Then on the EU side, business groups and lobbyists for companies like IBM, Apple, Google et al. are deeply involved in negotiations to the detriment of all public groups.
So this is really lots of big US companies negotiating with themselves on how to screw over Europe.
This is a takeover attempt through the backdoor.
Let me change this for you to something more accurate:
So this is really lots of big multinational corporations negotiating with themselves on how to screw over working people throughout the world.
When you start tuning this into "US companies screwing over Europe", you play right into their hands. As if there aren't dozens of European corporations screwing us all over right now. Until recently, I owned a diesel VW that spewed poison into the air every time I drove it, thanks to a bunch of German executives who valued profit over air quality. This goes beyond borders.
I think it is a silly argument to say it helped people by helping them exist in the first place. It is a weird argument for a larger population, which probably isn't a great thing.
Julian Simon would have strongly disagreed and he put his money where his mouth was in his famous bets with Erlich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
You don't need a lot of horsepower to replace a horse. Quite literally, one would be enough.
> Honestly, where has it made life possible where it was not?
Antarctica!
But yeah, I think the parent was just making a point :P
I am not an expert, but based on my understanding, the issue was not chassis design, but cost. http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/30/vw-diesel-fix-would-have-...
The reclaiming system would add to the cost of the vehicle, and operating it properly would also decrease fuel economy. Both would tend to decrease sales. So this was strictly about profit for VW.
> WhyTF do you need a 10k mile service interval
Because people want their cars to support their lifestyle, not vice versa.
> But somehow people aren't competent to refill their AdBlue tank and need ridiculously-long service intervals? But they can be trusted to refill their fuel tanks with a highly-flammable and toxic substance
The issue is not one of consumer trust. It's practicality. Gasoline filling stations are everywhere. Now: where can a consumer buy AdBlue or whatever the brand of urea is required by VW? No one wants a car that implies more complexity in their life.
The issue, according to everything I've read, is that they have an AdBlue system but they don't inject nearly enough of it to keep emissions down.
>The reclaiming system would add to the cost of the vehicle, and operating it properly would also decrease fuel economy.
They have a reclaiming system (DEF injection). It does not decrease fuel economy. DEF injects urea into the exhaust stream to catalyze NOx emissions into N2 and H2O.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid
>Because people want their cars to support their lifestyle, not vice versa.
Too bad. If they can be bothered to refuel their fuel and washer fluid tanks, they can be bothered to refuel a third tank too.
>The issue is not one of consumer trust. It's practicality. Gasoline filling stations are everywhere. Now: where can a consumer buy AdBlue or whatever the brand of urea is required by VW? No one wants a car that implies more complexity in their life.
BS. Go read the article. Lots of truck stops have AdBlue dispensers at the fuel pumps now. If consumers don't want to refill a second tank periodically, then they shouldn't buy a diesel vehicle.
(where "slightly" = 40x)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internation...
An EU perspective (and EU rules) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-sell... has results no where near 40x.
None of that of course is "slightly less", but that wasn't my point.
Europeans have fought harder to win and keep better social conditions, work conditions, health conditions, consumer protections, monopoly protection (great internets), environmental protection laws.
If you and a western european work same job for same company then you get a seriously raw deal compared to euros wrt benefits and conditions. I see ttip as a means for these companies to screw euros into US style conditions.
On euro side there are plenty of corrupt people (business, politicians, everything) that would love to screw either side to make some extra cash. The european commission are strongly behind it because all they see are dollar signs. Individual member states are going the other way from the look of it for one reason or another. Germans really won't budge on GM foods and US imports standards.
I expect europeans to fight the good fight and reject TTiP. I don't expect americans to do anything.
In case it wasn't already immensely obvious, the third world war has been underway for some time. This one isn't a war fought with guns and bombs, it's a war fought with information, deals and economies.
See China's massive economy and ownership of the US, the massive drop in oil price and what that's done to the world economy etc.
The citizens of the world wouldn't tolerate full-scale war - they'd vote out their leaders, so this is what we get when countries still want to dominate each other.
The most peaceful, prosperous, and healthy period known in human history?
In summary, you can't tie quality of life so easily to a single criterion.
May be there's less violence, but the amount of suffering has skyrocketed over the years. A more than significant amount of people are dependent on tranquilizers and anti-depressants to make their life bearable, because for them it has become mundane and meaningless without.
Statistiscs may tell a story of less violence, and people getting older and having more material possessions, but these do not reflect the actual well-being of people, and also these numbers don't show how much exploitation and environmental damage our alleged 'prosperity' causes in other parts of the world.
(just my understanding of parent's comment)
Doesn't seem fair to look at overall statistics for peace and prosperity, then say "well that doesn't really count".
There's less violence according to who? There are more people in prison today then any time in history. I'd argue that imprisoning someone is an act of violence. Violent coercion is also violence. Every time the government violates your rights, at the point of the gun, that's violence. That occurs hundreds of millions of times per day due to the actions of our police state.
Delusional people who talk about the rosy benefits of overpopulation always fail to mention that overpopulation is a direct cause of the 6th mass extinction, the saturation of the environment with chemical pollutants, the overfishing of the oceans, the destruction of tillable fields with nitrogen injection (which also leads to massive dead zones in waterways from runoff), and the list goes on.
Talking about how wonderful overpopulation is and how great we are getting along is like talking about how warm and comforting the fire on the life boat is while you burn your oars. It seems like a great idea until the oars are gone and not only are you cold, but you can no longer row.
Citation? I haven't heard of anyone who is dependent on tranquilizers or anti-depressants (well, apart from the Internet from people with clinical depression), so it can't be that common.
"About 11% of Americans aged 12 or older take antidepressants" (2011)
"the rate of antidepressant use in the U.S. has increased nearly 400% since 1988."
Many people that are on anti-depressants won't tell you about it.
edit: Really? Downvote me just because I provided a source to the claim that more people are on antidepressants today?
Rate of antidepressant use isn't a good proxy for mental illnesses.
It could be that the US is still under diagnosed compared to nations that have national healthcare systems as part of their tax structure.
It could also be that even with the above the US receives more diagnosis for anti-depressants due to quality of life and interactions between the individual and the culture of a given area.
It is my hypothesis (but I've no idea what terms to use for the search) that the culture in the US is less supportive and less about inclusion and empowerment than it has been in the past or possibly than other cultures. However researching that is much more something that those in social sciences should be performing as part of their education and society's investment in to scientific experiments for the public good.
You tell me, which is better for someone under a lot of stress in life: should they take a Xanax one or two times a day, or should they drink themselves into a stupor every evening? Because the latter is the standard way of treating anxiety and depression, and has been for centuries.
I don't think this is very accurate. People get hooked on painkillers usually because they had some sort of accident and need them for pain...and since opiates are extremely addictive, continue to take them after they no longer need them.
"also these numbers don't show how much exploitation and environmental damage our alleged 'prosperity' causes in other parts of the world."
You can't blame us for countries that decide to have no rules and ruin their environment. When you compare the environment of the US to pretty much anywhere in the world, it's one of the cleanest (if not the cleanest).
..and 'exploitation'? We built the middle class of China. Before we started going overseas to build factories, the majority of people in China were in complete and utter poverty.
Hardly what I call exploitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
The Treaty of Nanking was basically crafted so that British Merchants can continue to get China hopped up on Opium. Because it was so profitable.
And people think today's trade deals are bad...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War
Your ignorance of history is outstanding and on display. Whatever the TTIP is, it is most certainly not a secret agreement to allow Opium into the Chinese economy to wreak the common people.
We are better and more civilized people today than we were back then. Period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
Afghanistan was always an awful place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War
And there are certainly fewer outright rebellions like the Boxer Rebellion going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion
Of course, Imperialism doesn't actually happen anymore. We don't go to war on 100% false pretenses (yeah, WMDs were bad, but "Remember the Maine to Hell with Spain" was significantly worse)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
The reasoning of the 1900s was that "War is good. Social Darwinism at its finest". Survival of the fittest, lets fight. World War 1 was fought not out of necessity, but out of curiosity. We had new weapons, and we wanted to use them on each other. It was finally time for the great Powers of the World to compete in the glory of War.
