Sen Kaine Democratic VP pick

[Mafic]

So your answer is to be isolationist in a global economy? You realize we're not the only consumers in the world. Vietnam will sell its goods elsewhere, if need be. The only thing being verrrrrrrrry protectionist and waging a "trade war" does is make people disinterested in exporting to you, and send their exports elsewhere. Not to mention, a trade war works both ways. Trump has continually argued that "Mexico is killing us on trade" when we actually have a net positive trade balance with them through a production sharing agreement; if we go into a trade war with them, like he suggests, 6 million (conservative estimate) to 14 million jobs could be lost as they work directly in industries affected by Mexican trade.
.

The United States wasn't isolationist before NAFTA. As Brexit shows there is a way forward, but it has to be done on the countries terms of what is reasonable. Argentina for example has done both extremes (isolationism and exposed to global economy) and it has failed both times. The key is balance which is why Argentina is in better shape than it was trying to appease globalists or isolationists.

Vietnam was going to be an emerging market without the globalist because of their young demographic (due to Vietnam war) population and an economy transitioning form agricultural to business/tech.

Or you, suggest, we could have a "real military war if standards are not upheld." That's pretty much shitting all over other countries' national sovereignty, but you're worried TPP allows a loss of U.S. sovereignty when evidence suggest that's not the case?

Trade is a negotiation, and furthermore, TPP cuts 18,000 tariffs on American exports. That's pretty good for our exports. It imposes standards on our trade partners, and the ramifications of not meeting those standards are precisely what you want - a withdrawal of trade deals.

The TPP is pointless if the standards are not upheld. If you are not willing to uphold such standards with sanctions, arbitration, military force, or trade wars then you have no trade partnership but a bonanza for big business.

Withdrawal of trade deal provisions never happens in reality, because big business once it has one foot in the door make sure the door is never shut. NAFTA is a good example of this.

[Zarc]

I don't know where you got the idea that the Second* amendment extending rights to individuals is a new thing. The SCOTUS has ruled that way for a very long time, and they base it on the writings of the founding fathers. It was never intended to be only extended to states, they saw states on par with nations.

You can disagree all you like, but at least understand the core position of those who think differently. The core position is that you have a right to defend yourself against a murderer, and that the only way that right can be extended to all (aka the non-athletic and non-strong) is to allow guns.

I wouldn't say since 2008 is a long time, also it was a 5-4 decision. From Wikipedia:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.

State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.
The Supreme Court's primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech.

In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[145] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State") declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.[146]
The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard".[126] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.[147] Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the "collective right" model.[148][149] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit's opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.[150]
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.[151][152] Some scholars have argued that the "sophisticated collective rights model" is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the "collective rights model."[153] Other commentators have observed that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the "sophisticated collective right model".[154]
The third, known as the "standard model", held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[126] Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms".[155] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the "absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment's preamble does not render it a 'dead letter' because the preamble is a 'philosophical declaration' safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple 'civic purposes' for which the Amendment was enacted".[156]
Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[157] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[158] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[159] However, under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[45] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[160]
The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[161] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.[162]

[eschatological]

The United States wasn't isolationist before NAFTA. As Brexit shows there is a way forward, but it has to be done on the countries terms of what is reasonable. Argentina for example has done both extremes (isolationism and exposed to global economy) and it has failed both times. The key is balance which is why Argentina is in better shape than it was trying to appease globalists or isolationists.

I wonder what's happened in the almost 25 years since NAFTA was brought up? Oh yeah, globalization has exploded. Economies are so intricately linked now that going back to pre-NAFTA relationships would be disasterous for this country. Now, you and I may not like globalization - but it is an incontrovertible fact, and now we simply have to deal with it.

The TPP is pointless if the standards are not upheld. If you are not willing to uphold such standards with sanctions, arbitration, military force, or trade wars then you have no trade partnership but a bonanza for big business.

The whole point of the TPP is to uphold and enforce the standards. It literally lays out protections for workers, women, child labor laws, fair wages, and work week restrictions. The whole apparatus that everyone made a huge fuss over, allowing nations/corporations to sue, is precisely the mechanism in which to enforce those standards. Sanctions, fines (which amount to tariffs) and withdrawal are all mandated by the TPP, and the corporations don't have a say in whether the U.S. imposes them or not.

Withdrawal of trade deal provisions never happens in reality, because big business once it has one foot in the door make sure the door is never shut. NAFTA is a good example of this.

Withdrawals of trade deal provisions never happen in reality because NAFTA didn't cover them. TPP precisely seeks to cover them.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: This is not to say there aren't problems with the TPP. Specifically, I find issue pushing the U.S.'s backwards view of IP Law onto its trading partners. To me, that's the biggest issue with TPP, and it is very contentious in places like Australia for that reason.

[oxymoronic]

Can I just give the obligatory "Who?"

I figured she would pick a liberal to help her out. Is this guy a liberal or establishment?

uhh they one in the same, glad to see you have been fooled though.

[Xeones]

uhh they one in the same, glad to see you have been fooled though.

What? Establishment democrat is center right.

[Kellhound]

I congratulate Mr Kaine on helping me decide to not vote for Hillary. I had been on the fence (they both suck), but the first words out of his mouth changed that.

[Shadowferal]

I congratulate Mr Kaine on helping me decide to not vote for Hillary. I had been on the fence (they both suck), but the first words out of his mouth changed that.

Yup.
I'm going with Jill Stein.

[Orbitus]

Hillary and Kaine are going to get demolished in the live debates. can not wait to see it.

Hillary with that fake forced smile but you can tell she is full of hatred for humanity under her skin.

proof of reptilians? just look at her.

Wow. I don't know how anyone can be this blind. I mean seriously in the debates Trump is going to fucking flounder and Hillary is going to actually list policies.

[NYC17]

I congratulate Mr Kaine on helping me decide to not vote for Hillary. I had been on the fence (they both suck), but the first words out of his mouth changed that.

If that's all it took you were fooling yourself about what sort of fence you were balancing on.

[Rukh]

The upside I guess is he's a pick that could actually do the job of President if he needs to.

[Celista]

On topic, he's definitely not progressive enough for Sanders supporters. Not that Clinton seems to care about the progressive left...

Also on topic, Kaine looks like a creepy clown.

http://imgur.com/5KPpwL1

cannot be unseen.

[Sunseeker]

The upside I guess is he's a pick that could actually do the job of President if he needs to.

That's a fairly sad measure. "Hey I picked this guy because I'm hedging my bets that I'll actually be able to finish my term."

[Kellhound]

If that's all it took you were fooling yourself about what sort of fence you were balancing on.

I couldnt decide who I wanted to vote against more, now I know.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you expecting Hillary to die in office?

We wouldnt be so lucky.

[Tradewind]

As a dirty foreigner I've known the man for the entire length of his speech today that I watched while eating waffles in my Canadian castle.

My impression was that he seems like a good dude.

[Masark]

I mean seriously in the debates Trump is going to fucking flounder and Hillary is going to actually list policies.

Why does he need to list policies? The Goldshirts listen to his wharrgarbl and cheer.

[NYC17]

I couldnt decide who I wanted to vote against more, now I know.

- - - Updated - - -



We wouldnt be so lucky.

Yes, if a few words from a likeable moderate is all it took then you weren't really on a fence after all. If that's all it took for you to be able to ignore Trump's absurdity then you were dancing on an imaginary wall that Mexico paid for.

[Raeph]

So it's official. Kaine is the pick. Thoughts.

If it was Kaine vs Trump I would vote for Kaine.

Hillary is at the top of the ticket though so the guy may as well be an empty suit for all the authority he holds in governance.

[Kellhound]

Yes, if a few words from a likeable moderate is all it took then you weren't really on a fence after all. If that's all it took for you to be able to ignore Trump's absurdity then you were dancing on an imaginary wall that Mexico paid for.

I have no time for a VP who is more concerned for pandering to those who cannot adapt to America than anything else. He blew it.

[NYC17]

I have no time for a VP who is more concerned for pandering to those who cannot adapt to America than anything else. He blew it.

But you have time for Trump? Yea, that's not exactly logical. You weren't on any fence.

[GennGreymane]

I've heard hes an alright fellow

any dirt?