturing industry, such as “Higher Divorce Rate,” “Increased Drug/Opioid Use,” “Rising Mortality Rate,” “Higher Abortion Rate,” among many others.

    WH-Document-01.JPG&w=1484

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
    Gnome-InterruptusNever Stop Making Poast
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    True believers will never wake up. When things get worse because of actions they support, they will blame scapegoats - racial, national, political. Then they will double down and continue to support the same things.

    Some of us woke up

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Hey everybody, did you know that a weakened manufacturing sector leads to an increase in abortion, spousal abuse, divorce and infertility? No? Well the White House sure does! (Link)
    White House officials working on trade policy were alarmed last month when a top adviser to President Trump circulated a two-page document that alleged a weakened manufacturing sector leads to an increase in abortion, spousal abuse, divorce and infertility, two people familiar with the matter said.

    The documents, which were obtained by The Washington Post, were prepared and distributed by Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. They were presented without any data or information to back up the assertions, and reveal some of the materials the Trump administration reviewed as it was crafting its trade policy.

    The documents list what Navarro alleges are the problems that have resulted from a “weakened manufacturing base.” Some of the consequences are economic, including “lost jobs,” “depressed wages,” and “closed factories.”

    But a separate sheet claims “Socioeconomic Costs” of the decline of the country’s manufacturing industry, such as “Higher Divorce Rate,” “Increased Drug/Opioid Use,” “Rising Mortality Rate,” “Higher Abortion Rate,” among many others.

    WH-Document-01.JPG&w=1484

    All of which are at record lows, or have stabilized and rebounded. Aside from opioid abuse, which probably has more to do with pharmaceutical regulatory changes in the 90's and 00's since it's a fairly new phenomenon while manufacturing employment has been in decline for decades.

    Mill
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I can't even.
    The Trump administration is demanding NAFTA concessions from Canada and Mexico but not offering “anything” in exchange, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Wednesday. [...] “We’re trying to do a difficult thing. We’re asking two countries to give up some privileges that they have enjoyed for 22 years. And we’re not in a position to offer anything in return,” he said on CNBC. “So that’s a tough sell. And I don’t know that we’ll get every single thing we want. The question is, will we get enough to make it worthwhile.”

    [...]

    U.S President Donald Trump used similar language to Ross in his own interview on Wednesday, saying on Fox Business Network that Canada and Mexico are having a hard time understanding that things would have to get worse for them. “In order to have a resolution — because right now, Mexico and Canada have such a great deal — it’s so good that it’s very hard for them to get used to the fact that it can’t be that way anymore,” Trump told host Lou Dobbs.

    This fucking moron.

    sig.gif
    Never Stop Making PoastDuke 2.0Al_watGnome-InterruptusTubularLuggageAridholPhoenix-DPsykomamonikershrykeMillKetBraSkeithMegaMek
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.

    RichyGnome-InterruptusAridholLovelymonikershrykeAntoshkaMillSkeithMegaMekknitdan
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    So he's just saying "no you can't do that anymore" without even offering anything? Is there even a threat?

Sign In or Register to comment.