Can you show where Trump put out any plan on how he'd extricate us from NAFTA? It was a wild promise without policy.
It seems that the "plan" should be straightforward enough. Simply exit the agreement.
It appears that the current plan is to merely add stuff not included in the first (like e-commerce, because it didn't exist back then) and do some tweaking.
Maybe. He seems to have backpedaled somewhat from his earlier stance, although he's also had quite a few other distractions lately.
As for your assertion that it brought nothing but disaster, that's hyperbole that doesn't even have the benefit of being believable. If it was that big of a disaster, why hasn't the business community clamored to get it removed? Why do many industries, including agriculture and manufacturing, want NAFTA to remain?
The business community might be getting richer from it, so that's why they're in support of it. It doesn't do much for the remaining 99% though. I suppose we might disagree over what constitutes "disaster," but nevertheless, we were promised that NAFTA would bring about great improvements in our economy which have yet to occur.
Since NAFTA was enacted, our trade with Mexico increased, our GDP increased, and American jobs were created. It is thought to have had a small negative effect on blue collar wage growth, but not a substantial impact on American workers.
Our trade with Mexico has increased, but in the wrong direction.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html
The other promise made about NAFTA is that Mexico's economy would also improve, which would reduce the flow of illegal immigration, which would obviate the need for border security or the "wall" that Trump wanted to build.
In fact, in reference to your earlier question, if NAFTA is such a great deal, why hasn't the business community pushed for the removal of restrictions and barriers to trade and transit across the border? Why are so many clamoring for "trade" with a country which we're so afraid of and need to guard the border so intently?
The real negative behind it, more so than the loss of jobs, is the withering and diminishing of our manufacturing base and infrastructure. Other countries are surpassing us in technology and industry for this very reason. America is being left behind.
It is not always clear what effects are from NAFTA and what were from the globalization and technological trends that would have happened regardless.
It's pretty clear that a lot of jobs have gone overseas (not just from NAFTA, but due to the general trend of globalism and free trade). It's really no great mystery. Business is attracted to the opportunity of cheaper labor, which boosts their profits and also serves as a giant "screw you" to the unions and the labor movement that gave this country the high standard of living that we now enjoy.
Yes, there are technological trends which would serve as an incentive to open up automated production facilities back on US soil, which would also be acceptable. If that's the case, then there really is no need for the free trade agreements, since US businesses selling US-made products to American citizens would not be subject to tariff.
The benefits and issues with NAFTA are a lot more nuanced than you seem willing to see, and than what Trump presented it as. Like I said, easy tag lines and promises, with little need for actual data or policy.
Well, as they say, money talks. Show me the money, and then maybe I'll see.
Trump didn't really have to "present" anything, and as far as what people are willing to see - most people know how their lives been these past decades.
Let's say you are completely right, and the democrats are supporting corporate interests only in regards to NAFTA. (Note: I do not believe NAFTA has been proven to be "the worst trade deal ever".)
Well, as I said, the Democrats were sharply divided, and it was Democrats who made up the bulk of opposition to NAFTA. Why do you think Democrats were divided on this issue? Why were Republicans almost 100% united on supporting NAFTA?
That means they are on the wrong side in this one issue. What of all the others that I mentioned?
Net neutrality is about consumer protection from the ability of telecompanies to dictate which internet material gets provided or gets charged more. This is against powerful corporate interests.
I'm not doubting you, although I'd need to see which corporate interests are at work. I would surmise that other powerful corporate interests which depend on telecommunications and internet might have cause to support net neutrality for their interests. But I haven't really studied this particular issue that closely. I'm just a lowly end user at the mercy of my local ISP, and I don't feel all that "protected" as a consumer either.
Environmental regulations are about preserving the environment for our grandchildren and protecting citizens from pollution which threaten their health. This is against powerful corporate interests.
Yes, for the most part, Democrats have been on the right side of this issue. Some Republicans, too. Both sides ostensibly support preserving the environment, although they differ in degree over how far they're willing to go.
Single payer is about providing a regulated healthcare system for everyone. This is against powerful corporate interests.
I think the Democrats sold out on Obamacare. Both parties sold out to corporate interests, but all the fighting was over which corporate interests would get the larger share of the pie. The people still got screwed. The Democrats didn't save them from that one.
Regulating banks and the stock market is about making sure that our financial systems are not going to collapse under various bubbles and risky ventures. This is against powerful corporate interests.
I agree that it was mainly the Republicans who pushed for deregulation and similar laissez-faire policies which have taken their toll. The Democrats really didn't stop them all that much. If the Democrats had attacked Reagan with the same ferocity that they're attacking Trump now, they might have actually gotten somewhere. I think they just wimped out...and then they sold out.
Enacting minimum wage laws and worker protection regulations is about making sure employers aren't taking advantage of their employees, by paying them less than their labor is worth or making them work in unsafe conditions. This is against powerful corporate interests.
Some of the earlier progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson pushed for similar reforms, but I think a lot of credit should go to FDR for leading us out of the Great Depression and through the bulk of World War II. There was measurable improvement all across America as a result of FDR's leadership. He was a great man. But that was a long time ago, and the Democrats have changed since then.
Which party is for these sorts of things and which party is against them?
The best that any of us can hope for here is the "lesser of two evils." That's what we have. I'm not entirely convinced that the Democrats' stance on these issues are really
that much against powerful corporate interests. Those who control and operate the corporations are also politically savvy, so they know how the game is played. The Democratic Party serves their interests as well - even if it sometimes comes about in an indirect way.
If there was no Democratic Party, the powerful corporate interests would invent one.
I don't think you could. Because at the end of the day, Clinton was experienced and capable and had actual policies to back up her promises. She was a rational choice, even if you disagreed with her politics. Because the Democratic Party has a history of backing minorities, and promoting women's issues, it's not odd that people believe they'd continue to do so.
That doesn't mean the voters weren't duped. Clinton had a lot of political baggage.
Democrats have never been as good at propaganda and brain washing as the Right. That's not news to anyone.
It depends on how you look at it. When you look at the entertainment media, they seem to have a lockhold on the hearts and minds of a great many Americans. They're not all Democrats, but still, I wouldn't underestimate the power of either side to influence, distract, and confuse the masses.
"Propaganda" is a word that gets tossed around pretty freely. When I think of "propaganda," I think of a closed society where the people's only source of information is from state-controlled sources, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia - some kind of authoritarian police state with strict censorship. That's the only way propaganda can become "truth" in people's minds. But here, we have so many different sources of information available - countless news sites from all over the world can be accessed by just a mouse click. You can get news from the far-left, far-right, and every conceivable viewpoint and political position one can possibly imagine.
Are people choosing their propaganda here? Are they choosing to be brainwashed?
Politics isn't just about propaganda and brainwashing. It's about inspiring the people and trying to restore faith in our country and political system. FDR, Truman, JFK - these are the kind of the Democrats who inspired the nation and brought about hope and courage.
They weren't groomed for Trump specifically and that threw the GOP for a loop since they didn't control him, but what exactly did he represent, politically, that hasn't been the GOP message for years?
Trump's platform was more reminiscent of an "America Firster," while the establishment GOP has been more inclined towards a globalist perspective, which runs into friction with the "America First" position.
Well, I'm with you here, but I only see Trump making things worse.
That's not to say Clinton would have made things better either. I think the Republican partisanship would have become much, much worse. She was a lightning rod.
It's hard to say whether things will get worse or better. As with anything, it all depends on whose ox is gored.
All I'm really getting at here is that we need to be more mindful of the causes of the problem and not get so caught up in the symptoms - however bad they might be.
I think the thing that distinguishes propaganda from mere bias is the intent to deceive. Those on the Right simply believe so many false things because they heard it said by Limbaugh or read it on Breitbart. Things that are easily shown to be false, so the journalists and talk show hosts must know that they are false, but they say them anyway because it serves the narrative they are weaving.
It's not that I disagree with this, but I don't see it quite so one-sided as you're making it out to be.
I don't think gains made by dishonest measures should be applauded or emulated. I hope the Democratic Party continues going high, regardless how low their opponents go. I only hope that he other half of America wakes up. Because yes, it's much easier to win when you have no scruples.
I've been hoping for Americans to wake up for decades now. I don't think they ever will. The Democratic Party have contributed just as much to the state of affairs in US politics, at least as far as dishonest measures and having no scruples are concerned. Still, leaving that aside, the real problem is that they've lost sight of their own message and principles that once came with being the "party of the working man." The problem with the Democrats is that they've had no backbone.
