0
20

[–] Amateur_Wizard 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Activists.

terrorists.

Protest safe.

0
17

[–] 9-11 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago  (edited ago)

TPP/NAFTA are agreements that benefit trade (aka rich people with factories). thanks to NAFTA capital/money can cross borders no problem looking for the best return on investment/interest.... goods can be manufactured in the cheapest labor supply and moved to the most expensive retail market..... but labor is chained to its country of origin with a military enforcement at that same porous border. This is by definition bad for the low wage worker in america who has his job shipped off. he cannot cross the border to mexico to get his job back. but DAY TERK URR JERBS.... no the immigrant took the agriculture job you didnt want, your actual job went to mexico.

meanwhile a company like Chrysler can have its steel parts made in china, plastic parts made in Laos, pay for a boat ride to mexico for 80% of the assembly, shipped tax free across yet another border, for the last tiny bit of assembly in detroit, then its shipped to miami to sell for full retail. all profits are immediately moved to italy where chrysler is owned and operated from. meanwhile you see their commercials talking about how hard it is to be the best american car company.

TPP will have exactly the same bad effect x 5. watch the jobs go poof. there is no such thing as "free trade" without an entirely open and unguarded border like interstate commerce in the states or in the Euro-zone... which i wouldnt have a problem with if i could just meander over to where my job went, but then you have the entire argument of social benefits/hand outs to deal with. economics in the 21st century will be a challenge when less and less labor is needed for the same thing (robotics/automation).

0
0

[–] TuxedoMan ago 

for awhile i thought you were just going to be a mass poster, but it seems like you actually think out your posts and topics, pretty well written write-up. hope you help make Voat a better place with us all.

6
-6

0
8

[–] wellendowedduckling 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm there

0
4

[–] 2741924? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Don't forget to turn your phone off!

0
2

[–] BrianFellow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Don't even bring it at all.

0
4

[–] jaceame 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

When can we schedule in a civil war if possible?

0
3

[–] RedLeader 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The technology used to pacify crowds is staggering these days. Unless the people militarize, I don't think they have a snowballs chance in hell of taking ground, even then, I'm not sure the odds would improve much.

I think a far better option would be to educate people on the issues so we stop feeding into a system that harms us.

1
1

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

You misunderstand the concept of civil war. It's not about victory - it's about making the status quo too costly.

0
0

[–] freedumbz ago  (edited ago)

You're right about the militarization. People need to dakka up if they want a chance of fighting gov't forces. But there are a few things that many people miss.

Firstly, most of the US does have equipment (or easy access to said equipment) comparable to the average infantryman. What they lack is training. While many vets and former special forces could provide a lot of training there is no substitute to what the actual infantryman gets.

If there was a war, in any pitched battle the rebels would very likely get stomped. There will be a few battles where this is the case. The war would be that of attrition. The rebels would be everywhere and anywhere. They will strike whenever they see an opportunity. It's a war where instead of a few large blows like a conventional war there would be innumerous pinpricks. It would drain the morale and financial resources of the larger army, eventually leading to withdrawal.

The generals would never "lose" a battle, they'll win every time if they can get them in the open. It's the accountants that will surrender. They'll look at the constant material drain and tell them that this costs too much, and leadership would order them out. Exactly how the revolutionary war ran, exactly how vietnam ran.

If there was a civil war over this there is also a large portion of the military that would abandon their post and throw in their lot with the rebels. This includes a good chunk of hardware suddenly vanishing (the only exception to this would likely be aircraft - planes especially). While the idea of an M1 vs M1 fight gets me hard, It's not how the war will be fought. If the rebels were smart they wouldn't bother much with tanks, they'd just destroy them when they get them (unless they have an immediate use for them) and be on their way.

0
2

[–] Activism-is-waste 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Terror is only the begging of peasants to solve a straw man problem.

0
1

[–] TuxedoMan 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

God i wish i could be there, ill just spam every single friggen congressman's inbox with a well fortified argument and sign every document i can stating that I, along with the general public are against support for only the 1%. Do they work hard enough to justify the pay gap? is it fair that poverty lurks even if people work as hard as they can towards their future and they make a middle class citizens monthly wage in a few minutes sitting behind a chair counting their money again?

0
1

[–] jeegte12 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

i wish so badly i could go. texas is just too far to get enough time off my work to drive. anyone wanna buy me a plane ticket

3
1

[–] mcwilshire 3 points 1 point (+4|-3) ago 

Why should I oppose the TPP agreement?

0
6

[–] GenghisSean 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I thought this video explained some concerns succinctly. One of the scariest parts is the ability for international corporations to sue governments for laws that damage their expected future profits, even if it benefits or protects the people of the country.

1
2

[–] mcwilshire 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Too vague. Claims that TPP threatens our ability to "embrace clean energy" and stop the "export and use" of fossil fuels. They probably already lost me there (particularly because the Sierra Club through its opposition to the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels has no credibility in the "clean energy" discussion), but how exactly does it do that?

Something not from The Sierra Club would be better.

0
5

[–] TrivialGravitas 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

You should oppose any and all secret laws because fuck knows what they contain.

0
1

[–] strongdoctor 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

6
-5

0
0

[–] jwess ago 

Among the rules the US wishes to include, the 'yarn-forward' rule is especially controversial. Under this rule, TPP signatories would only qualify for tariff concessions if their yarns and fabrics come from other TPP countries.

The IP provisions that the US advocates are also particularly strict and not without controversy.

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)