• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement/.

  • Total voters
    55
Jack Hays said:
The cited facts about the countries involved are undisputed.
Click to expand...

One of his facts is that only three senators have actually read what is available on TPP thus far (you know that it's yet a work in progress) and she is strongly opposed to it. As such she has authority to criticize it. I'm doubtful that you've been into that "secret" room to read it. Look Jack, based on your history, if this trade agreement was hammered out by democrats, you'd kick it to the curb, but without having seen it, your all on board because corporate executives and industry lobbyists have been the secret negotiators. Very patriotic.
 
Montecresto said:
One of his facts is that only three senators have actually read what is available on TPP thus far (you know that it's yet a work in progress) and she is strongly opposed to it. As such she has authority to criticize it. I'm doubtful that you've been into that "secret" room to read it. Look Jack, based on your history, if this trade agreement was hammered out by democrats, you'd kick it to the curb, but without having seen it, your all on board because corporate executives and industry lobbyists have been the secret negotiators. Very patriotic.
Click to expand...

I favor free trade, all the time, every time, party notwithstanding.
 
Lakryte said:
The presence of a few possibly good provisions do not make the atrocious provisions of the law disappear.
Click to expand...

Since the document has not been made public I doubt you have any knowledge of "atrocious provisions."
 
Jack Hays said:
Since the document has not been made public I doubt you have any knowledge of "atrocious provisions."
Click to expand...

As you have no knowledge of any magnanimous provisions.
 
Who's for it.

Big business
Big pharma
The CoC
The GOP (largely)

Who's against it

Church's
Environmental advocacy groups
Labor unions
Dem's (largely)
 
Jack Hays said:
It's a matter of principle. I doubt you would understand.
Click to expand...

I totally understand the principle of blind support of big business at the expense of little workers, as I previously understood your principles of justification of targeting civilians with nukes, been listening to you for some time now.
 
Montecresto said:
I totally understand the principle of blind support of big business at the expense of little workers, as I previously understood your principles of justification of targeting civilians with nukes, been listening to you for some time now.
Click to expand...

"Targeting civilians with nukes" saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Another principle of mine.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. NAFTA is free trade.
Click to expand...
No, NAFTA is managed trade. Free trade does not require 2000 pages of text. As just one example, NAFTA created a Labor Commission, whose purpose is to level the playing field between trading partners with regard to labor costs. That isn't free trade at all.

With all due respect, you don't have a clue what free trade actually is. This article from the free market oriented foundation for economic education should help clear things up. Just because it has "free trade" in the name doesn't mean that is what it is actually about. Just like how the Patriot act has nothing to do with patriotism.
 
Lakryte said:
No, NAFTA is managed trade. Free trade does not require 2000 pages of text. As just one example, NAFTA created a Labor Commission, whose purpose is to level the playing field between trading partners with regard to labor costs. That isn't free trade at all.

With all due respect, you don't have a clue what free trade actually is. This article from the free market oriented foundation for economic education should help clear things up. Just because it has "free trade" in the name doesn't mean that is what it is actually about. Just like how the Patriot act has nothing to do with patriotism.
Click to expand...

It's free enough for me and the economists I respect, and I'm uninterested in your pedantry. Sorry.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's free enough for me and the economists I respect, and I'm uninterested in your pedantry. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Looking at what something actually is as opposed to accepting it blindly because of what it is called is not pedantry. I am sorry you are so easily gulled.
 
Lakryte said:
Looking at what something actually is as opposed to accepting it blindly because of what it is called is not pedantry. I am sorry you are so easily gulled.
Click to expand...


I accept the real world definition on the basis of which real people make real decisions.
 
Jack Hays said:
I accept the real world definition on the basis of which real people make real decisions.
Click to expand...
Me too. But calling an orange an apple doesn't change the fact that it's still an orange.
 
Lakryte said:
Me too. But calling an orange an apple doesn't change the fact that it's still an orange.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm sure your belief is important to you but it doesn't interest me. Good luck in all your endeavors.
 
Jack Hays said:
Look, I'm sure your belief is important to you but it doesn't interest me. Good luck in all your endeavors.
Click to expand...
Same to you. I just hope they don't involve free trade, since you don't know what it is ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom