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

Trump's new NAFTA now faces skeptics in Democrat-controlled House

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"many Democrats say they want the new agreement to strengthen its protections for American workers from low-wage Mexican competition. Yet any such changes could raise new objections from Republican free traders who want to limit the ways the pact could restrict corporate practices in North America."

"Many trade analysts say the new NAFTA isn’t very different from the old one despite Trump’s claim that it would “transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse.”..."For years, it was the Democrats who complained about NAFTA, which tore down most trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. They argued that it encouraged U.S. companies to close factories, lay off American workers and move to Mexico to capitalize on cheap labor. By contrast, pro-business Republicans defended the deal, which they said encouraged an explosion in trade among the three North American countries that benefited all three."

So despite your hypeman post, it is the republicans who are against the american people while Democrats continue to be their champion. The only screw ball was that the Republican president campaigned against Republican dogma, but ended up being full of fluff and hot air either way.

... did you even read the article or did you just repeat the usual preprogrammed drivel?

Whether or not the new NAFTA agreement is different, or more (or less) beneficial to the people of America, is irrelevant to the politics of the moment. Any attempt by Ms. Pelosi to block the new agreement will be to Trumps political benefit - the American people are clueless on the principles behind free trade, and (like all of us) unable to evaluate a complex trade agreement. HOWEVER THEY DO KNOW, when Democrats (or anyone else) sides with Mexico and Canada over the American people, that when Trump is blocked from keeping his promises to blue collars - well, it will backfire.

This is a typical case of the politics of "form over substance"; in a battle of imagery over whose side your on Trump will win the PR war if Democrats refuse to cooperate.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It'd be nice to see our politicians side with our ALLIES Canada and Mexico instead of siding with trump's BFF - Saudi Arabia, Russia and North Korea.

Reagan, Bush and McCain would NEVER be welcome in trump's republican party.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but siding with allies is a two-way street. To the degree Canada and Mexico or the US supports protectionism of its domestic industries, its not going to engender warm and fuzzy feelings.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
83,197
Reaction score
73,098
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So despite your hypeman post, it is the republicans who are against the american people while Democrats continue to be their champion.

come on. i dislike the Trumpist party about as much as anyone, but don't pretend that the Democrats are my "champion." they aren't. they are my way to vote against the disgusting embarrassment of Trumpism, and that's about it. they are welcome to prove me wrong by their future actions, however.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Should they resist they will have likely read it and found out that it';s a crap deal that this piece of **** put together just to create a Hollywood moment.

"we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." (Nancy Pelosi)
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
42,999
Reaction score
17,441
Both parties only look out for the good of both parties. One from the extreme far right, the other the extreme far left. If both parties were interested in the good of the country, there would be compromise, give and take. Not straight party line voting which has taken place for, perhaps the last 15 or so years. Our problems could be solved if the two parties were willing, they're not. People want compromise, most Americans want the two parties to work together to solve our problems and keep the nation moving forward. Both major parties refuse.

Here: "Fifty-four percent of Americans want political leaders in Washington to compromise to get things done. This far outpaces the 18% who would prefer that leaders stick to their beliefs even if little gets done, while the views of 28% fall somewhere in between. The gap between compromise and sticking to principles is the widest in Gallup's trend."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

The Republicans introduce the radical scorched earth policies under Obama.

It was done by the radical far right caucus in the House.

This lack of compromise lies at the feet of the GOP alone.
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
42,999
Reaction score
17,441
"we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." (Nancy Pelosi)

What an ignorant reply.

You are what is wrong with America. You are the evil that is trump.

This mindless party before country approach is cesspool.
 

Roadvirus

Heading North
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
33,389
Reaction score
21,076
Location
Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It takes 2/3rds of the Senate to approve of any Treaty. Republicans do not have 2/3rds majority. Even with Independents there isn't a 2/3rds Majority. So Democrats very well could put the kibosh on this if they really want to.

And the Democrats would look like they don't care about the economy if they do.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,812
Reaction score
14,963
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://apnews.com/7aa1a218a152482594dcdb420691646b

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump spent more than a year browbeating the leaders of Canada and Mexico into agreeing to a rewrite of North American trade rules. And on Friday, leaders of those two nations are set to sign the pact at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Now, Trump faces what could prove a more formidable foe: His own Congress.
============================================
Good luck to him. This might prove to be interesting to watch it play out.
Yep, Mexico and Canada could be selling us gold at $1/ounce and the Dems would find a way to oppose it. They know they can't give Trump a single win if they want to hold their control in 2020.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
20,845
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Republicans introduce the radical scorched earth policies under Obama.

It was done by the radical far right caucus in the House.

This lack of compromise lies at the feet of the GOP alone.

I think the lack of compromise began with the Hastert Rule back in the late 1990's and snowballed by both parties from there. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, McConnell aren't about to put anything above their political party. What we need are true leaders in both parties, like Lott and Daschle or Mitchell and Dole. Adults who cared about the nation above political party.
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
42,999
Reaction score
17,441
I think the lack of compromise began with the Hastert Rule back in the late 1990's and snowballed by both parties from there. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, McConnell aren't about to put anything above their political party. What we need are true leaders in both parties, like Lott and Daschle or Mitchell and Dole. Adults who cared about the nation above political party.

Good post but honest, it's not equal at all. Neither party is worth a crap but the wing nuts in the GOP have been the single biggest problem since Gingrich.

This is what has pushed me further and further from the GOP.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
20,845
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Good post but honest, it's not equal at all. Neither party is worth a crap but the wing nuts in the GOP have been the single biggest problem since Gingrich.

This is what has pushed me further and further from the GOP.

I've been pretty much against both major parties since Perot's run for office in 1992. It really doesn't seem much changes regardless of which party is in power or holds the presidency. Business and politics as usual. I suppose one can blame that on the corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. where both parties get their tens of millions of dollars from. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds it.

If this country has an immigration problem, why can't the two parties sit down and come up with a solution. Solve it. Most likely neither would be happy, but I think that would be a good thing. The problem with immigration, gun control, healthcare and the like are these issues are much more important to each major party as campaign tools, issues to fire up their base. Solving them would take that issue off the table, can't have that.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,830
Reaction score
13,944
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the Democrats would look like they don't care about the economy if they do.

Oh I think it will pass....there will be some hemming and hawing for the cameras. I don't think it will have anything to do with the Dems trying to send the thing back to three country negotiations. It will pass because the dems like NAFTA no matter what they say. Like I said, if you liked NAFTA you will LOVE this version.

Watch what Chuck the Shyster Schumer does. He will cut some slimy deal with Mitch and presto...Trade agreement passed.
 

BrainNebula

Banned
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
22
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should they resist, they will expose their actual sympathy for Canada and Mexico brow beaten leaders , not for a seemingly better deal for the people of America. Once again, the question will be of the left (as it is on immigration) just whose side are you on, anyway?

Should the Dems choose political suicide, I'm sure Trump would be delighted to assist.

I completely agree. If Democrats in Congress work to be obstructionist of trade deals, that's really going to come off as anti-American. Gains Democrats have made will quickly turn, and they will create sympathy for Trump at a rapid rate.
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
42,999
Reaction score
17,441
I've been pretty much against both major parties since Perot's run for office in 1992. It really doesn't seem much changes regardless of which party is in power or holds the presidency. Business and politics as usual. I suppose one can blame that on the corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. where both parties get their tens of millions of dollars from. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds it.

If this country has an immigration problem, why can't the two parties sit down and come up with a solution. Solve it. Most likely neither would be happy, but I think that would be a good thing. The problem with immigration, gun control, healthcare and the like are these issues are much more important to each major party as campaign tools, issues to fire up their base. Solving them would take that issue off the table, can't have that.

The immigration problem is more a construct for political fodder. There is no significant problem. Much of the flow was stemmed by Obie.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
28,507
Reaction score
20,845
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The immigration problem is more a construct for political fodder. There is no significant problem. Much of the flow was stemmed by Obie.

There's a lot of that. I'm one of 8 million who voted third party in 2016. I would have welcomed a third Obama term instead of having the choice between Trump and Clinton. I never liked the 22nd Amendment, if the people want to reelect a president for a third term they ought to be able to do so. The 22nd Amendment makes a president a lame duck the day after he wins reelection. If no other federal office has term limits, the presidency should be likewise. No limit.

Who could have won a third term since FDR? Truman decided not to run in 1952 for a second term. Eisenhower, he would have won if he could have. But his health, a couple of heart attacks prevented him from doing so. LBJ also decided not to run for a second term. Nixon, done in by Watergate. Ford beaten by Carter, then Carter beaten by Reagan. Reagan like IKE probably would have won a third term. But his Alzheimer, health prevented him from doing so.

The first Bush lost to Bill Clinton. Now Bill is the only one who was healthy up to this point that without the 22nd could have run for a third term. I'm not certain he would have though. Lots of bimbo eruptions. He was popular enough to have won, I don't know about him. The second Bush, no way. Way too unpopular to win a third term. That brings us to Obama. Like Bill, healthy enough. If he would have, I think he could have beaten Trump easily. Obama was very likable and finished his second term on an upbeat.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,812
Reaction score
14,963
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
https://apnews.com/7aa1a218a152482594dcdb420691646b

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump spent more than a year browbeating the leaders of Canada and Mexico into agreeing to a rewrite of North American trade rules. And on Friday, leaders of those two nations are set to sign the pact at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Now, Trump faces what could prove a more formidable foe: His own Congress.
============================================
Good luck to him. This might prove to be interesting to watch it play out.
Let's be honest. Trump could cure Cancer and his cure would face democrat skeptics in the house.
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
42,999
Reaction score
17,441
Let's be honest. Trump could cure Cancer and his cure would face democrat skeptics in the house.

Trump could (and would if he felt it benefited him) CLAIM he could care cancer and his cure would be bogus so would face democratic skeptics in the house.

The guy, we all know, NEVER tells the truth. Ever.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If this country has an immigration problem, why can't the two parties sit down and come up with a solution. Solve it. Most likely neither would be happy, but I think that would be a good thing. The problem with immigration, gun control, healthcare and the like are these issues are much more important to each major party as campaign tools, issues to fire up their base. Solving them would take that issue off the table, can't have that.

I think you touched on it. There is no such thing as "solving" anything. Obamacare became fully implemented by 2016, less than a year later the rhetoric went right back to how the poor can't get healthcare, people dieing, unaffordability, etc. Even if an issue seems "solved" (for the moment) politics demands that partisans find some new want, dress it up as a basic need or human right, and scream some more.

Immigration isn't a problem in a sane country, even in some of those those so-called progressive states. For those countries, its largely handled as a pragmatic issue on behalf of the well being of their citizens. Until recently, Australia shipped its refugees and illegals to an island giving them two choices - "agree to deportation or stay in detention till the legal process almost always tosses your ass out." (now they put them in camps on the mainland). In New Zealand its cut and dried, if you are caught you are deported.

And none of this chain migration nonsense. They (and Canada) immigration is merit based on skills, knowledge, age and (to an extent) ability. THAT is what sane countries do.

Then there is the United States - the worlds largest nuthouse.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
94,159
Reaction score
46,602
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's be honest. Trump could cure Cancer and his cure would face democrat skeptics in the house.

This is more like Trump passing Obamacare and claiming victory.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What an ignorant reply.

You are what is wrong with America. You are the evil that is trump.

This mindless party before country approach is cesspool.

If it offends you that I quote your cult leader, so be it. . Ms. Pelosi, the democratic leader of the House says we have to pass legislation before we see what's in it. ERGO, we have to pass NAFTA before we see what's in it. … And here is a another nugget "Live by the sword, die by the sword".
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
29,830
Reaction score
13,944
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think you touched on it. There is no such thing as "solving" anything. Obamacare became fully implemented by 2016, less than a year later the rhetoric went right back to how the poor can't get healthcare, people dieing, unaffordability, etc. Even if an issue seems "solved" (for the moment) politics demands that partisans find some new want, dress it up as a basic need or human right, and scream some more.

Immigration isn't a problem in a sane country, even in some of those those so-called progressive states. For those countries, its largely handled as a pragmatic issue on behalf of the well being of their citizens. Until recently, Australia shipped its refugees and illegals to an island giving them two choices - "agree to deportation or stay in detention till the legal process almost always tosses your ass out." (now they put them in camps on the mainland). In New Zealand its cut and dried, if you are caught you are deported.

And none of this chain migration nonsense. They (and Canada) immigration is merit based on skills, knowledge, age and (to an extent) ability. THAT is what sane countries do.

Then there is the United States - the worlds largest nuthouse.

ACA as written was never intended to be more than a first step out of the disaster that was and still is the US heathcare delivery system.

Merit based immigration is not an issue as long as its not draconian. Spouses should be spared the merit system as it is simply unrealistic to expect every spouse to be "acceptable" to a merit system. Yet you cannot attract even the immigrants you want if you are going to make it difficult for their spouses to make it here even after the Immigrant has developed a residence foundation here that allows for support of the Spouse. Spouses and children within the direct family unit should be exempt IMO. Everybody else should be left out of the family migration program. But Achtung Adolf Miller does not see it that way.

I tried to be brief since I think this is a thread about the NEW NAFTA.
 

maxparrish

Conservatarian
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
11,977
Reaction score
7,385
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ACA as written was never intended to be more than a first step out of the disaster that was and still is the US heathcare delivery system.
Strange, that is not the way it was sold. Perhaps you ought to research Obama's townhall presentations, or Mr. Gruber's dissembling, before suggesting this.

Merit based immigration is not an issue as long as its not draconian. Spouses should be spared the merit system as it is simply unrealistic to expect every spouse to be "acceptable" to a merit system. Yet you cannot attract even the immigrants you want if you are going to make it difficult for their spouses to make it here even after the Immigrant has developed a residence foundation here that allows for support of the Spouse. Spouses and children within the direct family unit should be exempt IMO. Everybody else should be left out of the family migration program. But Achtung Adolf Miller does not see it that way.

I tried to be brief since I think this is a thread about the NEW NAFTA.

Merit is merit, period. Even in New Zealand spouses are not automatically granted residency and, if caught, are deported.
 
Top Bottom