We are a hell of a lot more peaceful today. No country actually has the appetite for the amount of warrant-less killing that Imperialism creates. We actually are connected to every other country in the world and care about the citizens of other countries.
In the late 1800s, we didn't even give a damn about the natives of our own country, or Black people, or even Women. (See Jim Crow laws).
The US drone war has been killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people so I wonder if perhaps we do have an appetite for that sort of murder.
You do realize that America opened up Concentration Camps inside of the Philippine-American War?
Americans retaliated against the Philippinos by creating such lovely orders like "Kill everyone over the age of 10".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_H._Smith#Samar_campaign
> "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States," General Jacob H. Smith said.
America, F-yeah! And of course, the definition of "capable of bearing arms" is:
> "Persons of ten years and older are those designated as being capable of bearing arms"
------
But yeah, continue to pretend that modern war is worse than the past or something. Hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians? F-ing hell, we did 25,000 to 50,000 for s--- and giggles back then. In a single campaign, by a single general who was never punished.
You seem to be tilting at windmills that you erected yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth
Back then, the US was blowing up hospitals as an EXPLICIT strategy to gain an edge over our foes. (Much like how Russia / Assad seem to be doing in Syria right now).
In contrast, when the US accidentally blows up a hospital today, a massive investigation goes through and everyone basically apologizes for it.
You seriously can't compare the 1800s / early 1900s mentality with the mentality of war we have today.
This S--- doesn't happen anymore, not by American commanders anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo
-------------
Strictly by the numbers, the Drone Strikes that the US uses are far more precise at targeting than previous "Scorched Earth" campaigns that the Imperialist US used to take.
Comparing the lol Drone Strikes to Imperialist US is... utterly ridiculous from a historical perspective. The heartlessness and cruelty from that era still haunts us today.
No. We have no appetite for the warmongering that Imperialism used to call for. For every example you bring up today, I'll show you a historical example that is strictly worse.
The human race is composed of neither angels nor devils: but humans. Beings with flawed and incomplete morality. Its best if we judge ourselves by comparing against the actions of our fathers, otherwise we may lose ourselves in idealism.
The claim after all, is that the current time is the most prosperous and peaceful time of all of human existence. And as far as I can tell, actual history agrees with this fact.
Don't believe me? Go back to the root comment if you've forgotten the claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11610816
You may be worried about a few thousand innocent deaths here and there, but again, that number is much much MUCH much smaller than the historical norm. But in any case, your idealism is a good thing. It is only further proof that we as a race are beginning to forget the horrors of war, because peace has existed for so long.
(Of course, some humans still exist in war-torn areas. Syrian and Iraqi refugees. And I am peace-loving and idealistic enough that I believe we should open up our country to these people, despite the risks. )
Honesty and decency existed thousands of years ago, too, "our fathers" aren't a monolith, just like the present isn't. But more importantly, I say including 10 different versions of jQuery on one page to color 10 letters makes it load needlessly slow, and you say that's still faster than usenet in the 80s -- if you know what I mean? It is both technically true and completely besides the point.
> The claim after all, is that the current time is the most prosperous and peaceful time of all of human existence.
Nope. The claim was that this is because of countries wanting to dominate each other. I say it's despite of that.
> You may be worried about a few thousand innocent deaths here and there, but again, that number is much much MUCH much smaller than the historical norm.
It's also a rather simplicistic metric. We consider murder bad because it doesn't allow the murdered people to live their lives, right? To develop freely as a person, and whatnot? Well, there's a problem:
> "it's not possible to be fully human if you are being surveilled 24/7"
[ http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130818120421175 ]
The same goes for other things. People are getting fucked in so many ways with it's not really the opposite of murder, but its sibling. And open murder evokes criticism and resistance, while "pumping every home full of sleeping gas" (to paraphrase the lyrics to Bullet In The Head by RATM) works much better.
> I am peace-loving and idealistic enough that I believe we should open up our country to these people, despite the risks.
Call me when you're willing to get war criminals arrested and tried, and I mean American/Western ones. And let's talk about how peaceful the world has become after the wars/genocides over oil and water are over. You know, the ones we do nothing serious to avoid steering into, because we're too busy dominating each other, building little fortresses and kicking away the ladder? The gap between rich and poor is growing, not shrinking. You can't say by the standards of 1900, people today are better off. Well you can, but I can't take it seriously. By the standards of 2016 -- the ones that matter -- many people are worse off. As Stephen Hawking wrote:
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... )
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
Go back just 150 years ago, and Slavery is legalized. 250 years ago, and slavery is widespread. IMO, its going to be rather difficult to be "fully human" when you are legally considered 3/5ths of a person.
Go back 250 years ago, and the entire concept of "privacy" and "security within your home" doesn't even exist (to free-men. Obviously not granted to slaves, who were raped and sold off by their owners. Don't forget that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver, despite being officially against it). The USA is one of the first countries in the world to formally recognize the right to privacy through the 4th Amendment.
Go back 1000 years ago, and you have people dying of the Plague, and divorce court being settled by TRIAL BY COMBAT, to the death! You aren't really a person unless you're from a noble house either.
http://www.ripleys.com/blog/trial-by-combat/
But yeah, go complain about privacy rights. I raise you SLAVERY. Modern civil rights for all people is a concept that is only 50 years old or so, since the 1960s when the concept began to solidify.
Again, ignore history at your peril. Today is the most peaceful, prosperous time of history. And Pax Britannica (the period of peace in the 1800s, the time period when "The Mikado" was written) is also relatively peaceful compared to hundreds of years before that time.
But Pax Americana stands head-and-shoulders better than Pax Britannica. We have women's sufferage / women's rights. Gays aren't literally put to death (even smart gays, like Allan Turing, would be able to live in peace today). Jim Crow laws don't exist anymore, and the Ku Klux Klan aren't lynching randoms, at least out in the open, like they used to.
And of course, we aren't killing tens-of-thousands of innocent civilians at a time (because killing everybody is much easier when conquering a nation than trying to rule).
------------
> Nope. The claim was that this is because of countries wanting to dominate each other. I say it's despite of that.
Imperialism is dead dude. Let it go and rejoice in the present.
On the other hand, if you're the kind of person that "The Mikado" is describing, perhaps you can't. Any century but this, any country but your own??
> But yeah, go complain about privacy rights. I raise you SLAVERY.
I love how you asked me to re-read the comment, and now continually talk about straw men yourself. That's quite rich.
> On the other hand, if you're the kind of person that "The Mikado" is describing, perhaps you can't. Any century but this, any country but your own??
Nope, and nothing I said would indicate so, either. With not one word did I say "things were better back then in X". And whether imperialism is dead or not (how that goes together with "Pax Americana") doesn't change that your responses address straw men. So I'll simply take it you are projecting when you implicitly muse whether I'm an idiot. Proof is in this string of comments, have a nice life.
What you call WW3, just shows how much capitalism has tamed even the biggest powers and helped make this world a more resilient civilization.
But you are right, in context of the past n thousands years, we're doing OK.
> The most peaceful, prosperous, and healthy period known in human history?
We don't have that because of war profiteers and other exploiters and murderers, but despite them. And there's no telling how much better it would be without all the ballast and poison.
Edit: I am answering a simple question. I am not offering any interpretation or comments. So I don't know why commentators are trying to drag me into a debate.
If that is all OP meant, I would ask them why they think China owning US bonds is particularly meaningful for the US.
How is having a massive economy an act of aggression?
We've never really been given a choice in the matter.
Try this for size: "the citizens of the world [can't yet] tolerate" the reality of a One World government and thus require generational guidance. "News" at ten.
1. A treaty is negotiated between the two major markets in the world.
2. We know that when this kind of treaties are passed is almost impossible to go back.
3. We know that the most important input to those treaties come from corporations.
4. The conversations happen in secret.
5. The democratic representatives are not allowed to read the treaty except in a hurry and without legal help.
6. Free trade is already a reality but, somehow, a wider treaty that create new tribunals where corporations can sue states is necessary.
You are right. No need for tinfoil conspiracies.
- the treaty tries to abolish market regulation differences between the two markets
- costumer protection regulations between the US and the EU are incompatible
- In the US often e.g. chemicals are allowed until proven hazardous, in the EU they are outlawed until proven harmless
- the tribunals will operate outside the normal juridical systems of the US and the EU
- No differences, but
- US consumer protection (which is hardly any)
- US (bio)chemical regulations
- A non-conformative tribunal which is not elected, not governed, has no oversight and has no basis in any civil law (as you cannot appeal/trail as a civilian if you are disadvantaged by its rulings)
Okey, lets put this concept into practice. I will sell fungus as antibiotics, and I will stop once its proven if it work. This would of course not work, and we follow a "outlawed until proven harmless" when it comes to medicine. In the context of medicine, that is a good rule to have and both US and EU agree on this.
So, its not about "proven to be safe" vs "proven to be unsafe", but rather specific regulations in specific contexts where EU and US disagree which one is best. In medicine, both agree. With additive in food and pesticide residue laying around in crops, they disagree.
There could have been a public debate, but this treaty is not that. It even go as far as forbid laws that grants the consumer a legal right to know what substances they ingest.
Not commenting on any other aspects of TTIP, but they happen in secret for a reason.[0][1][2] Most trade negotiations are secret too, and if the whole process was public there would be too much bikeshedding and pressure on the negotiators.
EDIT: forgot to include a TL;DR summary of why they are secret. Fixed NPR link
0 - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo...
1 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t...
2 - http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/08/random-t...
That's a feature, not a bug. Whence this argument that trade negotiations are somehow different from every single other aspect of good governance? For all other mechanisms of government, everyone agrees that transparency is a vital mechanism for preventing corruption, and that whatever inefficiencies it introduces into the system are a necessary evil. Yet somehow free trade agreements operate on a different set of rules; even though time after time it's been shown that this invites boatloads of the exact corruption that government transparency is meant to combat. [source: every TPP/TTIP leak thus far]
And it is obvious that major internationals on both sides will be the ones that benefit most from the cuts in government regulations proposed by TTIP. So a substantial portion of the economic growth will go to them. Therefore I don't think you need to be in the tinfoil hat camp to support the believe that they are lobbying for TTIP.
The mistake that our EU leaders make, IMO, is that what's good for the EU's economy, is not necessarily always good for the majority of its citizens. Those government regulations were there for a reason, for instance to protect the environment, support area's who are economically behind etc.
My understanding of TTIP and TPP are that they're the US's last ditch attempt to standardise international trade along US lines before China overtakes and starts to set the tone.
On that basis they kinda make sense from a US perspective. From an EU perspective not so much.
(edit: not saying the US has a chance of staying ahead of China if TTIP/TPP are successful, just that standardised trade rules may soften China's negotiation position)
We really could use a standardized international trade treaty, but it has to be done in the open, and with input from more parties than just big corporations interested only in their profits, it needs input from environmental groups, workers' groups/unions, consumer rights advocates, food-safety organizations, etc.
My knowledge of history in this area clearly isn't strong enough; I have no idea how we got here.
Confindustria (the italian confederation of industrial companies) is strongly in favour of TTIP. Spirits exported to the US for example are heavily taxed, if they were not, we'd likely export more.
Or, if we get geographic denominations protection, we can get walmart to stop producing 40 things called "asiago" or "parmesan" (as it happened for german produced parmesan, or in reverse for the italian Tocai wine which clashed with hungarian Tokaji) and than it's a win for the producers of the real stuff.
Moreover in some things the US has _better_ legislation than europe, for example "bio" regulation is more strict, as are car safety rules, AFAIK.
I am not saying this will work out for the best, I am saying there are supporters of TTIP on the european side too.
TTIP is just the final expression of this. Whatever I hear only lobbyists have been involved. No other citizen organizations like unions, environmental organizations, politicians or wherever. Only big business.
[0] http://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.342374.de
[1] http://www.dw.com/en/germans-enjoy-highest-real-wage-rise-in...
Please define a metric that we can use to establish this.
Having just come come back from the US. I can say without doubt.
There is much less poverty here. The average citizens quality of life here is an order of magnitude better than the us.
Funnily enough. Money isn't everything. Stuff like personal freedoms. Social interaction. Inequity are much more important IMHO.
The unlikely scenario is that the price comes down and more units are sold and/or the difference in export costs is divided between the workers to pay them above market rate.
What actually ends up happening is the people who carry the tax burden ( workers ) end up paying their own pensions. Which is fine, as long as we aren't pretending that the pensions is a benefit of working.
Seems the companies want to have it both ways. Not pay much and have the state provide assistance for underpaid workers (see Walmart) and then complain about taxes too high.
At 3%, while the majority of earnings goes to the company, the workers carry the tax bill @18%
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-22/google-joi...]
You need to understand these deals as they are -- negotiated primarily by large corporate representatives, used as a back door to slam through legislation that would never pass domestic muster in its respective countries as a single up-or-down omnibus deal that legislators cannot reject. No conspiracy at all, rather, business as usual.
The spin in Europe (at least in Germany) is that the EU is portrayed as being pro-consumer, which is basically a joke (ask any VW owner in Germany how they are being compensated).
That it is not working in some areas and that there is a lot industry lobbying is another topic.
* a new pesticide enters the market. After three years we find out that it kills bees and would lead to the death of a species.
Germans usually would want that some independent upfront effort is done to determine that this product is potentially harmful and prevent it from entering the market. In real life, this leads to all kinds of practical problems. But that does not mean we should give up this approach, just because it is not perfect.
So it is very likely, that the US will get the standards for air pollution (from automobiles) from the EU and the EU will get the food standards from the US.
"The US insisted on its request for the commission to “require” in its standardization request, CEN and CENELEC to involve US experts in its standards development process (with no guarantee of reciprocity) as a condition for referencing harmonized standards."
The US wants to screw over the EU, not help them. The quicker the EU realizes this the better.
What saddens me more is that the cucked EU will let them, forgetting all the achievements this continent has to offer.
What's interesting is that there is actually more Fortune 500 companies in the EU (though really just in western Europe) than in the US. However the difference, I believe is that till now political power is less concentrated in the EU than it is in the US so Shell has much less influence on most EU states than Chevron has on US states simply because it is harder for Shell to influence policy outside of the Netherlands and UK. But with the harmonisation of markets and EU policy and centralisation of political power this will all change.
But I see your point. It's not American interests against European ones. It's to prevent a secession in a geographical space more and more dominated by some corporations and financial institutions. A secession would make it a little bit harder for them, but not so much IMHO, unless it spreads and the EU shatters (maybe because of the migrants crisis.)
http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/tech-manufacturing-relocation/
Korea isn't all that cheap either, probably roughly equivalent to the US.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/07/getting-cucky...
We still can't agree that there should be an international jurisdiction over war crimes, but millions (billions?) are spent in this effort to create a universal right to profit over different nations.
What exactly do you mean by US companies? Corporations like Apple and Google are not sovereign to any nation, they are super-sovereign, hence their ability to do what you are saying.
They operate internationally. ymmv.
Edit: Seems, I said something right here -- hence the many downvotes!
For those not knowing: Obama was much criticizing the spying when he still was Senator.
Or are you just want to say, that it is an improvement that he at least kept one of his promises?
But Obamas voters where US citizen, of course.
(and I choose to take the most obvious problem for my statement)
I'm not american so really not my business however narcissists do not make good social leaders. They make really terrible & dangerous social leaders.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/27/trade-policy...
If Trump were not in presidential race and putting on public face, how do you think he would treat TTiP based on his lifetime actions? I think he would support & exploit it every way he could, & i think thats what he will do in reality regardless of what he states publicly but that's just me.
Never trust what politicians say if all their actions run contrary.
It's not quite like George Bush's offhand "we will not do nation building" or Obama's offhand "this will be the most transparent administration ever". The unfairness of US trade deals is fairly central to his campaign and his support base of working class whites in hollowed out ex-industrial America.
Then again, can't rule it out either.
I'm not going to claim to know Trump's ambitions but you're dismissing the source and countering with "that has no weight...I think..."?
The article yesterday about the uninformed vs the misinformed mentioned this: in a time where we are overwhelmed with information, people dismiss things that don't agree with their preconceived notions as "baseless", while seeking "news" that supports their biases. It's a problem.
