Slashdot Mirror


Trump: I'll Ditch TPP Trade Deal on Day One of My Presidency (arstechnica.com)

US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that the U.S. will pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- a trade deal involving 12 Pacific Rim nations -- "on day one" of his presidency. From a report on ArsTechnica: Trump, in a YouTube video outlining plans for his first 100 days in office, said: "I'm going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country." He added: "Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back on to American shores." An emphasis on bilateral trade deals may call into question both the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), involving dozens of nations, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Although the latter is between the US and the European Union, the complex political structure of the EU means that effectively 28 nations are involved and can influence the outcome of the deal. This was demonstrated by the dramatic intervention of the Walloon regional government in the signing of CETA, the bloc's trade deal with Canada.

600 comments

  1. Great for China! by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are already planning an Asian trade partnership under their leadership. (Forgot its name, look it up yourself.)

    1. Re:Great for China! by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Japan and Taiwan are dirt poor? News to me.

    2. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea, Taiwan and China sure are besties. Also fantastic relations with Japan.

    3. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are already planning an Asian trade partnership under their leadership. (Forgot its name, look it up yourself.)

      And it means starting the whole negotiating process all over again with the same people with the same interests who will want the same things.

      And what we'll get is something very similar to what we have already.

      And in the meantime, the stock market will tank because most of the profit growth made by corporate America is from international trade with Asia. And after all that, we the little people will end back where we started and considering the opportunity costs, have negative returns.

      This will be our Brexit.

      Thanks folks! As a little person, I'm yet again falling behind because my fellow little people were MAD at system and expressed their temper tantrum at the polls.

    4. Re:Great for China! by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      Who are they going to trade with, and for what? Other than South Korea, every other Asian country is dirt poor.

      For highly developed nations, consider Japan, Singapore, Taiwan.

      And then there are less developed large nations, like Indonesia.

      And if you go by geography, beyond TPP candidates: Russia, Saudi Arabia, India (poor per person, but number 3 in the world by PPP GDP, number 7 by nominal GDP), and so on.

      --

      Stephan

    5. Re:Great for China! by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      And in the meantime, the stock market will tank

      Dow is at all time highs. Your opinion is discarded.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going to fuck it up with their territorial claims and authoritarian nationalist stances. Speaking of the Trumps plans. How on Earth is he going to be able to offer a competitive cost structure for the companies coming back to the US? Since when have the US ceased to aim for higher productivity and level of refinement in economy? Competing on cost with China equals significant reduction of the standard of living, making America not great again.

    7. Re:Great for China! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Who are they going to trade with, and for what? Other than South Korea, every other Asian country is dirt poor."

      Dirt poor countries like not having to pay customs, tariffs, import-export taxes and other stuff making their goods more expensive.

    8. Re:Great for China! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "And it means starting the whole negotiating process all over again with the same people with the same interests who will want the same things.
      And what we'll get is something very similar to what we have already."

      The Art Of The Deal, the moronic way. Throwing a temper tantrum won't get a better deal, on the contrary.

    9. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dow is at all time highs. Your opinion is discarded.

      GP Posted: "the stock market will tank"

      Notice the "will" - future tense.

      And that makes you an idiot.

    10. Re:Great for China! by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 0

      Taiwan is China, and Japan will be soon!

    11. Re:Great for China! by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and look up how much trade already exists between China and Taiwan, China and Japan. It's quite a lot.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    12. Re:Great for China! by InfiniteZero · · Score: 0

      Dow is at all time highs.

      That's precisely when you want to get out, i.e. sell. You don't want to sell at the rock bottom, do you?

      Another recession is overdue, and it's coming within the next 4 years. It's the nature of the economic cycle. There is nothing Trump (or for that matter, Clinton) can do about it. We wouldn't be a capitalist society if the president has any real control over the economy.

    13. Re:Great for China! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Indonesia actually does fall under 'poor', although I don't know that it's 'dirt poor'. But all the other countries in the region - Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines are up and rising. Saudi Arabia and India ain't Pacific countries. In any case, Trump has said that the US will stake out individual bilateral agreements w/ all the countries in question.

    14. Re:Great for China! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      In trade, China needs the U.S. more than vice-versa.

    15. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your username here should really be changed to 'RandomChinaShill314'.

      The Chinese governments' idea of 'leadership' is attempted annexation of International waters, bullying their neighbors, posting Communist propaganda and outright LIES, oppressing their citizens (to the point of throwing them in mental institutions and pumping them full of drugs guaranteed to make them miserable, when then DARE to demand justice be done on corrupt government officials), strangling their media, censoring the Internet to the point of being utterly useless for anything more than spreading State sponsored lies and propaganda, running over peaceful protestors with military tanks, shipping toxic building materials, toxic pet food, and toxic baby milk to Western countries, and attempting to destabilize economies with cyberhacking. So, are you being paid by the word for your shill shitposts? Or is it a monthly stipend? Are you posting from inside the U.S., or are you doing it from inside Mainland China, with a Communist supervisor looking over your shoulder the entire time? Or am I getting it wrong, and you're only doing it because they'll kill your family and friends if you don't? Maybe they'd be better off dead than having to live in such a shitty country.

    16. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Go ahead and look up how much trade already exists between China and Taiwan, China and Japan. It's quite a lot.

      Indeed. There is no particular need for trading partners to like each other. In July of 1914, the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world was between Britain and Germany. A month later they were killing each other on an industrial scale.

      Also, the China-led trade agreement that will likely replace TPP is called RCEP.

    17. Re:Great for China! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Which really means he'll be making very few trade treaties at all. Bilateral treaties can take nearly as long to negotiate as multilateral agreements.

      The chief reason for TPP was to create a trade alliance to stand up to China, as part of a much larger effort to counterbalance China's growing influence through the rest of this century. We can certainly criticize aspects of TPP, and I agree that groups like RIAA gained far too much influence over the final drafts of the agreement. But underlying this is the notion of a counterbalance to China, which I think is still sound. Even Trump has stated his misgivings about China, so surely the idea of a certain kind of economic "containment" wouldn't be alien to his administration, and I fail to see how spending years on bilateral agreements would help there.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Great for China! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck about the stock market. The stock market is just a casino. Right now it is the bond markets that are showing dangerous weakness, and the world runs on bonds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Great for China! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That is until people start having to pay $10,000 for a Bluray player.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we're our own country. Xi can suck it.

    21. Re:Great for China! by bhcompy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Difficulty: China considers Taiwan part of China and is trading with itself

    22. Re:Great for China! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Unless, we get the Trump Pacific Partnership in its place. It will have similar terms as the current TPP but given Trump's negotiating skills, the U.S. will get screwed harder.

    23. Re:Great for China! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yep, it isn't possible for Dow to go back down again. I don't think that's ever happened before.

    24. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the "meantime" mentioned, right now. That makes you look like you don't know what you're taking about. The "idiot" remark already showed your meager intelligence frustrated to the point of irrational rage. Maybe you should lay off the weed.

    25. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      For highly developed nations, consider Japan, Singapore, Taiwan.

      Also, Australia and New Zealand. They are not "Asian" geographically, but they are economically, and are part of RCEP.

      Malaysia, Thailand, and China, are not "dirt poor". They are considered middle income countries.

      Poor countries in RCEP are India, Burma, Cambodia, and Laos. Bangladesh is also poor, but is not part of the agreement.

    26. Re:Great for China! by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Free Trade is a race to the bottom. Free Trade means that large companies pay no/little tax. So, good luck to China.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    27. Re:Great for China! by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      That is fine. I'll make Bluray players and sell them for $9999.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    28. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic activity has been decimated in many sectors and restrained at best for the last eight years through government intrusion picking winners and losers, then by overreaching taxation and finally subversive regulation. What are you talking about?

    29. Re:Great for China! by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In trade, China needs the U.S. more than vice-versa.

      Exactly, and China knows this. That is why China has been aggressively seeking alternative markets worldwide. Everywhere from Central and South America to Africa, not to mention the rest of Asia. China is also busy trying to build up their own internal consumption and pushed RMB to be a part of SDR.

      China knows its military expansion is only made possible by its economic success, and we know this too. Unlike other Asian and European countries where we use trade as a tool to either entice democratic reforms or crush authoritarian regime's ability to finance its military, we've met our match with China.

      I am not a fan of TPP but I view TPP as our attempt to rebalance world trade in the Asia away from its current sinocentric hegemony. If we want to take away TPP, what are we replacing it with?

      Globalism is not the problem. Plenty of high wage countries still have robust manufacturing sectors and take care of its working class. Unfortunately for us, the chants of "U-S-A" drowns out any discussion and we look inwards to rehash our past failed policies instead of looking outwards to study how others thrives in a globalized market.

    30. Re:Great for China! by gtall · · Score: 2

      The president has control over the economy but not in the sense of controlling it year to year. The policies of Obama did blunt the recession. However, the push to expand the national debt will effect the U.S. economy greatly in coming years. In effect, the U.S. borrowed against future prosperity.

      The policies of the last 30 years contributed to the current state of the U.S. economy. Given the rest of the world, it is not so bad. The Republicans complain bitterly about clean air and water policies, yet they contributed to the U.S. not being a dung heap. Without them, the U.S. GDP would be lower because of the economic costs of clean up. The easy example is getting rid of lead in gasoline. The oil companies were just find with creating a nation of idiots via led poisoning before government (and presidents) mandated that it stop.

      Policies toward energy and its sources contributed to expanding U.S. GDP. Yet those same policies mortgaged future growth due to rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans, etc. And if other nations suffer from climate damage, they won't have the ability to buy U.S. products and GDP suffers.

      Education policies now will greatly matter to future years. The GI Bill after WWII led to the a lot of GDP growth, as did R&D expenditures. Failure to fund those two will hurt future GDP growth. For a barometer on how important those two are, look at the Asian countries and where they are putting their money. Now look at our new alleged president and the Republican Congress who somehow believe science is some sort of dodge. Their fellow travelers, the Christian Fundamentalists, don't support science because it keeps poking holes in territory they believe they own.

    31. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The chief reason for TPP was to create a trade alliance to stand up to China, as part of a much larger effort to counterbalance China's growing influence through the rest of this century.

      Indeed. TPP excluded China, although China is the biggest trading partner of many of the members of TPP. The often-stated intention was to negotiate and adopt TPP, and then let China join afterwards, so they would be accepting the terms negotiated under American leadership, without being able to tilt the agreement in their favor.

      That is obviously not going to happen now. Instead RCEP will be negotiated under Chinese leadership, and if/when America joins, we will have to accept those terms.

      As America economically withdraws from the world, Chinese led institutions like AIIB will gain influence. Eventually, the dollar may even lose its status as the world's primary reserve currency, with big negative consequences for the American economy.

    32. Re:Great for China! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Since nothing in the TPP forbade, restricted or otherwise hindered trade with China, how exactly would the TPP have stopped China's efforts?

    33. Re:Great for China! by ghoul · · Score: 2

      Foxconn is a Taiwanese company with factories in China assembling iPhones. Businessmen dont let politics come in the way of profit

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    34. Re:Great for China! by gtall · · Score: 1

      China seems to get about 17% of their export market from the U.S. (within 2%). The U.S. runs about a $350 billion trade deficit with China and exports around $180 billion.

      I think "need" is too strong a word. China would certainly not enjoy losing that export market. On the other hand, if losing it means the U.S. is retrenching from the world, they will probably just spend more effort increasing trade deals with everyone else. They are already knocking on doors in S. American explaining to the S. Americans they are ready and willing should the U.S. pull out of NAFTA.

      Also, if it comes down to a question of face, i.e., allowing Trump to walk on them, they will eat hot coals before acquiescing to him, and trade be damned.

    35. Re:Great for China! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That is until people start having to pay $10,000 for a Bluray player.

      We don't need Blu-ray players. We can just stream videos onto our smartphones and not have to deal with China at all.

      Oh wait.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is/was not a part of TPP.

    37. Re:Great for China! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yep, anticipating getting rid of those pesky regulations that provide for pure drugs, etc.

    38. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will never "have to" pay $10k for a bluray player. I can live without if that's the price they're asking. And so will a lot of other people. And that goes for everything, not just bluray players.

      China needs the US more than the US needs China. There are a lot of places in the world where labor costs are low. There are few places in the world where even poor people can buy, for example, a bluray player.

    39. Re:Great for China! by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Difficulty: China considers Taiwan part of China and is trading with itself

      Besides direct economic considerations, trade with China carries significant consequences for international relations. Almost half of Taiwan's exports are to China, and 1 million Taiwanese businesspeople live in China. This type of economic dependence has succeeded in exerting hegemonic influence with greater success than the 1500 missiles targeted at Taiwan.

    40. Re: Great for China! by murdocj · · Score: 0

      Economic activity has been decimated in many sectors and restrained at best for the last eight years through government intrusion picking winners and losers, then by overreaching taxation and finally subversive regulation. What are you talking about?

      uh... remember the Great Recession under Bush? The problem is that people have such short memories they literally don't recall how bad it was before Obama. We've been recovering, and now that economic growth is going well, unemployment is down, inflation is nil, people vote to go back to that... actually, to go to worse than anything Bush ever conceived of. Oh well...

    41. Re:Great for China! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, the grand plan to bring all that manufacturing home is a deluded dream that Trump used to buy votes.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    42. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luxury items don't need to be cheap. Back when a vhs player use to cost $800, you would go to an electronics store and talk to a salesperson who got paid commission on the items sold. The high prices on non-essential luxury items created many jobs and supported many locally owned businesses.

    43. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Throwing a temper tantrum won't get a better deal, on the contrary.

      It would be easy to get a better deal, since the worst crap in TPP was put there by America. For instance, the other countries would be happy to ditch the IP racketeering put into the agreement by the RIAA and MPAA. Many members of RIAA and MPAA are big donors to the Democrats, so a lot of Republicans would love to knife them to get revenge.

    44. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But once it goes down it can never recover. Yep. Never. It'll forever be down.

    45. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG.
      The US is only 4% of the worlds population, and the rest of the world also trades with China
      The US now only accounts for 20% of the the worlds GDP (In the 1950's is was over 60%)
      The largest consumer growth is in Asia (60% of the worlds population) and they are working on a trading bloc
      China will soon be the worlds biggest economy , it will be more important for other nations to trade with China
      The US is a protectionist market with huge subsidies paid to various groups to keep them viable
      The EU is growing and will become the 2nd largest economy in the not too distant future

      The rest of the world could just change IP/Copyright laws without the US, bringing them back to sane levels.

      If the US does not trade with the rest of the world, it opens up HUGE opportunities for China, Russia, Japan, EU, UK, etc etc and that trade will be in competition with the US$2.5 Trillion it exports. So while the US protects its self from imports it shoots its exporters in the head.

      It may hurt the rest of the world for a wee while if the US becomes more isolationist, but it will strengthen trade between the rest of the world, a world the US may be excluded from.

      Consumer prices WILL rise in the USA, wages won't , and in real terms they peaked in the 1970's and have fallen since.
      The rest of the world does not like Trump, his rhetoric and bullshit makes no impact , he will NOT make a better deal, these things take years to negotiate and to be honest, I doubt he will be in Office by the time any new deals are done.

      The job of president is way too complex for Trump, dealing with governments is not the same as short changing contractors. As yourself where is is great big beautiful airline, university, casino, etc etc etc that have all gone bankrupt loosing billions of dollars. Compared to international trade etc those endeavours were childs play, and he could not make them work.

    46. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmao. Physical media. In 2016.

    47. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, the dollar may even lose its status as the world's primary reserve currency, with big negative consequences for the American economy.

      This will happen in 2018 around the time there are riots in every major city. BRICS switches away from the US dollar. The economic devastation causes increasing unrest. Combined with a plague, this leads to martial law and the CDC activating the FEMA concentration camps in 2019. There are no elections in 2020.

    48. Re: Great for China! by Jhon · · Score: 5, Informative

      "uh... remember the Great Recession under Bush?"

      That recession was going to happen no matter what. And guess what -- It was predicted by the Anderson Forecast in 2000. Guess who's administration that was under? Wasn't Bush.

      http://www.uclaforecast.com/co...

      The UCLA Anderson Forecasters first raised eyebrows with a recession forecast one year ago (December 2000), at a time when such a pessimistic view was deemed at best, premature and at worse, wrong, by other national forecasters.

      The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. That was a HUGE blow to our economy.

      " and now that economic growth is going well, unemployment is down, inflation is nil, people vote to go back to that"

      What's the rate of underemployed? What's the number of people who are no longer being COUNTED as unemployed? They didn't vote to go back to that -- they voted because they are hurting and the last 8 years did nothing to fix their hurt.

      I'm not saying Trump is the answer -- I honestly don't know who was worse -- Trump or Clinton (I voted for neither) but your blinders are not really helping you see reality. You might want to lift them off a bit and take a peek.

    49. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China considers Vietnam & SE Asia rebellious provinces.

    50. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, a Blue Ray player. That's funny

    51. Re:Great for China! by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      The TPPA was a reaction to China. The US originally set up the WTO, using it to further US trade interests, mostly in their favour. What has happened in the last few decades is that the US has been on the loosing end of WTO decisions as the rest of the world has gained influence. The TPPA, and other agreements were there to "get around" the WTO, bypass it and try and create something else in the US's favour. Killing them off will long term be very bad for the USA. For a start the rest of the world could renegotiate IP/Copyright laws back to something sensible/sane. The US has also been "interfering" in Asia, creating tension among countries to try and head off any warming of relations between them. Asia account for 60% of the worlds population, and is the largest area for consumer growth. China will soon be the worlds largest economy, and if Brexit had not happened the EU would soon have been the 2nd largest leaving the US third (for now).

    52. Re:Great for China! by multi+io · · Score: 1

      Yea, Taiwan and China sure are besties. Also fantastic relations with Japan.

      The way Trump acts, he might bring them closer together pretty quickly.

    53. Re: Great for China! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes the little people should just accept what they're given while philosopher kings such as yourself make the right choices. Who cares if they live in bad accommodation and have to work two or three jobs just to eat, it's the free market at work.

    54. Re:Great for China! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      "If we want to take away TPP, what are we replacing it with?"

      Absolutely nothing, the same thing TPP would have done to China's trading position.

      Trade doesn't need trade agreements.

    55. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It stays down long enough to have very real consequences for those who are living off their holdings - for example, retirees.

      I guess it's OK for grandma to have to go back to work bc the value of her investments dropped to the point where the cost of basic maintenance caused a far deeper percentage of her retirement accounts to be spent bc the market's in a down period.....

      This is why SS was created - poverty among the elderly was at astonishing levels prior to its inception, especially among elderly without children or other family. And it's not going bankrupt except by GOP design.....if the income cap were lifted, it'd work fine. And if the powers that be could quit raiding the SS trust fund like a piggy bank, that'd help too.

    56. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That war however, might be a bad piece of evidence, since Britain's participation really had less to do with "not liking" Germany than Winston Churchill spotting a career-opportunity - combined with a little war - which he confessed himself to "love".

    57. Re:Great for China! by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      I don't see how your conclusion is necessarily true at all?

      America is not "economically withdrawing from the world" any time soon, no matter what you believe based on Trump's announcements.
      For far too long though, we've been complacent about letting China upset the true economics of manufacturing certain goods. China likes to do such things as flood the market with items sold well below cost (subsidized by their government), just to ensure it's impossible to sell competing products made in America or elsewhere. When they run the competition out of business or marginalize them, then they slowly try to bring prices back up again (often by discontinuing the products they were selling previously and releasing supposedly "new, improved" versions to justify the price increase which is *actually* just an adjustment to remove the government subsidy that was kicked in to reach the break-even point on cost of manufacture).

      We've had all sorts of problems with such things as counterfeit Chinese drywall, nails, and wood flooring products too -- where the products were substandard and not able to meet basic safety standards.

      Withdrawing from allowing so much of this dishonest "trade" from happening with China is NOT the same thing as withdrawing from world trade!

    58. Re: Great for China! by torkus · · Score: 2

      Uhm, remember the fake recovery we're still having?

      Jobless claims are down but a significant portion of that is attributed to people who stopped looking for jobs or took lower paying/part-time jobs instead.

      Mean/median household income is still below pre-recession levels and basically flat with growth diverging further and further from GDP.

      This massive recovery is centered around the DJIA, not the actual income and spending power of people.

      This economic 'growth' we're experiencing is an anemic 1.1% vs other countries in the 4% or more range

      Inflation is nil (1.6%) largely because the overnight interest rate is basically nil (.43%). Inflation on a small scale is not actually bad. It's a sign of economic growth...oh, which is also nil.

      So tell me all about the magic recovery that Obama has championed.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    59. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like realizing a "want" vs a "need". You might be surprised on what you absolutely have to have to live comfortably.

    60. Re:Great for China! by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      he job of president is way too complex for Trump, dealing with governments is not the same as short changing contractors. As yourself where is is great big beautiful airline, university, casino, etc etc etc that have all gone bankrupt loosing billions of dollars. Compared to international trade etc those endeavours were childs play, and he could not make them work.

      Well, it was obviously too complex for the past/current president as well as the US has a 350 billion trade deficit and tripled their national debt in the past 15 years. They were setting us up for failure.

    61. Re:Great for China! by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Do you replace cancer with something else? Nope.

    62. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nails?

    63. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. That was a HUGE blow to our economy.

      9/11 was a huge blow on many levels, but not for the economy. 3000 or so dead? Four buildings? Meant nothing to the economy. A year kills more people in car crashes alone.

    64. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, played deus ex.

    65. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, never seen anyone under the influence of weed express anything like "rage". On the contrary, this person probably NEEDS to smoke some weed and calm down.

    66. Re:Great for China! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      When they run the competition out of business or marginalize them, then they slowly try to bring prices back up again

      I have heard this accusation many times, but no one is ever able to give a single example where this has happened. So can you give an actual example where China has driven out the competition, and then raised prices above the previous market price?

    67. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no SS Trust Fund, except in name. I wish people would learn how the US budget works before claiming people are raiding something that didn't exist. All federal taxation goes into ONE big pot. There is no separation between income, ss, FICA, and capital gains taxes except on paper. Then, when all taxes are collected for the year, SS and Medicare/Medicaid are paid FIRST. Only after those obligations are satisfied can other money be spent. Just because we spend what we have left stupidly, doesn't mean we're raiding some non-existent fund. There has never been anything saying we have to save that left over money for future SS. There probably should have been, but there wasn't. Bush (and Gore during his campaign) actually suggested separating a small fraction of SS taxes and assigning it to individual accounts, which people could invest, instead of letting congress spend it on whatever. People went fucking ballistic thinking they were putting their SS at risk, and it died before ever being seriously considered. Because people didn't understand that SS was entirely based on the idea that there would always be way more people working than retired people collecting. No one expected the baby boomers to live so long. Only a small fraction of them should lived more than a few years into retirement. Instead, medical science and lifestyle choices improved so dramatically in the intervening time that a vast majority of them are going to be collecting SS for 20+ years instead of less than 5. For this reason, I cannot collect SS until I am almost 70, and I'm almost 40 now. Please know what you're talking about.

    68. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is an idiot. We are talking about WW1 and he is talking about Churchil... sigh!

    69. Re: Great for China! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      You've no idea what you are talking about.

    70. Re: Great for China! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, funny how that works out... it was all just a coincidence that it happened on Bush's watch. Boy, that's convenient.

    71. Re: Great for China! by murdocj · · Score: 1

      For a fake recovery it's been doing really nicely. Remind me, who is growing 4%? Last year Europe grew at 1.5%. If you factor in developing economies like China there's a higher rate, but for Western economies the USA is doing well.

      You can go back to reading breitbart now.

    72. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to Breitbart, dumbass.

    73. Re: Great for China! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, funny how that works out... it was all just a coincidence that it happened on Bush's watch. Boy, that's convenient."

      Think about this. Bush was in office for less than 8 months. 9/11 most certainly wasn't planned in 7.5 months.

      Now that you mention it... lets look at successful radical islamic terrorist attacks on US soil:

      under Bush: 1 (9-11)

      Under Obama: 7 (so far).

      It was all just a coincidence that all the rest happened after Bush left office and Obama took office.

    74. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read history, Churchill certainly was in WW1...

    75. Re: Great for China! by knorthern+knight · · Score: 2

      > This guy is an idiot. We are talking about WW1 and he is talking about Churchil... sigh!

      You want to see an idiot... look in a mirror. Or for that matter at Churchill. As "First Lord of the Admiralty" during the beginning of WW1, he was the guy who convinced leadership to attack Gallipoli. Yes folks, *THAT* "Battle of Gallipoli", in 1915. This included a battle where 500 members of the "Australian Light Horse" got off their horses and charged a Turkish position, on foot. The attack was a failure, and they suffered high casualties. Yes folks, *THAT* "Charge of the Light Brigade". To quote a phrase he later used about a battle, he as "an unmitigated disaster" in WW1.

      When Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlain in WW2, the German leadership's only problem was that they almost died laughing, to think that Churchill was in charge of the UK war effort.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    76. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rare earth minerals

    77. Re:Great for China! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Magnets. Ferrite as well as rare earth. China owns the market in terms of production (the only serious non-China magnet manufacturing is Supergauss in Brazil for ferrites, and Mitsubishi in Japan for rare earth), and after the US-based manufacturing closed down around 2000, prices started climbing up.

      Then the whole "you cannot buy raw rare earths without high taxes" happened and the price of neos in the late 2000s exploded (10-20X increase). China owned the rare earth market (mining and refining), and placed huge (200%+) export tariffs on raw refined ore - but only a low (20%) tariff on finished rare-earth items like magnets. The result was the price of magnets shot up 5X in a short amount of time, and it took years to settle back down - at about 3X the original price in the mid 2000s.

      I work in the audio industry - transducer development - and all of my clients felt these manipulations very hard.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    78. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . a

    79. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely what will happen. As America turns inward the rest of the world will be forced to learn that we really don't need America for much anymore. Sure, they'll still be a major military power/world police who will intervene to prevent excessive abuse, and will hold that place with dignity and honor, but their trade and economy will dwindle. This is good for pretty much everybody that isn't America. Russia and especially China's economies will grow at a quicker rate. The world at large will still be protected by America, and relatively safe from possible Russian or Chinese military agression. Europe will continue being awesome, as they just signed a trade deal with the country that stands to benefit the most from a declining, inward-facing America:

      Canada.

      Sorry world. We're taking over.

      3

    80. Re:Great for China! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I've looked up quite a bit of equipment "Made in Japan".

      "Designed in Japan, manufactured in China, assembled in Japan" is the correct denomination.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    81. Re: Great for China! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Disastrous to travel sector. Two buildings hosting management and business center of many major firms, taking the management with them. Infrastructure funds redirected to military and security. Import/export regulations tightened, blocking many markets.

      Look. If they blew up four walmarts, killing 3000 soccer moms, that would be nothing to economy. The problem is the meaning behind the acronym WTC.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    82. Re: Great for China! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      He managed to stop the downward slide. The growth is nearly nil, while before that it was in huge negatives.

      Yeah, that's not much, and he should have done much better, but hey, throw him a bone and give him a credit for what he managed - he wasn't an abysmally bad president, just a sub-mediocre one.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    83. Re:Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks, the Chinese would never "join" the TPP because of the investor-state rules and the IP theft.
      China doesn't give a royal SHIT for Western IP rules and they certainly aren't going to let a US company sue the Chinese government for lost revenue.

    84. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, when people think of the Charge of the Light Brigade I think they usually mean the Crimean war one. The one Tennyson wrote the famous poem about. You know, *THAT* Charge of the Light Brigade.

    85. Re: Great for China! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      "uh... remember the Great Recession under Bush?"

      That recession was going to happen no matter what. And guess what -- It was predicted by the Anderson Forecast in 2000. Guess who's administration that was under? Wasn't Bush.

      http://www.uclaforecast.com/co...

      The UCLA Anderson Forecasters first raised eyebrows with a recession forecast one year ago (December 2000), at a time when such a pessimistic view was deemed at best, premature and at worse, wrong, by other national forecasters.

      The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later.

      Dude, just quote the actual prediction:

      UCLA Anderson Forecasters Predict a Short and Shallow Recession for the U.S, Followed by a Weak Expansion; California Is Weighed Down by Weak High-Tech Sector, But Will Turn Around by Mid-2002

      That's not a prediction about the "Big R" during Dubya's presidency.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    86. Re: Great for China! by Jhon · · Score: 1

      "Dude, just quote the actual prediction"

      Dude, just read what I typed:

      The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. ****That was a HUGE blow to our economy.****

      "That's not a prediction about the "Big R" during Dubya's presidency."

      No, you are correct. Because they didn't see 9/11 coming. Yeesh.

    87. Re: Great for China! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      "Dude, just quote the actual prediction"

      Dude, just read what I typed:

      The US was already heading down the recession path when 9/11 happened a year later. ****That was a HUGE blow to our economy.****

      "That's not a prediction about the "Big R" during Dubya's presidency."

      No, you are correct. Because they didn't see 9/11 coming. Yeesh.

      What part of "Will Turn Around by Mid-2002" did you not understand?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    88. Re:Great for China! by ukoda · · Score: 1

      Generally you are probably right about the US wanting to keep China out of the negotiations but I'm sure no one expects China to join later. I am a New Zealander who objected to TPP not because of free trade, that would have been good, but because it allowed US corporate interest override New Zealand law. The NZ leadership are ok with that but can you imagine the Chinese political leaders allowing their laws to be challenged? They are a bunch of control freaks, there is no way they are going to sign up to something that would allow a foreign entity challenge their dictates.

    89. Re: Great for China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sorry world. We're taking over."

      You will try....

  2. False decisiveness. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.

    He doesn't know how to fix Obamacare but he'll "do something", lol.

    I expect Trump to be worse than his base expects, but better than the melting down, hysterical media and left cries about.

    1. Re: False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems pretty specific. I thought most libs hated TPP as well ?

    2. Re:False decisiveness. by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.

      Scary, because that's how we got into Ireq: "We are doing something about terror!" (Alternative spelling intentional.)

    3. Re:False decisiveness. by snookiex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if this is false decisiveness, but he has to do something, be it a stunt or not. He's already getting a lot of heat from almost half of the country. He needs to consolidate and keep calm his electoral base at least. Politics, just like economy, is more about emotions than technicalities.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    4. Re:False decisiveness. by sinij · · Score: 1

      I expect Trump to be worse than his base expects, but better than the melting down, hysterical media and left cries about.

      How quickly we normalize. My thought after reading this was "I can live with the lack of Nuclear Armageddon".

    5. Re:False decisiveness. by NatasRevol · · Score: 0, Troll

      I expect Trump to have lied about everything to his base.

      So far he has backpedaled on:
      Building a wall - now a fence
      Prosecuting Hillary - he'd be procecuted for same
      Conflicts of interest like Hillary had - he tweeted it's fine, I'm sure he'll be able to put america's interests over his properties if we need to attack a country.
      Racism - he's cool with it
      Make America Great Again - he hates the first amendment, hence his badgering & blocking the media - they shame him w his own words.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:False decisiveness. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      He was railing against the TPP from the start of his campaign. It's not like this is a new thing.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you can only be pleasantly surprised by Trump's presidency. I'm pretty sure that will happen!

    8. Re:False decisiveness. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So you think he might actually keep at least one of his promises?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:False decisiveness. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I expect Trump to be worse than his base expects, but better than the melting down, hysterical media and left cries about.

      How quickly we normalize. My thought after reading this was "I can live with the lack of Nuclear Armageddon".

      Mrs. Lincoln said the play was very nice.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    10. Re:False decisiveness. by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think he's going to keep a lot of them. It won't be reported like that, though. The media has learned nothing and is right back to lying and the demoralization propaganda, so expect stories like "Trump lied about being Hitler and is going back on his promise to gas all Mexican muslim gay jews, and boy are his evil nazi supporters mad about it!"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's already getting a lot of heat from almost half of the country.

      So he's not getting a lot of heat from more than half of the country? Nice spin there, maybe we could hook up a dynamo to you and sell the electricity.

    12. Re:False decisiveness. by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if this is false decisiveness, but he has to do something, be it a stunt or not. He's already getting a lot of heat from almost half of the country. He needs to consolidate and keep calm his electoral base at least. Politics, just like economy, is more about emotions than technicalities.

      To paraphrase Caesar in Rome: "If I do nothing, I will appear weak. If I accept the deal my predecessor made, my support will turn against me. Therefore, I must strike it down.

      I suspect we'll see a lot of this.

    13. Re:False decisiveness. by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Half right, DoD wanted to flex their muscle after the CIA ran the Afghani campaign so successfully, the politicians jumped on the bandwagon using at as a show of them acting on something.

    14. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled Iraq.

    15. Re:False decisiveness. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm definitely NOT a Trump supporter, however, I'd qualify your claims a bit:

      Racism - he's cool with it

      Actually, I'm reasonably certain when asked in an interview about it, he turned to the camera and said "STOP IT." And his spokespeople keep denouncing it. On the other hand, he's appointing Bannon, and he's avoided directly denouncing the more "white nationalist" elements of the alt-right. (Let's not rehash the arguments over with Bannon is or isn't actually racist, okay? Let's just note that there's a significant group of people associated with some of Bannon's causes who DO encourage and use racist rhetoric, so his appointment will inevitably be construed by some of those supporters as condoning such rhetoric..)

      But anyhow, whatever you get from this confusing set of signals, I'm pretty sure this isn't ANY different from how Trump acted in his campaign. He'd say he wasn't racist while at the same time waffling and hedging when someone suggested that he was supported by David Duke or others. The general gist of his campaign seemed to be, "I'm not overtly supporting racism, and I may not big a huge fan of it, but I'll take the support from wherever it comes and won't go out of my way to denounce my racist supporters."

      Far from being a "lie" -- I think Trump is basically maintaining that same line now.

      Make America Great Again - he hates the first amendment, hence his badgering & blocking the media - they shame him w his own words.

      I'm not sure that Trump has so far proven much worse in terms of the First Amendment than many recent presidents. ("Free speech zones," anyone?) And there have been plenty of wars with the press in previous administrations, generally over publication of "secret" stuff, which generally ended up embarrassing to the government.

      The main difference with Trump, as you note, is that he (1) tweets nasty things about the media, and (2) seems to avoid talking to them (which you call "blocking"). But (1) is actually his First Amendment right. And (2) is also his prerogative -- previous administrations tended to have a cozy relationship with the press, but there's no mandate (from the First Amendment or elsewhere) that he communicate with the press in those ways.

      Personally, I think it's a VERY bad sign if he refuses to do so, because it short-circuits opportunity for debate, and his proposal to ban reporters from the press corps is VERY disturbing (depending on the criteria he uses to do it). But doing so is no violation of the 1st Amendment, nor is it somehow infringing on 1st Amendment rights to refuse to talk to the press or allow a representative into the White House or whatever. The press has every right to publish what it wants, but they have no right to automatically get a seat in the White House press room.

      If Trump starts going around and shutting down newspapers or silencing media outlets, THEN we have a 1st Amendment issue. But just refusing to talk to them, or let some reporter into his press corps? There's nothing in the Constitution that requires him to do so.

      Now, if Trump follows through with his threats to "open up libel laws" (whatever that means), I suppose that could be a threat to 1st Amendment rights. But ultimately that's a matter for the courts to decide. We used to have lower standards for libel in the U.S., but they were raised through a series of SCOTUS rulings.

      And even most of the conservative justices on the court would be loathe to overturn the current "actual malice" standard, so I doubt Trump would make any headway here, even if he got to appoint a couple justices.

      Finally, again -- I don't think Trump "lied" on this point. His loathing of the press has been clear throughout his campaign. Precisely how did he "backpedal" on this stuff?

    16. Re:False decisiveness. by gtall · · Score: 1

      He'll take credit for taking down Daesh too. He won't do anything substantive but it will be just like the Ford plant he took credit for "saving" when it was only going to be retooling.

    17. Re:False decisiveness. by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

      An ObamaCare alternative just requires some very difficult ( and unpopular in certain circles ) decisions to be made.

      You start by declaring Health Care a right and a critical one at that. Health shouldn't be a perk for the rich only.
      You then regulate the entire Health Care industry. This includes Big Pharma.
      Means: No more 5000% price increases on medications or $50,000 hospital bills that your insurance refuses to cover
      Once regulated, the prices are now something most can afford and makes it easier to switch to a National Healthcare System.

      If the prices are reasonable enough, folks won't need to pay $$$$ in monthly premiums, deductibles and out of pocket costs because
      we won't need to.

      If necessary, bump taxes across the board ( personal and corporate ) a bit to help offset the costs. What's 1-2% in taxes compared
      to what you pay as stated above already ? Unlike the individual mandate, it's a bit tougher to avoid paying taxes. Want some
      more money to play with ? Quit playing World Police and bring the Defense Budget down to something reasonable.

      Can solve the illegal problem at the same time. Go ahead and let them work here, just tax them much higher ( say 10%+ ) so they can
      help pay into the services they're utilizing.

      If the Health Care industry gives you any shit, threaten to open the borders to allow medications from outside of the US. They'll
      stfu in a hurry. The prices are what they are due to what is effectively a Monopoly they currently enjoy.

    18. Re:False decisiveness. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Difference, its perfectly legal to have conflicts of interest while being POTUS, the law excludes the POTUS. It was potentially criminal to do so while serving as Secretary of State.

      I know nobody on the left gives a damn about the law, but these kinds of things do matter!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:False decisiveness. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Federal criminal bribery statutes apply to presidents.

      That's the law!
       

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    20. Re:False decisiveness. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Fence wall: 60 minutes
      http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

      Prosecuting Hillary: He's not going to do anything. At all. After saying he was going to get her locked up for her criminal behavior.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Mr. Trump knows exactly how to fix Obamacare. The first question is fix or dismantle?

      It can be fixed, but no-one is going to like the solution. The only way to fix it is to create a single-payer system. As long as there's profit to be made in health insurance and the insurance companies are allowed to influence the legislation we won't end up with a working system.

    22. Re: False decisiveness. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      This seems pretty specific. I thought most libs hated TPP as well ?

      They did, until Trump came out against it, and now they love it.

      It seems that they've decided after 8 years of being just fine with war, they're against that again now, too.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    23. Re:False decisiveness. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      You should never underestimate the capacity of a narcissistic con man to come up with unexpected ways to screw you over.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    24. Re:False decisiveness. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.

      Yeah, we know. That's the shit that brought us "obamacare":

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      But, you only care about it if Trump is the one doing this, right?

    25. Re:False decisiveness. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      after the [US] ran the Afghani campaign so successfully...

      It only looked successful. Some kept wondering, "where are all the bodies if so many fighters were wiped out?"

      It seems no reporter followed up on that; maybe those in charge kept them from snooping around? Turns out the fighters were just hiding in the hills or blending into towns, waiting for better opportunities to strike back. We saw a fake victory. It's why we are still there.

      We were royally duped with that country also. One dupe (Afghanistan) was used to justify another dupe (Ireq).

      Investigate THAT. It's far bigger than emails.

    26. Re:False decisiveness. by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Building a wall - now a fence

      The whole wall thing was the stupidest part of the Trump campaign to me. I know the wall is largely symbolic, but everyone knows that this won't actually work. If you really want to stop illegal immigration, all you need to do is have the FBI and INS start arresting execs and managers at every company/farm/business that employs illegals and sticking them with real prison-time and hefty fines. You start doing that consistently and regularly and illegal immigration will dry up, as the incentive for illegals to come here disappears. There aren't going to be any jobs for illegals if the farmers and businesses who hire them know there is a good chance they're going to get caught and face prison time for illegal hiring. And no one is going to cross the border if there are no jobs here waiting for them.

      But no one wants to do that because both Republicans and Democrats give a wink-wink to the businesses/farms that hire illegals (businesses who also, coincidentally, donate to their campaigns). It's quid-pro-quo politics that fucks over legal workers, makes bullshit symbolic gestures like a wall that won't stop anything, and demonizes illegals who are just doing what they have to do to feed their families (when the REAL blame should be on those who incentivize them to come here in the first place).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "heat from almost half the country" is nothing more than liberal, socialist morons which means they don't count. We have been through eight years of their idiocy, time for it to end.

    28. Re:False decisiveness. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "He doesn't know how to fix Obamacare but he'll "do something", lol."

      You apparently missed that he's already mentioned several times that there are a number of elements of Obamacare that he wants to keep, and Ryan's replacement draft is already pretty obviously about half-accepting of a number of core precepts of Obamacare.

      So it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

      I know the point here isn't to state facts, it's just to bash Trump, but yeah: sometimes facts anyway....

      --
      -Styopa
    29. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you think a single "stop it" from Trump is enough to put the cork back in the bottle and send the bigoted troglodytes back under their rocks?

      Why doesn't Trump do what LBJ did and get himself on the evening news calling the KKK "a hooded society of bigots"? Why doesn't Trump make a principled, detailed, speech about this kind of behavior (it's up to overt Nazism now, including the fascist salute) is reprehensible, un-American, and not to be abided nor supported by anyone he's associated with?

      Why won't Trump unequivocally rebuke the bigots? Because Trump, King of the Lizard People, is feeding the Klan and the rest of the rw nutz just exactly enough red meat to keep them on his side. And guess who will be Trump's Sturmabteilung/Brown Shirts in the streets during the 2020 election? I just wonder who their 21st century Horst Wessel will be...

      My daddy shot fascists in Europe from 1943 - 45. I never dreamed I'd have to fight them in my own country...

    30. Re:False decisiveness. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Hoping he's just waiting out Obama. Preempt the pardon with half truths.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:False decisiveness. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yet millions voted because they literally though he'd build a wall to stop heroin coming over the border, or immigrants taking jobs, or whatever other shit they believed.

      They voted because he sold it. It was stupid as all get out. But if you say that, 'she's worse' or 'the lying media'.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    32. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's going to break a lot of them. It won't be reported like that, though. The right wing information bubble is self contained and will claim victory no matter the outcome, so expect stores like "Trump would have build the wall but those dirty liberals sabotaged his plans and hate christmas"

    33. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much this.
      The day after the election CTR disappeared and as of the day after that we've been hit with non-stop stories about how Trump is the worst.
      First they say he's not building a wall, aren't you mad trump supporters?
      Then they say he's stopping TPP aren't you mad trump supporters?
      He's not going to deport all the mexicans. Aren't you mad Trump supporters?
      Do they not realize how desperate this all sounds?

    34. Re:False decisiveness. by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      At least he won't be covertly funding them through our middle east allies.

    35. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't Trump do what LBJ did...

      And say "I'll have those dumb n1ggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years!"?

      and congrats to Slashdot for censoring the correct spelling

      n1ggers!

    36. Re:False decisiveness. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Media for 18 months: "TRUMP IS HITLER!!!!!!"

      Supporters: "No he's not."

      Media after election: "TRUMP SAY YOU'RE NOT HITLER!!!!!"

      Trump: "I'm not Hitler."

      Media: "OH MY GOD TRUMP SUPPORTERS HE FOOLED YOU HE'S NOT HITLER LOLOLOLOLOL U GOT PLAYED!!"

      The death of the legacy media cannot come fast enough.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    37. Re:False decisiveness. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Right wing information bubble. Right. Because it's not like the left-wing/corporate propaganda permeates every TV network, major newspaper, reddit, my annoying liberal friends' FaceBook feed, our entire pop culture...

      Right wingers are exposed to constant left wing propaganda from all sides, all the time...and then also read Breitbart. Left wingers believe everything that falls out of Anderson Cooper's face hole and never look at a single piece of alternative media because "LOL TINFOIL CONSPIRACY FAKE NEWS LIES HAHA!" And then they're shocked, just shocked when Trump wins. Right wingers were not shocked. We're not the ones in the bubble, consuming only one viewpoint.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    38. Re:False decisiveness. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Racism - he's cool with it

      Actually, I'm reasonably certain when asked in an interview about it, he turned to the camera and said "STOP IT."

      But that is worth nothing for multiple reasons, not least that...

      On the other hand, he's appointing Bannon

      Yeah. Also all the demonstrably racist shit Trump himself has said.

      On the other hand, I do think there's a good chance that Trump will actually torpedo TPP.

      On the gripping hand, even if he does do that, odds are it's just going to go back to the drawing board and then later, either post-Trump or in the not-inconceivable second term (yeah, I've been thinking about that already, the horror of this election cycle is not enough for me — but the Democrats could easily fail completely again) it will rear its by then even uglier head once more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re: False decisiveness. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This seems pretty specific. I thought most libs hated TPP as well ?

      They do, but the Democrats are a centrist, populist party, not a liberal one. The democrats want to tell you what you can sell, but the republicans want to tell you what you can do with your body and want to let corporations make all the laws, so obviously they're all the way over there on the right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:False decisiveness. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Right wingers are exposed to constant left wing propaganda from all sides

      Is the sky a pretty color on your planet?

      We're not the ones in the bubble, consuming only one viewpoint.

      Pretty sure most right-wingers get their news exclusive from a) Fox or b) Rush.

    41. Re:False decisiveness. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to avoid the mainstream/left wing media. And hell half of the right wing media is pointing out the bias and lies of the mainstream media so even if you only paid attention to alternative media you'd see mainstream media indirectly. Also Fox is mainstream, and Rush is owned by ClearChannel.

      Do you ever read Breitbart though? Or watch right-wing news/opinion YouTube channels?

      I see your media. I have to. It's everywhere. I couldn't avoid it if I wanted to. But do you ever see mine?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    42. Re:False decisiveness. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You mean the kind that did actual research instead of just rehashing what someone posted in a blog?

      That kind died a few years ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:False decisiveness. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Please. Where was his love of "some parts" of Obamacare prior to the election?

      Obamacare is built on a house of cards. It's basically like legislating away poverty by making it illegal to be poor. You can't keep the "good stuff" without the "bad stuff". It's a non starter. How the fuck are insurance companies going to stay in business when you can carry your "kid" until 26 and you can go sign up for insurance after you find you have cancer?

      There's no fixing it. Either leave it mostly alone, or gut it. The only sensible choice is universal care with a "pay out of pocket up to $X" where $X goes up with income, and high deductible insurance then kicks in.

      I expect him to make very minor tweaks and say he did something, but not really do anything.

      As for bashing Trump, bullshit. I think he's a dumbass who got elected based on pandering, but I'm not entirely sad he got elected. At the very least the lulz of all the teary left wingers is worth it.

    44. Re:False decisiveness. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be arguing with the left wingers in your head.

      Sorry, dumb shit, I'm not crying that Trump got elected, though I think he's an idiot. And I'm certainly no Obama fan, though I don't think he's as bad as the rabid nuts on the right feared. Similarly, odds are Trump won't be nearly as bad as the nuts on the left think.

    45. Re:False decisiveness. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Not needed. Health care has a solution, and it's modeled after the HSA+HDHP plan most employees get now.

      You can do private or public, but you have a high deductible insurance provider. They cover all costs after $X, you pay the first $X yourself. $X depends on income. For the dirt poor, it might even be -$500. You give them $500 for healthcare costs. They don't use it, they keep it, they do then everything else is paid by HDHP.

      If you make $50k you might pay the first $4k of your own healthcare costs. If you make $100k, maybe first $8k. At $1m/year maybe you're paying the first $80k, and we cap it there. Numbers could be worked on.

      Benefit of this is you will shop based on price for that $X and not waste money, but you won't go bankrupt if you have major medical expenses.

      In return, eliminate Medicate, medicaid, employer insurance, most of the VA, etc... Overall of healthcare for country would actually go down, probably nearly cost neutral with what we have now.

    46. Re:False decisiveness. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Do you not know how to spell Iraq? Twice in a row you've written Ireq. Also, it's pronounced by the locals and the rest of the world as "EE-RARK", not "EYE-RACK".

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    47. Re:False decisiveness. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I would plan for a lot of this sort of thing from him. False shows of decisiveness. A lot of people seem to think that "doing something" is what a leader does, even if that "something" isn't well thought out or planned.

      Leader? it's what everyone does!

      We need to do something. This is something. We need to do this.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    48. Re:False decisiveness. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Fence wall: 60 minutes http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

      Prosecuting Hillary: He's not going to do anything. At all. After saying he was going to get her locked up for her criminal behavior.

      If I understand you correctly, you're unhappy that he appears to be adopting a moderate position?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    49. Re:False decisiveness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to shame stupid people. I hope they read like something out of idiocracy with name calling and calls for those involved to drink bleach.

      My facebook is full of working class dipshits going "LOLOL DIS IS LIBERAL SALT U SALTY LIB CUCK" on every single article I see posted about him appointing elite cronies into key positions. It's like a cow party outside the slaughterhouse and I want these people to finally understand they're stupid and tend to their ditches.

      Their memories are short though I don't they'll remember the time their boy promised to feed america's poor with meatloaf made of illegals and muslims and it didn't happen.

  3. New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    * I'm personally up about $50k in various investment accounts since election day

    * DJIA has broken 19,000

    * He's going to greatly scale back or end the H1B program

    * It's starting like they're going to have a decent replacement for Obamacare

    * Going to ditch these globalist trade agreements that have destroyed American jobs and pay

    He wasn't my first choice, but I'm starting to see past the arrogance and attitude and am learning that this guy actually produces results. What a strange concept. I hate to underestimate him anymore at this point, starting to wonder if he could wind up being one of the Great Presidents. It was just hard to get past the asshole factor watching him campaign everyday.

    1. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?

    2. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder whether you're not being a bit quick to judge on this. You might be up for the moment but the same could be said for many investors in the UK who were up slightly after Brexit but as we all know for 100% certain now that wasn't a good idea and has resulted in an embarrassing mess for the Tory government. I suspect Trump will be one of those leaders who puts the country back about a decade but some people see as great as they're able to commit more labour abuses and make quick bucks out of the poor, uneducated people who voted him in on the promise of a better life.

    3. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand! You're going to save more by living in California and buying insurance from Maine, then flying cross country to see an in-network doctor!

    4. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too. It sounds like he is going to put a kibosh on all this "global warming" BS too.

      WOW!!! He's going to stop global warming??? Who knew!

    5. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the one that doesn't fuck over the middle class and let's you take tax credits to offset your premiums. The existing one is great for low income people because it gives them what is basically free or highly subsidized insurance. The middle class not only doesn't get subsidies, but is forced to pay (through taxes) for the lower income people. Higher people don't give a shit either way.

    6. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm starting to see past the arrogance and attitude and am learning that this guy actually produces results.

      Results? He's not even in office yet FFS. All he has done so far is make a few announcements (and broken several campaign promises.)

    7. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a fan of the prospect of even my employer provided health insurance being high deductible plans by design though, or the reliance on health savings accounts.

      At least if we all have to do it the various doctors offices will HAVE to provide useful receipts for such purpose, but it is a pretty big pain in the ass.

    8. Re:New Trump fan here! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Be careful with your investments man. Be ready to protect yourself from a downturn on short notice.

      I've been a big Trump fan ever since he promised to build a wall during the announcement of his candidacy. But I don't believe that the globalists are defeated yet, and there are literally trillions of dollars at stake.

      In my opinion, the current highs in the markets are not organic; someone is blowing a bubble. The goal is probably to draw you in, then burn you out so that they can blame the pain on Trump.

      I know it sounds paranoid, but keep in mind that Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump all advocated similar economic policies: America first and anti-globalist.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    9. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he hasn't done anything yet, lets see how the market fear takes hold when he actually does something besides talking about what he will do.

    10. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im middle income ($65k) and get subs. Not really sure what youre talking about here.

    11. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broken several campaign promises? He's not even in office yet FFS. All you have done so far is cherry pick.

    12. Re:New Trump fan here! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, can he wipe out the $20T debt w/ carbon credits?

    13. Re: New Trump fan here! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Sure, just like you have to ship your car across the country to get in network repairs.

    14. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the one Mike Pence implemented in Indiana. And, as a recently unemployed guy with no insurance living in a state that didn't expand Medicaid, it sure sounds pretty fucking good to me. Having to pay a few dollars co-pay is not much of a downside when it would mean everyone (including me) could finally have health insurance. A $3 co-pay on a doctor visit vs. having to pay full price? Sign me up, Mr. President!

    15. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when it turns out you were wrong and have damned to whole planet to suffer a 5C temp increase, can we hate you then?

    16. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon credits are made up concepts for marketing and strategically avoiding emission requirements by passing them elsewhere.

      The global warming trend is fact and a myriad of independently collected data overwhelmingy supports it. You can quibble about cause or humnaities ethical responsibility all you like, but it's absurd to call the global average increasing temperature trend BS.

    17. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finding contradictory Trump statements isn't cherry picking, it's more like collecting bags full of garbage from the roadside.

    18. Re:New Trump fan here! by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      And where are your science degrees and empirical evidence that has been peer-reviewed for accuracy to prove it doesn't exist? Because so far thousands and thousands of actual scientists disagree with your statement.

    19. Re:New Trump fan here! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, it isn't, and increasing emissions is only going to make it worse, but Trump will be long out of office, and the people who benefit from fuckwits like you just mindlessly repeating the memes they've created will have already cashed in their chips.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your employer provided plan is high deductible because the ACA did absolutely nothing to reduce health care costs. As costs keep going up, plans keep finding every way possible to be low cost. That means less perks, higher deductibles, etc. The ACA focused solely on coverage numbers as that was the political goal. It should have focused on cost, which would have made health care more in reach of even those without coverage.

    21. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not going to do anything to the H1B program. He is already in bed
      with the Indian business tycoons and Indian expats who voted for "Trump Sarkar".

    22. Re:New Trump fan here! by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I think the people living in Alaska and Canada are probably just fine and dandy with global warming. One day, we can farm the tundra.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    23. Re:New Trump fan here! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      I've been a big Trump fan ever since he promised to build a wall during the announcement of his candidacy

      Just curious - Why would you support spending forty billion dollars to build a wall when net immigration from Mexico is negative?

      Seems to me there are way better ways the USA could spend forty billion.

      https://www.technologyreview.c...

    24. Re:New Trump fan here! by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I'm a straight white male in the top 25%. Trump's going to be great for me personally, but I knew that before I voted against him. My personal gains pale in comparison to the high-risk policies he has espoused over the last 15 months.

      He advocates more countries getting nukes (but says he's against proliferation, so he apparently doesn't own a dictionary). He has no regard for the First Amendment (specifically religion and press). He thinks stop and frisk is a good idea. He doesn't accept global warming as real. He lies about things that are easily falsifiable, and then continues to stick to his story even when he's been proven wrong. He thinks that having his kids run his foundation is the same as a blind trust. He thinks vaccinations cause autism. He doesn't believe due process is necessary to deport people. He thinks Russia had the right to annex Crimea.

      Any of two these things would be disqualifying. I can forgive a politician having a single unorthodox opinion about their pet topic, but this guy has unacceptable views on so many topics. I didn't want my kids to inherit a world where this sort of incivility and brinkmanship is encouraged. Whether his policies "Make America Great Again" or not is immaterial. Anyone espousing so many of these views is dangerous to the very fabric of our political system and social structure.

      I hope you're right about his vaporware Obamacare replacement, but I have a feeling it will only make things worse. If you thought your premiums went up under Obamacare, just wait until it's only sick people who are getting insurance.

    25. Re:New Trump fan here! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Someone on the radio this morning was saying that it would be better to remove the incentives to stay, making the wall moot. Essentially, if illegals were unable to get jobs, get housing, open a bank account, etc - they would all depart, for free.

      But that would only stop the people who were crossing illegally for economic reasons. True, that is the bulk of the people crossing, but not necessarily the bulk of the problems caused by the open border. Think drugs, terrorists, cartels, etc.

      Clever use of the "net immigration from Mexico" scam. I'm guessing that tricks a lot of people that aren't aware that many (most?) people crossing our southern border are OTMs - Other Than Mexican. Net immigration to/from Mexico isn't the issue, net immigration through Mexico is.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    26. Re:New Trump fan here! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      After the tundra has barfed megatons of methane into the atmosphere making things worse. And, of course, rain patterns will shift, which means traditional breadbaskets like the American midwest will suddenly find themselves with much hotter drier summers.

      That there might be a few winners out of this doesn't mean there aren't going to be a LOT more losers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    27. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I applaud your clear thinking and I wish I could mod you up.

    28. Re:New Trump fan here! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Think drugs, terrorists, cartels, etc.

      I will 'think' about those things once was have some hard numbers from reputable sources.

      For example, how many terrorist acts were committed based on people coming in from Mexico? And as for drugs, if you want to eliminate those, just legalese in the USA. Presto, no more market for drug dealers.

      Just seems silly to me to contemplate spending 40 Billion on something - Money that could go to education, healthcare, veterans - When there doesn't seem to be hard facts indicating that that spend is a good investment of tax dollars that will solve a real problem.

      I'm a fiscal conservative, so I need to see the numbers first, before I can get behind something like that.

    29. Re: New Trump fan here! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?

      You do realize that people buying from exchanges have seen their premiums go up dramatically over the last couple of years, right? Health insurance is now more expensive for almost everybody than it was before Obamacare. The only thing Obamacare does, besides making health insurance more expensive, is let the federal government fine you if you don't get health insurance. Lovely.

    30. Re:New Trump fan here! by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Donald!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    31. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "* Going to ditch these globalist trade agreements that have destroyed American jobs and pay"

      As a non american.. Huh?

      most of those "job destroying" treaties (for instance NAFTA) people outside the USA hate because they heavily favour US corporations and US interests. See for instance the long running dispute with softwood lumber between the usa and canada.

      TPP is great that its dead, because american corporations were going to have teeth to enforce their laws on canadian soil. But from an american perspective, all these trade agreements were presumably a good thing (as they were sponsored and written by american corporations!).

      If trump really does want to pull out american influence from other countries I say AMAZING! Less american companies in my country and I will be thanking trump whole heartedly!

    32. Re:New Trump fan here! by dj245 · · Score: 1

      * I'm personally up about $50k in various investment accounts since election day * DJIA has broken 19,000 * He's going to greatly scale back or end the H1B program * It's starting like they're going to have a decent replacement for Obamacare * Going to ditch these globalist trade agreements that have destroyed American jobs and pay He wasn't my first choice, but I'm starting to see past the arrogance and attitude and am learning that this guy actually produces results. What a strange concept. I hate to underestimate him anymore at this point, starting to wonder if he could wind up being one of the Great Presidents. It was just hard to get past the asshole factor watching him campaign everyday.

      The economic shifts since November 8 would arguable have happened regardless of who was elected. Markets hate uncertainty, and a large amount of uncertainty on the direction of the new president has been resolved.

      Another point is the exchange rates. The USD has strengthened significantly since the election. This may make US investments more valuable, which would explain why US investments have shot upwards. However, the exchange rate shift is very bad for anyone trying to export American goods. Increasing exports is another one of Trump's economic promises and will be more difficult if the dollar stays strong or continues to strengthen. Consider the recent dramatic exchange rate shift as a ~4% tax on anyone importing American goods that wasn't there before.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    33. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't care, I'll be dead by then and have no children.
      Fuck you, got mine.

    34. Re:New Trump fan here! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Sure, in the same way as Japan ... if no one wants to have it just put it on the Federal reserves balance sheet and forget about it.

      It's just paper.

    35. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing that you think he is producing results, or that the performance of the market since the election is grounded in anything other than unfounded speculation. He has not passed one piece of legislation that has had any impact on the state of the economy. The market is reacting to speculation of a rollback of government oversight leading to increased profits for some corporations. Good times are anticipated for the rapists of the consumer and spoilers of the environment. That may well come to pass. However in 4 years will his policies have us in a better state economically, or environmentally. I doubt it, but I don't really know. Neither do you. However go ahead and pour all your money into the market. What could possibly go wrong?

    36. Re:New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it sounds paranoid, but keep in mind that Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump all advocated similar economic policies ...

      As did Herbert Hoover.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

    37. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello that's what Obamacare gave us!

    38. Re: New Trump fan here! by Rich.Miller.6 · · Score: 1

      Obamacare does a lot more good than you're giving it credit for.

      Insurance company "administrative overhead" is capped at 15% of premium dollars; before Obamacare, it was typically over 30%. That money is non-productive. (By comparison, the VA's administrative overhead is astoundingly low, at 2%, and a recent study showed the VA and private US hospitals getting comparable outcomes for three major medical problems. I.e., the VA got equivalent outcomes at much lower overhead cost. Just saying.)

      People with pre-existing conditions are no longer excluded from insurance. Sometimes retroactively, long after an insurance company has agreed to insure them and has been using their money.

      Insurance premium annual increases before Obamacare were quite a bit faster than under Obamacare.

      The most valuable benefit from having insurance - even if you have an effectively infinite deductible! - is that you pay rates the insurance company negotiated with the healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies, not the list prices you'd pay otherwise. The difference between these can be enormous.

    39. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really plated the long game, back in the nineteenth century with Arrhenius. You have to admire that sort of forward thinking.

    40. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er.. played

    41. Re: New Trump fan here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8688

  4. Eh, probably not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems anything else promised before being elected, isn't happening. Believe it when I see it.

  5. DEPLORABLE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Racist! Bigot!! Sexist!!! Literal NAZI!!!

    How dare he try to protect American jobs!!

  6. Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Come on Slashdot. This isn't news for nerds. It's not even news. It was in most papers yesterday.

  7. Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.

    Because Trump.

    1. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Informative

      *EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.

      I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters lamenting the passing of TTP. So, your outrage appears misplaced. And no, finding one or two crazy ACs doesn't really prove anything except that AC is anonymous.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by bluegutang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump wouldn't even understand, much less agree with, the reasons people here gave for opposing TPP.

    3. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      yup, never let it be said that the world doesn't have a shortage of hypocrites.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I should clarify. I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters HERE lamenting its passing. I haven't been following the TTP on any other discussion sites.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we still are. A broken clock is right twice a day. It's not because I'm against Trump that I'll miss the TPP.

    6. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TPP was dead long before Trump won the election. This is just him taking credit for the hard work of others.

    7. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not a Trump supporter, but I see this (dumping the TPP) as good news.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

      I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters lamenting the passing of TTP.

      All that means is that you haven't been paying attention. Please leave this to those of us that are. Thanks so much.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    9. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the president elect, a man worth billions, graduated in the top of his class in both high school and university, who's succesfully started over a hundred multimillion dollar companies worries that some basement dweller thinks he's smarter. News flash, you're not.

    10. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Under Hillary, it still wouldn't be a legal treaty, but it would be 'in force'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would be me. I'm a non-Trump supporter. I'm on the middle to left. TPP was extremely bad. Want to protest human rights violations by LG? TPP was bad.
      Want to boycott those lead laced toys from Shanghai? TPP was bad. If you like pirated content, TPP was bad.
      The only people that benefited from TPP were IP holders and large corporations like Walmart and Amazon.
      But bluegutang is right, I'm doubtful if Trump understands why educated members of the left are against TPP. Unless my conspiracy theory holds true and Trump is secretly a Marxist.

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    12. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh lol I see what you mean!

      "passing" == "death"

      lament the passing of == lament the death of

      I freely admit however that it was a bad choice of word given that it was a bill and passing could mean the bill passing.

      If you re-read it with the meaning I intended, it means precisely the opposite.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That would be me.

      hehehe

      lament the passing of == lament the death of

      Terrible and I mean TERRIBLE choice of phrase for something related to a bill.

      Sorry!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by geekmux · · Score: 0

      ...I see this (dumping the TPP) as good news.

      Wouldn't that technically be Trumping the TPP?

      *ba dum tiss*

    15. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Bad choice of wording. passing of == demise of.

      D'oh!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Another clarification.

      Terrible choice of wording.

      I was using the phrase "lament the passing of" in the funerial sense. As in "lament the demise of".

      Of course with a bill, it can mean the complete opposite. Wooo!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by pD-brane · · Score: 1

      Huh? I still believe that the TPP and the like are bad ideas. Generally the posts here about TPP are still quite negative.

      I'm sure that Hitler had some insightful remarks. Doesn't imply I disagree with it.

    18. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Trump supporter at all (not a Clinton supporter either, but I really think Trump and his followers are dangerous), To be perfectly honest, I've never known exactly what to think of the TPP. I've heard smart people say it's good and I've heard smart people say it's bad, and I'm sure there are reasons why it would be good and reasons why it would be bad, but I've never really heard a real debate based on it's merits, between a smart person who's for it and a smart person who's against. I wish we'd spend more time actually discussing issues instead of making everything about cult of personality.

    19. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by dlkwnt · · Score: 1

      Being wealthy and graduating college has next to nothing to do with being intelligent and well informed. There's plenty of idiots out there with a college degree and cash in their pocket that couldn't tell you the advantages or disadvantages of the TPP if their life depended on it.

    20. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by jxander · · Score: 1

      Because he's shooting from the hip with no rationale or forethought.

      The fact that he actually got one right does not excuse the reckless manner in which he acts.

      --
      This signature is false.
    21. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This joke is going to be so god damn annoying after 4 years....

    22. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      *EVERYONE* here was bitching about TPP until Trump decided to do away with it.

      Because Trump.

      Trump said many things and stated many goals I agreed with, however I never heard anything that made me think that he actually had any sort of logical support for that stance, would actually do it if elected, nor a plan in how to do it if he was, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

    23. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, even Clinton turned against the TPP: it is just that bad a deal. For those with short memories: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-reject-obama-trade-226920

      But, now that Trump's been elected, the anti-Trump chorus wants to find fault with everything he does, even when he does things that Clinton agreed with him about.

    24. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      This joke is going to be so god damn annoying after 4 years....

      You're just mad that he Trumped you by posting the joke first.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    25. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Do you agree with Sony's well-paid and successful lawyers about their interpretation of copyright law just because they're well-paid and successful, and thus must be smarter and know more than us "basement dwellers"? (I thought Trump got really mad about that term when he thought Hillary was using it disparagingly, but i guess the rules have changed now.)

      I'm not going to claim I know more than the Sony lawyers or Trump, but opinions about IP law seem to differ quite a bit not based on intelligence, but on whether you've become wealthy because of big corporations (either owning them, getting paid a large salary by them, or getting lobbied by them.)

      On top of that, there's at least some correlation between being old and not understanding computers and the internet.

      So even if Trump is very intelligent and successful (citation needed,) as a very old and relatively rich corporate owner i would not necessarily expect him to understand why it's bad to let corporations sue people into the ground for things that ought to fall under Fair Use.

      That said, even as someone who voted for Hillary, I'm glad Trump (seems to be) carrying through on his promise to block the TPP, regardless of what his reasons for doing so actually are. I don't disagree with _everything_ Trump does and says just because Trump is the one doing and saying it.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    26. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      TPP support is why I didn't vote for Gary Johnson despite voting for him four years ago. Anyone who supported the TPP obviously didn't care about keeping U.S. interest in mind. Handing control of your county off to an unaccountable third party is never smart.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    27. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't been looking or listening then. Trump is 90% moron and 10% narcissist or so, but the TPP is horrible. But I'll take this one nugget of gold that we can find in the incoming pile of dog crap.

    28. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Op said everyone "here". Pay attention.

    29. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Unless my conspiracy theory holds true and Trump is secretly a Marxist.

      I doubt it since he has a self-proclaimed Leninist on his staff (Bannon). Bannon stated to The Daily Beast in late 2013 “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Does this mean either Trump or Bannon is going to wind up with an icepick in his head?

      --
      DaveyJJ
    30. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    31. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Are you saying that the EFF are supporting Trump? Or that they lament the death of the TPP? Me thinks you're the one who should pay a little attention...

    32. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will, some day in the future, come a time for world government. That day isn't yet, the world isn't ready.

      But it must be accountable to all the people of the planet when it finally happens.

    33. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      You have to admit though.... it is funny!

    34. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you look at those links you posted? Not a single one was "lamenting the passing of the TTP" - in fact, every single one was firmly opposed to the TTP. They support what serviscope_minor said.

    35. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

      ~ If this was Reddit. I would edit. ~

      --
      Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    36. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by cshark · · Score: 1

      I have to strongly disagree. TPP has had much of the same soul-crushing effect that SOPA did on the community.

      The record of people in tech being opposed to TPP has been ongoing. More restrictive copyright laws have historically been something that Slashdot and similar forums have ALWAYS been against. At least in the 15 years or so that I've been reading them.

      For Slashdotters to come out in favor of the entertainment industry, after supporting Kim.com, after fighting for everyone's right to torrent, after supporting the free flow of information, after criticizing Iran and China for their internet censorship regimes, after we cried for tragic passing of Aaron Swartz, after fighting, and lobbying, and coming together the way we have, consistently. And now because half of us don't like Trump, regardless as to whether or not we win, is a complete betrayal of the long-standing principles this community is based on. It's as shocking as it is sad -- because it really does feel like the end of an era, at least to me.

      So yes, I see how an argument can be made that there is hypocrisy there.

      And it makes me wonder if this is the new normal. It makes me wonder if we're all so blinded by partisan politics that we're willing to throw our history, and morals, our causes, and our core sense of self away over bullshit like this.

      We're not supposed to be partisans. We're motherfucking techies. We rule the world, not them. We were fight club before fight club existed. We have our own set of interests.

      But more importantly, we're supposed to be a community.
      It really does feel like that broke down this cycle.

      And I have no idea what that means.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    37. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think about its replacement, the RCEP?

    38. Re:Hypocrisy at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like pirated content, TPP was bad.

      Do you really think that a trade negotiation will have any meaningful effect on pirating on an individual level? Or do you actually own a company that profits from the use of pirated software / media?

  8. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Much better at disadvantaging the gullible, generally poor, mostly uneducated people who largely voted him in and will likely respond angrily to this post. He's great if you're a huge corporation and don't care about human rights, the environment or anyone else.

  9. Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by quenda · · Score: 1

    I thought this was up to congress now.
    Does the Rule of Law no longer apply? If congress likes the treaty, they can ratify it before Trump is coronated.

    1. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      You an ratify anything you want. You can also pull out at any time. And Republicans won the next Congress, so say bye bye to the TPP (good).

    2. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Congress through its leadership can block any legislation from even getting considered. It's not in the constitution that way, but it's the way the procedural processes have evolved. Like the filibuster. Last year, McConnell told the WH TPP won't even be considered, just like the SCOTUS nominee. If it doesn't get to the floor for a vote, it never happened. The new administration can then merely come in, say we're withdrawing it and it's gone from any agenda consideration.

      Unfortunately for all of us, left or right, there's no bilateral consensus anymore unless it's against a real or perceived threat. In those rare cases, of which we've seen a couple this year it'll get right through and voted on, often with veto proof votes.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been the last 8 years? Congress either rolls over for the president, or sits in a corner and sulks.

      Maybe though both the right AND left will rediscover federalism and that Congress is a coequal branch of government finally.

    4. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      Foreign policy is broadly an executive function, but none of it is binding on us until the senate ratifies a treaty.

      TPP is just a group attempting to write a treaty. Eventually, the completed treaty would be presented to the member governments to ratify. They aren't at that stage yet, so the president is free to tell the working group that we aren't going to participate any more. In theory, they could continue working on the treaty and present it to us anyway, but I think everyone understands the futility of that.

      If there was a treaty, and there isn't, then yes, the senate could ratify it while Obama is still in office. But even if there was a treaty, the Democrats don't have enough votes. It takes 67 votes, and they have less than 50.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the sitting president's baby. With Republican control of congress, they'll listen to the president elect if he has any better ideas before saying "Yes" to the TPP. Yes, they can ratify it, but it would be stupid to do so.

      In this case, Trump's the coach and congress are the football players. Coach can call the play, but the players are the ones that make the final decisions on the field. Coach isn't allowed in the huddle.

    6. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Your assumption that the Republican's would back not ratifying TPP belies the record. Democrats have been the opposition to TPP with the republican's in congress being it's advocate. Obama's and Clinton's support for TPP were actually in opposition to the bulk of the Democratic party.

    7. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      The Progressive wing of the Republican party is scared right now. Control of the party has shifted back to the much larger Conservative wing. That civil war is probably not over yet, but so far it appears that the conservatives have dealt a decisive, probably fatal, blow.

      Meanwhile, the civil war in the Democrat party is just now heating up and will probably reach the shooting phase soon.

      Under these conditions, and in light of the election results - not just the on the federal level, but also state and local - no one is going to try anything as dumb as sneaking through a treaty. Certainly not while there are still plenty of undecorated lampposts in DC.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    8. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The Progressive wing of the Republican party is scared

      What the fuck are you smoking? The GOP ran off the last person in their party to the Left of Genghis Khan way back around the Lowell Weicker time went home.

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a [flaming] cross and wrapped in the flag." - Sinclair Lewis (my addition inside the [ ]s.)

      "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” - Barry Goldwater

    9. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by quenda · · Score: 1

      And Republicans won the next Congress, so say bye bye to the TPP (good).

      I was talking about the current congress, before Trump can veto. But Republicans already have majorities. That will not change.
      I thought the conservatives were supposed to be traditionally pro-business / "free trade" and the liberals protectionist.

      Will the new Congress rule the US, or will they be a rubber-stamp like the Supreme Soviet?
      The precedent of rule by executive order, much increased by Obama, is very disturbing.

      (by the way, I personally hope the TPP fails.)

    10. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much any religion.

    11. Re:Is the US a democracy or a dictatorship? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      LOL. It is always funny hearing the outsider's view of things. I imagine this is what you commies feel like when I talk about the Democrat party. Well, except that Reagan would clearly be electable today as a Republican (notice that everyone spent the last year or so praying for Ronnie to inspire Trump from beyond the grave), while JFK wouldn't even recognize today's Democrat party, much less have a chance of being nominated by it.

      Oh, and before anyone says anything stupid, go take a hard look at JFK's economic policy proposals, then Reagan's, then Trump's. It won't take long. They are nearly identical, all three.

      And Barry was wrong about the future of the party. The preachers never took over. Look at the candidates since that quote: Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump. Romney is the only one that might be the first choice of "the preachers", except that he is Mormon.

      Buckley led a crusade to kick undesirables out of the conservative movement, and thus the Republican Party, which left the country club faction in charge. The evangelicals had a strong enough minority that any candidates couldn't be overtly hostile to their interests. But they have never had enough pull to get candidates that were more than just nominally religious.

      Who were the undesirables? Goldwater and his supporters first, then nationalists, and then gradually anyone left who was more interested in winning than in losing politely.

      At any rate, "the preachers" probably would have done a better job. One can only hope that a candidate selected by "the preachers" wouldn't have sat idly by while the cult of Moloch grew from a handful of dark adherents hiding in the shadows to the single most powerful force int he Democrat party.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  10. Questionable reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would feel better about it if I really believed Trump has any idea what is in the TPP. Protectionism never leads to an overall gain in wealth (although a few people at the top may be able to take advantage). If there are truly bad aspects to the TPP, then spell those out, instead of just slamming the whole deal as "disastrous" and leaving it at that.

    1. Re:Questionable reasoning by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All about the exchange rate.

      At this stage there is just bluster and talk of trade wars. In the end, the only real change will be China will move the peg a little more. The exchange rate won't be allowed to float.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Re:Great by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Yes, he's already making sure massive conflicts of interest are ok!

    Soooooo much better!

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  12. 24hrs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is not going to be enough...

  13. Why EFF has opposed TPP by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    If there are truly bad aspects to the TPP, then spell those out

    Electronic Frontier Foundation has spelled out the TPP's truly bad aspects in a category of articles on its site.

    1. Re: Why EFF has opposed TPP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great article, but the arguments seem to be about how bad the rest of the countries are gonna get it when US push it's stupid copyright laws to them using TPP. There's nothing there on what is gonna be worse off for the US since those are already US copy right laws that are currently in place without TPP.

  14. Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Presidential transition messages to the public via Youtube... no press ceremony, no Wolf Blitzer commentary, the entire beltway media regime left to twist in the wind. This guy leaves behind more excellence every time he takes a leak than the entire despondent MSM crowd has ever been responsible for. Fuck yes.

    1. Re:Youtube by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Kinda reminds one of the Roosevelt's Fireside chats

  15. Congress will ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... not Trump.

    They weren't going to approve it anyway.

    It's like Trump declaring that, on day one, he'll adjust the atmospheric composition to be 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Congress will ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress simply said they would abstain from passing it during the lame duck. Negotiations are ongoing. Trump is talking about pulling out of these negotations.

    2. Re:Congress will ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... not Trump.

      They weren't going to approve it anyway.

      It's like Trump declaring that, on day one, he'll adjust the atmospheric composition to be 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.

      You'd think that the global warming folks would take this opportunity to make a comment about 0.04% CO2 and the 0.4% H2O greenhouse gasses...

    3. Re:Congress will ... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      So you doubt it would have been approved under Hillary? Even thought she said she opposed it the entertainment industry money going into the Clinton Foundation said otherwise.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Congress will ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TPP was dead in the water months ago and it's got nothing to do with the 2016 elections. (The TPP, for the adults in the room, was about the geopolitical containment of China. China's decided that it's having none of that.)

      Trump, like a true insider, is taking credit for something he's got zero hand in.

    5. Re:Congress will ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      While looking at my post, (on a Windows-based machine) press Ctrl+F (Find) and search for "doubt" "Hillary" "she" "entertainment" "industry" "money" "Clinton" "Foundation."

      I've posted to the wrong thread before, so I feel yer pain.

      However, here's this:

      "...Republicans made it clear they wouldn't consider it during the lame duck session."

      and

      "The TPP, which had been championed by Republicans just a year ago, fell victim to a wave of opposition to globalization ..."

      --

      From here.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Congress will ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about the argon??

    7. Re:Congress will ... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Under Trump's regime, the remaining 1% will be CO2. But it will be the clean kind of CO2, so not to worry.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:Congress will ... by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Kinda like Gore and the Internet, right?

  16. Thanks Trump! by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    ..or if it goes badly:
    Thanks Obama!

    1. Re:Thanks Trump! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Pretty much...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  17. I'm confused by adonoman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is the right pro, or against globalization? I thought free trade capitalism was an economic right-wing staple. It was only the looney leftist occupy-wall-street nutters that were against free trade.

    1. Re:I'm confused by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Trump isn't Republican or right wing. He is a NYC Democrat. Just look at his history.

    2. Re:I'm confused by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Trump is not a traditional Republican. He was actually a declared Democrat until a few years ago. Of course so is Lyndon Larouche...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:I'm confused by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neoconservatives are pro-globalization. Traditional conservatives are anti-globalism, pro-nationalism. Whatever Trump is, he's an economic nationalist, so he gets the support of traditional conservatives, like the Tea Party voters (note this is distinct from how the Tea Party candidates like Rubio got co-opted into the Neocon establishment. The story of the Tea Party is voters worker their asses off to get "their" people into office in 2010 - 2014 only to be met with immediate betrayal, resulting in the seething, frothing anger that enabled Trump).

      Hopefully with the election of Trump and the destruction of the Republican and Democrat establishments we can relegate neoconservatism to the ash heap of history, along with the worst of leftist identity politics.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:I'm confused by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trump isn't Republican or right wing. He is a NYC Democrat. Just look at his history.

      It's hard to tell what Trump is. It's true that he was a Democrat. It's also true that he has been a (registered) Republican since April 2012. But he has changed his party affiliation at least five times since the late 1980s.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:I'm confused by r1348 · · Score: 2

      Political spectrum is not a single-axis diagram.

    6. Re:I'm confused by avandesande · · Score: 1

      a political honey badger?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re: I'm confused by Bartles · · Score: 1

      A shitty trade agreement is not the same thing as free trade.

    8. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where the traditional moniker "left" and "right" breaks down. I mean what you're talking about is classical liberalism (hey, it's got the word "liberal" in it!). You can be on the left and favour consumer over producer interest and you can be on the right and favour state interference over laissez-faire economics.

    9. Re: I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't the left been parroting the ability to change their minds as a strength? Please don't say flip flopper next.

    10. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans in office, for the most part, aren't rightists on a lot of economic issues. That's where we have the divide between the Neocons and the Tea Party types. The Tea Party wing would have been set against TPP but they have little to no power. A fragment of the GOP that lost its juice nearly as quickly as they began. While there are still only two parties with any real power neither one is a cohesive party.

      Please try to keep up.

    11. Re:I'm confused by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      The Flippiest of Floppers

    12. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the position of the world outside America, he's smack in the centre of your left/right axis. Right wing for Europe but centrist for you guys. But thinking about it in these terms is to be a flatlander; it's the wrong axis to consider.

      You know that two-dimensional plot (left/right, authoritarian/libertarian)? The game has moved onto the other axis.

      What is important about Trump is not that he is left or right, but that he is an authoritarian nationalist. A play for nationalist authoritarianism is why he hoovered up the votes of so many democrats -- because there are authoritarian nationalists in all parties.

    13. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard anything about him putting a Democrat in his cabinet. Maybe I missed it, but if he's filling every position with Republicans, and he has a Republican Congress, then he's going to have to be a Republican President. Congress will block left-leaning policies even if it comes from Trump. His cabinet will work towards the Republican agenda.

      If he tries being a Democrat, he'll end up being a lame duck president, which will lead to: "Oh look, the non-career politician didn't accomplish anything! Let's get someone qualified back in office!" - Hillary Clinton, when she declares her campaign for president in 2020. "If only we had known how little he would do in office. Hindsight is 2020. Hillary 2020."

      So yeah, he's going to be a Republican President. There is no other option. The fact he's filling positions with career politicians makes it seems he's stroking the GOP's shaft and cupping its balls so that they won't make him look bad.

    14. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is neither. He is a fascist dictator.

    15. Re:I'm confused by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Trump isn't Republican or right wing. He is a NYC Democrat. Just look at his history.

      Looks like you're trying to have it both ways. Everything good from the administration is because of the GoP. Everything bad from the GoP president is becase he's really a democrat.

      Right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:I'm confused by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "It's true that he was a Democrat..."

      "If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain"

    17. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought free trade capitalism was an economic right-wing staple.

      Traditionally, it is. There is a difference between this and open borders NWO globalization. George W Bush voted for Hillary if that gives you some indicator about how core Republicans felt about Trump. He can't stop global trade just like he can't force Mexico to build a fucking wall. Before Obama entered office, he was going to repeal the Patriot Act and pull us out of the middle east. Trump will be forced to change his tune as well.

    18. Re:I'm confused by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump isn't really a Republican. He's a Right-Wing Nationalist Populist. The typical term for this is National-Socalist.

    19. Re:I'm confused by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard anything about him putting a Democrat in his cabinet. Maybe I missed it, but if he's filling every position with Republicans

      I guess you did miss that he's considering Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D) for a cabinet position.

      Of course, considering the other cabinet picks he has in the works, this may just be window-dressing.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    20. Re:I'm confused by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      These trade agreements aren't 'free trade capitalism', that's what bi-lateral agreements are.

      What you're confused about is the meaning of 'right' and 'left', and thinking everybody on one side or the other is a damn hive mind.

    21. Re: I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flop-flipper then.

    22. Re:I'm confused by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Considering his opponent was 'authoritarian kleptocrat' it's a win.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought free trade capitalism was an economic right-wing staple. It was only the looney leftist occupy-wall-street nutters that were against free trade.

      Free trade within a capitalist nation - sure. Free trade with other capitalist nations - perhaps. Free trade with very different countries - doubtful.

      A 'different' country might be undercutting you through government meddling. Government sponsored manufacturing? Some places do that. Other places use more negative incentives - like slave labor or free pollution. And then some might be more competitive due to better public schooling or oil money or some such.

    24. Re:I'm confused by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Hopefully with the election of Trump and the destruction of the Republican and Democrat establishments we can relegate neoconservatism to the ash heap of history, along with the worst of leftist identity politics.

      Please please please relegate neoconservatism to the ash heap of history. Please.

      I looked into their motivations and desires and they think it is their duty to fuck with peoples lives to make the world a better place. Well, fucking with peoples lives is not okay, regardless of the outcome. Leave my life alone. I do not need you to mold my life for me. I would rather be an ignorant backwoods hick on my own instead of whatever else someone else planned for me.

      We only have a few years in this reality at most, it is for each individual to find their destiny rather than to have their lives dictated to them.
      Thanks.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    25. Re:I'm confused by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I find it both amusing and informative that this post got modded "informative" during US business hours, then downvoted during Russian business hours.

    26. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever Trump is, he's an economic nationalist...

      Whatever Trump is, he's an economic ME-ist, and nothing more.
      A pure two-faced opportunitist, demagogue, self-deluding compulsive liar, he is prima facie evidence that America doesn't even know what a democracy COULD BE, let alone understand why they don't effectively have one.
      I wouldn't vote for him either, but America is fucking love to have such a perfect example of what is wrong - now you have an opportunity to fix things.
      If Hillary had won, no one would be questioning "the system" and we'd all be just four years more fucked over in the same direction four years from now.
      There's a remote chance things can improve, become less corrupt, in a handful of areas, by the the time Trump inevitably gets voted out at the end of his first term.

    27. Re:I'm confused by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Whatever Trump is.

      Sorry for stating the obvious, but Trump is... in it for himself.

      All else is secondary.

      He's already started moving his friends and family into positions of power, same as he would if he just took over a business. The problem is governments do not run like businesses. Nepotism always results in poor government... Hey, but that's your problem.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  18. No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

    Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

    1. Re:No principles. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot! Please check your logic and sanity at the door. msmash will show you to the latest clickbait, or you can follow BeuaHD to the Slashvertisements, though you'll have to sit through a few of his unintelligible summaries that he somehow copy pastad incorrectly.

    2. Re:No principles. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1, Troll

      Agreed that TPP is bad, unfortunately, I think once you actually become privy to all the details of the situation, it may be the least of available evils.

      Those details should be public knowledge, but they're not. Trump will be getting a look at the details, the question is: is he mature enough (at his age!) to rationally explain why he was wrong, or will he actually make things worse for America just so he doesn't have to publically waffle?

    3. Re:No principles. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      People have short memories.

    4. Re:No principles. by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know, man. Personally, I absolutely detest Trump and I think that at a social level he's pretty bad for us. Opinions will, of course differ. But I thought the TPP was a terrible deal for the US and that the Democrats pushing it (hello Obama and "I was against it after I was for it" Clinton) were working primarily in the interests of the moneyed elites. Trump's made a bunch of decision since being elected that I don't like (e.g. Bannon, and having his kids in heads-of-state meetings), but him coming out against TPP? Yeah, that's a good one. I appreciate and support that. It's easy, I think, for us to become so partisan that literally everything the other side does is obviously evil. We saw that, I'd argue, with the Republicans and Obama. We can do better than that. I will support and applaud actions that Trump takes that are good, and fight aggressively against the other ones.

    5. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the reaction people had toward the big banks before & after Brexit.

      First it was, 'Who cares what those profit mad big banks think? Will of the people, not profits!'

      Then overnight it became, 'Won't someone think of the big banks? They're going to lose money!'

    6. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but there is NO excuse for creating super-governmental corporations that have the power to sue to block regulations that serve as "barriers to trade". That grants extra-constitutional authority to some multinational government trade board. So . . . NO!

    7. Re:No principles. by friedmud · · Score: 1

      Well said. Matches my feelings as well.

    8. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, different people have different opinions.

      Can you find a post by the commenter you're ranting at now, saying how bad TPP is?

      Seriously, you'd think people would have grasped the concept of a "discussion board" by now.

    9. Re:No principles. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

      Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

      I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'm not a fan of TPP either. Not so much that I'm against trade agreements, but against some of the legal implications that the TPP carries. What I don't want is the continuing idea that globalization and trade are killing jobs. Automation and recycling have killed 5-6 jobs IIRC for 1 job lost to globalization.

      So the idea to pull out of global markets as a solution to our woes is not just the wrong medicine, but fucking stupid. Three million jobs directly depend on trade (more if you count network effect). So in addition to do nothing about jobs lost to automation, we are going to fuck around with steady jobs from international trade?

      How the hell does that help us?

      We should renegotiate shit when it is beneficial to us. We should not close ourselves like a clam. The world is not what it used to be in the 1950s. Countries and emerging markets are at a point where they can go off by themselves, closing their markets to us and shutting the valves of foreign investment in US assets.

    10. Re:No principles. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is wrong with Bannon? So far the only argument I've seen is the left wing media classic "he is an "ist" and a bad bad man!" in this case an anti-semite over of all things an article 1.- He didn't write, 2.- That was written by a pro Israel Jew, 3.- Which called a Jewish man on the left a "renegade Jew" (the writer of the article says if he had it do over again he would have used traitor) for supporting policies that helped Iran and Hamas, both sworn enemies of Israel.

      So I'm sorry but if that is the best they can come up with? Its just more SJW shit, instead of debating the policies just call someone an "ist" and think you can silence them with name calling. We saw this all through the election with the MSM quick to call anybody who didn't support HRC an "ist" and called Trump an "ist" multiple times while completely ignoring how HRC said black teens were "super predators" who should be "brought to heel" like dogs and pushed through 3 strike laws that were specifically targeted at blacks, for example how you'd get a strike for crack but not for powder coke. Anybody wanna bet if it was someone on the right who had said and done those things we'd have heard a dozen times a day how much of an "ist" they were?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    11. Re:No principles. by strikethree · · Score: 2

      For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

      Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

      Eh? The people presenting the views are not Slashdot. I have yet to see anyone on Slashdot say that TPP must go forward. The TPP is indeed pure evil in relation to intellectual property.

      That does not mean it can't have good sides too. Regardless of the good parts of it, the bad parts make it untenable overall. What that means is that if China gets to dictate shit now, it is the IP people who have put us in this position by making TPP into poison.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    12. Re:No principles. by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's interesting to me that in response to a relatively conciliatory "measure the policies, not the man" post on my part, you're choosing to find some other approach to find a fight where none exists.

      You want to talk about HRC's "super-predators" comment? Yeah, let's talk about that. I have a Black son. I hate that she made that comment, and I hate that she never even bothered to apologize for it. I found HRC, on a personal level, totally odious. I've said so to other Liberal friends (I do still consider myself a pretty ardent Liberal). And I voted for Sanders, and would have happily voted for him in the General Elections if I had a choice.

      And it's also worth noting that HRC's super-predator comment was made 20 years ago. You can find odious things she's done from this decade :).

      As for Bannon being racist or not ... man, I don't think there's going to be any way to talk about this that will convince you, because you'll find reasons to discount any evidence I throw at you. I think that if Bannon were to personally lynch some Jews you'd probably argue that it wasn't that he hates Jews, it's just that those guys happened to have ripped him off. But here's a link for other people who are interested in making up their own mind:

      http://www.motherjones.com/kev...

      (Yes, that's his ex-wife talking, so obviously she's biased; and yes, that's Mother Jones, which is obviously biased. You'll be able to discount anyone who disagrees with you as obviously biased. Enjoy your bubble).

    13. Re:No principles. by Touvan · · Score: 1

      I agree in principle - but it's only better if Trump replaces a policy he kills with something better. I have no confidence he can or will do that with TPP or ObamaCare, or anything else.

    14. Re:No principles. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      "If you support Donald Trump, you are "the others." I have zero interest in knowing, interacting with, tolerating or otherwise sharing my time or bits of my life with anyone who supports Trump. I don't say that defiantly or righteously, just as fact. Don't follow me on social media. Don't talk to me at parties, at school functions, as a neighbor or even as a friend. Your decision says all I need to know about you. You can't unspin it or rationalize it to me."

      -- Tim Goodman

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    15. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd trust The Onion over a scorned woman being quoted during divorce proceedings in a Mother Jones article any day of the week. At least The Onion isn't typically malicious in intent. Ask any judge or lawyer that's worked a divorce case. Everything out of the woman's mouth can be summed up as "pure bullshit." and Mother Jones? Seriously?

      You can't just discount "they're biased because they disagree with you!!!!!" because that's how LIBERALS think -- and shouting down opposition in such a way is why the Trump win was such a "surprise upset"

    16. Re:No principles. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is going to kill TPP for evil reasons. That doesn't mean I won't be glad to see TPP go, but it does mean I'm not going to let it make me think Trump is more of a good guy than I thought he was last month, or last year.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:No principles. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I don't want is the continuing idea that globalization and trade are killing jobs. Automation and recycling have killed 5-6 jobs IIRC for 1 job lost to globalization.

      Dude, come all the way over already.

      "Automation" is a fancy new scare name for technical progress. Technical progress and trade are essentially the same: they create wealth.

      Technical progress lead America from a labor force of 90% farm workers in 1790 to 26% in 1900, to 12% in 1950, and to under 2% today. Do you see 88% of our labor force unemployed? Of course not. Neither the farm tractor, nor fertilizer, nor GMO, nor the wooden shipping pallet destroyed all jobs forever; these things freed up labor to perform other tasks. That's why food costs in 1900 were 40% of the median American family's income, in 1950 33%, and today around 12% even though we eat outside of home a lot more. We essentially pay servants to cook and serve our food, and still pay about 1/3 as much to eat as we did 60 years ago.

      The threats are a matter of rate. All of them.

      If you unemploy 30% of the labor force in one six-month swoop of the guillotine, your economy falls apart. Mass-unemployment means a collapse of consumer purchasing power, removing the revenue streams required to pay other workers, terminating more jobs. Eventually the dust settles on a country that can't raise enough taxes to carry the unemployed because they're all not working--no labor, no production, no wealth. Money represents what's made and sold, and the making and selling requires labor; technical progress reduces that labor, and half the labor means half the wage paid, thus less money cost, which is how prices eventually fall--with the help of ever-mounting economic pressure.

      Unemploy people at a slower rate than those pressures drive prices down and you find consumers gaining additional buying power: wages don't decrease, but wage-hours paid for products do, and the few unemployed are easily supported by our welfare system with only a tiny portion of our gain. We seek to buy new things with the money we have--and the force of hundreds of millions of consumers with just TEN DOLLARS now-unspent means billions of revenue for new products (including buying more of the same old products). One billion dollars represents roughly 60,000 minimum-wage jobs, or nearly 0.04% of the labor force--every 1% swing requires a $150 reduction of expenses per consumer to recover the lost jobs.

      That goes for both trade and technical progress. Self-driving cars and flying delivery drones? You want the Government to get regulation out to enable that PDQ. If the technology develops to the point where we know it's ready-to-go, but the Government hasn't given the green-light, eventual regulation to allow it will result in rapid replacement of delivery drivers, freight trucking drivers, and all form of mail carriers. Put up the regulation before anyone's ready to do it, and those job losses will come in patches here and there as the technology develops, as suitability increases, and as businesses individually become comfortable with the risks at different times. Once someone's job is gone, you have to wait for the business to be unable to keep prices at a point to simply take profit--they're certainly not unwilling--and that will happen, but not on the same damned day.

      The obsession with creating jobs is a tricky one. I've notated it before. It's both good and bad, depending on your goals. The long-term consequences of Malthusian growth erase either: an increase in unemployment will vanish in several years if the economy doesn't get worse, thanks to more early retirement, longer delays to enter workforce (that whole "everyone goes to grad school in a recession" thing), death of the poorest (sucks), and, ultimately, slower birth rate; while a decrease in unemployment will vanish due to later retirement, faster entry to the workforce, and higher birthrate

    18. Re:No principles. by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Or maybe sanity is just fine and each time only the angry people complain.

    19. Re:No principles. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Hey man, it's looked good and bad for different people. You'll get knee-jerk responses from both of them.

      It's super-bad for the American workers. You know the trend of outsourcing jobs, moving factories, and buying cheap shit from China? The TPP aims for MORE of that, but places other than China because Chinese workers are starting to want to be paid.

      It's good for American companies. They've gotten used to slave labor and would be aghast at having to pay healthcare benefits to the interchangeable cogs that puts widgets onto bobbles. To that extent, it's bad for anyone who owns those companies. Like anyone with money in the stock market.

      It's probably good for the Vietnamese and such workers. They get jobs. Although they might also get the smog and suicide nets that China has.

      It's probably good for the Taiwanese and such governments. More trade. Although the part about companies suing the governments for not protecting their profit might bite them in the ass.

      It's probably bad for China. It's competition. The TPP is the NOT-CHINA deal. If China has their way they would buy the cheap goods from elsewhere, assemble them in China, or simply turn around and sell them to the USA for a profit.

      I always kind of viewed it the same way I viewed Hilary. Business as usual for the owners and likely screwing over the little guy. But China/chaos will eat our lunch if we don't. I've given, and will likely continue to give, a lot of criticism towards Trump's more idiotic plans, but this at least falls right in line with his general campaign marketing and will help a sector of the USA. Not my sector, but maybe a rising tide will lift all boats. ...ignoring the part where that's usually an argument for encouraging global trade rather than imposing tariffs.

    20. Re:No principles. by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with Bannon?

      You mean apart from being a white supremacist?

    21. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breitbart is a rag.

    22. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna steal that "ist" thing. Good way to make the point without needing to sarcastically type out the usual two-line-long list of adjectives.

    23. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bannon's divorce was in 1997, so his comments are at least that old. And even assuming it's true, calling jewish kids "whiny" hardly seems like the kind of hardcore racism that should disqualify you from public work for the rest of your life. (By the way, let's not forget about Hillary's "friend and mentor"...)

      The "racism" charges against Breitbart mostly seem to revolve around either conflating acceptance of the confederate flag with rabid white supremacy, or lumping Breitbart together with the worst assholes 4chan et al have to offer under the banner of the "alt right" (whatever the fuck that even is). Breitbart has been highly pro-israel for its entire existence, and has received praise from many jewish organizations. If it's committed any tangible crime, it seems to be nothing more than failing to meet the typical liberal standards for political correctness.

    24. Re:No principles. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      What wrong with Bannon, who cares, they don't care, they are just trying to make as much noise as possible to distract away for the battle over the Democrats. The corporate stooges are just running a diversion campaign so people do not jump on the kick the corporate stooges out of the Democrats band wagon. So pay no attention to the corporate ass hats who cheated their own members to lose an election in every possible way, President, Congress, Senate, focus on Trump and everything Trump does, Trump, Trump, Trump. They are fighting using every single dirty trick in the book, expect major attacks upon those trying to push the corporate dogs out and seeking to replace them with actual representatives of the people. The Republicans are also going to go through the same thing, just not as much as the Democrats. Expect all sorts of crap to come out of that battle, faithfully propagandised by corporate media and undermined by independent media, hence the corporate democrat lead bullshit about fake news.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    25. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have a black son"
      Implying you're non-black, so your wife has a black son, that you are raising.

      Top cuck, mate.

    26. Re:No principles. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

      Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

      My guess is, come the inauguration, Trump will either deny that he ever said that (as he has done routinely with several things already), or he will symbolically cancel the TPP and negotiate something "much better" that will, for all intents and purposes, be identical. Whatever he says, the current agreement has been worked out by some of the best people that can be found on all sides, and it is naive to think that he can just throw out how many years of negotiations and brew up something better in an instant. Just look at the brexit debacle: It sounded so obvious that "we'll just get a better deal", but the rest of the European leaders don't agree all that much and on top of that, being human, they are feeling rather resentful, because UK have chosen to cause a lot of stupid problems for the rest of them; so they are not going to make it very easy for UK. If Trump does something similar, are the other participants in the TPP going to just shrug their shoulders and say say "OK, no problem"? Of course not - they will say "He's in a hurry to save face now, so we will put the squeeze on".

    27. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this will no longer allow American corporations to sue European governments for passing laws that are not in the interest of those companies? As a European, I can but applaud this new president.

    28. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're referencing a hit-job article that went to his ex-wife as a source for why Bannon is bad? I hope you have more than that to hate someone.

    29. Re:No principles. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Question: What evil did he DO. Not what he SAID. People say all kinds of things, but unless these things bear fruit, they are meaningless.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    30. Re:No principles. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

      Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

      The odd thing is, as a follower of the TPP abomination for some time, the US was the only nation to benefit from it. They get to use it to foist lopsided trade deals that favour US exports and protect US industries from competing exports as well as enforcing US laws over local laws and empowering US corporations to act outside locals laws.

      As an Australian, its a good thing for my nation that he wants to kill it. We were going to get the sharp, shitty end of the TPP stick shoved right up our collective arses.

      However for the US, it was a killer deal. This is why it's obvious that Trump is killing it because it wasn't a Republican idea. I will not be surprised if something similar is not back under a different name in a year or two. The backers of the TPP support both "teams" in politics.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    31. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Super-predators" referred to gangs, not blacks. Did you read her original comments in context or did you just take Trump's tweet at face value?

    32. Re:No principles. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      I think Trump is going to kill TPP for evil reasons.

      I wouldn't be surprised if he simply rejects it because during the negotiations a clause that would benefit his business got removed.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    33. Re: No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing TPP will be a good thing. Unfortunately, there is too much money in the transfer of sovereign power from countries to corporations. Once me politicians have been bought, it will resurface under a new name.

    34. Re:No principles. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Words matter. I could write my own explanation, but here's a pro-Trump editorial about why: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

    35. Re:No principles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This group's opposition to TPP was on the IP provisions. Gut those and I would be cool with it.

    36. Re:No principles. by ukoda · · Score: 1

      I am curious about the US view on this. You say it was a terrible deal for the US, but why? I was opposed to TPP as it was a terrible deal for New Zealand as it allowed US corporate interests to override NZ law but we did not get any tangible improvement in access to protected US markets in return for giving up our sovereignty.

    37. Re:No principles. by cshark · · Score: 1

      For years up to a week ago: TPP is an abomination love child between Hitler and Satan and needs to die.

      Now that Trump doesn't want it: This will ruin the nation and will only benefit China. TPP Must Go Forward!

      Exactly right. Same with Techdirt. Literally four years of passionate arguments. Now, the anti-Trump bias is more important. I don't get it! I'm not going to change my personal stance that TPP is an awful idea based on my feelings for or against Trump. We need to take our wins where we can get them.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    38. Re:No principles. by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Granted, having one black guy gives it more diversity than the Buzzfeed board.

    39. Re:No principles. by stub667 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it will benefit both the US and China?

      Maybe benefiting China is a good thing?

      You made a lot of assumptions reading between the lines of a single line post.

  19. Start Packing by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    There has also been talk about ending the H1-B visa program. So, all the slave labor from Pakistan can start packing your bags, you're going home.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Start Packing by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      You forgot India as well.

  20. I'm Torn by sgrover · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On the one hand, I think that the TPP is a horrendous trade deal that negatively pushes US views on intellectual property onto other sovereign nations.
    On the otherhand anything Trump says he is going to do needs to be resisted, because his actions seem to be incredibly self centered and poorly thought out, or designed to promote Trump first and foremost.

    It will be interesting to see how this paradoxical conundrum plays out.

    1. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "On the otherhand anything Trump says he is going to do needs to be resisted"

      Um, what? So if Trump comes out for mom, baseball and apple pie, it needs to be resisted because Trump?

    2. Re:I'm Torn by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I would suggest you oppose actions you deem to not be in your (or the nation's) best interests, but take as happy accident the stuff that works out in your favor. So, cheer the death of the TPP, because that's in your interest. I would also suggest cheering that it seems we will not be going to war against Russia over Syria, and will instead stop arming ISIS and will let Russia stomp them out.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:I'm Torn by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I would also suggest cheering that it seems we will not be going to war against Russia over Syria, and will instead stop arming ISIS and will let Russia stomp them out.

      I didn't realize ISIS was in Aleppo, since Russia seems to be focusing most of their attention there.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Trump said breathing is good, would you (please) stop?

    5. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. Be sceptical, but don't resist anything Trump does solely because Trump. It remains to be seen if the situation comes up much if at all, but if Trump does advocate a good policy, it's childish-at-best to be against it on the basis of Trump advocating it.

    6. Re:I'm Torn by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The "moderate rebels" are a myth. It's five guys who stand in front of a camera and say "we want democracy! Totally ignore all the scary non-Syrian dudes behind us with the black standards sticking out of their packs! Now give us weapons and money infidel!"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: I hate Trump even when he's right about something. So I'll be dead set against what I thought was right until Trump was on board with it.

      While I agree that he's going to be a poor president please drop this kind of thinking. This is what allows the two party scam to run the working class into the ground regardless of their actions. We can pick and choose what we do and do not like about different party platforms even if we don't support that party. That's what use to put humans above apes.

    8. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this self centered?

    9. Re:I'm Torn by Jodka · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, I think that the TPP is a horrendous trade deal that negatively pushes US views on intellectual property onto other sovereign nations.

      My grandfather was the guy who negotiated foreign trade deals for the Reagan administration. According to him, free trade became popular in the U.S. when domestic producers realized that they could use trade deals to subject foreign producers to the same burdensome regulations imposed on U.S. manufactures by our own government.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    10. Re:I'm Torn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot about all those "moderate rebels" over there.
      The US has been arming people in a foreign country in an attempt to overthrow the government for some reason.
      As a European I tell you, the last thing I want is for another fucking country over there to disintegrate into nothingness.
      Stay the fuck out, let Assad sort his country out.
      If you care so much about human rights so much go take care of Mugabe, or Kim Yong Un, or the UAE (lol, in my dreams).

  21. Is a summary so hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. TPP in its present form was bad by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    TPP I think we can all agree was a horrible piece of work. Negotiated in secret, lots of provisions that only big business would like etc. Obama has given up on it, Trump ran against, The Senate won't consider it so it's dead in its current form. That doesn't mean it can't be renegotiated and reworked and I think that'll be the tactic moving forward which may result in multiple agreements. This huge conglomeration of things that made it into TPP to me at least made it seem like a shadow government and from a sovereignty perspective I don't agree with that at all. I also think companies like Disney don't need any help protecting their IP/Content to the extents that TPP allowed.

    Take for example Kim DotCom, under TPP he'd be doing time in Club Fed under TPP; he almost did without it and just for running a service where he wasn't violating copyright, the users of the service were.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean it can't be renegotiated and reworked and I think that'll be the tactic moving forward which may result in multiple agreements

      Not under Trump's watch, though. The executive branch negotiates treaties and he's sure as shit not bringing that back. If you see the TPP again it would be after Trump's term(s), and who even knows what the political landscape will look like then? Trump's turning the Republican party into a populist/nationalist/workers' party and hopefully killing off the neocons (figuratively, that is). The Democrats...I don't know what they're going to do. You've got the sane-ish ones who realize the identity politics angle is a dead end (apparently, screaming at the majority of the electorate that they're evil doesn't make them want to vote for you against their economic interests. Also dangerous as shit...if you push all decisions being made based on racial identity then more whites will take up white identity politics and that can end badly for everyone involved), but then you've got the true ideologues who will never let that go. I think that's the way they're going as they're seriously considering a black muslim with a history with anti-white and anti-Semitic groups as their leader. Things are going to get interesting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      While I agree calling a large portion of the electorate bigots is a loser of a tactic, the fact is that Clinton actually did get the majority of the votes, so many that, as one commentator put it, she has received more votes than any presidential candidate not named "Obama".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That and $0.75 will get you a Coke out of some machines.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Well I was talking the treaty itself, not the parties/personalities involved in it. Fundamentally the parties in the US are so far apart on things I doubt consensus is possible whereas I believe there are more common things that can be agreed upon in terms of national interests. Maybe I'm an optimist but considering Clinton flip flopped on it and depending on what side of the issue you were on and in what country there's pro and con positions. Trump has been against it, Republicans wouldn't consider it for a vote so it's a poison pill in its current form regardless of anything beneficial in it.

      I think it was handled incorrectly from the start and especially considering how bad NAFTA has been for the US and the secrecy around its negotiations made it a non-starter. We also shouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks to actually find out what's going on regarding something that fundamentally intruded into so many aspects that I wouldn't consider "Trade." It's now a dead horse in the US, let it die. For the next 4 years it'll be interesting to see if it or some form of it is reworked to focus on Trade issues.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how people keep harping on about the popular vote.
      It's like complaining that you lost at chess when your king is taken even though you have more pieces on the board.
      They both knew the rules going in.
      She fucked up her campaign strategy and paid the price.

    6. Re:TPP in its present form was bad by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      To be honest I never had a problem with the secrecy. All treaties are negotiated like that, and if you do some historical reading there's been a lot of issues with that whole "advice and consent of the Senate" bit in the Constitution, because we've had Senators strategically leaking bits and pieces of treaties to the press in the past to fire up press torch and pitchfork brigades to sway negotiators one way or the other. It's basically impossible to negotiate a deal out in the open where everyone can see what everyone is doing. How do you bluff for a better deal when the media's right there to call your bluff?

      But the fast-tracking a deal we haven't seen yet was completely horse shit and ultimately yes, of course, this deal was made in the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of the citizens of every nation. It was a traitors' deal.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  23. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uneducated blacks and uneducated white women overwhelmingly voted for Hilary. Educated white women largely voted for Trump. It seems you're the one who is gullible if you believe the news fake by intentional omission that are provided by NYT and other blogs.

  24. Canadian here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go Trump! Kill the TPP!

  25. voted for Clinton, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm completely on board with this move.

    (I didn't consider the TPP to be worth a rapist president when I voted.)

    1. Re:voted for Clinton, but by HBI · · Score: 1

      You really need to get more urbane about campaign propaganda. You hear a steady drone of bullshit for 6+ months and then it's all forgotten. That's indicative of something...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re: voted for Clinton, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the other Clinton.

  26. Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My vote is even more satisifying.

  27. People like you are the problem with America by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it. He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.

    1. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sums up the current idiocy well.

      I've encountered legions of morons frothing at the mouth over Trump refusing salary. "B-b-b-ut Anonymous-kun, it's because he's RICH!"

      So fucking what? I don't know any motherfucker who can't come up for a use for $400k.

    2. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it. He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.

      After four years of watching the right block anything Obama tried to do, even stuff they once wanted, what do you expect?

    3. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump could shoot somebody in the middle of the street and he wouldn't lose any votes.

    4. Re:People like you are the problem with America by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      You are right, of course. You could also put Obama in that example with the same result.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:People like you are the problem with America by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Less hypocrisy from the side that claims intellectual honesty.

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    6. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it.

      Yes, Trump is a VERY suspect person, it is exactly what he has earned. There's a reason they were parodying him in the 1980s. He has made his character clear.

      He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.

      That's because I wouldn't put it past Trump to have arranged for those kids to be injured so he could look good taking care of them. Trump is unquestionably the kind of guy who would take credit for the sun-rising, I wouldn't put it past him to pretend an eclipse was the end of time, but if we only gave him all our gold, he'd spare us from it.

      In this case, I'd assume the more likely risk is that the TPP will be replaced with something else, that seems like all we wanted, but is even worse, because that's how Trump rolls. I'm already assuming that will happen with the Affordable Care Act. Unless Trump goes off half-cocked and doesn't think about the results of millions of people suddenly realizing that they don't have insurance and it's all his fault.

    7. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same with people being Anti-Hillary

      Not that either behavior is acceptable.

    8. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Immerman · · Score: 2

      True, and as much as I dislike Trump, I for one am glad that he's still saying he plans on scuttling the TPP. At least assuming he's not just holding out for his own palms to be greased by the megacorps first. After all, one of the few other points he was consistent on during his campaign was eliminating the excessive influence of Wall Street, etc. on the government - but his transition team picks are certainly making it look like exactly the opposite will be the case.

      When dealing with a con man with as long a history of fraud and treachery as Trump, it's probably wise to be suspicious of anything he does, and check it thoroughly for traps, poison pills, and non-obvious implications. I'm not saying he necessarily he won't do some truly good things, but with his history he's almost certain to at least occasionally try to sneak some truly horrid things past as well.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:People like you are the problem with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could do that but given his track record of extreme selfishness/dickishness I'd be very, very surprised if he did so, yes I would be suspicious of his motives.

    10. Re:People like you are the problem with America by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Wow, so this is a first time you have encountered someone who has more money than they will ever spend in their lifetime. Take a look a quite a few Tech CEOs and their salaries. Where they get their real money is through bonuses and stock options.

    11. Re:People like you are the problem with America by sgrover · · Score: 1

      Three points. 1) I thought my comment made it clear that I am not an American citizen. So it is NOT "people like me" who are the problem with America, except in a very broad fashion. In that case, I like cake too - what can you make of that?. 2.) You could argue my second statement is an ad hominem argument, but should we actually look at what Trump has been successful at? That list is short, and the phrase "because Trump" has become a political statement meaning one who fails on a regular basis within my circles. 3) I'm constantly amazed by those who feel they "must" post a response while missing the point of a satirical post intended to draw attention to the factual yet sad state of the current political situation.

  28. Someone needs to tell him.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to tell him that that's not the way it works.

    Nothing gets done on the first day except for maybe figuring out how the blinds work and where the bathrooms are.

    Legislation is just a little more complicated than that. He couldn't repeal anything on his first day even if the entire country, Congress included, wanted it done. Legislation isn't like a light switch.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Someone needs to tell him.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Your mistake is believing that Trump understands how government works. This would be a common error as his supporters likely believe he does as well. He probably believes that as president he has unlimited authority to do things our constitution doesn't allow him to do. He does have authority to change how government works a little bit, but he doesn't have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the US from ratified treaties or any of the 99% of things he's promised.

      Hell he might actually understand that, but liars will promise you the moon then blame someone else when they can't deliver.

    2. Re:Someone needs to tell him.... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Your mistake is believing that Trump understands how government works.

      Oh no, I thinks it's painfully clear that he has no idea how our government works. He apparently thinks it's some sort of dictatorship where he wields unquestioned power to do whatever the hell he wants.

      The fact is that he's going to hate being president when he finds out that he's practically powerless to do anything, including all the pie-in-the-sky shit he's promised his gullible followers. He'll have no freedom, practically no privacy, his every utterance and movement will be under an unrelenting microscope of press attention, he'll be criticized publicly for every stupid thing he does, and he's going to hate it.

      There will be no wall. Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to wipe out the ACA on his first day in office, and probably not ever.
      He's not going to block Muslims from coming to the US. Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to get a "Muslim Registry". Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to deport 2 to 3 million people, much less 11 million. Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to lock up Hillary Clinton. Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to bring back all (or any) of those jobs to the US. Never gonna happen.
      He's not going to weaken the libel laws. Never gonna happen.

      He'll wind up an embittered old fart, hiding out in Trump Tower, afraid to face the media and the American people. None of his shit plans will succeed and he's not going to "make America great again". It's already great. It's like saying he'll "make the ocean wet again".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  29. Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bernie Sanders' supporter here. I didn't vote on Nov. 8th, because I simply couldn't back a lobbyist like Clinton. By killing the TPP, and maybe also TiSA and TTIP, Trump has just taken the most progressive political choice in the last 40 years, it's the first real reversal of the globalization process, something unthinkable until a few years ago. Clinton would have surely "renegotiated" the TPP, and after few useless and cosmetic changes, passed it. After all, it was "the gold standard" for her. Obama himself wanted it, and he's technically supposed to be more progressive than Clinton.

    Surely I don't like many of Trump's proposals (slash taxes also for the rich, "clean" coal...), but on trade he could be the most "leftist" president in decades.

    Instead of complaining, next time choose the right candidate at the Democratic primaries.

    1. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So what is it exactly you would replace globalization with?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by presidenteloco · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just curious why you think people in your country need jobs more than people in other countries do? Trump's policy can be summed up as "If they're outside our borders, F**K 'em all!" That's pre mid-20th-century thinking. Not going to be helpful.

      By the way, relying on a jobs recovery is a fool's policy. If Trump forces more manufacturing to be done in the US, companies will accelerate their drive to develop and adopt automation and AI. The repatriation of manufacturing was going to happen anyway, due to this, mostly sans jobs mind you, but now it will happen faster.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    3. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From another Bernie supporter: I think you just lost your democracy...

    4. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

      He wants insular protectionism. What he doesn't realize is that it will also bring the negative - which is protectionism by other partners. We will be at a further disadvantage to selling our goods internationally as others impose tariffs to match ours. We'll get a fraction of our jobs back for those things that were previously produce overseas, but downward wage pressure will increase because everyone who sells internationally now has to lower their price to become competitive over the quid pro quo tarrifs and, domestically, we'll see 20-30% inflation on goods due to either tarrifs on foreign goods or more expensive, domestically produced alternatives. The net effect is that nearly everybody loses, but we gain a small fraction of jobs that nobody will want to do (how many people are clamoring for piece-work level electronics assembly positions anyway?)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what is it exactly you would replace globalization with?

      Simply with the pre-globalization status, roughly before the creation of the WTO (1994). It was pretty decent for the US middle class, for those who can actually remember it.

    6. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by dcollins117 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't vote on Nov. 8th, because I simply couldn't back a lobbyist like Clinton.

      If you can't be bothered to vote then nobody gives a shit what you think. You chose to neglect your civic responsibility by not participating in the process. So shut the fuck up if you don't like the outcome. What you think doesn't matter.

    7. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Should you ever be faced with the same conundrum, write it in or vote for a non democrat / republican party. Sure they're not going to win, but they get more visibility and nothing says fuck you like two middle fingers.

    8. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Rust Belt had already been in decline for over a decade by the time the WTO agreements were made. And you're forgetting that before WTO was GATT, so it's not like there weren't multilateral trade agreements.

      So I'll ask again, what do you propose to replace it with? Do you wish to have American goods disadvantaged on the international markets? And what if the rest of the world decides to enter multilateral agreements, and larger trading partners like the EU and the Asian nations start throwing up trade barriers to US goods?

      What's more, all those jobs you reference are going to disappear no matter what. Automation is increasingly going to reduce employment, even in those countries where many such jobs have gone. Once again we see how the "anti-globalist" types are little more than naive luddites.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by rahvin112 · · Score: 0

      Actually Trump's plan is fuck everyone, including the US labor market. Any change in trade policy creates winners and losers. The losers with the past deals were some low end blue collar jobs and the winners were the high end labor market and white collar jobs like engineering, banking, etc. The US is a world leader in engineering and services based economies and we've accomplished that by trading low end manufacturing jobs for high paid engineering type jobs.

      Trade policies, like those advocated by Trump, will result in job losses in the white collar jobs. They are also likely to trigger trade wars that result in losses across the board. Even if you want to bring factories back to the US there is no way to do so overnight, by triggering a trade war you shutoff the white collar jobs and at _best_ those blue collar jobs might return in 5 years (it can take from 5-10 years for manufacturing jobs to move). Usually what actually happens is the white collar jobs are decimated and the blue collar jobs don't ever come back because the economy goes into major recession when the white collar jobs are lost.

      Not that I think he'll change trade policy, he's going to be a re-run of the Bush administration. If Congress hasn't ratified by the TPP by the time he gets there he could revoke it but he doesn't have the authority without congressional action to terminate the TPP if Congress has already ratified it (the constitution holds ratified treaties on the same level as the constitution and the president cannot withdraw from ratified treaties without approval of congress). My bet is that he'll change little to nothing on trade policy and like the Bush administration he'll pursue a policy of tax-cuts and increased deficit spending.

    10. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious why you think people in your country need jobs more than people in other countries do?

      I don't. I simply pay my politicians to make the interests of US workers, not yours.

      As for automation and AI, that's an entirely different problem that would stand anyways, whether with trade deals or not, and it is entirely off topic. Elon Musk backs the universal basic income to solve that, for example. Surely sooner or later capitalism itself will have to be either drastically reformed or wiped out, just like it is happening to globalization now.

    11. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Trump's policy can be summed up as "If they're outside our borders, F**K 'em all!"

      I believe the exact quote is, "Fuck 'em all to death".

      https://youtu.be/p1xiAXMqJIQ

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just curious why you think people in your country need jobs more than people in other countries do?

      Just curious, why do you think it's my responsibility to create a jobs program in other countries?

    13. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as an American fuck anyone else. That's how the world works kid. Every other smart nation feels the same.

    14. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GATT was thin air if compared with the WTO, countries were free to put extremely high tariffs on basically everything. And once again, the US middle class did far better 30 years ago than now, so your consideration about the risks of counter-protectionist measures from other countries simply doesn't hold: let them do it, if that means to turn back time and switch back to the early '90s, I'm ok with that. Globalization has enriched shareholders and executives, not average workers.

    15. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?

      If you're not with us, your agin' us!
      Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!

      Driving things further apart only hurts us all.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    16. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read better. The poster is not really complaining about the outcome of the election. You probably are instead.

    17. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But there really is no going back. Do you really think even if all the factories open, they'll be paying the wages they did in the 90s or that they would be employing as many people.

      You can't turn back time, and starting tariff wars and raising domestic prices will only hurt Americans.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then write in Bernie or vote for someone else who can't win. stop being a fucking idiot and not voting. you're proving nothing and are part of the problem.

    19. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as an American fuck anyone else. That's how the world works kid. Every asshole feels the same.

      FTFY.

    20. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there really is no going back.

      Oh, really? Let's see what happens, if you're right we'll all be poor in 4 years, right? I'm ready to take the chance. Surely I don't accept economic advice from those who believe in the delirious neoliberal economic theories that damaged the lower and middle classes in the first place. You're suggesting to solve the problems caused by globalization with even more globalization. It doesn't make sense. The cause of an illness cannot also be the medicine.

    21. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would assume tarrifs and other protectionist measures, such as every country has done since international trade became a driving force in our economies. Free trade is a fairly recent phenomena, and it has primarily benefited the developing nations and the multinational corporate gatekeepers. It's probably long past time to reevaluate our position.

      Really there's only a very few options in the face of current economic realities, though the details can be tweaked:
      1) Globalization, which gets us import cheap products today at the expense of exporting the associated wealth, jobs, and industry to nations that lack our protections for workers and the environment and can thus operate much more cheaply (which in the long term will likely lead to...)
      2) Remove our own worker and environmental protections so that we can compete on a global market - i.e. reduce the wealth and standard of living of hard-working Americans to that of their counterparts in China, India, Africa, etc.

      3) Implement some form of economic protectionism so that American made products can compete, at least in our local markets, with those from developing nations

      And I suppose also
      4) Reintroduce an aggressive "Made in America" campaign to encourage people to pay substantially more for the same products made locally, so that the wealth and jobs remain in the country. That worked once before, it might work again, though I believe Americans' median wealth (as distinct from income) has declined considerably since then, so it may be a much harder sell.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Simply with the pre-globalization status, roughly before the creation of the WTO (1994). It was pretty decent for the US middle class, for those who can actually remember it.

      This is known as Cargo Cult Economics. Just bring back the policies of the past, and we get back all the positives with none of the negatives, and we just ignore the fact that the world has changed.

    23. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it the job of the US to get people in other countries employment? If everything will be automated anyway, why wait? The product will be ridiculously cheap or people given basic income otherwise nobody will buy it.

    24. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how did we survive before globalization? Life was pretty good as far as I recall. Better than it is now in fact.

    25. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Translation: I don't like people who disagree with me, therefore I'll just reject them and believe in my fantasy.

      First of all, I doubt very much that Trump is going to dump all trade deals. I doubt he's even going to dump NAFTA, the US, Canadian and Mexican economies are too integrated now to imagine throwing up monster tariff walls would do anything but harm American interests.

      Second of all, your forty years too late to save the Rust Belt, and the Rust Belt is hardly the first manufacturing area to go into a long-term decline. That's what happens.

      The fact is that the only illness here is a lot of peoples unwillingness to accept that life is about change, and a few crafty politicians that have sold them a load of shit. Do you seriously think that Apple is going to decamp its manufacturing back to the US? The only thing that will happen is that any attempts at increasing tariffs on foreign-manufactured products like electronics will lead factories in Asia to further automate to bring price points down. And really, that would just hasten what's already happening.

      And that's the reality. Those Chinese and Mexican workers undercutting your much vaunted half-century old wages are a decade or two from being in the same place. Your real war ought to be with the robots, but then again, that would make you little different than all the fletchers angry that cannon and musket put them out of business, or all the proverbial buggy whip manufacturers put out of business by Henry Ford.

      I actually pity you, that you imagine that a mere politician has the power to restrain progress for any great length of time. My tip to you is rather than moan because you can't get a good job in manufacturing like your old man did, is to get an education. And that is where the government could help, but it won't help anyone by tariff wars that will only end up hurting domestic interests.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    26. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Just curious why you think people in your country need jobs more than people in other countries do? Trump's policy can be summed up as "If they're outside our borders, F**K 'em all!" That's pre mid-20th-century thinking. Not going to be helpful.

      Newsflash: Every country's government acts in the interest of its own citizens first. That's kind of the whole point of having countries in the first place.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    27. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides the fact that the positives vastly outnumbered the negatives, any scenario will always be better than your idiotic globalist, neoliberal dreams. It's good to know that those with your decrepit ideas have been wiped out of the political system, and that you'll spend 4 years with abdominal pain.

    28. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?

      If you're not with us, your agin' us!
      Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!

      No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist. Equating resistance to Trump with resistance to politicians like Clinton, Bush, or Obama is what creates a climate where average voters cannot tell the difference between a partisan politician and a demagogue. If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.

      Trump is the US version of Mohamed Morsi, and he shows that the US is not immune to the same populist failings of democracy we see in younger governments around the world. Our country made it through the Civil War, and we will almost certainly make it through a Trump presidency as well, but it is still a very dark time for the free world. There is still a chance that Trump won't follow through with his worst rhetoric, but currently each staff appointment is making this optimistic view less likely.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    29. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      This is so righteous. Thanks for this. The only way we can argue with people like this is with extensive knowledge like this. That said, you can't argue with emotional people. If they insist on making their own reality, only a sharp decline in their living will wake them up. Of course, clever politicians will continue to try to redirect their anger somewhere else by using wedge issues. It's what happens in the middle east "don't look at me, look at those poor palestinians! [robs treasury].

    30. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      We are talking about people who believe crime is rampant despite a 60 year low. Seems like all that lead poisoning is still out there killing brain cells.

    31. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can also stop giving stop giving tax cuts without restrictions to corporations who shift jobs overseas. If they want a tax cut, they need to invest here.

    32. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is the American Mussolini, but I bet Trump can't make the trains run on time...

    33. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Great.. so I lose my job because a bunch of assholes who want their coal mines back because that is what their parents did and so forth, and they still don't get that. God help us all.

    34. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by McGregorMortis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everybody has the right to demand good government, and complain if they don't get it. Even people who didn't vote.

      A just and fair government does not have to be earned by voting or miltary service or paying taxes. It is the birthright of every person.

    35. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by tepples · · Score: 2

      So that people in other countries have money to buy your country's exports, perhaps?

    36. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, you can't really argue with someone who will just basically say "I don't want to hear what you say, let's try this insane thing because it might work." At the same time, who are they going to go to when Trump inevitably fails, and in some cases, if he actually carries out many of his promises, actually makes things worse? That's what scares me. If Trump fails, then where do they turn, a real Nazi?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    37. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for Trump. I have been told this.

    38. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "its own citizens" you mean "the citizens which are part of or closely associated with the ruling elite, but potentially not even citizens of the country in question"...

    39. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by boskone · · Score: 1

      except in the US, where it has been our government's policy to create jobs in other countries and screw over our working class

    40. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we're all on the curiosity train, why do you think it's your responsibility to create a jobs program in your own country?

    41. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the factories reopen, the unions will get power back. Wages will go up, working conditions will get better, working hours will go down.

      Starting tariff wars will only help Americans, we'll be able to absorb a few higher prices.

      This is probably the only thing Drumpf gets right, he's wrong about everything else.

    42. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      I suppose every cloud has a silver lining. That the TPP is dead is good news for NZ, amongst others.
      Our lick-spittle Govt signed up as fast as they could and promised us US copyright laws and multi-nationals not answerable to national Courts. Awesome.

      After seeing what Australia got from a supposed 'free-trade' agreement with the US a few years ago did not engender confidence. Aussie could not have wheat included and they are one of the major world producers. Naturally our primary produce (sheepmeat / beef etc.) did not get a look in from the TPP either.

      There will now be renewed interest in what the Chinese have to offer with their version.
      However, Trump is still a f***wit.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    43. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      Maybe he wants a trade deal that doesn't include the ability for companies to sue governments over their health regulations?

    44. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt he's even going to dump NAFTA

      LOL! As a Canadian, of course you're forced to hope he isn't, otherwise your country goes bankrupt! There's no "integration" between NAFTA economies, there are two economies depending on one instead. Unfortunately for you, he was voted in exactly for that reason.

    45. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about making sure people in your own country have jobs before looking at other countries?

    46. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonvoters decided this election, *EVERYBODY* cares that these candidates were so bad that the Presidency was decided by non-votes.

      This was the lowest voter turnout in 20 years. People HATED all of the above and couldn't force themselves to vote for a "lesser evil" when every option was terrible.

    47. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sri Ramkrishna wrote:

      This is so righteous. Thanks for this. The only way we can argue with people like this is with extensive knowledge like this. That said, you can't argue with emotional people. If they insist on making their own reality, only a sharp decline in their living will wake them up. Of course, clever politicians will continue to try to redirect their anger somewhere else by using wedge issues.

      Yeah, right. Bad period for immigrants from the third world, huh? Will Trump renew your H1B visa? I very much doubt that.

    48. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      God damn right, get an education so your engineering, IT, whatever job can be outsourced after your barely get your feet wet out of college! Seriously though, future kids might as well go into blue collar labor... it's harder to outsource that, then again Mexican immigration is fixing that in the US right now. Of course, you might die or get cancer from the job anyway.

    49. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      When your doctor removes cancer from your body, do you ask him what he is going to replace it with?

    50. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Criticizing somebody for not voting is obviously phony. What you mean is everybody should listen to you and vote your way... that way "your vote counts" b/c 100 people followed you. Well, people have the right to not vote in the US... and the right to not like who is elected or whatever anyway.

    51. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And you know the poster isn't a US citizen how? Your Alt-right detector going off? Maybe just paint a swastika on their car, you know, just in case.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    52. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And again, we see people who think trade is a zero sum game, which it is not. Just because there aren't as many low skilled manufacturing jobs available, doesn't mean there are no jobs.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    53. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So trade with other nations is a cancer? You realize, of course, that the United States has been a trading nation since its inception, right?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    54. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by outlander · · Score: 1

      Do you have any substantive critique, or is name-calling the sole piece of your debate repertoire?

      Net-net, even if factories come back, automation will be doing most of the work, and the people who will work in those factories will (by and large) be hands-on technical people, not grunt labor. That is NOT coming back. And if you're in denial of that, well, you'll find yourself in a difficult position when your job is replaced by a robot, bc traditionally, the powers that be have not looked kindly on the backlash Luddism you're implying you espouse.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    55. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right, it doesn't. And trade can indeed be a positive sum game, most of modern civilization is based on that, right down to the fact that I can trade my computer skills for someones automotive skills so that we both come out ahead (likely with money as and intermediary in a multi-stage exchange, but still).

      The problem specifically comes when we engage in free trade agreements that will obviously disadvantage whole sectors of our economy without ensuring there's at least a credible idea as to what those displaced workers will do instead. Effectively we're "outsourcing" medium- skill manufacturing jobs to our trading partners, without making any effort to create new medium-skill jobs to replace them - virtually all new job growth has been in the low-skill (and low-pay) service sector, while virtually all of the gains from outsourcing the old ones went to a few people in charge.

      Such trade deals may well be good for "our economy" according to some arbitrary measurement such as GDP, but there's nothing inherently good about the economy - it's a tool created to serve our purposes, and it does no good to improve the hammer at the expense of the carpenter.

      So the question must be asked, what is the purpose of the economy? I would say that fundamentally it exists to facilitate interpersonal trade so than we can improve our lives more efficiently. As such, anything that benefits "the economy" at the expense of the people is something to be opposed.

      Engaging in free trade agreements without a clear concept of how it will benefit the people of this country is, at best, magical thinking, and at worse a treasonous misuse of government authority for the benefit of the few.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    56. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, corporation-sponsored multilateral trade agreement is what the cancer is. GATT is a much better alternative than TPP.

    57. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't enough trains - at least passenger trains - for anyone to notice when they're running on time, bc we have failed to invest in public transit infrastructure bc conservative idjits (but I repeat myself) keep calling public train service 'toy trains' and refusing to fund them. This si why Americans need to go to places like Europe, Japan, and parts of China....rail is a real thing and it works. Not that you'd know it here, though.

    58. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Trump supporter I'd just like to say thank you for driving so many people to our side.

      If you want to keep up the good work, you should talk about how the democrats don't even NEED those ungrateful, racist and misogynist bernie brocialists.

    59. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the kind of argument I would expect a child to make. If you want something, you need to go out and do your part to make it happen - otherwise, you are just being a petulant child when you are upset $X didn't happen. "Why didn't $SOMEONE_ELSE make what I wanted to happen, happen? It's not fair!"

      Welcome to the real world - it isn't all puppies and rainbows.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    60. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And again, we see people who think trade is a zero sum game, which it is not.

      We cannot all work in service industries because of the concentration of wealth — it is such that the people who have it can never be serviced enough (in any sense) to actually permit that money to trickle down back into the economy. Since the economy can not grow as rapidly as the amount of work to be done is shrinking.

      Just because there aren't as many low skilled manufacturing jobs available, doesn't mean there are no jobs.

      You are moving the goalposts. The claim is not that there are no jobs. The claim is that there are less jobs being created than are being destroyed. It's much like global warming. It doesn't matter if humans are the only thing forcing the climate, if they are forcing it past the point at which it can cope. And it doesn't matter if there are jobs, if the number of people seeking full-time employment is not improving. A million new jobs were created in America while Obama was president. Probably more, that's kind of an old statistic. The number of people seeking full-time employment did not change. It doesn't matter if there are new jobs if there are more new job seekers. And that's assuming you can believe the administration's own statistics about itself...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      Free trade has made Americans--like, regular, low-income Americans--wealthy. Imagine zero inflation, and pants cost $50 instead of $15. You don't have any more money; you have to spend your money on pants, and have $35 that you spend now on stuff to not spend on that stuff. That stuff you don't buy means that truck drivers, retail cashiers, McDonalds burger flippers, and other manner of workers aren't payable, because their wages come from revenue, and that income is instead going to a factory worker.

      You want people to buy less stuff and have a lower standard-of-living. Cutting trade might temporarily create jobs--cutting out the Chinese manufacture of Men and Boys's Cotton Trousers and Shorts, for example, will create jobs if we pay the factory workers less than $18/hr, and destroy jobs if we pay them more. Similarly, reducing minimum wage--reducing wages in general, especially for products that represent large portions of our spending--would create jobs. This is the same mechanism as you recognize--that more products are purchasable when labor costs are low--except you ignore the infrastructure that supports the retail of those products, and the jobs thereof.

      though I believe Americans' median wealth (as distinct from income) has declined considerably since then

      Increased, actually. There was a dip in median purchasing power after the 2008 recession; we recovered. The American working class--from poor to rich--has experienced continuous growth, just like in any economy in history. It's patently-impossible not to: technical progress lowers the cost of goods and services, spreading the same labor out to make more things; money is essentially you trading your labor for other labor--which does have the implication that your $20/hr salary means you can work for 1 hour and command a $10/hr burger flipper to work for 2.

      The increases aren't constant, by any means. For example: Food cost 40% of the median income in 1900, 33% in 1950, 13% in 2000, and something like 12% now (in my case, it's 4.4%; I don't cook food at home, at all, and that can cut my budget bluntly in half). Clothing dropped from 12% in the 90s to 4% today (trade did this). People spend 33% on housing instead of the 28% in 1950; they buy houses that are over twice as big to hold all the crap they're buying for entertainment.

      The annoying thing about economics is none of it fits common sense. You need to examine it deeply and thoroughly to figure out what's actually happening. It's also an unmitigated mess with moving parts that cause things to happen differently based on rate, and self-corrects. For example: rapid job loss to trade and technical progress will destroy your economy, while slow job loss to these things is the source of wealth (i.e. the same actions are good or bad depending on how fast they happen); slow job loss to technical progress leads to higher consumer purchasing power and (new) replacement jobs; and any long-term adjustment in job availability (loss or gain) goes away after a few years (not even a generation) due to Malthusian growth (population grows faster in abundance, slower otherwise, so a permanent raise or drop in unemployment will go away as the labor force adapts to fit labor demand).

      Instead of having a fucking clue, you get people like Bernie Sanders starting statements with, "You don't need a Ph.D. in Economics to know..." and then saying something so wrong you expect his nose to grow, his pants to catch fire, and black tar to spew forth from his mouth and eyes, all at once.

    62. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Thing about economics, it has a lot of self-correction when you fuck up. You do damage; but some of the metrics..

      Malthusian growth will fill in any new unemployment or buff out any new jobs in short years, not generations. Early retirement, late retirement, the poor dying off, people staying in college longer (grad school because no jobs!), people entering the workforce earlier, birth rates, and even immigration rates all mess with the numbers. Trump's policies can make America poorer, but he'll either get to point and say "LOOK AT THE JOBS I CREATED!" or hide his head during an unemployment spike and then point when unemployment falls to 5% again and say "LOOK AT THE JOBS I CREATED!"

      There's also shit like Obama's ACA bullshit "pay healthcare for fulltime only" clause. Paying healthcare for all workers encourages less underemployment--you want fewer workers, so you give them more hours. Paying healthcare for full-time only means more underemployment--you want fewer hours per employee, so you hire more. So the ACA made low-income employees poorer by cutting their hours, and created lots of jobs by opening up new part-time positions without healthcare. Underemployment jumped up (I'm not sure how much--haven't looked, and it could be negligible), and unemployment went down as number of employed went up--creating jobs.

      I would have prefered to reduce underemployment at the expense of exacerbating unemployment. Fewer people hurt, less politically-savvy; but the gap would have filled in easily over a couple short years. On the other hand, I have major problems with the ACA in design; I could do much better--so much so that I've gotten die-hard conservatives screaming about Obamacare socialism to quickly side with me on a single-payer system with full understanding of what a single-payer system is. Sometimes I'm just good; usually I'm terrible at politics.

    63. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Well, they will simply blame the democrats and probably keep voting republicans because their adherence is tribal in nature. Thanks to a constant diet of talk radio, internet, facebook, and whatever else it is very difficult for to change something until it is particularly traumatic change that effects personally in a very painfully and there is no way to escape that it was anything other than a Republican. Once you go on that road, then you actively can think critically. Sadly, Republicans have been engaging in this kind of crap since the 80s. They are the party of no ideas... once they've implemented everything I'm not sure where they will go next.. and that is indeed scary.

    64. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 15% of voters wanted to vote for trump, about 15% voted for Trump because they didn't want Clinton and about 20% Voted for Trump because he is Republican and they always vote republican.

    65. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist.

      Insert overused joke about not being able to tell which candidate you are referring to as the fascist. Seriously though, the word bigot has lost all meaning and people like you are the reason.

    66. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Fuck Trump, but his plan is to encourage jobs here so that people in THIS country have money to buy our countries products.

      Your argument is that it's our responsibility to give our customers money so that they can buy our goods? That smells like a broken window fallacy at best and a wealth transfer scheme at worst.

    67. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And how will raising tariffs, leading to other nations raising tariffs as well, aid in full time employment.

      And yes, for chrissakes, lots of people may have to learn new skill sets. And it's hardly the first time it happened. During the Industrial Revolution and the steady mechanization of agriculture, huge portions of the populations of many industrializing countries quite literally picked up and left their traditional work. Is there some reason you think the youngest Baby Boomers and the Gen Xers should be immune from these forces.

      Do you really seriously imagine that economic protectionism is going to make all the factories come back and start employing all the people that don't work there any more? Do you understand that even in the jurisdictions like China where that manufacturing has now gone to, that those workers are probably within a decade or two of being turned out on the street.

      Manufacturing and the low skilled high paying jobs that it provided over the last seventy or eighty years is done, and trying to artificially bring that kind of manufacturing back to life would be exactly like how the Soviets used to keep factories open for no other reason than to create employment. It isn't economically sustainable, and it's not like the rest of the world is so small that a protectionist and isolationist US wouldn't just force them to find a way around the US.

      You're living in a naive fantasy land where somehow the 1950s can be resurrected and made real again. Somebody here was even talking about how even if Trump deregulates coal, mining companies are pushing so heavily towards automation that it wouldn't likely make very much of a difference at all in employment levels in those coal production areas.

      Or to put this bluntly and simply, those particularly parties are over, and perhaps it's time for political leaders to stop lying to their voters, and start telling them straight up "It's time to move on." In a hundred years, hell probably in thirty years, the idea that manufacturing will be a large scale employer will be laughed at as much as someone asserting that 19th century governments should have continued promoting building wooden ships.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    68. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in your post justifies trade deals, hence your debate repertoire is surely worse than the person's you're answering to.
      Sure, automation and AI will take away many jobs. That doesn't mean that a country should make things even worse by allowing its companies to move production to China or Mexico.

      Automation, and AI in particular, is an entirely different problem that stands anyways, whether with trade deals or not. Elon Musk backs the universal basic income to solve that, for example. Surely sooner or later capitalism itself will have to be either drastically reformed or wiped out, just like it is happening to globalization right now.

    69. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is Hillary Clinton not a dangerous fascist? One is a bit worse on some policies, the other a bit worse on other policies. In the big picture, they're both horrible people. In particular, since Trump's been done to death, Hillary is a psychopath who doesn't care for common folk, doesn't believe in democracy, doesn't listen to the people, is in bed with big money and the new undemocratic corporate government, uses war for her own gain rather than national or international security and is a pathological liar, especially where it concerns the big lies. Actually, now that I think of it, Hillary fits the standard definition of fascism better than Trump.

    70. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >more products are purchasable when labor costs are low

      Unfortunately that's only true initially - because labor are the people buying goods, and the flip side of low labor costs is low consumer income, which means that people aren't making enough money to buy the products they're producing. That was Henry Ford's genius - paying his workers enough to be able to buy his product. Unfortunately, the cumulative effect of short-term rational decisions by all parties (manufacturers lower wages and/or move overseas, consumers buy cheaper imported products) is the gradual collapse of our nation's economic engine as wealth flows steadily overseas. A classic tragedy of the commons, solvable only by large-scale education / behavioral modification campaigns (such as the Made in the USA program) and/or government intervention to level the playing field (i.e. tariffs,etc).

