Things like the TPP, NAFTA, NDAA, and the Patriot Act seem to surpass party politics. Why because it's the crux of what is really going on, globalization. Both sides are addressing it in different forms, but make no mistake very few if any are in Washington without accepting the move towards Globalism. 

 

My hatred of the Federalized system that oppresses us today stems from my opposition to globalization. I call for radical decentralization because globalization is the inevitable result if we continue down this path. You think you don't have a voice now? Just wait until your government is dictated to you from the UN. You think corporations are powerful now? Just wait until they report directly to the UN and not an individual nation. You think we have extensive wars now? Just wait until your military is completely under the UN. 

---

Things like the TPP, NAFTA, NDAA, and the Patriot Act seem to surpass party politics. Why because it's the crux of what is really going on, globalization. Both sides are addressing it in different forms, but make no mistake very few if any are in Washington without accepting the move towards Globalism. 

 

My hatred of the Federalized system that oppresses us today stems from my opposition to globalization. I call for radical decentralization because globalization is the inevitable result if we continue down this path. You think you don't have a voice now? Just wait until your government is dictated to you from the UN. You think corporations are powerful now? Just wait until they report directly to the UN and not an individual nation. You think we have extensive wars now? Just wait until your military is completely under the UN. 

I disagree. The government and elected officials (for the most part) report to the corporations among other special interest groups. The push to globalization is not from the government directly but indirectly (and directly through legal bribes) through the corporations since the economy has been globalized. For them it's a natural progression. This push and the legislation like the TPP and others is a direct result of corrupt campaign finance. It was already bad and Citizens United pushed it over the top. If we had publicly funded elections or some other form of real and comprehensive reform for elections I highly doubt a thing like TPP would even be talked about in a real way. 

---

I disagree. The government and elected officials (for the most part) report to the corporations among other special interest groups. The push to globalization is not from the government directly but indirectly (and directly through legal bribes) through the corporations since the economy has been globalized. For them it's a natural progression. This push and the legislation like the TPP and others is a direct result of corrupt campaign finance. It was already bad and Citizens United pushed it over the top. If we had publicly funded elections or some other form of real and comprehensive reform for elections I highly doubt a thing like TPP would even be talked about in a real way. 

 

You might be onto something with the Citizens United, it certainly hasn't had the effect I believe it was intended to have (or at least how it was sold). I'm not knowledgeable enough really on the Citizens United case to have a solid opinion but seeing the effects of it (more powerful corporations) leads me to believe it's misguided at best.

 

On the other hand public funded campaigns to me sounds just as bad if not worse, but we both agree there needs to be some kind of campaign reform or control. I default to my solution for almost everything, make it smaller. Less power there's less reason for the corporations to invest in politicians.

---

I disagree. The government and elected officials (for the most part) report to the corporations among other special interest groups. The push to globalization is not from the government directly but indirectly (and directly through legal bribes) through the corporations since the economy has been globalized. For them it's a natural progression. This push and the legislation like the TPP and others is a direct result of corrupt campaign finance. It was already bad and Citizens United pushed it over the top. If we had publicly funded elections or some other form of real and comprehensive reform for elections I highly doubt a thing like TPP would even be talked about in a real way. 

Not a fan of publicly funded elections. 


I think part of money raised by candidates for a presidential election should go toward paying down the deficit (I'm sure that's not a popular thing).  Corporate influence should also be removed from politics (because corporations do not have the interests of people in mind, only profits).  


We also need to move away from the two party system, though that has little to do with campaign finance reform.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You might be onto something with the Citizens United, it certainly hasn't had the effect I believe it was intended to have (or at least how it was sold). I'm not knowledgeable enough really on the Citizens United case to have a solid opinion but seeing the effects of it (more powerful corporations) leads me to believe it's misguided at best.

 

On the other hand public funded campaigns to me sounds just as bad if not worse, but we both agree there needs to be some kind of campaign reform or control. I default to my solution for almost everything, make it smaller. Less power there's less reason for the corporations to invest in politicians.

 

 

Not a fan of publicly funded elections. 


I think part of money raised by candidates for a presidential election should go toward paying down the deficit (I'm sure that's not a popular thing).  Corporate influence should also be removed from politics (because corporations do not have the interests of people in mind, only profits).  


We also need to move away from the two party system, though that has little to do with campaign finance reform.

that's kind of the problem though. If you allow money in an argument can and will be made that there should be no limits on it. I think most reasonable people would agree that it should be the case. That's why a lot of people are calling for publicly funded elections. It would accomplish several things. No more money for votes corruption. No need to start hounding the donors for campaign money so early allowing more time to actually do the job.

 

It might not be perfect but I think it's a better option than what he have now by far. 

---

that's kind of the problem though. If you allow money in an argument can and will be made that there should be no limits on it. I think most reasonable people would agree that it should be the case. That's why a lot of people are calling for publicly funded elections. It would accomplish several things. No more money for votes corruption. No need to start hounding the donors for campaign money so early allowing more time to actually do the job.

 

It might not be perfect but I think it's a better option than what he have now by far. 

 

I don't see how changing who pays for the campaign will accomplish anything. Also with state financing a campaign it kind of gives the state control of who is running for what office, if we could assume they wouldn't use state funding as a means to filter candidates then maybe but I don't ever seeing that happening.

---

I don't see how changing who pays for the campaign will accomplish anything. Also with state financing a campaign it kind of gives the state control of who is running for what office, if we could assume they wouldn't use state funding as a means to filter candidates then maybe but I don't ever seeing that happening.

If the public is funding the elections that you don't have even a fraction of the money poured into the campaigns. You don't have special interests deciding the candidates. You don't have smear ads because the funds would be lower. 

