Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geotag277

In other news, Trump has officially withdrawn from TPP, one of the left's most hated pieces of legislation. I look forward to whatnext and Klazu and others loudly praising Trump for this "obvious correct move".

All this will do is tilt the rest of Asia more towards China. Rather than making America great again, it will diminish it's importance. That's the problem with Trumpees, all the inherent contradictions and chaotic policies. If they want to disengage from alliances like NATO and the world, why do they want to spend more on the military.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Well, the left isn't monolithic. Many on the left were against it, but I've always been pro-trade. There were bad things in there, but there are always trade-offs. I was ultimately for the deal, but understand why Trump withdrew, and agree that he really did have a mandate for doing that, it was a big part of why he got elected and there's plenty of support for the move. I do, however, think it will play to China's advantage in the pacific.

Sorry but you can't call yourself left and support free trade, doing so shows you have a serious lack of understanding of what the left actually supports.

Left opposes neoliberalism, since these free trade deals are based in neoliberalism and allowing corporations to freely transfer capital and product across borders without hurdle, it is thusly anti left to support the deal.

The Liberals are not left and neither is the US democratic party, they are both centrist parties, the NDP stance on free trade and labour party of the UK stance on same is what the left's views on these deals are and even then thats extremely moderate left.

Right leaning individuals focus on business and free enterprise, this trade deal only focuses on those free enterprise aspects and does not include protections for workers which is exactly what the left would demand of it.

Trump is an idiot, but on trade he's 100% bang on.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Sorry but you can't call yourself left and support free trade, doing so shows you have a serious lack of understanding of what the left actually supports.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to define people. People can be socially left and even somewhat economically left and still support free trade.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I'm sorry, but you don't get to define people. People can be socially left and even somewhat economically left and still support free trade.

My point exactly, especially in the context I was responding to. Just because I don't fit someone else's dogma doesn't mean I can't call myself whatever I want, especially when it's as vague as identifying with left wing politics, I didn't use a narrow term like communist or anarcho-capitalist. I can hold whatever view I feel like on trade while generally supporting the welfare state and social justice. I'm not an ideologue and my views in one area do not determine those in another.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Before you crow that you have done so, nowhere in this thread have you done what you are accusing rousseau. If what you are accusing of rousseau is doing is ranting without showing that you in fact know what is going on, you haven't shown that you have either. So I would recommend you pulling up your pants and doing so by not jerking yourself over another poster and actually discuss the issue or as the Canadians say, shit or get off the pot.

If someone is going to come out and be so wildly against a secretary of a department pick, I would expect that person to justify their reasoning with actual relevant policy examples. I have, in fact, given specific policy examples - No Child Left Behind with it's one size fits all mandate from the Federal Department of Education which has been widely criticized (Bush era legislation), and school choice as an experiment in holding schools accountable by transferring power and funds to parents to put their children in the school that best suits them (DeVos' signature issue, really).

If one is going to so loudly criticize the individual in charge of a Department, I would expect at least a cursory knowledge of the performance and inner workings of that department, and be able to coherently discuss why this individual's specific policy proposals will not be objectively beneficially to the state of education in the United States, and to contrast that with Obama's leadership in this department.

Too much to ask?

Personally, I believe school choice will be a reasonable bit of policy that will go hand in hand with decentralizing education policy away from the Federal level, and furthermore, I think such a decentralization is a positive direction, as a similar scheme works very well in the provinces of Canada.

Rousseau is wholly ignorant about all this, and furthermore, seems completely unable to respond to any of these challenges, talk coherently about any of these policies, and has been shamelessly up front about how ignorant he is about all of this.

But yet, he still comes out of the woodwork after 8 years of a meager and uninspiring Obama-led Department of Education to make extremist, incendiary remarks about the incoming secretary of Education, if we are honest, 100% entirely because she was chosen by Trump.

I call it like I see it, hyper-partisanship, and absurdly calling individuals "anti intellectual" when speaking from a position of rather extreme ignorance. Rousseau has done nothing to dispel the challenges of his ignorance, and has in fact loudly admitted that he doesn't need to know how the Department operates, or what her specific policy proposals are, because he got all his information from the 6 minute clip of pure political theater from Franken.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by whatnext

All this will do is tilt the rest of Asia more towards China. Rather than making America great again, it will diminish it's importance. That's the problem with Trumpees, all the inherent contradictions and chaotic policies. If they want to disengage from alliances like NATO and the world, why do they want to spend more on the military.

Let's hear it for whatnext, champion of free trade and cheerleader for TPP.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

Well, the left isn't monolithic. Many on the left were against it, but I've always been pro-trade. There were bad things in there, but there are always trade-offs. I was ultimately for the deal, but understand why Trump withdrew, and agree that he really did have a mandate for doing that, it was a big part of why he got elected and there's plenty of support for the move. I do, however, think it will play to China's advantage in the pacific.

Hillary and Obama were both pretty vehemently for it as well, but free trade has traditionally been an economic tenant of right-leaning economic policy. In practice, there hasn't been a lot of choice in the matter because almost all democrats (and Liberals in Canada) have been endorsing these agreements for as long as I remember.

Being anti-TPP was a huge rallying point for Sanders in the primaries, so much so that he was able to use his political capital to get Hillary to take a "public position" against it (even if we all knew privately she would sign it in a heart beat).

I think free trade agreements are much much more complex than people give them credit for. Especially in Canada we constantly hear about our own local monopolies being threatened, such as the dairy cartel, and how devastating the IP laws will be regarding medicine and film rights and so on.

In reality, these things are always imperfect compromises that can only be evaluated in hindsight. I think there would be a lot more support for them if there wasn't such a long dogged history of companies exporting labor to low cost regions like Mexico. Obstinately the goal of these agreements is to have "tides rise together", so that economic development in Mexico reaches a level so that it no longer makes sense to outsource because workers are paid better, Mexico has a more advanced economy, and things even out. In realty, companies have been abusing cheap labor in Mexico for decades, places like Southern Ontario have been economically devastated, and the people in Mexico aren't rising anywhere near the level of Canada or the United States. People are right to question whether this agreement is actually a good deal for the country.

[Acajack]

Looking at this issue from a different angle...

Trump makes me extremely uneasy like he does most of you but looking at the demonstrations all over the world today... I can't help but think of how people today are so easily influenced when it comes to what they care about.

I mean, I won't ever defend Trump and what he's said about women, but he will have zero effect on the lives of women in most any western country. And yet 100,000 people demonstrated against him in London UK over this issue? When was the last time that 100,000 people took the streets of London to protest an issue that actuallly had a direct impact on the lives of British people?

Seems like being repulsed by Trump and now protesting against him has become the political equivalent of going to see the latest blockbuster movie, or being a fan of Manchester United. It's the "in" thing to do.

[csbvan]

To say the press conference today was anything less than batshit crazy....

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looking at this issue from a different angle...

Trump makes me extremely uneasy like he does most of you but looking at the demonstrations all over the world today... I can't help but think of how people today are so easily influenced when it comes to what they care about.

I mean, I won't ever defend Trump and what he's said about women, but he will have zero effect on the lives of women in most any western country. And yet 100,000 people demonstrated against him in London UK over this issue? When was the last time that 100,000 people took the streets of London to protest an issue that actuallly had a direct impact on the lives of British people?

Seems like being repulsed by Trump and now protesting against him has become the political equivalent of going to see the latest blockbuster movie, or being a fan of Manchester United. It's the "in" thing to do.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I've gotta disagree. Keeping an ear to the ground, the election of Trump is not an isolated event, it lags broader social movements. Specifically, a backlash against feminism and social justice issues in the West has been building for a few years and you see it much more potently on more popular parts of the internet. It does feel like a decently sized group of people all over the West want to role back the clock or at least halt any further progress on women's issues, and that movement has only been getting stronger with the rise of MRAs (the actual organizations, not what they pretend to be) and the alt-right. Trump couldn't have been elected if people who said the sorts of things he said were unelectable. A Women's March in London in that context makes alot of sense, but of course wouldn't have been as well attended if it weren't also accompanied by anxieties about the rise of the right in the EU, and other factors more related to Trump.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Hillary and Obama were both pretty vehemently for it as well, but free trade has traditionally been an economic tenant of right-leaning economic policy. In practice, there hasn't been a lot of choice in the matter because almost all democrats (and Liberals in Canada) have been endorsing these agreements for as long as I remember.

Being anti-TPP was a huge rallying point for Sanders in the primaries, so much so that he was able to use his political capital to get Hillary to take a "public position" against it (even if we all knew privately she would sign it in a heart beat).

I think free trade agreements are much much more complex than people give them credit for. Especially in Canada we constantly hear about our own local monopolies being threatened, such as the dairy cartel, and how devastating the IP laws will be regarding medicine and film rights and so on.

In reality, these things are always imperfect compromises that can only be evaluated in hindsight. I think there would be a lot more support for them if there wasn't such a long dogged history of companies exporting labor to low cost regions like Mexico. Obstinately the goal of these agreements is to have "tides rise together", so that economic development in Mexico reaches a level so that it no longer makes sense to outsource because workers are paid better, Mexico has a more advanced economy, and things even out. In realty, companies have been abusing cheap labor in Mexico for decades, places like Southern Ontario have been economically devastated, and the people in Mexico aren't rising anywhere near the level of Canada or the United States. People are right to question whether this agreement is actually a good deal for the country.

I think we're largely on the same page here, and I agree that reasonable people can disagree on whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I'm not unconditionally for all free trade deals, but as a general principle I think autarky both slows human progress and makes war a far more profitable and likely activity. That, and I don't think Canada is the kind of country that can thrive without fairly open trade.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by BIMBAM

I see where you're coming from on this, but I've gotta disagree. Keeping an ear to the ground, the election of Trump is not an isolated event, it lags broader social movements. Specifically, a backlash against feminism and social justice issues in the West has been building for a few years and you see it much more potently on more popular parts of the internet. It does feel like a decently sized group of people all over the West want to role back the clock or at least halt any further progress on women's issues, and that movement has only been getting stronger with the rise of MRAs (the actual organizations, not what they pretend to be) and the alt-right. Trump couldn't have been elected if people who said the sorts of things he said were unelectable. A Women's March in London in that context makes alot of sense, but of course wouldn't have been as well attended if it weren't also accompanied by anxieties about the rise of the right in the EU, and other factors more related to Trump.

This, and in the U.S. itself Trump has promised the whack job fundamentalist right that he will end abortion by appointing justices to upcoming vacancies who will aid in bringing this about.

Women in the U.S. are terrified of and angry at Trump for very good reason, and if I were American I'd be marching in the streets too.

[GreaterMontréal]

Canada is not ready, we can only watch.

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This, and in the U.S. itself Trump has promised the whack job fundamentalist right that he will end abortion by appointing justices to upcoming vacancies who will aid in bringing this about.

Women in the U.S. are terrified of and angry at Trump for very good reason, and if I were American I'd be marching in the streets too.

Thats completely fine, but what isn't fine is all the pieces of shit running around smashing windows and destroying whatever they can, all the while being to chicken shit to show their faces.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Let's hear it for whatnext, champion of free trade and cheerleader for TPP.

Given that TPP didn't include the champion polluter and currency manipulator China, there wasn't much downside for Canada. Indeed it was designed as a counterweight to China, something the ignorant cabal surrounding Trump apparently missed. It's not like Canada was going to have it's auto manufacturing destroyed by South Korea.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Thats completely fine, but what isn't fine is all the pieces of shit running around smashing windows and destroying whatever they can, all the while being to chicken shit to show their faces.

Nobody ran around smashing windows during today's Womens' marches...:

[Rollerstud98]

All day yesterday, those are the assholes that give any movement a bad name and reduce it's credibility.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by csbvan

To say the press conference today was anything less than batshit crazy....

Just pure insanity!
I watched his speech to the CIA. Trump has no substance when he speaks. Just going off topic a lot and talking about himself WAY too much and praises himself. And that's putting it nicely.

His compliments to others are unbelievably phony. He will describe someone or something as being wonderful, great, amazing but won't say why and sound like he really means it.

It's going to be a very scary time for the U.S. and even for much of the world. Trump makes George W Bush seem amazingly good!

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Thats completely fine, but what isn't fine is all the pieces of shit running around smashing windows and destroying whatever they can, all the while being to chicken shit to show their faces.

You realize those are the anti-fascist groups right? Like they would be doing the same thing if Hillary was elected. This isn't the left as much as neo-nazis aren't the right.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This, and in the U.S. itself Trump has promised the whack job fundamentalist right that he will end abortion by appointing justices to upcoming vacancies who will aid in bringing this about.

Women in the U.S. are terrified of and angry at Trump for very good reason, and if I were American I'd be marching in the streets too.

I should have mentioned in my post that I can understand why many people in the U.S. are marching against Trump. But I stand by what I said about other countries.