General discussion


Is Ron Paul locked out?

By jdclyde ·
With all the hooting and hollering for McCain and his majority wins yesterday, where does that leave the stealth campaign of Ron Paul?

Is he still hoping to get in?

Is he dropping out?

Will he run as an independent?

Looking at some of his websites, they state "Now there are two".

Paul writes to forbes.

What I would like to know from people that are involved in this campaign (you know who you are) is what is next?

Front page of the Detroit Free Press "McCain clinches GOP nod"

I cannot vote for McCain. Give me hope, someone.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

121 total posts (Page 2 of 13)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Well you did state that he signed it ;-) <NT>

by IC-IT In reply to I didn't say it was his i ...
Collapse -

because he did

by jdclyde In reply to Well you did state that h ...

Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats on this one though.

Collapse -

No, he did not sign it, Read above again

by IC-IT In reply to Well you did state that h ...

He allowed it to proceed, but never signed it because Bush had already signed it.
Also look at the vote. Clinton added two new conditions to lessen corporations ability to screw us as badly. Politically it was a smart move to lessen the friction on other Bills.

Collapse -

Thank you bwilmot

by DanLM In reply to Well you did state that h ...

For the additional information. I remember now that you brought it up, but not untill you did.

I didn't realize that President Clinton's additional bills lessoned the impact?

I'm not sure I understand how... But, at least I have a place to start to find out.


Collapse -

We had much the same kind of talk here

by JamesRL In reply to It is giving a handjob to ...

And it all came from the unions as well. We did lose some manufacturing jobs in Canada, some to southern US right to work states, some to the far east. Very few to Mexico.

NAFTA by the way, started out as a US/Canada deal, was delayed by the US to bring Mexico in. Our perception is that the Reagan white house forced us into NAFTA, Brian Mulrony when running for leader said he was against it. When running for a second term, he of course supported it.

And NAFTA has nothing to do with border security or immigration.


Collapse -


by PSer In reply to We had much the same kind ...

"Our perception is that the Reagan white house forced us into NAFTA"

Very astute, you are.

Collapse -

Very experienced I am

by JamesRL In reply to :)

I worked full time in the communications group for a leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party (go ahead and make fun of the name and just get it over with).

During the convention, the candidate who was in third place spoke first. He advocated free trade. My candidate, who was first in the first ballot, who had been the Prime Minister came next, and he added a line to his speech to oppose free trade, and Brian Mulroney did the same. The audience of elected delegates from across the country clapped loudly for both anti-free trade speeches.

After getting a massive majority, Brian Mulroney got quite chummy with Reagan -both conservatives, both with Irish roots. Both were hams.

The worry about Free Trade was that the US would use its size to bully us into an unfavourable agreement and once it was in place, could afford to ignore it when they wanted to and enforce it when they wanted to because the US has more lawyers and deeper pockets.

And that did happen - anyone who looks at softwood lumber (US owes Canada 10 billion in illegal tarriffs collected, but after three wins in court, and continued US refusal to abide by the rulings Canada settles for half).

So the concerns were justified, the US made few concessions in the agreement, and Canada made many, including the inclusion of Mexico. Canada lost the rights to controll foreign ownership of Canadian media and some water rights.

But overall our trade surplus increased. Some of that may have been due to the agreement, some to lower labour costs and weak dollar making our goods attractively priced in the US.

Who is to say that the jobs that went to Mexico would not have gone to China if NAFTA didn't exist. We North Americans seem to have an unlimited appetite for cheap goods. Thats the larger issue, and the Democrats posturing on NAFTA will not help bring manufacturing jobs back.


Collapse -

Unions will go the way of the dinosaur

by gar123 In reply to We had much the same kind ...

Unions will go the way of the dinosaur if NAFTA and the trans Texas corridor succeed. The way I understand it, all oversea shipment will come in through Mexico once this is in place. Major ports in California and the east coast will eventually be ghost towns in some areas. Any job connected to shipping will vanish into thin air.

Collapse -

NAFTA has been in place for 15 years

by JamesRL In reply to Unions will go the way of ...

And the Canadian/US FTA for five years more than that.

Maybe in Texas and Southern California some shipping jobs will be lost. But it can't be cheaper to ship by train from Mexico to the Pacific Northwest or New England than to dock your ship in NYC or Seattle.


Collapse -

Non-Union ports now save a fortune?

by jdclyde In reply to NAFTA has been in place f ...

Non-union costs less and works harder/faster.

A super highway right through the center of the US would make it easier to get goods in from Mexico than to drive from our coasts.

Back to Windows Forum
121 total posts (Page 2 of 13)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums