Over 55% of US trade now has new deals

Below are the top 15 trading partner countries based upon exports from the USA in 2017.

There have been new trade deals concluded (although the US-Canada-Mexico deal needs to be ratified and passed) Canada, Mexico, Europe, and South Korea.

Canada and Mexico are 34% of US exports. Europe is 20%. South Korea is 3%. The US has new trade deals for 57% of its exports.

The US is still negotiating with China (including Hong Kong) and Japan.

1. Canada: US$282.5 billion (18.3% of total US exports)
2. Mexico: $243 billion (15.7%)
3. China: $130.4 billion (8.4%)
4. Japan: $67.7 billion (4.4%)
5. United Kingdom: $56.3 billion (3.6%)
6. Germany: $53.5 billion (3.5%)
7. South Korea: $48.3 billion (3.1%)
8. Netherlands: $42.2 billion (2.7%)
9. Hong Kong: $40 billion (2.6%)
10. Brazil: $37.1 billion (2.4%)
11. France: $34.2 billion (2.2%)
12. Belgium: $29.9 billion (1.9%)
13. Singapore: $29.8 billion (1.9%)
14. Taiwan: $25.8 billion (1.7%)
15. India: $25.7 billion (1.7%)

Almost three-quarters (74.1%) of American exports in 2017 were delivered to the above 15 trade partners.

The United States incurred the highest trade deficits with the following countries:

China: -US$395.8 billion (country-specific trade deficit in 2017)
Mexico: -$74 billion
Japan: -$72.2 billion
Germany: -$66.7 billion
Vietnam: -$40.3 billion
Ireland: -$38.3 billion
Italy: -$33.1 billion
Malaysia: -$25.3 billion
India: -$24.9 billion
South Korea: -$24.9 billion

135 thoughts on “Over 55% of US trade now has new deals”

  1. Oh..oh my God. I went back and reread this article, and then I read your reply again, and I thought, “Oh lord, was I drunk or something when I wrote this?” Because yeah, true, it had NOTHING to do with the voting system. xD I looked over the comments, and I think it was the very first comment that did it. I feel bad, like I started a war without meaning to. Fail and FML lol So, really, I kind of just FEEL like the electoral college is rigged, even though, in actuality, it’s not. Just sort of feels that way. Granted, I can’t figure out if that’s because I feel like a popular vote would be more fair, or if the EC isn’t suitable for a country our size, or if it’s because my social/morals don’t fit with Trump’s views (which could be par for the course, lots of people whine when they lose). But that brings me to Hilary, so let me throw some shade at her. I don’t hold with Trump’s views. But, show of hands, who thinks Hilary isn’t also corrupt? I’m not really for her either. I’m not a fan of the term “super predator” or of people not doing what they say they’ll do. Does that mean I’m not a fan of politicians in general? You’re right, though, nothing in any U.S. document states that the EC wasn’t meant to he used indefinitely. We can only guess at what the founders of the country were thinking when they weren’t penning their thoughts. So that was just me rehashing what people on one side of things repeat, I was being a sheep. Again, that was down to feeling, which in politics, i get the impression that “feeling” is about as safe as a holding a metal pole in a lightning storm. The NAFTA issue, I still have to go back and read more about the agreement to find out why I thought it was bad. And I believe you said something in later comments about me not posting on NBF when Obama was elected, and…okay, I don’t have an excuse for that, actually. I don’t think I knew about this site at the time. I would have been about 24, so as to my alibi, I was likely ha

    Reply
  2. Oh..oh my God. I went back and reread this article and then I read your reply again and I thought Oh lord”” was I drunk or something when I wrote this?”” Because yeah”” true it had NOTHING to do with the voting system. xD I looked over the comments and I think it was the very first comment that did it. I feel bad like I started a war without meaning to. Fail and FML lolSo really I kind of just FEEL like the electoral college is rigged even though in actuality it’s not. Just sort of feels that way. Granted I can’t figure out if that’s because I feel like a popular vote would be more fair or if the EC isn’t suitable for a country our size or if it’s because my social/morals don’t fit with Trump’s views (which could be par for the course lots of people whine when they lose). But that brings me to Hilary so let me throw some shade at her. I don’t hold with Trump’s views. But show of hands”” who thinks Hilary isn’t also corrupt? I’m not really for her either. I’m not a fan of the term “”””super predator”””” or of people not doing what they say they’ll do. Does that mean I’m not a fan of politicians in general?You’re right”” though nothing in any U.S. document states that the EC wasn’t meant to he used indefinitely. We can only guess at what the founders of the country were thinking when they weren’t penning their thoughts. So that was just me rehashing what people on one side of things repeat I was being a sheep. Again that was down to feeling which in politics”” i get the impression that “”””feeling”””” is about as safe as a holding a metal pole in a lightning storm. The NAFTA issue”” I still have to go back and read more about the agreement to find out why I thought it was bad. And I believe you said something in later comments about me not posting on NBF when Obama was elected and…okay I don’t have an excuse for that actually. I don’t think I knew about this site at the time. I would have been about 24 so as to my alibi”

    Reply
  3. Oh..oh my God. I went back and reread this article, and then I read your reply again, and I thought, “Oh lord, was I drunk or something when I wrote this?” Because yeah, true, it had NOTHING to do with the voting system. xD I looked over the comments, and I think it was the very first comment that did it. I feel bad, like I started a war without meaning to. Fail and FML lol

    So, really, I kind of just FEEL like the electoral college is rigged, even though, in actuality, it’s not. Just sort of feels that way. Granted, I can’t figure out if that’s because I feel like a popular vote would be more fair, or if the EC isn’t suitable for a country our size, or if it’s because my social/morals don’t fit with Trump’s views (which could be par for the course, lots of people whine when they lose).

    But that brings me to Hilary, so let me throw some shade at her. I don’t hold with Trump’s views. But, show of hands, who thinks Hilary isn’t also corrupt? I’m not really for her either. I’m not a fan of the term “super predator” or of people not doing what they say they’ll do. Does that mean I’m not a fan of politicians in general?

    You’re right, though, nothing in any U.S. document states that the EC wasn’t meant to he used indefinitely. We can only guess at what the founders of the country were thinking when they weren’t penning their thoughts. So that was just me rehashing what people on one side of things repeat, I was being a sheep. Again, that was down to feeling, which in politics, i get the impression that “feeling” is about as safe as a holding a metal pole in a lightning storm.

    The NAFTA issue, I still have to go back and read more about the agreement to find out why I thought it was bad.

    And I believe you said something in later comments about me not posting on NBF when Obama was elected, and…okay, I don’t have an excuse for that, actually. I don’t think I knew about this site at the time. I would have been about 24, so as to my alibi, I was likely half passed out in some goth club smeared with black eyeliner and lipstick and wearing my liquor on my shirt. That said, if he hadn’t won the popular vote, I wouldn’t have been pleased. I think I’d already begun whining about the EC at that point. But that goes back to…why should it exist, or why shouldn’t it? Most people in this thread are going to know more about it than I will (I admit, shamefully). What are your thoughts on it?

    Regarding “just saying”… Um. Ya know, I’m not sure about that one. Probably just ran out of BS. Or I was late for my far-left-leaning-Satan-loving-tree-hugging Dungeons and Dragons game where I play a far-right Mormon Paladin who runs lumber and coal mining operations (if we forget how to laugh at the sociopolitical and cultural landscape, we are so finished as a country).

    Reply
  4. There is no such thing as true democracy in the US. True democracy was practiced by the ancient Athenians but no modern nation-state. Sorry, are you even educated? “As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states” People don’t vote for POTUS. Never have.

    Reply
  5. There is no such thing as true democracy in the US. True democracy was practiced by the ancient Athenians but no modern nation-state. Sorry are you even educated?As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states””People don’t vote for POTUS. Never have.”””

    Reply
  6. There is no such thing as true democracy in the US. True democracy was practiced by the ancient Athenians but no modern nation-state.

    Sorry, are you even educated?

    “As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states”

    People don’t vote for POTUS. Never have.

    Reply
  7. No. I didn’t read both deals and do a thorough analysis. Don’t have that much free time right now. I did read a few reports on it. But I also know that people don’t often cut their own throats. So if Mexico and Canada agreed to it they couldn’t be screwing them self that bad.

    Reply
  8. No. I didn’t read both deals and do a thorough analysis. Don’t have that much free time right now. I did read a few reports on it. But I also know that people don’t often cut their own throats. So if Mexico and Canada agreed to it they couldn’t be screwing them self that bad.

    Reply
  9. You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system.” It’s a more fair method choosing the President, then the popular vote. It does a better job at distributing the power the picking the next President, through out the entire country, instead of a handful of the biggest cities choosing for everyone else. But it doesn’t ignore the large amounts of people within those more populated states, when their population goes up, that is reflected in how many representatives they get.

    Reply
  10. You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system.””It’s a more fair method choosing the President”” then the popular vote. It does a better job at distributing the power the picking the next President through out the entire country instead of a handful of the biggest cities choosing for everyone else. But it doesn’t ignore the large amounts of people within those more populated states when their population goes up”” that is reflected in how many representatives they get.”””

    Reply
  11. The point of the US system is that Republics keep people from just making spurt of the moment emotional decisions. It also makes sure that the people in power are answerable to the very people that elect them. BTW the US isn’t a democracy. If you actually look up the founders opinions on democracy or hell look up the past democracies you’ll find a lot of horrible stuff. Wana know whats wrong with Democracy? If we had 60% of the people tomorrow vote back slavery in a direct democracy it could be legal and accepted. With the constitution our laws and the Republic not so much.

    Reply
  12. The point of the US system is that Republics keep people from just making spurt of the moment emotional decisions.It also makes sure that the people in power are answerable to the very people that elect them.BTW the US isn’t a democracy. If you actually look up the founders opinions on democracy or hell look up the past democracies you’ll find a lot of horrible stuff.Wana know whats wrong with Democracy? If we had 60{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the people tomorrow vote back slavery in a direct democracy it could be legal and accepted. With the constitution our laws and the Republic not so much.

    Reply
  13. I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. ” No you weren’t. You jumped onto Mordriel’s ‘archaic system’ BS. Don’t you remember? “Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you?” What true Democracy? True Democracy is when everyone votes directly on every piece of legislation, like the ancient Athenians did. America does not have democracy. Nor has it ever had it. “Sorry, are you even American? ” Not only am I American, but I am more educated on these matters that you are it seems. Especially after your display of crying out for ‘true democracy’ that we’ve never had nor ever will. “As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do comprehend my point.” The votes of individuals don’t matter anyway. They don’t vote for POTUS! They vote in what are special plebiscites that are A PRIVILEGE granted by their State legislature to direct which batch of candidate-selected Electors attend the College. The system is not flawed. It works exactly as designed and is supposed to. We are a federation of states. And if you don’t like how the flyover states get more power out of this, too bad. That’s your opinion, not a problem. What? You think that you should get special exemption from the Constitution on this matter simply because you and people who vote like you do stupidly self-sorted yourselves into dense geographic locations? That was YOUR choice. All of you. If you want to abolish the Electoral College…go for it. 33,000 attempts have been made to amend the constitution. Only 27 have made made it. So, GOOD LUCK with that. Especially since you’ll need the very states that will lose power from this in order to ratify it. In other words, it will never happen. Never. You’ll have a better chance of getting fools to push through an amendment that redefines the cosmological constant or someth

    Reply
  14. I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. “”No you weren’t. You jumped onto Mordriel’s ‘archaic system’ BS.Don’t you remember?””””Ok”” so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy as indicated by the popular vote”” and that means nothing to you?””””What true Democracy? True Democracy is when everyone votes directly on every piece of legislation”””” like the ancient Athenians did.America does not have democracy. Nor has it ever had it.””””Sorry”””” are you even American? “”””Not only am I American”””” but I am more educated on these matters that you are it seems.Especially after your display of crying out for ‘true democracy’ that we’ve never had nor ever will.””””As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states”””” it seems that you still do comprehend my point.””””The votes of individuals don’t matter anyway. They don’t vote for POTUS! They vote in what are special plebiscites that are A PRIVILEGE granted by their State legislature to direct which batch of candidate-selected Electors attend the College. The system is not flawed. It works exactly as designed and is supposed to. We are a federation of states. And if you don’t like how the flyover states get more power out of this”” too bad. That’s your opinion not a problem. What? You think that you should get special exemption from the Constitution on this matter simply because you and people who vote like you do stupidly self-sorted yourselves into dense geographic locations? That was YOUR choice. All of you. If you want to abolish the Electoral College…go for it. 33000 attempts have been made to amend the constitution. Only 27 have made made it. So GOOD LUCK with that. Especially since you’ll need the very states that will lose power from this in order to ratify it. In other words”” it will never happen. Never. You’ll have a better chance of getting fools to push through an ame”

    Reply
  15. No Ape, you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it, I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. “So what?” Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you? Sorry, are you even American? As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do not comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic, it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.

    Reply
  16. No Ape you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. So what?”” Ok”” so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy as indicated by the popular vote and that means nothing to you? Sorry are you even American? As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states it seems that you still do not comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic”” it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.”””

    Reply
  17. Against WHAT? Something that doesn’t exist and never has existed for electing POTUS? ‘Against’ what is basically a fantasy?

    Reply
  18. Against WHAT? Something that doesn’t exist and never has existed for electing POTUS? ‘Against’ what is basically a fantasy?

    Reply
  19. No. It is the reply when you get caught and are trying to hide your tracks. Esp when you post something straight out of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (or US Chamber of Commerce for that matter) play book.

    Reply
  20. No. It is the reply when you get caught and are trying to hide your tracks.Esp when you post something straight out of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (or US Chamber of Commerce for that matter) play book.

    Reply
  21. Nope, I am agreeing because you are just rehashing the obvious about our current system, I’ve never disputed those facts. On Hillary, yup, I would. You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system. Please enlighten us!

    Reply
  22. Nope I am agreeing because you are just rehashing the obvious about our current system I’ve never disputed those facts. On Hillary yup I would.You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system. Please enlighten us!

    Reply
  23. Ahh… and there comes the pre-packaged reply when you have nothing more to add. Sorry, but what exactly is a “Wu Mau” You have a good day now sir!

    Reply
  24. Ahh… and there comes the pre-packaged reply when you have nothing more to add. Sorry but what exactly is a Wu Mau””You have a good day now sir!”””

    Reply
  25. No Ape, you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it, I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. “So what?” Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you? Sorry, are you even American? As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic, it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.

    Reply
  26. No Ape you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. So what?””Ok”” so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy as indicated by the popular vote and that means nothing to you? Sorry are you even American?As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states it seems that you still do comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic”” it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.”””

    Reply
  27. Bro, you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people.” Translation: You got caught being full of BS and now trying to get out of it. “On Hillary, yes I would, 100%.” No you wouldn’t. ” I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy, and without that, the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished, if not outright disputed.” Tell that to your President Xi. I am sure he’d love that, wu mau.

    Reply
  28. Bro” you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people.””Translation: You got caught being full of BS and now trying to get out of it.””””On Hillary”” yes I would”” 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.””””No you wouldn’t. “””” I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy”” and without that the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished”” if not outright disputed.””””Tell that to your President Xi. I am sure he’d love that”””” wu mau.”””

    Reply
  29. Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet.” Uh.. no you didn’t, remember this reply you provided (as above) when you refused to give an answer? Seriously, are you schizophrenic or have multiple personalities? I will tune my replies going forward so as not to encourage a relapse.

    Reply
  30. Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet.””Uh.. no you didn’t”” remember this reply you provided (as above) when you refused to give an answer?Seriously”” are you schizophrenic or have multiple personalities? I will tune my replies going forward so as not to encourage a relapse.”””

    Reply
  31. Bro, you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people. May I ask exactly why you are against that? On Hillary, yes I would, 100%. I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy, and without that, the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished, if not outright disputed.

    Reply
  32. Bro you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people.May I ask exactly why you are against that?On Hillary yes I would 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy and without that the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished if not outright disputed.

    Reply
  33. Yes ape, I know that, but I was referring to Congress in my original statement, not the electoral system, perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House?” Yes, I did. You just don’t seem to be aware how the EXACT SAME formula used to figure out a state’s total representation in Congress is the same one used to determine how many Electors it can send the the EC…for the EXACT SAME REASONS as the Founders designed it to be. “I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states” Which is not the case in the US. And all voting in the US has to do with the States. It is the states that run the voting systems, after all. “ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people” So what? “As you know, the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system” No it isn’t. Only Senators & Representatives get voted into office by the People. What planet are you on?

