The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cinch
Vote as you must, but know the outside world is not completely full of above-it-all smug-types. Some of us care.

Let me love you, America!

Is that why Canadians shouldn't want to see a chicken-**** protectionist win?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Consider this.

At http://www.gamespy.com there is a poll on whether you're looking forward to Halo 2 or Half-Life 2 more. The poll has been linked to by halo.bungie.org, planethalo.com, and bungie.net, the three biggest Halo fansites. Halo 2 is winning by a large margin. That's not because internet users necessarily like Halo more. It's because the Halo fansites are getting out the vote.

So an internet poll isn't even an accurate survey of internet users. It's only a semiaccurate survey of the people who care enough to go to that site.

Considered already.
Is this site circulated among the left portion of the net more? Linked to Kerry fan sites perhaps? Really? Why, because you don't like the results or you have some info we don't? Read the last part of my post again.
I already knew (and assume most people should) about making funny results by linking to certain sites, hell evil finn thread would have been much better example.

The fact that it CAN be done doesn't mean it was done in this situation

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is that why Canadians shouldn't want to see a chicken-**** protectionist win?

Are you talking about Bush? Because he has been a big supporter of tarrifs in order to get votes.

Kerry on the other hand, merely wants to close various loopholes throughout the tax code.

-Drachasor

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Considered already.
Is this site circulated among the left portion of the net more? Linked to Kerry fan sites perhaps? Really? Why, because you don't like the results or you have some info we don't? Read the last part of my post again.
I already knew (and assume most people should) about making funny results by linking to certain sites, hell evil finn thread would have been much better example.

The fact that it CAN be done doesn't mean it was done in this situation

Well then, consider this:

Which political affiliation would those interested in that site be likely to have. Kerry talks all the time about what the world thinks. Bush doesn't give a ****. So by extension, Bush supporters are probably not going to give a **** what the world thinks, so there's no reason they'd go to that site.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Are you talking about Bush? Because he has been a big supporter of tarrifs in order to get votes.

Kerry on the other hand, merely wants to close various loopholes throughout the tax code.

-Drachasor

No, I'm wondering just what Kerry means by 'fair' trade.

Seems to me, that if someone else has an advantage based on goegraphy or demographics, it will be regarded as 'unfair' to Yanks.

Well guess what? You have advantages in certain fields, and other people have advantages in other fields.

'Fair' trade, to me, is a code word for protectionism.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Well then, consider this:

Which political affiliation would those interested in that site be likely to have. Kerry talks all the time about what the world thinks. Bush doesn't give a ****. So by extension, Bush supporters are probably not going to give a **** what the world thinks, so there's no reason they'd go to that site.

Well alright, you make a good point about Bush supporters not giving a **** about things, in this case my question or points and curiocity.


Too bad you missed this even when I said to look it up
Here you go:

The question still stands, and I'm also interested if someone has heard about this site and knows something other than just common sense/nonsense can tell (ie proof about their bias) and can make a good case for it being wrong.

[Dinner]

The standard Democrat line about "fair trade" means about what you'd expect it to mean. They want other countries to have to enforce enviromental, worker, minimum wage, and pro-union laws in order to get prefered market access. Naturally third world countries don't want to do that because about the only advantage they have over the rich countries is that their people will work cheaper and their governments won't regulate businesses as much.

It plays well for the Democrate's base of union voters though.

[cinch]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Is that why Canadians shouldn't want to see a chicken-**** protectionist win?

Priorities, man.

Priorities.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, I'm wondering just what Kerry means by 'fair' trade.

Seems to me, that if someone else has an advantage based on goegraphy or demographics, it will be regarded as 'unfair' to Yanks.

Well guess what? You have advantages in certain fields, and other people have advantages in other fields.

'Fair' trade, to me, is a code word for protectionism.

You could take the time to read the policy before you judge it. Your reactionary drivel is unnecessary:

Include Internationally Recognized Enforceable Labor Rights And Environmental Standards In New Free Trade Agreements. Over the last three years, we have moved backwards from the time when the United States ensured that labor provisions were included in the Jordan Agreement. As president, John Kerry will build upon and strengthen the progress made in the Jordan Agreement by including strong and enforceable labor rights and environmental standards in the core of new free trade agreements.

Break Down Barriers In Key Export Markets. The Bush administration has done little to open key export markets in countries like Japan and Korea. For example, auto exports to Japan are still essentially blocked by complicated rules. As president, John Kerry will use all the available tools to fight to open these markets.

Expand Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs. We need to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs to provide immediate relief for manufacturers, workers, and communities hurt by manufacturing imports, and integrate these programs with other workforce training programs. John Kerry supports expanding TAA to service sector workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing.

Basically he is concerned about human rights in trading countries.

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cinch


Priorities, man.

Priorities.

Is your priority being able to get a job?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The standard Democrate line about "fair trade" means about what you'd expect it to mean. They want other countries to have to enforce enviromental, worker, minimum wage, and pro-union laws in order to get prefered market access. Naturally third world countries don't want to do that because about the only advantage they have over the rich countries is that their people will work cheaper and their governments won't regulate businesses as much.

It plays well for the Democrate's base of union voters though.

The workers will still work cheaply with more rights and say in how things go. Giving them rights and ensuring some minimal protection of the environment and payment standards isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It could go overboard, sure, but give Kerry's record this isn't likely. It isn't like he is going to demand American wages in poor countries, just make sure that the workers aren't exploited.

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Basically he is concerned about human rights in trading countries.

-Drachasor

Bull****.

I am very experienced with Yankee two facedness in trade.

Forests in Washington are privately owned. The foresters have to pay for the cost of ownership as part of the cost of their logs.

The foresters in BC cut trees on Crown land. The Crown charges them a fee for the trees. They also are forced to pay the price of reforestaion on those Crown lands.

You Yanks have enacted tarrifs against Canadian softwood lumber at least 4 times, and every time been told by relavant trade bodies that you are wrong. Most recently by the WTO.

Still, your government, at the urging of special interests, sees fit to regard British Columbia to have an unfair advantage over two bit foresters with a bunch of skank wood in Washington state. The tarrifs remain.

I've had a taste of Yankee 'fair' trade. I don't like it. I think Kerry will do a lot to make it worse, and I don't really want to have to shut off your natural gas in February to get your attention.

Understand?

[Drachasor]

And everything about Kerry's record and his platform (look at his views on how other countries violate trade standards) leads me to the conclusion he'd fix such problems.

On the other hand, Bush sure as heck isn't going to do anything to fix it.

-Drachasor

[notyoueither]

You're not explaining what 'fair' trade means.

The US 'outsources' a lot of jobs to Canada. That's because we have a large, educated population that will work for less than many Americans.

According to Kerry, he's going to erect a curtain along the 49th to stop that from happening.

How do you think that will work?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I've had a taste of Yankee 'fair' trade. I don't like it. I think Kerry will do a lot to make it worse, and I don't really want to have to shut off your natural gas in February to get your attention.

Understand?

The soft wood issue has been a sticking point for some time but I could enumerate a few of Canada's trade inconsistancies if you'd like. I'm sure they're fewer then the current American administration's but they do exist.

BTW tI believe he Canadian government doesn't own the pipelines or the well heads so it would have a hard time shutting off the gas. The Canadian companies which run those opporations probably wouldn't like losing the majority of their revenue even if the government could find a way to control the gas supply.