Was America withdrawing from the TPP a good idea? What would be the reasons for doing so?

Was America withdrawing from the TPP a good idea? What would be the reasons for doing so?

>TTIP already canceld
>TPP now canceld
>NAFTA soon to be canceld
The globalists are finished

Fucks over the working people makes the money movers richer

TPP would have allowed corporations to sue across National lines with no way for the government to stop them. It would have put half the world in corporate rule.

Nah blood, this shit is cyclical. But inevitably technology inches us towards globalism.

Inevitably technology inches us towards nationalism.

it's a good thing. if other countries really want us in it we can negotiate from a position of power putting our own interest 1st.

you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

Nah, increased ease of transport and communication moved us from tribes to kingdoms to nations to trans-nations.

Natural developments can and sometimes must be supressed.
All free trade agreements should be stopped, ASEAN and EU disbanded and foreign goods should be taxed with 70%

Haha trans-nations. That's just a politically correct term describing what happens when a nation capitulates to another.

It's only beginning, Kraut.

"In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals."

The EU is not the capitulation of any one nation. France, the UK and Germany were all on a more of less level playing field.

It was a ploy to permanently lock countries into an EU tier trading agreement which means nigger countries get access to our resources that we put together they can't for the life of them figure out on their own, cause they're niggers

That's why whenever the EU passes a mandate, each nation has a choice on whether or not to follow it. Yeah, that sounds like a sovereign state to me.

Big pharm could sue Indians for producing cheaper generics of their own drugs.

Increased the ease of outsourcing tech and medical professionals abroad

Designed to make the rich richer at the expense of others. Nothing else

I never said it was a soverign state. I said it was a trans-nation. A term you disagreed with.

What is a "trans-nation" other than one government controlling two or more areas who both claim they are separate entities? Please explain your made up term if you are going to present it.

you know how when you sit at a poker table and you can't tell who the sucker is, you are the sucker?

America leaves the TPP and all the other countries just get up and leave. Who do you think the sucker at this table was?

Yes, I get that we were trying to fuck over China, but it is not worth it if we have to open our ass up and get raped

It's an entity that assumes properties of a soverign state. That doesn't make it the equal of a soverign state, though it may morph into one in the future.

So, in layman's terms, a puppet state.

For the middle class of USA, Oz and NZ this is very good

Globalists and asian factory workers on suicide watch though

Is the EU a puppet of it's members? Perhaps but that's a difficult definition. For one the puppet masters often don't agree.

I was saying the EU is the puppet master of the nations that are member states, maybe I didn't make that clear.

Then you don't undertsand that it is the member states than run the EU, not the other way around.

They aren't like states in the US, treaty changes require unanimous consent.

It actually works the exact same way. Our federal government can tell my state to accept gay marriage without our approval. The EU can tell a member state it must accept migrants without its approval. How does that sound different to you?

No. Most European countries are required to accept refugees due to the convention on refugees, a treaty signed after WW2 by sovereign states.

The EU couldn't force a nation to adopt gay marraige because the nations have not unanimously agreed to pool that sovereignty. While the federal government can impose gay marraige on a state without the state's consent.

Do you see the difference? One requires prior consent. The other doesn't.