 

A major concern would be how to do you decide who runs? Well the easy way would be to allow everyone that's interested but that's probably not feasible. I don't know the answer to that. It definitely is not perfect but you can't not try to do better because it might not be perfect. Perfection is the enemy of the good. 

---

People who are surprised that Obama is working on this don't really have a clue who Obama is either. Or Bill Ayers. Or Cass Sunstein. Or John Holdren Or George Soros.... the list goes on. These people all have something in common.

I've heard right wingers mention all these people before, but I fail to see why these people are directly linked to Obama as though just mentioning their names makes some sort of biting analysis. Please, in your own words explain this relevance. I'd like to know why you think it's valid.


I think it's really easy be devisive. It's simple to fall into a red camp or blue camp, and thus dismiss the other side as bad or dumb, or whatever.


It's a divide and conquer mentality, and it really doesn't help anyone other than those already in power. To me, SHAFTA (TPP) is something the working class should all be consolidated against. There's no need try and attack one side or the other. This issue clearly shows that the line of demarcation is not donkey v. elephant, but instead worker v. owner.

---

Shouldn't be surprised but disappointed Ted Cruz is supporting Obama fast tracking the TPP and giving him authority to bypass congressional debate on the treaty. I'm happy to see Rand is voting against fast tracking but then cautious Rand says he may still vote yes to the TPP. If Rand supports the TPP I may have to withdraw my support for him as president, that would really suck.

---

Shouldn't be surprised but disappointed Ted Cruz is supporting Obama fast tracking the TPP and giving him authority to bypass congressional debate on the treaty. I'm happy to see Rand is voting against fast tracking but then cautious Rand says he may still vote yes to the TPP. If Rand supports the TPP I may have to withdraw my support for him as president, that would really suck.

Rand Paul is both for and against TPP.   He's flip flopped on the issue a bit.


TPP is bad for American workers.  It's bad for our economy.  It's bad for our national sovereignty.  (Sorry stealing from Bernie Sanders here).  So I don't see why anyone is supporting it, aside from support from big corporations.  Guess they're the American People that are cared about the most. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Rand Paul is both for and against TPP.   He's flip flopped on the issue a bit.


TPP is bad for American workers.  It's bad for our economy.  It's bad for our national sovereignty.  (Sorry stealing from Bernie Sanders here).  So I don't see why anyone is supporting it, aside from support from big corporations.  Guess they're the American People that are cared about the most. 

 

On this we agree the TPP is bad all the way around, like I said I know Rand has flipped around on this issue if he ends up supporting it I'll have to seriously consider if I can still support him for President.

---

The hypocrisy comes to light. This is not a job creator here. Yet, when Baltimore, et al are discussed, the issue of joblessness, shuttered factories, etc are all brought up. This will help? No.

And the bullcrap keeps spinning, and flinging it on all of us.


So far, the bill hasn't passed. Contact your reps, it's not hard. As we discuss this here, which is fine, hopefully as much effort is given to contacting the ones who are supposed to be representing their constituents and not their PACs.


China? Wait...the same China , who is over run with human rights violations that we are defending in the Middle East? Smh.

---

Blakes Life Matters

The hypocrisy comes to light. This is not a job creator here. Yet, when Baltimore, et al are discussed, the issue of joblessness, shuttered factories, etc are all brought up. This will help? No.

And the [BAD WORD REMOVED] keeps spinning, and flinging it on all of us.


So far, the bill hasn't passed. Contact your reps, it's not hard. As we discuss this here, which is fine, hopefully as much effort is given to contacting the ones who are supposed to be representing their constituents and not their PACs.


China? Wait...the same China , who is over run with human rights violations that we are defending in the Middle East? Smh.

Unless your phone call comes delivered in truck loads of cash then it is going to fall on deaf ears. 

---

TPP is bad for American workers.  It's bad for our economy.  It's bad for our national sovereignty.  (Sorry stealing from Bernie Sanders here).  So I don't see why anyone is supporting it, aside from support from big corporations.  Guess they're the American People that are cared about the most. 

 

I believe most supporters of the bill think that it's good for the economy and American workers. One side is wrong. I admit I really don't know enough economics to say one way or the other.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Just on the cursory reading I've done on the TPP, I think I'd support it.

---

Just on the cursory reading I've done on the TPP, I think I'd support it.

 

Well obviously you've been paid off by Evil Corporations and the United Nations.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I believe most supporters of the bill think that it's good for the economy and American workers. One side is wrong. I admit I really don't know enough economics to say one way or the other.

You don't need too much knowledge of economics, Malabar.


Just look at Clinton's NAFTA and what that's done to workers for 20 years.


Bernie seems to be the only candidate right now that is absolutely against this stupid deal.

---

You don't need too much knowledge of economics, Malabar.


Just look at Clinton's NAFTA and what that's done to workers for 20 years.


Bernie seems to be the only candidate right now that is absolutely against this stupid deal.

But he's a socialist, he can't be right about anything.

---

Any "treaty" that is specifically not called a treaty to avoid the constitutional requirement of a 67 vote threshold should be the first red flag.

 

2nd the fact that it's a "living agreement" meaning that executive orders can make any level of change to the agreement at any point is another red flag.

 

"The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a “living agreement.” Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress OKs the document. The TPP could, for example, add additional countries such as Communist China, which for years has been cheating America coming and going." http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/fast-track-ho...ica-track/

 

Another problem is you're taking American business and then putting under UN Authority big problem with that

 

"Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/busine....html?_r=0

 

Then there's the arguments to be made about how it will effect everything from immigration (legal and illegal), trade jobs, manufacturing and so on. I really don't even see a positive in the TPP.

 

---

I don't know what Obama is thinking, but he's clearly not a socialist, lol. This is pro big corporations, there's no denying this.

---