      I was also talking *wealth* not purchasing power, which is why I explicitly stated "as distinct from income". Income has largely stagnated, while real wealth has diminished thanks to, among other things, the financial crimes of bankers and other wealthy individuals - holdings of real estate, stocks, cash reserves, etc. have all fallen among the 99%. Purchasing power may be technically the same, but with less of a financial safety net short-term benefits such as lower immediate cost become more compelling.

      >technical progress lowers the cost of goods and services, spreading the same labor out to make more things
      Agreed. However, that's only of an obvious net benefit if you still employ the same number of people at the same (inflation adjusted) wage. If technological progress lets one person do the work of two, and the first person gets paid the same while the second loses his job and takes a low-paying service-sector job instead, while the CEO, shareholders, etc. pocket the difference (which is the case - something like 98% of all new wealth generated in the last several decades has gone to the 1%), then the median purchasing power of the population has fallen substantially.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    71. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't calling Trump a bigot that was the problem (how do you not get this yet) - it was calling anyone that wasn't 100% on the Hillary train a racist, uneducated, deplorable bigot. Some of my best friends stopped talking to me after I had the GALL to even question "was that what Trump really said ?" (so bigoted of me, asking about facts)

      I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm glad to see that attitude failed miserably.

    72. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by ranton · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, the word bigot has lost all meaning and people like you are the reason.

      Bigot:
      A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
      A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

      Looking at Trump's rhetoric around undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and women, I'm hard pressed to see how bigot does not apply. It's almost as if the dictionary altered the definition to intentionally make it apply to Trump. They could have put Trump's picture next to the Merriam-Webster definition.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    73. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree that there is no point in enriching the nation by impoverishing the people. However, there is the issue is that knowing ahead of time what the displaced workers are going to do requires the government to pick winners, which they are generally pretty poor at. Emerging industries and technologies may provide employment in unexpected ways. Nevertheless, free trade results in competition and there is a proportion of the populace who will never be able to cope with too much competition. The big question is what to do? I'd suggest one thing not to do is make education and re-training more expensive while simultaneously reducing barriers to trade.

    74. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever arrested a criminal and brought them to justice? No? Then you don't deserve to complain about crime when you are being robbed.

    75. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?

      If you're not with us, your agin' us! Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!

      No, it was people like yourself who try to make it impossible to draw a distinction between a merely unpopular candidate and a dangerous fascist.

      [...]

      If you can't call Trump a bigot then the word loses all meaning.

      The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    76. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And how will raising tariffs, leading to other nations raising tariffs as well, aid in full time employment.

      It's not going to solve the problem. It will, however, provide more time to solve it. It's obvious how it aids it. This is kiddie-grade economics.

      And yes, for chrissakes, lots of people may have to learn new skill sets. And it's hardly the first time it happened.

      No. This time is utterly different. Previously what we were facing was specific mechanization. This time, it is general mechanization. It's going to eliminate all unskilled labor. Not everyone is qualified to learn a complex skill set. Those people still have to eat, or we will have to exterminate them. So far, the plan seems to be the latter.

      You're living in a naive fantasy land where somehow the 1950s can be resurrected and made real again.

      You're living in a naive fantasy land in which ditch diggers are going to be retrained to be programmers. But we don't need as many programmers as we have needed ditch diggers, and we never will. In fact, we don't actually need as many programmers as we have now; most of them exist only to reinvent the wheel, and poorly at that. If we eliminated even half of the unnecessary effort in the software industry, we could probably eliminate more than half of the jobs.

      In a hundred years, hell probably in thirty years, the idea that manufacturing will be a large scale employer will be laughed at as much as someone asserting that 19th century governments should have continued promoting building wooden ships.

      What do you imagine that these people are going to do for a living? Because we simply do not need them all to program the robots that will take their jobs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by vinlud · · Score: 1

      Well keep in mind that most borders are pretty artificial constructs often only decades or a few hundrerd years old where modern day humanity has been around for millenia. Ofcourse it makes some things a bit more manageable, but there is something inherently funny in thinking your responisiblity lies just with those 300 million people in the same zone while thinking 'Screw them' about that community a 100 k away just because they happen to be in a differently named zone. Humanity at its finest

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    78. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We're running a massive trade deficit. And since these free trade agreements are primarily opening up "developing" countries, they will not have money to buy our exports, even with the influx of low-wage jobs.

      So, why is it up to me to cut jobs in my country in order to increase jobs in another country?

    79. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      What, specifically, is that community 100k away doing that is not the same "Screw them" towards us?

    80. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Because individual rational actors in an economy can destroy that economy. Each company doing what's in their own interest frequently leads to a "tragedy of the commons" situation. If demand is down, your company's microeconomics dictate that you lay off workers. But those workers were someone else's demand, so they lays off their workers. Who were your demand, so now your demand drops further and you lay off more workers. And so on.

      Sometimes, someone big has to be an irrational actor. The only entity large enough and irrational enough to have a significant counter-cyclical effect is a government. If you don't have that counter-cyclical effect, economic downturns are self-reinforcing for much longer, and thus last much longer and are much deeper.

      (That counter-cyclical work should be applied during "good" economic times too, in order to keep inflation down and reduce government debt in preparation for the next "bad" economic time)

    81. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that's only true initially - because labor are the people buying goods, and the flip side of low labor costs is low consumer income

      False. I've dealt with that argument before; and it's ludicrous when you realize that shit keeps getting cheaper--the average American household makes $54,000/year and spends $6,500 on food, while in 1950 this $54,000 household would have spent $17,800 (in current dollars).

      The fact is you don't reduce total consumer income. One of two things happens: some consumers have lower wages, and the products they make are cheaper, and so other consumers can buy more, and thus more laborers are required; or some products require fewer labor hours to make, thus the same wages are paid per laborer but fewer laborers work, and so the purchasing power of all employed goes up, creating new jobs as they buy more things. The amount of income in a given time frame is fixed: the Federal Treasury essentially controls how many dollars are available to be spent, and adjusts this to keep as close to a 2% inflation rate as they can; and exports are semi-fixed, in that we can export more if we can make it cheaper, but the demand to buy is still going to be roughly the same dollar amount, unless the importers buy more from us and less from others.

      I was also talking *wealth* not purchasing power, which is why I explicitly stated "as distinct from income". Income has largely stagnated, while real wealth has diminished

      Tell me again about how much income you don't need. You don't spend nearly a fraction of your income, right? Your wages are wholly-unnecessary, after all; you only bitch so much because you want to buy big, fancy cars and boats so you can boast about all the shit you have.

      What was that?

      Oh, right. We consume, constantly. Our ability to purchase products and services is predicate on our income; and the purchasing power of our income is what gives us the ability to exercise a standard-of-living. Lower-income means poor, smaller living quarters, financial struggles, pay-day loans loans you can't easily repay when you have to replace a $400 water heater because that money was going to food, and no college fund because you can't afford college.

      You eat food, you wash and wear through your clothing, you consume water and electricity, you use cell phone and Internet services which require tens of thousands of workers just to keep running, you drive cars that consume gas and need maintenance, you pay a monthly fee for Netflix and Spotify, you pay servants to cook your food when you feel like dining out, you buy trinkets on Amazon, you listen to an ever-growing collection of audiobooks, you replace light bulbs, and you pay loads and loads in mortgage because you bought the biggest house you can afford--a lot bigger than the average house 30 or 50 years ago.

      How do you suppose your holdings--your savings, your land holdings, and so forth--would stand up if you tried to consume so much? The argument you make sounds like a plea for early retirement: if you lived like the rich, you'd burn through rich-people assets in a year; and if you had those assets and didn't work, you could live as a middle-classer, and be essentially a burden on society. The nation's economic power--its actual wealth--is based in production, and it would collapse entirely if nobody worked; there would be no goods for you to purchase, and America would quickly become an impoverished nation.

      In other words: income represents the production that makes a nation wealthy. Income is your ability to purchase, and it represents what you've produced. If something requires much labor time to produce, then it's an expensive thing because it takes a lot of income--from a lot of labor time, for people in the same wage range--to pay the workers laboring to produce it. Those things are purchaseable with your income because people like you--making your in

    82. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by ranton · · Score: 1

      The reason the word lost all meaning was because it was overused in places where it was not true. Brace yourself for losing the meaning of the word "fascist" due to the same reason - you think insulting people with inaccurate terms "wins" you the argument. Maybe it does, but you lost the election due to non-stop insults. You're a real slow learner.

      What makes the words lose their meaning is people who think they only apply to some kind of comic book villain. They feel as long as someone isn't as bad as Hitler or Mussolini then he shouldn't be considered a fascist, and if someone isn't lynching anyone then he isn't a bigot. When we do this, we ignore the lessons of the past and doom ourselves to repeat them. If we convince ourselves that 1930s Germans were an evil population electing an evil leader, we won't be vigilant when our leaders start advocating violence (torture), blaming certain minority groups for our country's problems (immigrants and Muslims), and claiming they are the only strong leader who can fix the problem without giving policy details.

      That is the true face of fascism, not the abstract cartoonishly evil figures we have turned past leaders into to make ourselves feel we could never be tempted by a similar demagogue.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    83. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How many ditch diggers were put out of work by steam shovels? How many were put out of work by bulldozers and backhoes? By your logic, either mechanization should have been outlawed or people should have continued to be employed digging ditches nobody wanted.

      Not every ditch digger is going to be a computer programmer, but the fact is we need a LOT less ditch diggers now than we did 100 years ago, and 100 years ago they needed a lot less ditch diggers than they did 200 years ago. At the end of the day, my suspicion is that we will have to use UBI to guarantee that those who cannot by any reasonable measure find sustainable employment are not left starving, but that's just my view. One thing is certain, there are lots of occupations that are as threatened as the proverbial ditchdiggers, and that is only going to pick up the pace over the next few decades. Raw resource extraction, manufacturing, and even distribution are increasingly automated, and as someone pointed out, even truck drivers could find themselves out of work in a couple of decades with much long haul trucking being done by driverless vehicles. So you have observed a problem, but I don't think you quite grasp that the solution isn't just to keep paying people to do jobs that people no longer need to do.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    84. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Well keep in mind that most borders are pretty artificial constructs often only decades or a few hundrerd years old where modern day humanity has been around for millenia

      Humanity has also organized itself socially in tribes for millennia. You always take care of those within before those without.

    85. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Trade increases total wealth. Unrestricted global trade increases total wealth.

      One problem with unrestricted global trade is that it's slanted against the little guy. There's a long list of stuff I can't legally buy abroad for prices there (drugs and textbooks come to mind) and have shipped in, while there's no restriction on companies outsourcing abroad. Another problem is that wealth increases have been shared very unequally, with average family income not tracking US overall productivity, so free trade tends to hurt more Americans than it helps.

      These are problems created by US law and culture and practice, and need to be changed on that basis. It doesn't mean that globalization is bad for people, only that unfair globalization is bad for people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    86. Re: Do you now realize why Trump won? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You do realize that attitude is what allowed Trump to win, right?

      If you're not with us, your agin' us!
      Everyone not voting for my candidate is a bigot!

      He didn't say the Bernie supporter had to vote for Clinton. But in not voting, at all (didn't his state have representatives? ballot propositions?), he basically gave up on his primary civic responsibility, and also gave up complaining rights.
      "Well did you vote for him? No? Who did you vote for? Oh, you didn't? Then you don't matter."

    87. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Have you ever arrested a criminal and brought them to justice? No? Then you don't deserve to complain about crime when you are being robbed.

      You're implying that voting and choosing representatives isn't the responsibility of every voting-eligible adult, but it is.

    88. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie Sanders' supporter here. I didn't vote on Nov. 8th,

      Everything else you said after that is completely irrelevant, and you have zero opinion, just noise.

      Enjoy the Sissy Reich.

    89. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If the factories reopen, they will only employ a fraction of their traditional work force. You're living in a fantasy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    90. Re:Do you now realize why Trump won? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about "knowing", just having a credible idea.

      As it is free trade agreements will definitely:
      1) Benefit large corporations, multinationals, and their investors (i.e. the 1%, who own ~99% of stocks)
      2) cause extensive working class job loss in affected sectors

      If you can't offer a credible idea of how it will benefit the working class, then it amounts to little more than class warfare. *Especially* in the face of the fact that we're already suffering extremely high unemployment/underemployment - virtually all the jobs created since the recession have been part time and low-wage service jobs, so we know there's lots of mid-skilled workers out there who already can't make a decent living. If those people already can't find decent work, there's no credible reason to believe that the workers "freed up" by destroying further sectors of the economy are going to be able to do any better.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  30. we call him 11. His name is Xi Jinping by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    it's pretty self explanatory.

  31. Rule of law? by galabar · · Score: 1

    If Trump undoes executive actions and throws decision making back to Congress, hasn't he done a good thing?

  32. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they didn't, however they certainly weren't the overwhelming firewall predicted. Here's your breakdown from 538 (it's a collection of exits, not "tainted liberal ):

    White men 31% 63%
    White women 43 53
    White women college graduates 51 45
    White women non-college graduates 34 62
    White men college graduates 39 54
    White men non-college graduates 23 72

  33. Eminent public domain by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Without the TPP, Congress could roll back Hollywood's bought and paid for copyright law changes. For example, Congress could make some of the exemptions from anti-circumvention law pursuant to LoC's triennial rulemaking permanent. Or it could expand compulsory licenses for orphan works. Or it could establish an "Eminent Public Domain" program that allows free use of a work of authorship while compensating its author, by estimating a copyright's fair market value and letting the people crowdfund a "taking" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.

    But with the TPP, Congress's hands would be tied.

    1. Re: Eminent public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not like they have any plans to fix the laws. I'll be surprised if they don't make it worse. The point seem rather inconsequential to me.

      This is probably a better article about jobs I just googled: http://rooseveltinstitute.org/why-tpp-bad-deal-america-and-american-workers/

      I think the article might be a bit selective with the examples, like Muslim countries cutting tariffs on pork and Vietnam snow plows etc. More likely negotiation is against list of thousands of categories and things that nobody object are accepted without challenge so picking examples like these can be sensationalist. Anyway anything that feed out post truth reality! Go Trump!

    2. Re:Eminent public domain by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Or it could establish an "Eminent Public Domain" program that allows free use of a work of authorship while compensating its author, by estimating a copyright's fair market value and letting the people crowdfund a "taking" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.

      I've always been a fan of this idea, particularly for patents. We're at this big plateau in the first silicon revolution now, just waiting for enough patents to expire and enough factories to be built for the second revolution to kick off.. you know, the one where VERY POWERFUL computers can be had for perhaps $5 (plus the cost of power supply/LCD/etc. if needed), and we see a new boom of incredible CPU-heavy technologies built on the back of this new solution-in-search-of-a-problem. (The AI boom alone should be phenomenal.)

      It'll probably take us at least another 15-30 years to reach it on our own (Raspberry Pi is but the tiniest shadow of things to come), but with eminent domain vs. patents plus a few savvy investors willing to build the factories, it could probably happen in just a few years.

    3. Re:Eminent public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, go ahead and hold your breath for Congress to do all those things. I'm sure they'll be right on it.

    4. Re:Eminent public domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course those changes would need to be made by the people who were "bought and paid for" in the first place so don't get your hopes up. Trump has already started putting anti net-neutrality people on his transition committee, you can bet he's also putting pro intellectual rights people on it as well.

    5. Re:Eminent public domain by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      LOL if you think Congress would do any of that.

  34. Re:Great by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    sadly educated doesnt mean smart these days. have you looked at whats going on in colleges these days? they are glorified day care centers

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  35. Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hopefully with the election of Trump and the destruction of the Republican and Democrat establishments we can relegate neoconservatism to the ash heap of history, along with the worst of leftist identity politics.

    Would you support paleoconservative "bathroom bill" policies that discriminate against people with the disability of having been born intersex?

    1. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call that paleoconservative. That's more neocon divide and conquer stuff. Paleocons are generally of the opinion that we've made it through thousands of years of western civilization without bathroom laws. It's not the business of the government to play bathroom monitor.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by tepples · · Score: 1

      According to the lead section of this article, Michael Foley defines paleocon as support for, among other things, "recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race". Because intersex individuals don't fit into "traditional categories of gender," they'd likely end up with the proverbial short end.

    3. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Does that mean bathroom laws?

      I would prefer we keep the culture wars in the culture, and out of politics.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you support paleoconservative "bathroom bill" policies that discriminate against people with the disability of having been born intersex?

      No. But I also won't support bankrupting America with socialism so zhe won't feel bad about using the toilet.

    5. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bathroom bills are about alleged transgender people (an unverifiable subjective condition), not intersex ones (a matter of objective fact).

    6. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Upon great reflection, I've decided that I fully support bathroom laws.

      If you use the men's room to take a piss, regardless of your gender on any legal documents, it doesn't affect you, because nobody gives a shit who's in the men's room. I mean, some guys are pretty adamant that I'm in the wrong room when I use the men's room, but whatever.

      On the other hand, I will be infinitely amused by how much inconvenience those things force on cisgendered women just because of advanced infiltrator-class woman suits like mine. There are various anecdotes and even one lawsuit where cisgendered women who have short hair have been intimidated, humiliated, and even injured just for taking a piss in the bathroom for people born with the vagoo. I want to see MOAR of this! More stories of guys charging into women's room and tearing innocent women from bathroom stalls to slam them into walls and drag them through restaurants topless! I relish every time a cisgendered woman gets injured and humiliated because of paranoia about advanced infiltrator-class woman suited terminators raping little girls in the women's room!

      (I can link to the Detroit Free Press if anybody thinks I'm exaggerating one little fucking bit. I'm not. A woman got slammed into a wall and then dragged through a restaurant by her bra! I love it! Fuck you, cisgendered women! Fuck you!)

      Why? Because Feminists. Fucking. Started. This. Shit. Somehow, now that it's paleoconservatives that are talking about bathroom rapists instead of feminists, everything is totally different! Ha! Hahaha! Didn't think it'd blow up on your lesbian Hunnies, eh?! Who's laughing now!

      I do feel somewhat bad for intersexed people, though, since they didn't really ask to be part of this madness. But, like I said, just use the men's room.

    7. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Does that mean bathroom laws?
      I would prefer we keep the culture wars in the culture, and out of politics.

      In that case, nobody should be getting into legal trouble for going into bathrooms regardless of markings, genitals, and chromosomes. But it is actually illegal in some states for people to use the bathroom which is marked for the "other" gender. Those are conservative laws, though, which just shows who is actually making the bathroom laws.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Those are stupid laws. I think this is mostly pushed by the uniparty neocon/neolib establishment to get people fighting over stupid wedge social issues while they rob us all blind.

      Necons: "Laws to ban trannies from the bathrooms!"

      Neolibs: "Laws to force trannies into the bathrooms!"

      Regular person: "Jesus Christ do we need the government monitoring bathrooms? How about we have no bathroom laws and everybody just agree not to wave whatever junk they've got at people while they're trying to take a shit? Now about that budget you guys haven't passed in 7 years..."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Intersex people are degenerate human beings; it's a sad situation, but the truth is intersex people are natures' mistakes. Insisting that the vast majority of normal people upend a well-understood, well-established, and well-functioning system of gender-binary bathroom use to cater to the whims of a freak-of-nature minority is the epitome of ridiculousness, and the reason nobody takes SJW-tier 'progressives' seriously anymore.

    10. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those are stupid laws. I think this is mostly pushed by the uniparty neocon/neolib establishment to get people fighting over stupid wedge social issues while they rob us all blind.

      That is victim-blaming. These issues are forced by conservatives, not the other way around. If they weren't passing laws that made it impossible for victims of their legislation to legally excrete waste (something which all living things must do) then we wouldn't need laws which protect this basic human right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You don't get it, do you? No one cares about this in real life. It's a made-up issue to make morons fight each other. So, keep fighting.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Some paleocons discriminate against intersex by djinn6 · · Score: 1
      From your own link:

      Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing.

      If nobody knows you're in the wrong bathroom, then there isn't any issue, is there?

  36. that is just what we need in a Pres. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    err or is a lame duck just known as Resident-P. Dolittle?

  37. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Yes, he's already making sure massive conflicts of interest are ok!

    Soooooo much better!

    As if the alternative candidate didn't have obvious conflicts of interest from her family's foundation already.... I'm not saying anything illegal was or would have been going on, but she apparently didn't care enough about appearances to be careful with the Foundation during her stent as Secretary Of State. She didn't care, nor did the democrats, even though there where/are some things that at least look bad on the surface.

    It remains to be seen how this conflict of interest thing works out for Trump, but I expect the democrats to be howling for the next four years regardless of what Trump actually does or doesn't do with his personal business interests. This is more about politics than reality. Sure, Trump will be in a unique position to further is personal interests should he choose to do so, but the sad fact is that presidents are ALL subject to this temptation. Plus, being president tends to increase the personal wealth of all involved. Obama certainly benefited, Bill Clinton absolutely did and every president in-between these two left the White House richer than when they arrived. So, can we at least WAIT until we actually know how Trump will handle this before we decide? Then, can we please use the same standards used for past presidents?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  38. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to put those goalposts back where you found them. Snark aside, we need SOME method to determine information level, and this is a pretty good one, whatever your inane thoughts on "what's going in colleges these days".

  39. TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    What replacement for Obamacare exactly?...

    You're going to save more by living in California and buying insurance from Maine, then flying cross country to see an in-network doctor!

    If you think crying babies made flying annoying, now it will be full of people wailing in pain: an emergency waiting room in the sky.

    Joking aside, there ain't no free lunch. You either have some group subsidizing the other, or cut benefits, boot the really sick, add coverage ceilings, and/or raise prices for somebody else.

    It's like a bunch of slider controls where raising slider X may lower sliders Y and Z. There is no "magic optimum", you have to kick one group or care type in the gonads to benefit another.

    The Republicans may even rig it so that blue states pay the medical bills of the red states. I hope they don't go that low.

    And forcing states to accept out-of-state carriers erodes states' rights, something the right used to be for. Texas would be dictating medical and billing practices (or lack of) done in California, and vice versa. States could have a hard time keeping slimy players from other states at bay. Such could end up being challenged in the Supreme Court. But the court may be packed by Republicans in a few years now anyhow who will give in to Congress.

    In my opinion we should mostly copy the UK system. It's one of the best in the world. You get some freedom of choice and schedules if you pay a bit more, unlike some systems that outright force everybody into the same queue. It's a decent compromise between a centralized system and private choice.

    1. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Given the slime and huge profits already visible in the insurance industry, I'd really love to see a public option, just to keep them honest. Just let anyone buy into Medicaid at the average cost of delivering services. They're currently exclusively servicing the economically disadvantaged, generally the least healthy portion of the population, so it should be a good deal for the program.

      And if government inefficiency is even remotely as bad as many claim, then private insurers will have no problem offering better, cheaper alternatives at a tidy profit.

      But they'll also have a really hard sell for "premium" plans with overinflated profit margins.

      Just for reference, here's the current average Medicaid expenditures per month, as calculated from this page: http://kff.org/medicaid/state-...

      Average: $482
      Adult:$271
      Children:$205
      Aged: $1,104
      Disabled:$1,387
      And that gets you completely free necessary medical care (and I think dental) and off-brand prescription drugs whenever you need it. No copays. No hassles.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Ah, good old TANSTAAFL!

      You either have some group subsidizing the other, or cut benefits, boot the really sick, add coverage ceilings, and/or raise prices for somebody else.

      It's like a bunch of slider controls where raising slider X may lower sliders Y and Z. There is no "magic optimum", you have to kick one group or care type in the gonads to benefit another.

      I believe that group is called insurance companies, and I say kick them in the gonads over and over and over again! Pull their slider all the way down.

      Single payer or nothing. With the nothing option, my meds cost like $10-$20/month. With the insurance option, my co-pays on the same damned meds cost $10-$20/month!

      I mean, at most I want something like my car insurance for my body. My car insurance doesn't dictate where and when I get oil changes and what brand of oil I'm allowed to buy and at what price. The "capitalist" system we have now sounds exactly like OMG communism! Stalin! Mao! Pol Pot! Venezuela! to me. If it looks like a communist duck and quacks like a communist duck IT'S FUCKING COMMUNISM!

    3. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The economies of scale from the UK system also do a lot to bring prices under control, major pharma companies can't afford to lose a single customer as big as the NHS.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If ACA is so great for the insurance companies, why are some existing certain markets?

      (There are proposed adjustments to change the incentives to some degree so they stay, but GOP blocks them.)

    5. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the slime and huge profits already visible in the insurance industry, I'd really love to see a public option, just to keep them honest. Just let anyone buy into Medicaid at the average cost of delivering services. They're currently exclusively servicing the economically disadvantaged, generally the least healthy portion of the population, so it should be a good deal for the program. ...
      Just for reference, here's the current average Medicaid expenditures per month...
      Average: $482
      Adult:$271
      Children:$205
      Aged: $1,104
      Disabled:$1,387

      US Medicare is a really horrible system which combines poor care and terrible bureaucracy with high expense. Just dealing with the bureaucracy is enough to give one massive stress, and we all know that's a big health care problem in itself!

      It's far better to control the insurance industry and the medical profession.

      The Swiss managed to get their insurance industry and medical profession under control - they don't allow the corruption that so much a part of health care businesses in US. Not only does the average person pay considerably less per month for insurance premiums than the average US citizen (or their employer), but the total Swiss government expenditure on health care is a smaller fraction of their GDP than ours is (about 30% less) - so we're not talking about a hidden tax making up the difference. Also, the Swiss in general are much happier with their system then the average US citizen.

      The average Swiss citizen is paying $300 per month (about $294 USD) for their health care plan - and if that's more than 8% of their income, they get government assistance (Source: Time/Bachmann/2012). That's considerably less than the $482 above - and also less than the $494 the average US employer has to pay for a monthly health care premium. That's for a single US worker: the cost goes up to $1424 a month for the family health care premium (source: Time/Brandeisky/2015).

      A lot of these costs are hidden from US workers, since the employer is covering 70-80% of the cost. That's effectively part of an employee's salary that they never receive - a big chunk of cash!

      The Swiss do pay more out-of-pocket - but the yearly total, on average, combining premiums and out-of-pocket is still far less expensive than US citizens are paying per year (even if we exclude the extra money that employers are having to pay for those health care plans, which just makes the comparison even worse for the US).

      Further, no Swiss citizen ever has to worry about going bankrupt as a result of medical expenses - but in the USA that's the most common cause of bankruptcy.

      In short, the Swiss are spending a lot less money, and they get better health care. That's just another way in which Obama's presidency was a disaster.

      The USA has huge problems with business, legal and governmental ethics. There are also big problems with concentration of wealth - and people abusing that wealth. The folks benefiting from the current system were able to buy enough corrupt politicians (both blue and red) to give us a really bad health care system. A lot of them were shouting "socialism" to try to manipulate the credulous - but the Swiss system is entirely capitalist, and it works far better than what the US has.

    6. Re:TrumpCare [Re: New Trump fan here!] by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I would love to see such a system here, but the entire US medical system is riddled with problems, and overhauling it into something like a Swedish system is going to take time, inspiration, and serious political dedication - there's no easy answers, and I don't see it happening any time soon. Not least of which because there are enormous profits at stake - procedures usually cost 2-10x as much here as overseas, and I'd bet good money that most of that is profit for someone, so most everyone involved has incentive to make sure any attempted change fails. Plus we've got a large political coalition that's pushing hard toward further concentrating wealth and letting the poor hang, witness the demonization of anything resembling socialism (unless it primarily benefits the wealthy - too big to fail anyone?)

      And I don't know about Medicare(retirement age), but I've been on medicaid, and it was the least hassle of any insurance program I've been on, while getting care from the same doctors at the same places. Yes, there are procedures it doesn't cover, especially I think more cutting edge and elective stuff, but most basic healthcare, surgeries, etc. is just taken care of with no bureaucracy or copays on the part of the patient.

      I don't think a public option would be a cure-all, the problems are far to numerous and endemic for that, but it would take a stab at one part of the problem: squeezing some of the profit out of the ridiculously lucrative insurance market. Remove the political hobbles on Medicaid, for instance by letting them negotiate drug prices like every other insurer, and it could also become more cost effective.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  40. Depends on dependents by tepples · · Score: 2

    The range over which ACA tax subsidy phases out depends on the size of your tax household: Someone with income at the federal poverty level gets the full subsidy, decreasing toward 4*FPL which gets none. (Below FPL, you instead get either Medicaid or an exemption from the ISR tax, depending on how red your state is.) So it mostly depends on how many dependents you have. If AC #53339571 is single with no dependents, 4*FPL is close to $48,000. But if you're married with two dependents, it's about twice that. So if your spouse has no significant income, and you have two dependents also not earning (especially due to child labor laws), a $65,000 income still qualifies for a subsidy.

  41. And this is what they are fixing: OBOR by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    Go to google.com and type OBOR, then press enter button

    1. Re:And this is what they are fixing: OBOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obor is the name of a square and the surrounding district of Bucharest, the capital of Romania. There is also a Bucharest Metro station named Obor, which lies in this area.

      Hmm....

    2. Re:And this is what they are fixing: OBOR by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      Chinese biggest problem is that USA are world's biggest buyers of consumer goods (more that the rest of OECD combined) and that USA is about to go down.

      Even if the already gigantic consumption levels in Chinese domestic market will double, it will not compensate for downshifting in US. Yes, US economy is in recovery, but consumption patterns have been altered irreversibly. This way, China has not only to prop up the consumer culture at home, but half of the remaining world to keep it's production economy alive.

  42. They can always retaliate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the countries will retaliate and void the copyright and patent shenanigans that were imposed as well.

    No more overpriced patents on drugs or software.

    No more overlong copyrights either.

    Those countries could make a fortune that way.

  43. It is called OBOR by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    In 10 years, Chinese party chairmen will be making 5 year plans for Washington

  44. Build walls around robots? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Going to ditch these globalist trade agreements that have destroyed American jobs and pay

    There are at least two problems with that claim. First, you risk a trade war if you shut out other countries' trade.

    Now assume for the sake of argument that Trump really is the brilliant trade negotiator he claims and gets us better trade deals such that factories come back here. US labor is expensive enough that manufacturing bots will start taking jobs even faster than they already have. You'd increase the incentive for automation.

    Detroit already makes the same number of cars using roughly 2/3 the workforce of before due to automation. A trade deal that brings factories back will exacerbate this trend.

    Trump stated no plan for that, unlike Hillary who proposed retraining programs. What's he gonna do, build walls around robots and make R2D2 pay for it?

  45. Re:Great by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    As the % of population graduating college continues to grow, it continues to lose meaning.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  46. Trump's not really changing anything by Jodka · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well Trump is throwing out one prospective trade deal and substituting other prospective trade deals without actually modifying current trade relations in any way. So this looks like a prima facie attempt to honor a campaign promise without, in fact, making a change. Either his anti-trade campaign messages were empty demagogic promises or his new Republican allies educated him on trade.

    The latter would be a good thing. People's intuitions about trade are often mistaken:

    - They believe that employment is zero sum, that is, that the total number of jobs is fixed, so that if a foreigner gains a job, a U.S. citizen must necessarily lose a job. This is incorrect. Foreigners to not "steal" jobs from Americans. In fact, global employment levels can and do fluctuate.

    - They overlook that every producer is also a consumer. If you are employed and make something and sell it, you then have an income with which to purchase goods and services produced by others. As with employment, global production and consumption are variable, not fixed. The more people work, the more goods there are to go around. "Getting rid of those foreign slackers," is just as disdainful of others as "Those damn foreigners are stealing our jobs," but, pragmatically, is more likely to lead to socially beneficial policy outcomes. Consider improvements in the quality of life and reduction in our tax burden if Africans had productive jobs instead instead of relying on the industrialized world to support them with foreign aid.

    - They are unaware of the law of comparative advantage, which tells us that both those with an absolute advantage and those with an absolute disadvantage benefit from trade. The naive and incorrect assumption is that those producers with an absolute advantage displace all others.

    - They forget that trade is an exchange. They give us stuff and we give them stuff in exchange. To give them stuff, we have to have stuff to give them. Who makes that stuff? Employees. You can not trade goods without having domestic employees to manufacture the goods which you produce to trade.

    - They are unaware of the balance of payments and fear that all the money will end up abroad. Foreigners hoarding cash is a benefit to the U.S., because when foreigners hoard U.S. dollars they give us cars, televisions, and computers and all we have given them in trade is little pieces of paper with drawings of our presidents. Less that beneficial-to-us cash hoarding, over time all purchases are reciprocated, so that for every sale to the United States by a foreign entity there is a sale to the foreign entity by from the U.S. There has to be, because when we buy something from a foreign nation the foreigners are left holding U.S. cash which is only of value if spent in the U.S., or traded to someone else. That someone else can only exchange U.S. cash with others or redeem it for U.S. goods. If it is traded abroad perpetually and never redeemed, that is cash hoarding and we benefit.

       

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points.
      Great post!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Trump is throwing out one prospective trade deal and substituting other prospective trade deals without actually modifying current trade relations in any way. So this looks like a prima facie attempt to honor a campaign promise without, in fact, making a change. Either his anti-trade campaign messages were empty demagogic promises or his new Republican allies educated him on trade.

      The latter would be a good thing. People's intuitions about trade are often mistaken:

      - They believe that employment is zero sum, that is, that the total number of jobs is fixed, so that if a foreigner gains a job, a U.S. citizen must necessarily lose a job. This is incorrect. Foreigners to not "steal" jobs from Americans. In fact, global employment levels can and do fluctuate.

      I work for a large, well known company, that just this year laid off several US based resources and made it clear that they do not intend to fill those jobs in the US again. They also made it clear that they plan to increase the percentage of not-US workers at the expense of US workers if necessary.

      - They overlook that every producer is also a consumer. If you are employed and make something and sell it, you then have an income with which to purchase goods and services produced by others. As with employment, global production and consumption are variable, not fixed. The more people work, the more goods there are to go around. "Getting rid of those foreign slackers," is just as disdainful of others as "Those damn foreigners are stealing our jobs," but, pragmatically, is more likely to lead to socially beneficial policy outcomes. Consider improvements in the quality of life and reduction in our tax burden if Africans had productive jobs instead instead of relying on the industrialized world to support them with foreign aid.

      So Instead of helping the poor starving Africans, we could help the poor starving Americans that had work until we gave their jobs to the poor starving Africans? But then what would happen to all those people that do commercials about how my $0.25/day can feed a starving child?

      - They are unaware of the law of comparative advantage, which tells us that both those with an absolute advantage and those with an absolute disadvantage benefit from trade. The naive and incorrect assumption is that those producers with an absolute advantage displace all others.

      - They forget that trade is an exchange. They give us stuff and we give them stuff in exchange. To give them stuff, we have to have stuff to give them. Who makes that stuff? Employees.
      You can not trade goods without having domestic employees to manufacture the goods which you produce to trade.

      If we're sending all of our jobs oversees what's left for the "Employees" to do? Get paid to watch all these people living the "good life we used to have" on TV ? Run the fast food joint ? Clothing store? Pick cotton?
      So people that used to make 60K+ now make <=$10/hour?

      - They are unaware of the balance of payments and fear that all the money will end up abroad. Foreigners hoarding cash is a benefit to the U.S., because when foreigners hoard U.S. dollars they give us cars, televisions, and computers and all we have given them in trade is little pieces of paper with drawings of our presidents. Less that beneficial-to-us cash hoarding, over time all purchases are reciprocated, so that for every sale to the United States by a foreign entity there is a sale to the foreign entity by from the U.S. There has to be, because when we buy something from a foreign nation the foreigners are left holding U.S. cash which is only of value if spent in the U.S., or traded to someone else. That someone else can only exchange U.S. cash with others or redeem it for U.S. goods. If it is traded abroad perpetually and never redeemed, that is cash hoarding and we benefit.

      We are completely aware of the balance of payments

    3. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points.

      Great post!

      Thanks!

      Re-reading it now, the second listed point would be better stated as, "employment stimulates more employment because every producer is also a consumer".

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    4. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They believe that employment is zero sum, that is, that the total number of jobs is fixed, so that if a foreigner gains a job, a U.S. citizen must necessarily lose a job. This is incorrect. Foreigners to not "steal" jobs from Americans. In fact, global employment levels can and do fluctuate.

      You're conflating two separate issues. If an employer satisfies his labor demand using foreign labor, they will not be hiring from the domestic labor pool. This is the case regardless of whether or not global employment levels fluctuate.

      This is analogous to the claim that ownership of wealth by one individual does not deprive others of the ability to own wealth since the economy is not a zero sum game. This is misleading because, while the total value of the economy does fluctuate over time, there is at any one instant a finite (finite, not constant) amount of wealth, and owning some part of that wealth does necessarily prevent anyone else from owning it.

    5. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Jodka · · Score: 1

      You neglect the essential point that for every diminution of domestic employment to the advance of foreign, there is necessarily a reciprocal expenditure by foreigners within the U.S. Trade is, to a first approximation, balanced; You name what is lost to us by trade while neglecting compensating gains from reciprocal transactions which, though unidentifiable in the specific, must necessarily exist, those being fundamental to the definition of trade; You do not make a point so much as miss the point.

      Yours is a contrary view deriving from a failure of understanding and remains such until addressing that pervasive flaw in your argumentation.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    6. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Jodka · · Score: 1

      If an employer satisfies his labor demand using foreign labor, they will not be hiring from the domestic labor pool.

      I stated that intuitions about trade are mistaken. Better, I should have instead stated that they are stubbornly mistaken.

      To quote myself in previous response within this thread: You neglect the essential point that for every diminution of domestic employment to the advance of foreign, there is necessarily a reciprocal expenditure by foreigners within the U.S. Trade is, to a first approximation, balanced; You name what is lost to us by trade while neglecting compensating gains from reciprocal transactions which, though unidentifiable in the specific, must necessarily exist, those being fundamental to the definition of trade

      This is analogous to the claim that ownership of wealth by one individual does not deprive others of the ability to own wealth since the economy is not a zero sum game.

      No, it is not analogous. Consider an example: Because you start making ice cream cones I immediately have to stop making bicycle tires, but if you continue to make ice cream cones for a sufficiently long duration then I can resume making bicycle tires? You are being absurd.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    7. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Most of those are the "spherical cow" model of trade. Reality is messier.

      For example, it appears open trade favors the wealthy over the rest, and is partly why inequality is growing. Commodity skills get bid down on a global market relative to profits from ownership. In short, the benefits of open trade are not distributed equally, and outright harm some groups.

      And an imbalance of cash flow can result in bubbles as those with excess cash tend to unload it on the same things at the same time.

    8. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      - They believe that employment is zero sum, that is, that the total number of jobs is fixed, so that if a foreigner gains a job, a U.S. citizen must necessarily lose a job. This is incorrect. Foreigners to not "steal" jobs from Americans. In fact, global employment levels can and do fluctuate.

      Where the fuck have you been these last couple of years. Multiple employees have been replaced by foreign worker throughout various US companies. Many had to train the H1B replacements. Your statement is false!

    9. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      This again is another false statement. They stay 6-8 people in a two bedroom apartment (this I have seen). Since they are temporary workers, they must return to their country so they live a minimalist life here in the US and send most of the money back to their own country. So the net result is the money is leaving this country and it has gotten worse over the past 5-10 years. Couple that with one-sided trade agreements and you have even more. You are spouting nothing but Globalist crap that they are teaching in Business Administration degree programs which only emphasize short term gains over long term stability.

    10. Re:Trump's not really changing anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the last fucking time, the TPPA is NOT a trade deal, it's an attempt at corporate rule globally, based on investor-state dispute mechanisms outside and beyond reach of normal legal channels and shutting down the public commons and access to the american ideal of "imaginary property".

  47. Right Wing Decoder Ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The typical right wing person in the US is against globalization, because:

    (a) Globalization would undermine US national sovereignty, involving "international law" (written by international bureaucrats rather than a legislature elected by Americans, not signed by an executive elected by Americans, etc) that would necessarily supercede the US Constitution and eventually require agencies not under the US Constitution to enforce it. It would ultimately destroy national borders, as Mr Obama has already demonstrated to some degree. No borders == no nation.

    (b) Globalization would undermine US national security, first by undermining soverignty, then by further entangling the military and state dept into actions in the "global" interest (they're stretched enough covering US interests and our alliances) and then by encouraging vital national industries to go global. No patriotic American industries == no "Arsenal of Democracy" (look it up)

    (c) Globalization would undermine the American middle class by further encouraging insourcing and outsourcing of labor and pushing-down wages and benefits of anybody not in the upper .01%. With globalization, the global "prevailing wage" becomes the national "prevailing wage", and that means if your home is more expensive than a mud hut then you are being overpaid.

    (d) Globalization destroys American culture, pride, and patriotism. Our schools are already stuffed full of moronic teachers pushing globalist themes that insist America is always wrong and bad and advancing globalist themes. We've gone from "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of Many, one) and "the melting pot" (where people from all over the world came here and became Americans, adopting our culture and language and Constitution) to "Diversity" and "Multicultural" where everybody comes here and keeps all the stuff that made the places they fled bad. By "celebrating diversity" we are actually tearing ourselves down, and encouraging our young people to loosen their grip on the Constitution and all the things that made this nation so successful. People who want all that stuff can easily get it in any of the many places it is being imported from, but there's only one America.

    The "Right Wing" in Washington DC and NYC is just the phony right side of the Washington-NewYork uniparty. The "Establishment" Republicans are NOT actually right wing at all, they are bought-and-paid-for by the same multinational corporations and Wall St bankers that funded Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Their globalist advisors and pollsters are giving them the same advice they give to their Democrat clients. They wanted Jeb! as their uniparty candidate to face-off with the other uniparty candidate Hillary. No matter which won, the uniparty was supposed to be the winner and the globalists were supposed to get even richer. The reason Jeb! flopped so spectacularly and every fall-back unparty candidate similarly melted in the face of the Donald is simple: The average Republican/right winger is a patriotic American NATIONALIST and the average "establishment" Republican/right winger in the beltway is actually a globalist and a fraud.

    The Democrats used to be similarly mostly patriotic Americans (Think: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ) with a few globalists in the beltway, but over the past couple decades, it became fashionable in left wing circles to oppose American patriotism and nationalism as a form of opposing the patriotic right wingers. In the '90s the Clintons put that into high gear as they cozied up to China and globalist businesses who wanted to get cheap labor in China (Jonny Chung and the Clinton-China fundraising scandals ring any bells?). In the past 8 years Obama put it on steroids as he imported millions of people from all over the world (preferring non-white and non-Christian under the banner of "diversity") and refused to enforce the southern border and immigration laws in an apparent bid to undermine the rule of law and fundamentally alter the culture.

    The odd bit about the globalization of America is that it can do nothing more than destroy America - it removes from America the very things that made people want to come here and become Americans, while uplifting all the bad stuff that made them want to leave their prior places.

  48. Re:Someone needs to tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Competent business guys can do things like ask where the bathrooms are and have somebody adjust the blinds, if and when needed AND after more important things are tended to (or, you know, BEFORE showing up to WORK). It's understandable I suppose that this might be confusing after decades of "leadership" by political hacks and incompetent politicians assisted by armies of un-fireable unionized government bureaucrats demonstrating mind-blowing levels of incompetence, inertia, and impotence...

    2. When a President negotiates an international agreement, he then submits it to congress to be approved.... and he can stop it in a heartbeat by either deciding not to submit it to congress or by clawing it back from congress and asking them to drop it. The agreement is NOT an act of the legislature over which he only has the final say (a signature or a veto). Trump can easily kill TPP in minute #1 of day #1 by simply NOT submitting it to congress if Obama has not yet submitted it, or by calling-up Senate majority Leader Mitch McConnell and/or House Speaker Paul Ryan and saying "I'm cancelling TPP, just toss your copy in the trash"

    Again, you have confused an international treaty with domestic legislation and thus become confused about the complexity of killing it.

  49. Re:Great by gtall · · Score: 0

    BS, Trump won because he mobilized white racism and minorities didn't feel they had a dog in that fight.

  50. As a Canadian.... by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

    I hope when Trump exits the TPP that the rest of the signatories will go back and strip out all the parts the US lobbied to put in that nobody else wanted, like the changes to copyright laws. No need for them to be in there anymore.

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/201...

    May end up being a much better agreement without the US.

  51. The TPP has always been wrong by rashanon · · Score: 2

    The TPP was negotiated over a very long time time between governments and large corporate interests. While the public was cut out of knowing what was being negotiated, Large corporate interests were sitting at the table through their lobbiests, which added the worst parts of the agreements. The continued drumbeat of longer copyright rules, thanks to the MPAA, is just one example. If you want to see from a Canadian perspective why this deal is a steaming pile of waste http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ shows 50 reasons. And the great irony here, is most of the shit in this deal comes from the U S of A. I dont want to be part of any more trade deals, if the US is at the table, because your guys are the fkn worst in the room.

  52. Re:Great by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    "She did it too" is not a valid defense.

    She's not president-elect.

    It doesn't matter if Russia pays her a trillion dollars.

    She's not going to be president.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  53. ...a potential disaster for our country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's right. Withdrawing from TPP is a potential disaster for our country.

  54. Re:Great by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Here's your breakdown from 538

    Go away, Nate. You're discredited now. You didn't think you would be able to ride on lucky guesses about one election forever, did you?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  55. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It continues to lose meaning if you're using it to measure the upper echelon. It's still a perfectly valid measurement of an above average standard of education beyond the high school level.

  56. Good and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good on Trump: TPP was drafted in secret, in an attempt to avoid public discussion and circumvent what less-jaded people think is the legislative process. Fuck that! It should be illegal to do things like this, and while Obama certainly wasn't the first, he deserves big flamage for doing it yet again. And yes, the agreement will change our laws. That should never be tolerated. WIPO is how we got DMCA, for example.

    Bad on Trump: He's doing it because he's against actual free trade. *facepalm* (That's the kind of thing where I don't understand why the right wing can stomach this guy, since all the other candidates for the job (except Stein) were far more conservative.)

  57. The president doesn't control the economy by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The president has control over the economy but not in the sense of controlling it year to year.

    The president generally speaking has very, very little direct control over the economy. Even indirectly he doesn't really control much. Congress controls the budget, the Federal Reserve controls the money supply. All the president can do is direct the treasury, work on trade policy and foreign relations and a few other minor levers but if the economy goes in the tank there isn't much the president can do about it.

    However, the push to expand the national debt will effect the U.S. economy greatly in coming years. In effect, the U.S. borrowed against future prosperity.

    Congress controls the budget not the president. If we are spending beyond our means that is 100% the fault of Congress.

    1. Re:The president doesn't control the economy by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Everyone likes to obsess over the government's debts. But it is the debts of private citizens that should be your biggest concern.

      During a boom, tax receipts go up and welfare payments go down. So the government debt can be reduced. If you want to blame the government for something, blame them for not saving during recent booms.

      Now we are in a slump. Tax receipts will be down, welfare payments up. The government *should* be spending (responsibly...) to cushion the blow, but they actually have little choice in the matter. Austerity policies now would be a huge mistake. Taking money out of circulation, when the flow of money in the economy is already reduced, will just make a bad problem worse.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  58. I think it's quite simple... by gosand · · Score: 1

    He's a Trumpist. And I've never seen him behave otherwise.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  59. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize that if someone says there's a 30% chance something will happen, and it happens, it doesn't discredit the model right? This is fucking slashdot, should the concept of odds really be this difficult? All of that nonsense about his "speculation" aside, the numbers I quoted here come from multiple exit polls. They're about as close as we're ever going to get to an accurate result, and do a pretty good job of it.

  60. I'm sure he'll balance it out ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... with tons of other non-sense to take it's place.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  61. Lies by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    One thing that people keep forgetting is that Trump did not really mean anything he said during the campaign, and doesn't mean anything that he says now. Please quit thinking that he'll actually do any of these things. Once he takes office, there will be a constant parade of powerful republicans setting his policies and agendas, while he gets to appear on TV and distract from what they are really doing. He DOES NOT CARE about America or Americans or actually doing anything good as president. He only care about the attention.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  62. Trump won because you didn't vote by sjbe · · Score: 0

    Bernie Sanders' supporter here. I didn't vote on Nov. 8th, because I simply couldn't back a lobbyist like Clinton.

    You have that right. Bear in mind that by doing so you gave your vote to someone else and they used it to elect Trump. In essence you voted for Trump whether or not you meant to. If that wasn't the outcome you desired then perhaps next time you'll suck it up and vote.

    Instead of complaining, next time choose the right candidate at the Democratic primaries.

    So because your favorite candidate didn't get the nomination you acted like a child and refused to participate further. Very mature.

    1. Re:Trump won because you didn't vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep banging that drum, it's been working great so far!

    2. Re:Trump won because you didn't vote by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Makes sense to me. I can see where someone would prefer to suffer 4 years of Trump and hope to change the DNC for the future, rather than support the status quo.

    3. Re:Trump won because you didn't vote by unixisc · · Score: 1

      This makes sense. In 2008, I supported Obama even though I knew I disagreed w/ 90+% of what he stood for, since I hated both Hilary and McCain

    4. Re:Trump won because you didn't vote by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      So because he didn't vote someone else got to vote twice? Please subscribe me to your newsletter, your theories intrigue me.

  63. The right are single issue by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and that issue is pro-corporate, pro 1%. This is what makes them so strong. Their only issue is putting as much money into the hands of the upper class as possible. So they can turn on a dime on any other issue so long as it serves that end.

    The left, by contrast, are a mess. The social left and economic left are always at odds with each other. So they get picked apart and you get candidates like Hilary that nobody liked enough to bother voting for. Meanwhile the right can get behind Trump because he'll say anything that gets their base out and the money behind him knows he's one of them and he'll take care of them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  64. Re:Great by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    No, Trump won because he mobilized a white working class that's tired of being ignored by a smug, pompous left that completely ignores the concerns of "flyover" states and labels every white person as racist just because they dare to oppose policies of open borders and trade deals that always end up fucking over the working class.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  65. Comment editing by Immerman · · Score: 1

    And once again we see why Slashdot really needs the ability to at least append corrections to comments. I'll admit that with this crowd all out editing would likely invite chaos.

    Well, more chaos.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  66. This is bad news - TPP is security for Far East by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the absence of the TPP, the Far East will become part of the Chinese economic sphere, and so that much more in their sway, under their influence.

    There is certainly stuff not to like in the TPP, but the alternative - Chinese influence over a range of countries - is absolutely worse.

    Trump is a populist, and the USA will be confused and derailed during his term.

  67. Rebranding by speedplane · · Score: 1

    This is just a rebranding exercise. He'll "ditch" TPP and come out with a new deal called Trump's Plan for Prosperity with practically the same content and it'll pass easily.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  68. Perhaps by Gonoff · · Score: 2

    Could someone ask him to dump the TTIP as well?

    As far as the world is allowed to know, it is pretty much the same thing but across the Atlantic instead.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  69. Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I actually pity you, that you imagine that a mere politician has the power to restrain progress for any great length of time.

    This is exactly the case, 100%. Trump sold a bill of goods saying he'll bring jobs back and people bought it. There's actually a really great article over at Cracked about Trump's popularity. The TL;DR summary is that "Make America Great Again" means "bring back the manufacturing jobs", not necessarily "let's have racism again". At least that's the theory, anyways.

    But those jobs are gone and not coming back, no matter what Trump does. Or if Hillary or Bernie or Stein or Vermin Supreme or anyone else who happened to win would be able to do. Progress isn't partisan and doesn't care who the President is.

    Trump's "clean coal" bit? Even if Congress rubber stamps everything he proposes, the coal industry is still doomed, jobs wise. The coal industry is set to drop half its workforce through automation over the next 10 years. That's not theoretical either. The tech is already there. Coal industry will drop 300,000 jobs at least over the next decade, and nothing can stop it. If some crazy "mandatory-buggy-whip-for-each-automobile" type law gets passed here mandating mines can't use robots - still doomed. All that would do is drive up the price of our coal as the rest of the world digs it up cheaper and cheaper.

    Best thing we can do is accept it and move on. And plan for it. You're right - people should be *far* more worried about robots than the Chinese. Nobody is talking about how the coal industry is set to drop those 300,000 jobs. Everyone in the rural areas are all aglow with Trump getting elected. They're about to be sorely disappointed though when the robots take over those jobs. Don't think I'm bashing Trump there either - I'm not. Again, it'll happen no matter who the President is. It's just that with Trump he promised to fix things, and he can't. It'll be more bitter.

    And the worst is yet to come. Nobody is talking about Google's self-driving car and what stands to happen when that gets perfected. We have 3,500,000 truck drivers employed in the USA. It's the most common profession today, truck driver. And pretty soon most of those people will be unemployed too. It absolutely will happen. What then?

    We need to focus more on the future, what we know it will hold, and make our plans for it in the here-and-now.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's my view completely. Western economies are in many transition, and really, have been for a while. If I blame governments for anything, it's for not better preparing workers in these areas for the decline, and for the what they will do in the post-decline. The fact is that the pace of automation has been picking up for several decades now, and the vision of many industries has been to minimize the number of workers on the floor. In some cases, like Japan, this has as much to do with a shrinking population and a lack of actual workers, but in other jurisdictions, it is really about profitability. Even Foxxcon is retooling in China, with more automation, which means all those Asians that the Trump squad believe stole their jobs will soon be on the unemployment line themselves.

      I grew up and still live in a manufacturing town in British Columbia, here it's forestry. When my father got his job at a sawmill in the late 1960s, the mill itself employed something like 700-900 people. When the first major retooling came in the late 1970s, with the then state of the art computers, there were significant job losses. The recession of the early 1980s saw those numbers drop due to economic circumstances, and by the time the economy recovered, most of the lost jobs never came back. Now, forty years after the first automation systems were brought in, the mill has less than one hundred full time employees (I think it's below 80 now), and each iteration brings that number down. In my town, the only real solution has been a drop in population, which is normal.

      In reality, the town's population had grown massively during the 1940s as the forest industry became a major employer, but of course for many of the workers in their 50s, who came in to the industry at the cusp of the changes, they don't see the big picture, that they came in at the end of a manufacturing bubble, and they do the same thing up here in Canada that Trump's supporters do in the States, just lash out at the immigrants and the Asians. They want to hear politicians that will tell them nice fantasies about how the elites are out to get them, because that's better than facing the fact that, at the end of the day, we all have to bear responsibility for our life choices, and any of us who found good pay in what amounts to a relatively low skill position, well, that was lucky, but the luck has run out, and no amount of posturing by politicians will make those jobs come back.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by cresdon · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't be worried about bashing Trump since like you said he ran on a platform of bringing those jobs back and "fixing things" even though he knew that there was no way of that happening. I for one thinks he deserves any and all criticism that he receives for preying on the fears of people that are hurting and promising them unrealistic solutions. Lies can win you elections but they certainly can't reinvigorate an economy or return long lost jobs to workers.

    3. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The thing is that there are things that could be done. Putting money into retraining or relocation programs would be at the top of my list. The fact is that many of the very people who have been idled are the children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of people who moved to the area at the height of manufacturing in the area, so if these peoples' forebears could pick up stakes from where ever they were from and move to places like Ohio, then perhaps they should take a lesson from them.

      But promising to reopen shuttered factories, or throwing large amounts of infrastructure into areas that simply do not have the long term economic viability is literally nothing more than building bridges to nowhere. Sometimes industrial areas do scale back. My favorite example is the Maritime Provinces in Canada, that, during the 17th and 18th century, grew prosperous on the shipbuilding industry, but by the 19th century, as shipbuilding technology was transitioning. Other parts of the British Empire could build better ships for cheaper, and the region went into a decline that some might argue continues to this very day.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Managing the change is the way to solve most of the major problems we face today, and also over if the hardest things to do politically in cities countries that think socialism is a dirty word.

      Germany has taken a huge number of migrants, but managed it and now it's mostly accepted. Merkel is headed for a fourth term. Germany managed merging East and West, ab extremely poor ex-communist country and the powerhouse of Europe. It's managing energy transition.

      America could manage the transition to a modern service economy, but helping people directly is politically unacceptable so you are stuck with trying to help big business in the hope that it employees humans instead of robots. Those sweet manufacturing jobs are not coming back no matter what.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The TL;DR summary is that "Make America Great Again" means "bring back the manufacturing jobs", not necessarily "let's have racism again". At least that's the theory, anyways.

      Even if Trump believes that, and I don't personally think he does but let's table that because it's irrelevant ;) he couldn't have got elected without the people who think it means Make America White Again. And those people are going to be mighty upset if they are betrayed, just as the Religious Reich did in their last go around. They didn't get abortion banned then (although... watch out again because BOHICA... wait, don't BO because HICA and abortion will be illegal) and they became very cross. Could it be... Satan?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Jobs are created by demand, not by skill and worker availability. You can't sell products to a market with no money to buy them--and that's what demand is: Consumer ability and desire to buy things. We spend it all, then we complain we're poor; we get richer, we buy bigger houses, we spend more money, we buy more things, then we complain we're broke and the rich are taking all the fucking money and wages are stagnant while not looking into the rooms in our mini-mansions to see all the crazy-expensive shit we've stockpiled.

    7. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Managing the change is the way to solve most of the major problems we face today, and also over if the hardest things to do politically in cities countries that think socialism is a dirty word.

      Most people don't think socialism is a dirty word. It's kind of why Bernie made such a hit and Trump won (yes, I know a lot of post factual lefties would deny this, but what Trump proposed and proposes is closer to socialism than what Hillary offered; Trump won because he's the more socialist candidate)

      What most people think is a dirty word is men. Or white. Most people, as indicated by Hillary's popular vote, lapped up feminism and social justice.

      Those beliefs are what holds America back from doing what's needed to solve most major problems we face today, because they're more worried about the genitals or skin color of the person doing the job than whether that person can do the job well. Even just suggesting we hire on merit is a microaggression, and the lefties run into their safe spaces (while wondering why we can't have honest discussions... buddy, how can we have that when you run away from the discussion every time your feelings are hurt?)

      This is another reason Hillary lost. The Hillary campaign offered nothing of merit. Offered no dialogue to court those outside of the left's own post factual bubble. Her campaign focused more on Hillary's pussy (she would have been the first president to have one OMG!) than Trump's locker room talk about grabbing them.

    8. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Rust Belt didnt fade because of vaginas.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by AaronW · · Score: 1

      It's the difference between Hillary and Trump. Hillary talked about job training for future jobs where Trump talks about going back to the past. We're manufacturing more than ever before in this country but most of the manufacturing jobs have been automated. It takes a fraction of the number of people today to build a car than it did decades ago despite being an order of magnitude or more more complex. There are manufacturing jobs, but they're not the sort of jobs one can just jump into with only a high school education. Like you said, a lot more jobs will be disappearing and people need to prepare for this. If Trump tries to force the jobs to come back he'll be in for a shock when people riot with sky-high prices at Walmart and find that they're not qualified for the jobs (which is the case today). Manufacturing is hiring but can't find enough people with the skills needed.

      On another note, it's the wrong time to suddenly spend a bunch of money on infrastructure since the country is already near full-employment. This is especially true of the infrastructure Stephen Bannon is talking about, like throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. He mentioned, for example, building shipyards, but there's a glut of ships and they're cutting them up due to lack of demand. Spending a bunch of money on infrastructure right now will lead to a lot of inflation. If you're going to build infrastructure you need to be smart about it and look at what will provide a good long-term ROI. Then there's the problem of when you stop building all the infrastructure due to the huge deficits; now suddenly a lot of people will be out of work. Some infrastructure makes sense, but not on the scale Trump is talking about. For example, we really need to invest a lot more in rail and fixing our transportation infrastructure as well as encouraging more broadband and clean energy and improving the grid and water infrastructure.

      Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in coal today, especially clean-coal, not when natural gas is a lot cheaper. It's the same with nuclear. The expense is just too high. Hell, wind power is now cheaper than coal, even without the subsidies. Nobody mentions the fact that "clean coal" is a lot more expensive than regular coal either. It's just a marketing gimmick to try and make people think that coal isn't as dirty as it really is or that it's going to change, which it won't. If Trump really wanted to help the people in coal country he should encourage other businesses to move into the area to diversify, that way people are not dependent on any one industry since industries come and go.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    10. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The objective truth of current facts is on your side, but the conclusions and the moral side are not nearly as clear-cut.

      Does the mill produce less? Does it generate less profit? Unlikely; probably its production has even grown, and even if unit price of the product dropped, the sheer bulk of production makes up for that.

      But that profit is no longer going to the pockets of 900 employees. Most of it is pocketed by a small circle of owners/investors. Automation removes jobs, but it also redirects funds from pockets of employees to pockets of owners of the machines.

      And as much as you'd like to cry wolf about liberty of economy, and as much as you'd want to blame the employees for being low-skilled, and making poor life choices, there simply is no market in the area for the 800 redundant employees, no matter what their skillset or talent or dedication or education. Automation reduces need for work globally, and your town is representative of the world - people lose jobs, starting from lowest-skill, but if every single of them had a great college degree and a wonderful skillset, they still wouldn't find enough workplaces - and likely, these who would, would introduce more automation, and make even more people redundant. And make investors, who purchase the automation solutions even richer.

      It's also a trap, because while production volume increases, cost drops, profits soar, the money must come *from somewhere* - precisely, from pockets of customers, common people buying the product. And if the people lose sources of income, they cease buying things that aren't absolute necessities. It's a bubble that must burst - wonderful modern unmanned factories producing goods nobody can afford.

      In other words, that model is not sustainable. More automation means less workplaces globally, not *just* in these sectors. Less employed mean shrinking market. Shrinking market means less income for the owners - and as result, further cuts - further automation, less jobs, less income for common people and more market shrinkage.

      This may still be considered "fair" according to the natural capitalist narrative - but it IS a problem heading straight for a disaster. It absolutely requires system-wide solution, because no matter what these people do, no matter what skills they obtain, job market will only continue to shrink in the long run, and the number of unemployed will only grow. Maybe universal income. Maybe something else. I don't know. But blaming the situation on people's life choices is entirely misguided. There's only so much work for skilled, expert labor, and that amount - despite persistent shortages - is lower than the number of people who will lose jobs. Education is a solution for some, but not for all - and the number of those will only grow.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      "They want to hear politicians that will tell them nice fantasies about how the elites are out to get them, because that's better than facing the fact that, at the end of the day, we all have to bear responsibility for our life choices, and any of us who found good pay in what amounts to a relatively low skill position, well, that was lucky, but the luck has run out, and no amount of posturing by politicians will make those jobs come back."

      The luck is running out of all of us then, except for the geniuses, rock star AI technologists, and those lucky enough to control the robots (means of production) at the time when the singularity hits the fan. The only solution I see is some sort of Star Trek socialism. BTW some low skilled jobs might be the last to go, since it takes more advanced technology to build a robot that can efficiently clean a toilet than to program an algorithm that can write a news report out of a mountain of tweets and FB posts.

    12. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In other words, we are the wealthiest people that have ever lived, and yet we're miserable because we squander that wealth and then struggle to pay for it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Correct, those jobs are not coming back ever by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well, basically, yes. We are the wealthiest people that have ever lived, in the sense of "a people": our society is a hell of a lot wealthier than the pharaohcies of ancient Egypt, and so our lowest-class citizens are better off than their lowest- and even middle-class citizens. Our poor may be poorer than most people in the world, but they're on-par with the poor of wealthy countries, and above the poor of undeveloped nations or of the wealthy nations of the past. Our every-day citizens--the lower-middle to upper-middle classes--carry around wonders the prior generation wouldn't hardly understand, and which at some point were utterly unaffordable even once they'd become technically-possible (like $4,000 cell phones in the 80s--$9,000 in today's dollars).

      It's not that we squander what we have; it's that it's absolutely-retarded to work 2,000 hours in a year to produce and then not get paid for it. If we all took to a plan of working for 10 years, living as paupers, and then retiring, society would collapse trying to support us with no productive capacity due to a sharply-diminished labor force; a few of us can get away with it, so long as the rest work themselves to retirement at the end of a long life and provide us the material support our stockpiled money can buy. Even so, we'd live like poor people our whole lives, just to avoid working.

      Instead, we work, we get money, and we buy things with that money, paying someone else to work to make and import and ship and sell that crap to us. That person uses the portion of price (and thus revenue) representing his working hours to barter his time in the same manner. As I've said: wage inequality means my time has a higher buying power than yours--my $20/hr means 1 hour of my time buys 2 hours of your $10/hr time. For me to buy what you're selling, somebody has to work those 2 hours--that would be you. The difference in power isn't a matter of any sort of value; it's only a social matter: your labor is easily-replaced and the going rate is lower, so you have a weak negotiating position and no force behind demanding higher pay, so you get to work just as hard and be half as rich.

      Rich or poor, you maximize your wealth by working, getting paid, and buying. Money isn't worth anything; you buy things with it to exchange your work for something you can enjoy. As we increase productivity, I would quite like to restrict population growth (and economic growth) by cutting back labor hours, thus reducing what we can buy (you didn't work as much, so you didn't get paid as much--no matter the dollar value, it still represents 32 hours instead of 40) and thus the jobs needed. Increased productivity means we wind up producing the same with fewer labor hours, instead of more with the same labor hours; so we all work 3.5 or 4 days per week, instead of 5. Even then, you'd work your 28 or 32 hours, spend all your money, and come out complaining you're broke.

      If you think that sounds strange, "Wi-ki-pedia" has an article you might find interesting. People used to demand six days per week, ten hours per day, 60 hours, as relief from excessive working hours and harsh working conditions. All that labor for such meager lives. A 28-hour week could turn America's labor force into its leisure force, if we can muster the economic efficiency to not become ridiculously-poor along the way.

      I wonder what people will say if my Universal Social Security actually goes into effect. It cuts welfare out of the general income taxes (a progressive tax), and then levies a 17% flat tax on business and personal income to fund a flat benefit. That means all productivity gets taxed: a 50% productivity gain over 10 years hands back 17% of 50% to everyone, and the biggest impact is the poorest of poor become a full 50% richer. Do you think they'd still claim all the new wealth goes to the top 1%? I bet they would.

  70. Good by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I am pretty sure that he does not understand what exactly he is doing here and that all his rich friends are horrified. For all, except the US, this is good news.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  71. Good for Australia by melting_clock · · Score: 2

    As an Australian, Trump killing the TPP is a good thing. There are some parts of the TPP that would have forced some crazy laws on us, without opening up enough trade opportunities. Stripping out everything that US wanted in the TPP and the other countries involved going ahead with a new agreement should be relatively easy. The US is probably not going to be hurt by not being involved and most of the other countries involved will do better, with the likely exceptions of Canada and Mexico.

    The Australian economy depends more on trade with China than with the US and we already have a free trade agreement with China, although China still has too many tariffs. China is already pushing their own broad alternative to the TPP which might mean further tariff reductions. A trade war between the US and China could have some positives for the rest of the world.

    1. Re:Good for Australia by boskone · · Score: 1

      wait, you're being suckered! you said this "... and we already have a free trade agreement with China, although China still has too many tariffs."

      your "trading partner" shouldn't have tariff's on your exports to them if you have free trade!!! you've bought it. do you tarrif Chinese imports?

      sounds like most US trade deals. we take their stuff into the US free, but they tarrif and badger our guys so we can't export to them on equal terms

    2. Re:Good for Australia by melting_clock · · Score: 1

      While I largely agree with what you have said, the reality is that tariffs are common and I'd be surprised if any "free trade" agreements result in tariff free trade. By international standards, Australia does have low tariffs on imports and has been phasing out a lot of tariffs. The US and China both have much high import tariffs and it is true that the best deals we have been able to make is a reduction in tariffs in our trade agreements.

      Unfortunately, protectionist policies are not going away any time soon. In democracies there are political consequences in doing away with tariffs or subsidies and there are some powerful lobby groups in some countries. Politicians might be professional liars and corrupt but they are not quick to commit political suicide...

    3. Re:Good for Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A US trade war with China would be devastating to the global economies, yours included.

    4. Re:Good for Australia by ukoda · · Score: 1

      In the case of US and New Zealand trade I believe much of it is tariff free. However we can not export many of our primary products tariff free to the USA as their farmers can not compete evenly with ours. On the other hand I an not aware of any imports from the USA we put tariffs on to to protect NZ industries. Currently the restrictions are all one way in favor of the USA. During the negotiations I assumed that we were going to get better access, but as I understand it we got zero improvement in our ability to export our primary industry products and in return for that we agreed to impact our high tech sector by agreeing to US IP restrictions.

      I agree with other posters, remove the USA IP rubbish from TPP and sign it with the other parties, excluding the USA. We can always negotiate with the USA, one on one, for a future deal that is actually fair to both parties.

  72. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Who's talking about "why Trump won" here? Certainly not me..

    But, being you asked... I believe it was divine intervention coupled with the democrats failing to mobilize the same voter base that got Obama elected twice. This wasn't republicans showing up to vote, this was democrats NOT showing up... Which is how I thought this election might go.

    There was no way Trump could win, Clinton had to lose it. Which she did, even though she outclassed Trump in Dollars spent, experience in elections and media support. Clinton's party's base didn't show up despite all the advantages she had, and she lost to a novice who had never won an election in his life. Clinton screwed up, plain and simple. It was HER fault she lost, not some overwhelming republican turnout she couldn't overcome.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  73. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Way to spin this....

    I'm not saying all's fair because both candidates have their issues, only that right now criticizing Trump, who has yet to take office, is nothing but partisan politics.

    Can we at least wait until January 20th to start demonizing Trump for self dealing and corruption? By definition he cannot be doing it until he officially becomes president anyway. Besides, where were Obama's detractors when he and his wife both launched their lucrative book deals or when he took the Nobel Prize for being the president? All I heard was crickets.... Not that there is anything wrong with any of that from my perspective... But folks want to pile on Trump already, just because he has financial interests in lots of places and he's now going to be president? Give me a break.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  74. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These polls are impossible. We know from the polls that all women support Hillary and Trump has no chance of ever being elected!

  75. But good for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is ramping up its empire play, specially in Africa, but still its impact in most developing countries is much more beneficial than the equivalent by western institutions.
    Critics of the AIIB in particular can barely critique China's lack of democracy after decades of the IMF and WB trumping democratic institutions (and, in many cases, also economies) in most countries where they intervened.

  76. Re:Great by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Well, so far since becoming president elect, he has:

    agreed to pay out an 8 figure fraud settlement
    admitted to breaking non-profit laws with his foundation

    Also, he has said he doesn't see any issue with billion dollar conflicts of interest.

    But on the plus side:

    his wall will be fences
    Hillary won't be prosecuted
    he restarted the white supremacy movement.

    Sure, lets just wait til Jan 20 & ignore all this shit.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  77. Re: Great by Layzej · · Score: 1

    So the polls are great and show that the educated supported Donald, except that they don't and therefore the polls are worthless.

  78. medicine in the US is broken: you're not helping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting as AC because I modded a couple things already.

    What replacement for Obamacare exactly? The one where you pay more and only save by not having medical procedures done?

    Hang on a second. You've actually said something very insightful about the problem with our current medical system. Nobody knows how much tests and treatments cost (not even the Doctors know) since it's all paid for by insurance. Since insurance pays for lots of stuff, most of us don't even care. We care about the rising cost of insurance, but not about how the impact that our individual behavior has on that rising cost. It's the tragedy of the commons. We could save a lot of money by doing fewer unnecessary tests and letting customers shop around to get care. What's wrong with that? It sounds like you are advocating a system in which the cost/benefit of medicine is completely opaque. Why would you want that? Do you want medical insurance companies an big pharma to dictate everything to us? They will *always* advocate the most profitable course for themselves regardless of the monetary cost and impact on our health.

  79. Here's what I don't understand by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    So all the Asian countries pass the TPP, become a giant trading block without tariffs and then stick it to the US?

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  80. Overly broad terms by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Terms like Progressive or Conservative are probably overly broad and too general to apply to a person. A policy or position might be Progressive, but a person is more nuanced than that.

    Example: Liberal California voted to keep the death penalty this election. But Trump-voting Michigan has been against the death penalty for 150 years. You can find people who are Pro-Life on abortion, but may be for or against capital punishment. Human beings are complex and the moderately intelligent ones weigh their position on each issue using their own personal believes and experiences.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  81. my proposal for the end of globalization by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I'd replace globalization with localization, because: opposites.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  82. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    You are a partisan hack....

    MIGHT it be possible that there are other reasons for these settlements? Something a bit more altruistic and a whole lot less than what you think? Oh, no, it cannot be that Trump just wants to do this presidency thing to the best of his ability?

    I'm not saying this is the reason, only that it *could* be the reason..... Perhaps Trump is simply removing the distractions and getting these things behind him because he knows that the spectacle of him getting hauled into court to defend himself would detract from his ability to do the things he's committed himself to. So instead of letting this all drag on for years, bringing the bad press along for the ride and handing his detractors ammo to shoot him with he decided to just settle out of court and be done with it...

    Believe what you want, but I'm inclined to think he did this (at no small personal cost) for the good of the country, or at least for his eventual legacy in history if nothing else. If you want to somehow make this into some kind of admission of corruption, feel free, but I think you are pushing a bit too hard...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  83. Historical speed bump anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually pity you, that you imagine that a mere politician has the power to restrain progress for any great length of time. My tip to you is rather than moan because you can't get a good job in manufacturing like your old man did, is to get an education. And that is where the government could help, but it won't help anyone by tariff wars that will only end up hurting domestic interests.

    Actually there is one historical precedent to this. The Japanese Sakoku period. The Tokugawa shogunate started it and it lasted until 1866. Restricting movement trade and all. It lasted a until the Perry expedition put a end to it. Using gunboat diplomacy.

    So technically yes a politician did it. Today? Hmmmmm....

  84. He also... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    ....promised to put Clinton in jail....now it won't happen. ....claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese....now he says it is caused by humans. .....called others crooked....now his own foundation has to pay back taxes and penalties for spending money on bailing out the Trump clan. ....claims that he is the big uniter and is against hate....yet he offends pretty much everyone and has the National Policy Institute salute with "Heil Trump!" ....said he would drain the swamp....and put every alt-right xenophobe and anti-semite he could find in the republican establishment into office. Trump is a liar, a flip-flopping opportunist, nothing else than a Hitler 2.0. Which morons vote for a guy like that????

  85. Re:Great by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Donald Trump has never, in his entire life, done anything good for anyone that wasn't good for Donald Trump first and foremost.

    But, sure I believe he in essence admitted to fraud for the good of the country. Or possibly because the evidence was overwhelming.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  86. What makes a great president? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    As someone with no dog in this fight it has been pretty much the ultimate in wrestle mania trying to avoid watching your elections, I am ready for normal 'programming' now.

    It was clear that Mrs Clinton carried much of the rhetoric of the establishment and was their preference. I think she was deeply uncomfortable with the 2 attempts at being president because her body language was so unnatural all of the time.

    I detested Mr Trump because he came across as a narcissistic prick. On the other hand it occurred to me, maybe that's what it takes to play the game of running for president. So whilst I detest him it did show that the people of the US are sick to death of the establishment and can still buck the system, for that I was surprised and delighted.

    I wrote to my representatives regarding concerns about the TPP after reading as much of it as I could (only about 1000 of the 6000 pages) none of it will work for any country who signs it. If I can dig put a link to the pdf, I'll post it.

    I hope that he is brave enough to start fixing some of the structural problems the US have that are apolitical. If he is dumping the TPP that is a sure sign of someone who is a leader who is prepared to make up their own mind. In that regard I think Americans have created an opportunity for Trump to be a great leader.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:What makes a great president? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      For anyone who is interested this was my analysis of the TPP [warning;pdf] made to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in my country based on the thousand or so pages I got through.

      It was clear to me that it is not in the interests of any country to effectively dismantle their justice system in regards to any commercial laws they may attempt to make. Everything I wrote applies evenly to any country that signs on to the TPP, even the US.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  87. Not only do we benefit from cash hoarding... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Not only do we benefit from cash hoarding, there is this other accusation: China manipulates its currency, and/or subsidizes production, to make its exported goods more affordable.

    If true, this is effectively a transfer of wealth from Chinese citizens to non-Chinese citizens. We benefit from the first-order effect (goods become cheaper for American consumers), and the negative effect (some American jobs move to China) is only a second-order effect.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  88. Indiana House Bill 1079 for example by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some bathroom bills are constructed such that one is considered male if either having XY chromosomes or assigned male at birth, or female if XX or assigned female. Thus if chromosomes don't match assignment at birth, one is both male and female. It goes on to ban females from men's rooms and vice versa. By a literal interpretation of the bill, people who have both sexes are banned from both bathrooms. Source: Indiana House Bill 1079

  89. Without rationing? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Can cost be lowered without rationing or death panels or QALY metrics? Without any sort of rationing, care per patient (and thus cost) can in theory increase without bound. Or what am I missing?

  90. Finally, someone who cant be bought by pgnas · · Score: 1

    Hooray! Someone with enough balls actually just stand up for this country for once. I don't know how you felt about us be forced into this agreement, an agreement made in secret does anyone know what happened on Jekyll Island? You know that's secretive deal made during the holiday which proved to be one of the most significant changes to our economy then almost any other. The TPP is very similar. I have read and studied much of what was available but this was such a tiny portion to the actual agreements that it was barely worth reading. The fact that our current administration our current president as well as one of the presidential candidates what support such a travesty is frightening to say the least. Make no mistake this was not a partnership, this was clearly a treaty, a treaty that was negotiated outside of the best interest of the United States. I applaud Donald Trump for standing up against this abomination for standing with the people of United States as opposed to selling out our country and our people in an effort to further giveaway our sovereignty.

  91. As long as Faux News exist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are better off to not make any deals with America. No tell what false thing they will make Americans jump at next.
    Dont invest here or anything really. Herbert Hoover the second in office.
    Run for the hills.

  92. I slay your straw man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he did or did not DO anything is now irrelevant. He will now be in a position where those things he say can suddenly come to life because he has the power of the government behind him. Before all he had was a loud mouthed website. News agencies can be powerful, but they don't have that punch behind them that the President & Congress do. So maybe he really does believe the things he says and writes but was unable to effectively make them happen. Us Liberals are bitching because now he can. Not that any of this changed your mind.

    1. Re:I slay your straw man! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      So it all boils down to "He's scary." That's his only actual fault.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  93. Bottom bitch, mate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to burst your fag bubble, but that doesn't imply that at all. Guess what? I have a white son. Does that mean I am not white? Nope, because I am indeed white. You have some kind of pegging fetish you need to work on, mate, before someone gets hurt.

  94. You fuck right off republitard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH NO, FUCKER! You asshats don't get to use that excuse because during the latter half of the election when loss was certain, you bastards paraded Bill's mistresses around like it was a traveling circus. You made a big damned deal about how a penis that is not attached to her, completely ruined her ability to have morals and character. Oh no, you fuckers can take your stupid rebel flag and shove it right up your racist assholes! You know damned good and well that you shitheads are putting the wolves in charge of the hen house and you're doing it to watch the world burn. You'll get what you want but it'll be your own damned house on fire and it'll be I who has the smug assed grin on my face.

    1. Re:You fuck right off republitard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, seriously, just breathe. The world isn't ending, and it's not on fire. Nobody's killed your dog. There are no wolves at the gate, and everything is going to stay pretty much the way it is now. At least for the foreseeable. Except for the SJW's. They're fucked for the next 30 years. So relax.

  95. hypocrites gonna hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI hypocrite, you are discrediting his sources for the same reasons you dismiss our concerns over Bannon. Your first sentence is sexist. You then dismiss her as crazy. Then just flat out called her a liar without even knowing her. You then dismiss the whole story due to it being on a left leaning newsite.

    You are here arguing that just because Bannon ran a website that posted every hateful bullshit "news" article that Alex Jones wouldn't publish, we should still give him the benefit of the doubt and that he isn't sexist, racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and whatever else he's published over the years. You wont give his ex the benefit of the doubt because you're "biased because they disagree with you!!!!!". Then in typical conservative fashion you play the old shame card and throw an insult at us. Oh and the shouting. Do you know who I heard shouting the loudest, longest, and meanest? It wasn't Hillary.

    You can go be hateful somewhere else.

  96. Perception is reality with Bannon and Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't give me that "he didn't write the articles" crap! He was the head guy and condoned, if not directed, the content. He gets NO pass in this! Jeez, it's like the old prison guards saying 'I was just following orders".

    Steve Bannon may be the best guy whoever lived, who never said to his ex-wife that he didn't want his kids going to school with Jews, and never pushed the breitbart website to more and more racist content, and never, ever, EVER would disparage women, Jews, blacks or Muslims.

    The problem: SOMETHING about him and his publishing company, (or website or whatever it is) has given the new American Nazi Party (hey, let's not make up a new name for old hate) the idea that he IS on their side, DOES practice prejudice and hate in his daily life and work and FEELS the same way that they do.

    The result: In the year leading up to the election, right before and now, we see unprecedented civil rights violations, hate crimes and daily reports of bullying, taunting and other activities that have no place in our society, in ANY society.

    The reality comes from perception. The perception of Steve Bannon, and by extension, of Trump of being hateful racist people is also maintained by NO ONE in the Donald camp coming out publicly and forcefully against the behavior. The whole 60 minutes "I say stop it" was not only ridiculous, but also serves to maintain the racist perception.

    Donald Trump and Steve Bannon were not born with these inclinations, they learned them from someone. In the case of Trump, from his father who hated black people. I don't know what happened to Bannon, nor do I care. I would just like to see him banished in disgrace.

  97. What is old is new again... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I suspect you are correct. However most of that is just smoke and mirrors. I've seen through the years where the exact same thing comes around again re-branded with a new name for the political party of the day, and marched out like a pig on parade.

    Sometimes some minor changes will be done to "make it theirs" so to speak, other times it is literally the exact same thing just called something else. In a year we'll start hearing about the Trump Pacific Pact and they won't even have to change the letterhead. Obamacare will change into Trumpocare, etc...

  98. China will never play fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whatever good will that you may have, China will find ways to exploit it for its own gain. after all, it is the culture that gave birth to books like Art of War and 36 Strategems.

  99. What use is a wall? by ukoda · · Score: 1

    I have been trying to understand how the wall would have any effect on drug transport? Surely a cheap quadcopter can transport modest quantities over any wall with ease, while high volume operations will just dig tunnels. I does seem like a waste time to me.

  100. Compare the Americans with Disabilities Act by tepples · · Score: 1

    intersex people are natures' mistakes.

    These "mistakes" are also citizens. In a similar way, people with disabilities are also "mistakes", but that didn't keep Republican President George H. W. Bush from signing the Americans with Disabilities Act to improve the plight of said "mistakes". His son even signed a revision in 2008.

  101. re: nails by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Yeah.... I actually tried to Google to re-locate the original article I read about this, but I'm not coming up with it right now.
    There was a big manufacturer of your standard issue nails used in home construction who really suffered from Chinese counterfeits that started coming in. They hired a detective who tried to track down the manufacturer in China, only to find the supposed business address belonged to an abandoned warehouse.

  102. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Psst... Your partisan slip is showing....

    Personally, I don't know Donald Trump at all so there is no way I could pass such a judgment... My guess is YOU don't know him either, you just THINK you do. You are judging him on externals and appearances, not what you know for fact about the man himself. How so? Here is my guess....

    1. He's rich - sort of, and we all KNOW that rich people got so though some kind of moral failings, cheating, stealing what have you. The left in this country routinely pull this false logical argument out about the right. You are doing it here... That slip is really too long for that outfit.

    2. He's white and male - Which we all KNOW are the oppressors of the world. That slip might be a few sizes too big for you.

    3. He's republican - at least in name, so you don't like him or his ideas because we all KNOW republicans are for all sorts of "bad" thing. We throw grandma off the cliff, want dirty air and water, and don't care about starving children. Which is all rhetoric, partisan rhetoric, which is born of the politics of the left which are largely based on division and pitting one group's perceived interests vrs another's. That slip sure is BLUE and that doesn't match you lily white outfit.

    4. The press tells you to hate him. After all, they don't like him and cannot believe he won the election, so they have to do their best to destroy him before he even takes office if they can. I think the press is lying to you, or at least misleading you about what they actually KNOW. Remember their election predictions from before November 8th? Where they being honest to you then? No? Then how do you know they are now? (You don't...) Don't be stupid, try to apply a bit of critical thinking here.. Your slip is obviously dirty, have you done your laundry lately?

    Put away the partisanship sir.. That slip makes you look fat and ugly and it stinks of self righteousness....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  103. Re:Great by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Fuck off.

    His 'colorful' story is well known and well documented.

    I love how you tell *me* not to judge him, yet you do the same to me. Hypocrite much?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  104. Re:Great by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Losing the argument? Don't like it much? No need to cuss about it...

    Which reminds me of a somewhat true joke...

    What is a "racist"? What a liberal calls you when they are losing the policy argument.

    Only in this case, what does it mean when someone starts cussing during a debate? They are losing, and deep down they know it.

    Keep trying to hide that stinky, dirty slip.... This "I'm rubber and you are glue..." tactic isn't working with me..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101