So I was trying to generally say 'Don't trust what politicians say, look at what they do'. That's it. I should have used somebody other than Trump as example, it was just a contrived example.
side note - I saw cruise/cruse/cruze (ted) introduce his running mate recently. She started singing some song.. I don't know either of them or their politics but it was the weirdest, most awkward creepy thing I've seen politicians on tv do.
It was seriously creepy and weird. That can't be hard to beat.
>side note - I saw cruise/cruse/cruze (ted) introduce his running mate recently.
"Cruise" is either a kind of ship or a reference to a nutty but highly successful actor. I don't know what "cruse" is. "Cruze" is a car by Chevrolet, an American company, and probably not a model sold in Europe.
"Cruz", however, is Lyin' Ted's name, and it's a pretty common Spanish surname as I understand. Spain is in Europe, and assuming you're European, as most non-US posters are, probably not that far from you. (And if you're not European, the main other likely region would be Latin America, where it's completely preposterous that you wouldn't be familiar with that common surname.)
No idea whether this is consistent with his actions, though.
Prepare for the Bill of Rights to be eroded further when either of these two idiots are elected.
You aren't the one deeming them worthy, the democrat and republican establishments are.
Or at least, Republican party members were given the choice between Donald Trump and "I'll work with martians" Ted Cruz.
As long as first past the post is the voting system of the US actual democracy is impossible.
The conservative will win even though 60% voted liberal. You don't have this problem if there are only two choices.
It's nearly impossible to get anywhere in politics without one or both of these qualities. And people like you happily elect them. ("People like you" being a voter in a democratic republic. If you vote, you're most likely guilty of helping to elect narcissistic and/or sociopathic people to power. There's probably almost no one on this message forum who isn't guilty of this.)
In actuality, your statement in addition to Pew's research is unfounded and extremely fuzzy. Where do you and others get off on deriving a person's social leadership capabilities with their individual psychological leanings?
Funny to see FDR right near the top of the list, because it has always been a surprisingly unpopular view of his presidency that his Trump-like ability to manipulate the media to his advantage (his fireside chats and his rather quotable speeches) led to the American peoples' renewed confidence in the markets even though it took WWII to truly end the economic hardships more than a decade later. If do wish to wholly agree that narcissism does not make good social leadership, we must then question and re-align the most widely-held views of the 20th century in the US.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-nar...
"TPP is going to be worse... we can't let it happen... if I am president first day - boom - it's over... you know what it is 5,000 pages... that none of our people even read..."
She only recently did an anti-TPP U-turn - who knows what she stands for after being elected. Fortunately for us she won't be elected though!
Its pretty unlikely that either candidate will have a sufficient number of pledged delegates. Hillary seems far ahead because of early statements of support from superdelegates, made at a time when her support numbers (both overall and within the party) were much higher, and here unfavorable ratings with the general election electorate much lower, when no one could imagine any other Democratic candidate garnering anywhere close to as much support through the primary and caucus process, and before she was roundly out fundraised by Sanders.
Now, while the media coverage of delegate counts has largely treated these superdelegate statements of support as equivalent to pledged delegates awarded through the primary and caucus process, they are not.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/1232/Who-will-win-the-2016-...
If you believe he has any reasonable shot, I encourage you to put your money where your mouth is. Should be a good investment.
62% on predictit, where people are estimating with their money.
What makes you think that?
At this point I don't see a way for her to lose, unfortunately.
What's going to happen with this election is anyone's guess IMO. It could be Trump vs. Clinton, in which case Clinton will likely win (lower unfavorability). Or it could be Cruz vs. Clinton, which again probably favors Clinton (IMO, Cruz is far more dangerous than Trump, but that's my opinion). Or, we could get a brokered GOP convention and Kasich could get the nomination, and in a Kasich vs. Clinton fight, Kasich will likely win. Or, Kasich could get the nomination, Trump could run as an independent splitting the ticket, and who knows who'll win, though likely it'll again be Hillary because Trump/Kasich will split the GOP voters. Or Bernie could change his mind and run as an independent since the DNC has screwed him over so much, making a 3-way or 4-way race with a completely unpredictable outcome (though it might end up with the House of Representatives making the decision).
Trump and Clinton have been tied in national polls recently (there was even an outlier showing +3 Trump) and this is before he has started attacking her and before any debates. She's going down.