The people who signed/supported NAFTA hate Trump. He's ran most of his campaign against things like NAFTA and telling those auto manuf he's going to tax the fuck out of them if they ship jobs overseas and sell back to America. He might not be able to accomplish the things he wants (as is the case most presidents) but people feel like he means what he says on these Trade deals, it's been probably his strongest case this whole campaign and what he really means by #MAGA. Growing up in a small town decimated by shipping our textiles overseas, watching my mom's factory shutdown, she started driving an hour to work for minimum wage/insurance, until they decimated that town as well, this part of his argument is really strong. You may think all of these people are stupid, but this shit is very real to them, all they know is their jobs went overseas because of these trade deals and they ended up working shit hours at the new walmart installation in their town just so they can have insurance and still be able to pay the bills.
I get it. And TPP dying is maybe the one silver lining out of all of this. But either TPP will morph into some "good" trade deal with a different name that gets passed anyway because Trump doesn't really give a shit about anyone but himself, *or* Trump actually does withdraw from NAFTA, start trade wars, etc., and we quickly realize how much damage that will do to the economy and to the people who are most vulnerable.
It's still not worth all the other shit that comes with a Trump administration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...l?tid=sm_tw_pw
Russian diplomat confirming ties with Trump during campaign.
Any more information?
Nope. Deal with it. Now that Trump has won, it's time for BG to switch to hyper-conservative Captain Hindsight be damned mode.
I wish I could find my post saying this would happen, but it doesn't accomplish anything now.
Time for another question: Electoral College. Yes or no?
Every year the party who loses says it's time to get rid of it and the winners proclaim its perfection.
This year you have NowThis and OccupyDems talking about how it's totally the current year and it's gotta go asap.
Personally I'd say it needs to stay. It forces candidates to do a 50 state campaign instead of just living in NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.
Needs to go.
I don't know why people keep touting this every year the losing party speaks against it. Only twice in recent history has it gone against the popular vote. The last 3 elections even if it wasn't there it wouldn't have mattered. But I've been against the EC since Bush/Gore. I just don't see any change happening still.
needs to stay unless you want the country governed by NY and CA
The Electoral College is one of the lowest on my worries about what we need to fix. Even if Hillary won through direct vote she'd still have R majority in congress and we'd get 4-8 years of fuck all.
CNN is projecting that once all the votes are counted Trump will win the popular vote as well, so good luck with that narrative if that holds true.
This may have only happened twice in recent history but you should consider the ramifications of removing it outright and simply using popular vote alone. Yes the majority of elections ended up with the popular vote going to the winner, but you have to consider the dramatic differences in how the candidates would campaign if there was no EC. You'd never see them in small communities or low population states. A lot of regular people would end up feeling totally abandoned by their candidate because they'd be spending 95% of their time in huge metro population areas and very little if any in small towns.
Not following that argument. Pop vote would do nothing but allow cities to be effective dictatorships.
Not to mention that societal progress, as a whole, indisputably comes from cities - not rural areas.