McCain, NAFTA, and the stupidest argument ever

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    So, McCain thinks supporting NAFTA is important because Canada has troops in Afghanistan.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_nafta

    So, we shouldn't think about renegotiating NAFTA because Canada has 2500 troops in Afghanistan? Is McCain crazy? I know the guy claims not to understand economics, but I had no idea he really just didn't get it at all.

    Trade with Canada isn't important because Canada has a few thousand troops in Afghanistan, trade with Canada is important because CANADA IS THE LARGEST U.S. TRADING PARTNER. $561.55 billion combined exports and imports in 2007.

    http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2007/12/balance.html

    McCain should be ashamed for making this argument. It's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
     
  2. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    He didn't get the name "Insane McCain" for nothing. His behavior has been erratic for the last few years. It's a shame too- I think there truly was a time when he actually could have made a good President.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    But this was a prepared speech, at a planned event! Is his whole staff nuts?

    (As an Apple forum, we should also point out he gave this speech at Dell) :)
     
  4. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    Just for fun, flip it around: We should abrogate NAFTA because Mexico has NO troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    :D:D:D

    'Rat
     
  5. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    To be perfectly honest, the problem is that most people are highly distrusting of these trade agreements. The criticism of the WTO for example is never ending, and although it isn't perfect its a hell of a lot better than the situation would be without it, we all benefit from it, even the poor countries.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    Aw, yeah, Eraserhead, but some arguments are just too, too stupid to accept without raucous laughter.

    Rauc, rauc, rauc...

    'Rat
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #7
    I don't understand why Hillary and Obama are thinking of renegotiating in the first place. The deal has been unilaterally good for the US whereas Canada has been screwed over and over and over again by it.

    The general view up here is that the US has never lived up to the agreement and that it has completely ignored it in most cases. Good Luck trying to re-negotiate it, cause we won't trust you next time. ;)
     
  8. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Well, in that case, wouldn't it be a nice idea to negotiate a treaty that the US could live up to? No harm in that.
     
  9. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Unfortunately I think this:

    Absolute-Pig_Flying.gif

    is more likely. However it is possible that the democrats are thinking more forwardly and realising that the US won't be powerful for much longer and so needs to get some more realistic treaties done.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Well, even the Republicans realised that: those pesky Geneva Conventions are well unrealistic. And as for the UN, just don't get me started...
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    Well, I think Clinton and Obama are just plain pandering for Ohio votes. I agree there's roughly zero chance that they'd make serous changes to NAFTA.

    I do think it's interesting that most people seem not to like these trade deals because they tend to only see the negative effects that they have on their economy. Virgil-TB2 thinks Canada got screwed by NAFTA. Ohioans and Texans think they got screwed by NAFTA. I'm sure there are Mexicans who think they got screwed by NAFTA. The thing is, of course, they're all right. There are winners and losers in all of the countries because of NAFTA. That's always the case. And the argument that it benefits us all more than if hurts the few shows why the general reporting of reactions is generally negative. The benefit to each of the winners is small, whereas anyone who got screwed probably got royally screwed. Who do you expect to talk louder.

    Great point about Mexico 'Rat. I hadn't even thought of that point to show just how silly McCain's argument is.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Maybe compared to our current Pres. But yeah, I know what you mean. I actually respected the guy in '00, and considered voting for him. I'd say Bush has screwed things up for him again, but he's digging his own ditch. I hope we're not dumb enough to fall for it again.
     
  13. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    miloblithe, I often natter away about unintended consequences. One NAFTA consequence has been that of a strong negative impact on farmers in Mexico. We have been able to produce beans and corn at a lower sales price than they could. Gone-broke farmers from Mexico are a notable part of the illegal immigration to the U.S.

    'Rat
     

Share This Page