Future of the Republican Party

[blah3]

Bacys noted probably the most important reason. That being we no longer have a say in world standards. If we fall behind what could become world standards, or simply fall behind on technology development due to our pandering to the fossil fuel lobby, we could easily find ourselves either losing markets for our products, having to depend on foreign technologies and their complimentary products, or both.

Even Saudi Arabia is investing very heavily in green. Not that they are worried about climate but rather they see the writing on the wall and want a market edge on the products/technologies that will keep them profitable as demand for oil decreases. We are taking a very near term stance as opposed to many other countries.

Cmon. The US is a leader in standards. To say we are going to fall behind is ludicrous. To say we are going to fall behind so far that we won’t have a say anymore is downright laughable.

[blah3]

You're babbling ignorant gibberish. Trump slightly improved NAFTA. The same changes could have been negotiated in a normal fashion without hurting Americans with idiot tariffs and threatening our trading partners. USMCA is NAFTA with a new name and a few new provisions. NAFTA was certainly ripe to get updated, we just could have been smarter and less asshole about it.

We ceded Pacific trade to China.

I don't what "part of deal with china was to crack down on intellectual theft" is supposed to mean. The "deal" Trump announced with China before he decided he had to deflect blame for his own incompetence in dealing with the pandemic by highlighting its origin in China? The deal that's only in "Phase I"? The English version had a "commitment" from China to do something about intellectual property issues (which is more than just "theft"), but Trump hadn't gotten a Chinese version printed. Who knows how they're interpreting that?

The NATO countries aren't "kicking in" more money. Like Trump, you're abysmally ignorant of how NATO works. NATO members aren't "kicking in" any more than they were before. The money Trump has ranted about isn't kicked in to anything. Moreover, their increases in defense spending are consequent to an agreement made in 2014, as I already noted.

To me, the most significant part of this (deal) was what the U.S. was able to achieve on intellectual property," Clete Willems, a partner at law firm Akin Gump, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday. "Trade secrets theft has been a long-time concern for U.S. businesses, and businesses around the world."

Willems was previously the deputy director of the National Economic Council and served as the lead trade negotiator for the United States at multilateral summits like the G-7 and G-20.

He explained that the trade agreement's provisions to protect intellectual property would make a difference for many of the companies doing business in China. "They're going to have criminal penalties. They're going to have due process for the judicial proceedings. They're going to apply those penalties broader than they did in the past," Willems said, adding there are provisions about pharmaceutical patents and counterfeit goods in the trade pact.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...s-beijing.html

Trump is addressing issues. I know not fast enough for you, but better than previous admins
The new nafta is better than the old nafta (and I was behind getting nafta into place). It’s not no tariffs from either side, but I take improvement even though I can’t get perfection

[bacchys]

The China agreement hasn't actually happened yet. They agreed on a Phase I. It only includes a pledge from China: there's no enforcement mechanism or dispute resolution.

I agreed USMCA was an improvement on NAFTA. What I criticized was the stupid and unnecessary way Trump went about getting it. It all could have happened without hurting American, Mexican, and Canadian businesses and farmers.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk