NAFFFFFTA

[logger]

See above.

Also, not a leftist. I've corrected you many, many times.

Yes, I run into this a lot here, it must now be obvious I don't believe you?

As for agreeing with Trump, check the link above to see why he's wrong.

An opinion piece says he's wrong, got it. And of course he's wrong because his numbers are too high. You give no critical thought to who puts these opinion pieces together.

Much of these issues are comingled, it would take a much more comprehensive study.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

we are not denying it at all: anti-globalization groups are left-wing, traditionally: see the IMF/World Bank/ Occupy Wallstreet protests.
Trump is not a Republican but a populist, which is why he is willing use protectionism.

But it doesn't mean they are right.

 

[logger]

You mean the left was against it except for the people on the left who were for it?

You're correct, the vast majority of the left was all for it.

 

[logger]

we are not denying it at all: anti-globalization groups are left-wing, traditionally: see the IMF/World Bank/ Occupy Wallstreet protests.

Spindrift could you focus on this post?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Spindrift could you focus on this post?

what, exactly, are you trying to prove?
That Republicans are just as stupid as some left-wing extremists?

 

[Resume]

Yes, I run into this a lot here, it must now be obvious I don't believe you?

No, it's obvious you are dishonest. You've been corrected, again. If you continue to deliberately misrepresent my positions, I'm going to continue to point out that dishonesty.

An opinion piece says he's wrong, got it. And of course he's wrong because his numbers are too high. You give no critical thought to who puts these opinion pieces together.

Much of these issues are comingled, it would take a much more comprehensive study.

Yes, and those studies say he's wrong in regards to NAFTA's effect on the manufacturing base.

 

[Spindrift]

Spindrift could you focus on this post?

Why? Until you recognize the fact that the 'left' isn't one single group, it's a waste of time.

 

[logger]

what, exactly, are you trying to prove?
That Republicans are just as stupid as some left-wing extremists?

You really can't figure it out can you?

I'll explain. NAFTA was not good for many in this country. Republicans were for it including me. Democrats were against it, they were correct.

 

[Spindrift]

You really can't figure it out can you?

I'll explain. NAFTA was not good for many in this country. Republicans were for it including me. Democrats were against it, they were correct.

But you're now against it for the wrong reason. NAFTA did not decimate manufacturing jobs. A little geography lesson: Asia is not in North America.

 

[acbytesla]

When NAFTA was ratified, it became federal law, so the only way to override it is to pass another Federal Law that counteracts the provisions of NAFTA.

If Trump wants to have the U.S. unilaterally leave NAFTA, I'm pretty sure it would require an Act of Congress, not just the advice and consent of the Senate that making a treaty requires. So it would have to go through both houses, but require only a simple majority in each (treaty ratification only requires the Senate, but requires 2/3 majority). There may be case law that contradicts me on this though, this is just based on my own naive reading of the Constitution.

Would Congress do this? Hell no. Republicans aren't anti-NAFTA. And now that they hold power over all three branches of Government, the don't have to keep such a hard line against cooperating with Democrats, they will likely find common ground in opposing Trump on this. The primary purpose of that hard line is to sabotage Democratic administrations ability to do anything. NAFTA is in the interests of many Republican backers, and they won't piss them off just because Trump asks them to.

That's not precisely how it works, but you are essentially right. A new law need not be passed, but Congressional consent is required. Goldwater v Carter.

 

[logger]

Why? Until you recognize the fact that the 'left' isn't one single group, it's a waste of time.

Yes actually they are, this site is living proof.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

NAFTA was not wrong. It help protect Americas most innovative and lucrative industries.

What was wrong was to not aggressively offer retraining for those in the dying industries.
And it was wrong for the workers there not to move elsewhere, as Americans have traditionally done in the past.
To say that laid-off workers are helpless victims is patronizing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You really can't figure it out can you?

I'll explain. NAFTA was not good for many in this country. Republicans were for it including me. Democrats were against it, they were correct.

Who cares if it wasn't good for them? They have no intrinsic right to my money.

 

[Fizil]

That's not precisely how it works, but you are essentially right. A new law need not be passed, but Congressional consent is required. Goldwater v Carter.

Interesting that the SC punted on this issue, I would have thought something like this would be settled by now.

I don't see how a valid argument can be made that the President has unilateral power to break treaties, just because Article I only calls for Senate ratification on creation of treaties. The Constitution is a document enumerating government power, and the President is given the enumerated power to make treaties with the consent of the Senate, not break them (with or without said consent).

If the breaking of treaties is implicit in the power to make treaties, then the conditions on making treaties certainly implicitly apply to breaking them.

It would be interesting if the Trump Presidency will end up resolving this. Given that it is a Republican President, with a Republican Congress, if Trump does nullify a treaty and a majority of Senators bring it before the Supreme Court, it will be hard for them to punt again, saying it is a political issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

Why wouldn't the Senate vote to repeal the treaty if that's what the President wants?

Sure it would be bad for business but the alternative would be to vote with the ebil-communistical-Democrats. Destroying the economy is much less of a problem for a GOP senator than being seen to be cosying up to the opposition...

Because they don't actually care what Trump thinks and there is nothing he can do about it.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting that the SC punted on this issue, I would have thought something like this would be settled by now.

I don't see how a valid argument can be made that the President has unilateral power to break treaties, just because Article I only calls for Senate ratification on creation of treaties. The Constitution is a document enumerating government power, and the President is given the enumerated power to make treaties with the consent of the Senate, not break them (with or without said consent).

If the breaking of treaties is implicit in the power to make treaties, then the conditions on making treaties certainly implicitly apply to breaking them.

It would be interesting if the Trump Presidency will end up resolving this. Given that it is a Republican President, with a Republican Congress, if Trump does nullify a treaty and a majority of Senators bring it before the Supreme Court, it will be hard for them to punt again, saying it is a political issue.

It turns out I was wrong. Terminating a treaty is a Legislative action not an Executive action.

Goldwater v. Carter This conclusion is dictated by several constitutional factors: the status of treaties as the supreme law of the land, together with the obligation of the President to faithfully execute those laws; the implications to be derived from the constitutionally delineated role of the Senate in treaty formation; and the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers.

The power to terminate a mutual defense treaty cannot be described as a "modest implied power of the President." A holding that the recognitionpower incidentally confers the power to make an executive agreementsettling property claims and that such agreement has supremacy over conflicting state laws does not justify an incidental power to terminate treaties without congressional approval. The argument that any executive action becomes constitutional if it is ancillary to an act of recognition is without merit. If limitations imposed by other constitutional provisions exist, the recognition power cannot be used as a "bootstrap" to support the President's unilateral action in terminating the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan.

The case was ruled on by the US District Court of DC reversed on appeal by the appeals court and the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court decision making the District Court ruling the law of the land.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The thing is that it's not Trade that is killing the vast number, over 80%, of US Manufacturing jobs, it's Technology. Pulling out of trade deals will do nothing to stop those losses, the simple fact is that robots can do the job faster, cheaper, and better than people, so manufacturers are automating their processes and now producing more with less people.

“Simply put, we are producing more with fewer people,” notes Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at Brookings. US factories have been achieving this by gradually replacing human labour with robots.

“Automation has transformed the American factory, rendering millions of low-skilled jobs redundant. Fast-spreading technologies like robotics and 3D printing will exacerbate this trend,” says Ms Solís.

The Boston Consulting Group has estimated that while “a human welder today earns around $25 per hour, including benefits, the equivalent operating cost per hour for a robot is around $8”.

The extra cost of maintaining a robotics system — installation, maintenance and the operating costs — should be amortised, according to the group, over a five-year period. “In 15 years, that gap will widen even more dramatically,” it says. This process, as many have pointed out, is irreversible.

 

[Shalamar]

The thing is that it's not Trade that is killing the vast number, over 80%, of US Manufacturing jobs, it's Technology. Pulling out of trade deals will do nothing to stop those losses, the simple fact is that robots can do the job faster, cheaper, and better than people, so manufacturers are automating their processes and now producing more with less people.

...

Stoopid leftist. Inventing technology that takes jerbs away from proper red blooded patriotic god fearing 'merkins. **taps away on smartphone**

 

[logger]

...

Stoopid leftist. Inventing technology that takes jerbs away from proper red blooded patriotic god fearing 'merkins. **taps away on smartphone**

Losing a large part of your voting base.

Please don't stop!

 

[imodium]

And it made a very small group very rich.

And that very small group is now trumps cabinet, circle of life.