How would you have voted on NAFTA?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 07:57:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  How would you have voted on NAFTA?		 « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: How would you have voted on NAFTA?
#1
Yea (D)		  
#2
Nay (D)		  
#3
Yea (R)		  
#4
Nay (R)		  
#5
Yea (O)		  
#6
Nay (O)		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 50

Author Topic: How would you have voted on NAFTA?  (Read 3698 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2006, 04:55:48 PM »
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 06:43:18 AM
Quote from: John Ford on January 30, 2006, 07:35:31 PM
There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2006, 04:58:15 PM »
yes but people here in Michigan hate free trade
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,706
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2006, 04:58:38 PM »
Maybe overall, but it probably hurt some older industrial areas (hurt the UP for sure). O/c it's not a black and white case either way; most big economic decisions aren't.

Oh and to answer the question; would have depended on what my constituents wanted.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2006, 05:13:18 PM »
Aye (normal)
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2006, 05:29:07 PM »
Quote from: John Ford on January 31, 2006, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 06:43:18 AM
Quote from: John Ford on January 30, 2006, 07:35:31 PM
There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.

Really?  I believe the lower working class is in quite awful shape these days, and union membership has declined.  Arguably the impoverishment of the worker has a great many causes, and even among foriegn causes China has probably had a greater effect than Mexico.  But still, there is no doubt that the NAFTA certainly harmed at least the lower half of the U.S. population.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2006, 08:20:35 PM »
nay-it's not really free trade.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2006, 11:56:59 PM »
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: John Ford on January 31, 2006, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 06:43:18 AM
Quote from: John Ford on January 30, 2006, 07:35:31 PM
There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.

Really?  I believe the lower working class is in quite awful shape these days, and union membership has declined.  Arguably the impoverishment of the worker has a great many causes, and even among foriegn causes China has probably had a greater effect than Mexico.  But still, there is no doubt that the NAFTA certainly harmed at least the lower half of the U.S. population.

Poverty hasn't risen since NAFTA was passed.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2006, 06:00:17 PM »
Nay.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2006, 06:01:29 PM »
Yea
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,304
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2006, 06:06:36 PM »
I haven't read the bill, but I'm pretty sure I would vote Nay.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2006, 07:23:11 PM »
Quote from: John Ford on January 31, 2006, 11:56:59 PM
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: John Ford on January 31, 2006, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: opebo on January 31, 2006, 06:43:18 AM
Quote from: John Ford on January 30, 2006, 07:35:31 PM
There's not much of an argument against NAFTA left after 12 years of it.

Really?  I'm sure the same arguments that were suggested at the time of its inception still apply.

The idea that NAFTA would result in a giant sucking sound seems pretty stupid now, so no the original argument against the bill doesn't apply.  Perhaps there is some peripheral argument out there someplace, but the central argument against NAFTA was disproven.

Really?  I believe the lower working class is in quite awful shape these days, and union membership has declined.  Arguably the impoverishment of the worker has a great many causes, and even among foriegn causes China has probably had a greater effect than Mexico.  But still, there is no doubt that the NAFTA certainly harmed at least the lower half of the U.S. population.

Poverty hasn't risen since NAFTA was passed.

Perhaps a better way of saying this would be that many americans have gotten poorer, since the official designation of 'poverty' is absurdly low.
Logged
GOP = Terrorists
Progress
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2006, 09:06:32 PM »
No (D)

Because America > Corporations.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2006, 09:17:13 PM »
Yea, we must learn to compete in a global economy.
Logged
GOP = Terrorists
Progress
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2006, 11:07:36 AM »
Quote from: Jtfdem on February 01, 2006, 09:17:13 PM
Yea, we must learn to compete in a global economy.

Wonder how well that goes over in Michigan... =)
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,009


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2006, 12:24:36 PM »
Quote from: Jtfdem on February 01, 2006, 09:17:13 PM
Yea, we must learn to compete in a global economy.

By 'compete' you mean the worker must be impoverished for the convenience of his owner.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2006, 05:44:59 PM »

The closest you'll ever be!  You get .2% of the votes and still don't want to compromise.
Logged
ian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,461


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -1.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2006, 06:40:15 PM »
Nay.  I'm not a Fair Trade advocate by any stretch of the imagination, but I think some restrictions are good in trade.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,975
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2006, 06:53:51 PM »
Against.

Giant sucking sound headin south!
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2006, 07:04:34 PM »
For the side of whatever lobbying group gave me the most. I support the act though, especially its effects to date.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2006, 04:02:05 PM »
Well, I strongly support free trade, so obviously I'd have to vote nay on such horrible protectionism.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2006, 02:56:58 PM »
Quote from: Demi-Senator Bono on February 04, 2006, 04:02:05 PM
Well, I strongly support free trade, so obviously I'd have to vote nay on such horrible protectionism.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 13 queries.