nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:For some perspective, the host Marc Lamont Hill threw out some statistics that put a sobering spin on the conversation: Since 2001, about 2,000 American service men and women have died in Afghanistan; in that same time period, 5,000 people have died in Chicago.

Yet the nation doesn’t appear to even realize how bad thing have gotten in Chicago—at the same time as the murder rate has fallen precipitously in other big cities like New York and Los Angeles. And the numbers continue to go up. As of the end of July, homicides in the city were up about 27 percent and in the first quarter of 2012 the number of murders had jumped 60 percent over 2011.

As Hill pointed out, most of those being killed are young African-American males—who are also most of those doing the killing.

At some point--just like an alcoholic--you need to understand you have a problem that isnt caused by anybody else. These issues are caused by drugs lack of quality human character brought on by violent surroundings and a huge lack of education /life vision. This problem is only getting worse--the bottom line is AA from the inner cities need to change course and take responsibility--stop blaming the police or another race. I really do believe if Trump came in with sweeping immigration reforms concentrated police efforts on gang violence and rebuilding urban infrastructure--there would be a start to a different path. Stop blaming others and start doing what is right. And I fully understand I can sound like a real dck for saying it like this--but just like a friend who is in trouble--I say this in the same light.

Yes you do sound like a dyck!!! You're oversimplifying the situation. Who is it that forced the African Americans into the living conditions they're living in Chicago? Decades of Redlinig so that Black people were packed into Ghettoes with bad schools and no jobs. The guns, drugs and gangs are the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Trump ain't gonna do ISH if he became President. It's naive to think he seriously would direct resources into these areas! He's never done anything in his entire life that would suggest Trump gives two flips about Black People!!!

I'm so tired of people accusing oppressed AA's of being to blame. Redlinig was done TOO THEM! Last hired/first fired is a reality forced on Black People. Predatory lending was done TOO THEM! This leads to a lower Tax Base and Rundown schools!!! This is what leads to drugs, guns and crime! They didn't create these circumstances! Black people fled the Jim Crow South to look for a better life and they got the shaft in the North too. They faced racism and riots because they were considered a threat to white workers. Please learn your history before you comment like this.

Read this and learn something about Redlining:

http://beltmag.com/the-legacy-of-redlining-in-rust-belt-cities/

Even with all that. The solutions created to rectify the problems *created* was to throw African Americans in jail.

Now there is a growing Heroin epidemic in the US. Majority users happen to be white. The cause is said to be the pushing of pain killers by pharmaceuticals which has become a gate way for Heroin. Wonder what the solution to rectify this problem will be.

fishmike wrote:Let me just say these are easily the worst two candidates I have seen in my lifetime. This process continues to be controlled by the very wealthy and special interest groups with massive amounts of money.

newyorknewyork wrote:

nixluva wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:For some perspective, the host Marc Lamont Hill threw out some statistics that put a sobering spin on the conversation: Since 2001, about 2,000 American service men and women have died in Afghanistan; in that same time period, 5,000 people have died in Chicago.

Yet the nation doesn’t appear to even realize how bad thing have gotten in Chicago—at the same time as the murder rate has fallen precipitously in other big cities like New York and Los Angeles. And the numbers continue to go up. As of the end of July, homicides in the city were up about 27 percent and in the first quarter of 2012 the number of murders had jumped 60 percent over 2011.

As Hill pointed out, most of those being killed are young African-American males—who are also most of those doing the killing.

At some point--just like an alcoholic--you need to understand you have a problem that isnt caused by anybody else. These issues are caused by drugs lack of quality human character brought on by violent surroundings and a huge lack of education /life vision. This problem is only getting worse--the bottom line is AA from the inner cities need to change course and take responsibility--stop blaming the police or another race. I really do believe if Trump came in with sweeping immigration reforms concentrated police efforts on gang violence and rebuilding urban infrastructure--there would be a start to a different path. Stop blaming others and start doing what is right. And I fully understand I can sound like a real dck for saying it like this--but just like a friend who is in trouble--I say this in the same light.

Yes you do sound like a dyck!!! You're oversimplifying the situation. Who is it that forced the African Americans into the living conditions they're living in Chicago? Decades of Redlinig so that Black people were packed into Ghettoes with bad schools and no jobs. The guns, drugs and gangs are the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Trump ain't gonna do ISH if he became President. It's naive to think he seriously would direct resources into these areas! He's never done anything in his entire life that would suggest Trump gives two flips about Black People!!!

I'm so tired of people accusing oppressed AA's of being to blame. Redlinig was done TOO THEM! Last hired/first fired is a reality forced on Black People. Predatory lending was done TOO THEM! This leads to a lower Tax Base and Rundown schools!!! This is what leads to drugs, guns and crime! They didn't create these circumstances! Black people fled the Jim Crow South to look for a better life and they got the shaft in the North too. They faced racism and riots because they were considered a threat to white workers. Please learn your history before you comment like this.

Read this and learn something about Redlining:

http://beltmag.com/the-legacy-of-redlining-in-rust-belt-cities/

Even with all that. The solutions created to rectify the problems *created* was to throw African Americans in jail.

Now there is a growing Heroin epidemic in the US. Majority users happen to be white. The cause is said to be the pushing of pain killers by pharmaceuticals which has become a gate way for Heroin. Wonder what the solution to rectify this problem will be.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Let me just say these are easily the worst two candidates I have seen in my lifetime. This process continues to be controlled by the very wealthy and special interest groups with massive amounts of money.

Yeah, partly. The Republican establishment wanted to stop Trump but couldn't. The Dems actually wanted Hillary to be the nominee! They brought this on themselves. I bet Joe Biden would be up by 15 against Trump.

If you look at the body count, very few terror attacks kill americans. Toddlers with guns accidently kill far more than radical extremists.

gunsnewing wrote:Maybe as of today. Not sure about those stats though between 9/11, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino & Orlando and then what Is happening in Europe in Bataclan, Belgium, Turkey & Nice. I guarantee you the survivors and the families of the ones who perished don't feel the same

Far more people have died in auto-accidents, we're all much more likely to die in a crash. We're all going to die eventually, a large chunk from cancer. How do we live in the shadow of such horror? Because we've forged a death denying culture - we hope or pretend it won't happen to us, it's natural to do so. Unfortunately terrorism sells- media and politics, so both hype it up while pretending to do the opposite in order to get people to buy what they're selling.

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Let me just say these are easily the worst two candidates I have seen in my lifetime. This process continues to be controlled by the very wealthy and special interest groups with massive amounts of money.

Yeah, partly. The Republican establishment wanted to stop Trump but couldn't. The Dems actually wanted Hillary to be the nominee! They brought this on themselves. I bet Joe Biden would be up by 15 against Trump.

Hillary was picked because of her ability to raise money. Its that simple. Combine that with her being "clean enough" and she is electable. She is not a likable person IMO, but she can win and raise a boatload of cash. Obama didn't beat her by much and he than was reelected. There is "right" and there is winning. If you had to push a candidate who could win who would you choose? Who can raise the cash it takes to win? Hillary. This is the type of person that this system produces.

Yeah but her approval ratings were actually around 50% back then against Obama. And just last year she was at around 60%. I think if the Dems had foreseen how quickly she'd become unpopular and how effective the attacks against her would be for many Americans, they would have begged Biden to run. He doesn't have nearly as much baggage. Maybe Hillary raises more money and has a group of enthusiasts, but if Dems lose the election, it won't matter.

It's going to be a landslide for the Dems.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Let me just say these are easily the worst two candidates I have seen in my lifetime. This process continues to be controlled by the very wealthy and special interest groups with massive amounts of money.

Yeah, partly. The Republican establishment wanted to stop Trump but couldn't. The Dems actually wanted Hillary to be the nominee! They brought this on themselves. I bet Joe Biden would be up by 15 against Trump.

Hillary was picked because of her ability to raise money. Its that simple. Combine that with her being "clean enough" and she is electable. She is not a likable person IMO, but she can win and raise a boatload of cash. Obama didn't beat her by much and he than was reelected. There is "right" and there is winning. If you had to push a candidate who could win who would you choose? Who can raise the cash it takes to win? Hillary. This is the type of person that this system produces.

Yeah but her approval ratings were actually around 50% back then against Obama. And just last year she was at around 60%. I think if the Dems had foreseen how quickly she'd become unpopular and how effective the attacks against her would be for many Americans, they would have begged Biden to run. He doesn't have nearly as much baggage. Maybe Hillary raises more money and has a group of enthusiasts, but if Dems lose the election, it won't matter.

It's going to be a landslide for the Dems.

holfresh wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Let me just say these are easily the worst two candidates I have seen in my lifetime. This process continues to be controlled by the very wealthy and special interest groups with massive amounts of money.

Yeah, partly. The Republican establishment wanted to stop Trump but couldn't. The Dems actually wanted Hillary to be the nominee! They brought this on themselves. I bet Joe Biden would be up by 15 against Trump.

Hillary was picked because of her ability to raise money. Its that simple. Combine that with her being "clean enough" and she is electable. She is not a likable person IMO, but she can win and raise a boatload of cash. Obama didn't beat her by much and he than was reelected. There is "right" and there is winning. If you had to push a candidate who could win who would you choose? Who can raise the cash it takes to win? Hillary. This is the type of person that this system produces.

Yeah but her approval ratings were actually around 50% back then against Obama. And just last year she was at around 60%. I think if the Dems had foreseen how quickly she'd become unpopular and how effective the attacks against her would be for many Americans, they would have begged Biden to run. He doesn't have nearly as much baggage. Maybe Hillary raises more money and has a group of enthusiasts, but if Dems lose the election, it won't matter.

It's going to be a landslide for the Dems.

Landslide..

Landslide...

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:For all you TPP groupies out there, you know who you are with your TPP posters and T-shirts...

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-washington-post-president-obama-tpp-challenge

The Washington Post-President Obama TPP-Challenge

It's hard to resist a good challenge and the Washington Post gave us one this morning in an editorial pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The editorial criticized TPP opponents and praised President Obama for continuing to push the deal. It tells readers:

"Mr. Obama refused to back down on the merits of the issues, noting that other countries, not the United States, would do most of the market-opening under the TPP and challenging opponents to explain how 'existing trading rules are better for issues like labor rights and environmental rights than they would be if we got TPP passed.'"
Okay, here's how we are better off with existing trade rules than the largely unenforceable provisions on labor and environmental standards in the TPP.

1) The TPP creates an extra-judicial process (investor-state dispute settlement [ISDS] tribunals) whereby foreign investors can sue governments for imposing environmental, health and safety, and even labor regulations. Under the TPP, these tribunals are supposed to follow the far-right wing doctrine of compensating for regulatory takings. This means, for example, that if a state or county restricts fracking for environmental reasons, they would have to compensate a foreign company for profits that it lost as a result of not being allowed to frack or the additional expense resulting from the standards imposed. The ISDS tribunals are not bound by precedent, nor are their decisions subject to appeal.

2) The TPP imposes stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. These protectionist measures are likely to do far more to raise barriers to trade (patent and copyright monopolies are interventions in the free market, even if the Washington Post likes them) than the other measures in the TPP do to reduce them. In addition to the enormous economic distortions associated with barriers that are often equivalent to tariffs of 1000 percent or even 10,000 percent (e.g. raising the price of a patented drug to 100 times the generic price), TPP rules may make it more difficult for millions of people to get essential medicines.

3) By increasing fees that our drug companies and entertainment companies get from foreign countries, they will be making the trade deficit worse in manufacturing and other items. This one requires a little economic theory. It is standard practice for economic models, like the one used by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (which the Post often cites), to assume that a trade deal like the TPP does not affect the U.S. balance of trade.

If this is true then if U.S. drug and entertainment companies get more money in licensing fees and royalties, then we must have a larger deficit in everything else. For example, if we have a $50 billion annual trade deficit with Japan, and Pfizer, Disney, and the rest of the gang are able to collect another $20 billion a year from Japan as a result of the TPP, then our trade deficit in everything else must rise by $20 billion in order to keep the overall trade balance unaffected. If we care more about the jobs of manufacturing workers than the profits of Disney and Pfizer, then this is not a good thing.

4) The TPP does nothing to address the problem of currency management. One of the reasons that the United States faces a persistent shortfall in demand (a.k.a. "secular stagnation") is that it has an annual trade deficit of around $500 billion or roughly 3 percent of GDP. This deficit persists because many countries deliberately prop up the dollar against their currencies.

This is an issue that could have been addressed in the TPP, but President Obama apparently had other priorities. By signing a deal that doesn't impose rules on currency management we make it less likely that we can see serious action on this issue any time soon. The cost of the trade deficit and the resulting weakness in demand is millions of workers needlessly going unemployed and tens of millions earning lower wages as a result of the weakness of the labor market.

So there are my four responses to the WaPo-Obama TPP challenge. Do I win anything?

I should make one other point on the Post editorial. As usual it falls back on the strategic concerns (the last refuge of the scoundrel) when the economic arguments fail:

"Beyond its economic importance, the TPP is — or would be — a pillar of future U.S. strategic relevance in the vital Asia-Pacific region and a check on Chinese influence.."
If the point of the TPP was to advance U.S. strategic goals in the region, President Obama should not have had Pfizer, Disney, and other major corporations determining the framework for the agreement. He may be able to sell this strategic concerns story to the Washington Post editorial board, but not to serious people.

The first three items I can't comment on, I don't know enough about it..But the 4th item, I know a little bit about...NONSENSE..No country is going to let you control their currency management. That's akin to the US selling weapons to another country and we also give them rights to how we manage our defense arsenal or our military...

Currency manipulation is a real problem, its gaming the system, the US should at the very least make an effort to curb this practice. No country has to trade with us, making currency manipulation an issue is the right thing to do. How feasible that is remains to be seen.

The ISDS section is the one you really should be concerned about. No exaggerration, its turning over our courts to panels of corporate lawyers who when they arent sitting on this tribunal, they are representing the corporations who will be making claims. This is a long article, but it goes into great detail about the history of ISDS and how it will be on steroids with the TPP.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-tpp-special-court-crushes-domestic-laws-and-plunders-public

Seems like the US is already part of 50 varied ISDS agreements already.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

The article argue against longer patents and stiff copyright protections for companies. They say these protectionist measures would hurt free trade??..Those added measures are to protect US companies that has been exploited in Asia for decades...China has been killing us infringing on our patents although they aren't part of this agreement..

I didn't research the other concerns but I will..

Currency manipulation is a problem, it's not a reason not to do this deal. At least doing the deal will give you leverage to bring violators to the table. Right now, we have no such leverage. China is the biggest manipulator that we have issue with, who isn't part of this deal...

Guess you didnt check out the article, goes into much more depth about ISDS. Here is some of it...

How the TPP Special Court Crushes Domestic Laws and Plunders the Public

A secretive super-court system called ISDS is threatening to blow up President Barack Obama’s highest foreign policy priority.

Investor-state dispute settlement — an integral part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — allows companies to sue entire countries for costing them money when laws or regulations change. Cases are decided by extrajudicial tribunals composed of three corporate lawyers. Buzzfeed, in a multi-part investigation launched Sunday, called it “the court that rules the world.”

Although the ISDS process has existed for years, TPP would drastically expand it. The most common criticisms of the system are that it’s secret, that it’s dominated by unaccountable big-firm lawyers, and that global corporations use it to change sovereign laws and undermine regulations. That’s all true.

But here’s what most of the coverage and the critics are missing.

The ISDS system ― which is now written into over 3,000 international trade treaties, including NAFTA ― was designed to solve a specific problem. When corporations invest abroad, they fear that their factories might be nationalized or their products expropriated by governments that also control the local courts. ISDS is meant to give companies confidence that if a country seizes their accounts or factories, they’ll have a fair, neutral place to appeal.

But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

Here’s how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties — just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

It’s the same playbook that hedge funds were following when they bought up Argentine, Puerto Rican and other U.S. housing debt for pennies on the dollar. As The Huffington Post reported in May, the financiers were betting they could use lawsuits and lobbying to influence the political system in favor of the creditors like them and reap huge rewards.

Indeed, the damage of ISDS goes far beyond the money that investors manage to extract from public coffers and extends to the corruption of a political system by investors who buy off scholars, economists and politicians in pursuit of whatever policy outcome leads to a payoff. And there’s nothing stopping plutocrats with agendas that go beyond profit-making from getting involved ― again the way Thiel did with Gawker. That alone changes the power dynamic: If you’re the government of Thailand, the billionaire you’re negotiating with has one extra threat at his disposal.

If these investors are able to cement ISDS as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the opportunities for hedge funds to do what they’ve already done to Argentina will be endless ― possibly even in cities and states under financial pressure in the U.S., like Detroit and Illinois.

So-called third-party funding of “international arbitration against foreign sovereigns” has been expanding quickly, according to Selvyn Seidel, a pioneer in the litigation finance industry and now CEO of the advisory firm Fulbrook Capital Management.

“You can get an award for billions of dollars when that award would never come out in domestic law,” said Gus van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in Toronto. “It’s just a jackpot for speculators.”

Here’s an example. In 2008, the Spanish government, under pressure from the eurozone to cut its budget during the financial crisis, began to reverse generous subsidies for solar energy. Spain reduced support for solar in stages. It changed the definition of its main solar incentive program in 2008, reduced the subsidies through two measures in 2010, placed a moratorium on subsidies for new solar plants in 2011, and added further restrictions in 2013.

Renewable energy activists could only shout into the air. But a group of investors hatched a plan.

Between November 2011 and December 2013, 22 different companies sued Spain in seven different cases over the subsidy changes – not in Spanish courts, but using ISDS.

So how do you explain how they spin the extra protection for US companies on intellectual properties into seeking something denying free trade??

South Korea and India aren't minipulating their currencies..Maybe Japan a little when USD/JPY gets below 100..China is not part of this deal..They are fanning flames that don't exist..

Does any of what I posted concern you at all? Basically ISDS in its current evolution allows speculators to do to entire countries what collection agencies do to individuals with credit card debt, but worse. Thats just one facet of the problem with ISDS.

Pharmaceutical companies are using patent protection to keep life saving medications artificially high, pushing the release of generic alternatives years into the future. Even generic medicines are skyrocketing in price. Often these pharmaceutical companies just buy the rights, having nothing to do with R&D.

Entertainment giants are holding onto properties close to a century after the creators of said work of art have long since died. Its just one more hand at the trough. Thats what all these so called trade deals are about, not encouraging widely shared prosperity, its about allowing more wealthy people to charge rent.

I really don't know much about the ISDS stuff to give an informed opinion..I did read that the US is currently engaged in 50 such agreements currently. Not sure about the ramifications behind those..I do get your point about pharmaceuticals and their patents but many factors effect the duration of a patent..They vary depending on the type of drug. But that just one arena compared to the many more that exist where intellectual properties and patents are concerned..Look at Under Amour in Asia..A Chinese knockoff just launched..You don't think they should get protections against that??You think they should share the wealth???



Introducing Uncle Martian, China's new blatant Under Armour knockoff



The currency manipulation I do know about and it involves China mostly...China is not part of this agreement..