    Reply
  34. Yes ape I know that but I was referring to Congress in my original statement not the electoral system” perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House?””Yes”””” I did. You just don’t seem to be aware how the EXACT SAME formula used to figure out a state’s total representation in Congress is the same one used to determine how many Electors it can send the the EC…for the EXACT SAME REASONS as the Founders designed it to be.””””I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states””””Which is not the case in the US. And all voting in the US has to do with the States. It is the states that run the voting systems”””” after all.””””ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people””””So what? “”””As you know”””” the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system””””No it isn’t. Only Senators & Representatives get voted into office by the People. What planet are you on?”””

    Reply
  35. Heh heh, sure thing ape, that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on! ” I did answer. But your poor English comprehension skills is a problem for you, not me.

    Reply
  36. Heh heh sure thing ape” that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on! “”I did answer. But your poor English comprehension skills is a problem for you”””” not me.”””

    Reply
  37. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes, twice. So? He wasn’t elected by that vote. No president ever has. ” This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. ” So? The majority voted against Bill Clinton — BOTH times. Yet, he won because he got the Electoral Vote. “Had Hillary won without the popular votes, I would think she’s unfit as well.” No you wouldn’t.

    Reply
  38. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes twice.So? He wasn’t elected by that vote. No president ever has. This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. “”So? The majority voted against Bill Clinton — BOTH times. Yet”””” he won because he got the Electoral Vote.””””Had Hillary won without the popular votes”””” I would think she’s unfit as well.””””No you wouldn’t.”””

    Reply
  39. Sigh… not sure if you’ve actually taken Economics 101 in college (been to college right?). Try reading up some of the ancillary macro effects of trade, especially pertaining to job creation, and the contributions to the GDP as a results of these effects.

    Reply
  40. Sigh… not sure if you’ve actually taken Economics 101 in college (been to college right?). Try reading up some of the ancillary macro effects of trade especially pertaining to job creation and the contributions to the GDP as a results of these effects.

    Reply
  41. Yes ape, I know that, but I was referring to Congress in my original statement, not the electoral system, perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House? I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states vs. states as all individual Americans are counted equally, which both you and Derek seem to have conveniently missed, and that is why it’s preferred by logic. (Come on ape, please show us that you do pay attention when you read, we all know you’re the resident expert of all things!) My point is that while the electoral system may have the intent of balancing, it ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people (as compared to a popular vote). As you know, the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system, but everyone is Americans all the same, and this is exactly why it needs to be changed.

    Reply
  42. Yes ape I know that but I was referring to Congress in my original statement not the electoral system perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House? I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states vs. states as all individual Americans are counted equally which both you and Derek seem to have conveniently missed and that is why it’s preferred by logic. (Come on ape please show us that you do pay attention when you read we all know you’re the resident expert of all things!)My point is that while the electoral system may have the intent of balancing it ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people (as compared to a popular vote). As you know the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system but everyone is Americans all the same and this is exactly why it needs to be changed.

    Reply
  43. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes, twice. This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. Had Hillary won without the popular votes, I would think she’s unfit as well.

    Reply
  44. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes twice. This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. Had Hillary won without the popular votes I would think she’s unfit as well.

    Reply
  45. Heh heh, sure thing ape, that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on! Just because the electoral system hasn’t been changed doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be. Again, why do you think there are 27 amendments?

    Reply
  46. Heh heh sure thing ape that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on!Just because the electoral system hasn’t been changed doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be. Again why do you think there are 27 amendments?

    Reply
  47. Uh.. no, when I brought up the House, I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers.” Yes, Idiot. That is HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE is also determined, for the EXACT SAME REASONS. Amazing. You don’t even realize how ignorant about which you write comes out every time you type up words.

    Reply
  48. Uh.. no when I brought up the House” I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers.””Yes”” Idiot. That is HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE is also determined”” for the EXACT SAME REASONS. Amazing. You don’t even realize how ignorant about which you write comes out every time you type up words.”””

    Reply
  49. Yes, I have no idea, please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer, which I noticed you have not provided yet.” Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet. “With all due respects to the Founders, they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking, and that is why we have 27 amendments.” Yeaaaah…and not one of them changed the Electoral College. So?

    Reply
  50. Yes I have no idea please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer” which I noticed you have not provided yet.””Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet.””””With all due respects to the Founders”” they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking”” and that is why we have 27 amendments.””””Yeaaaah…and not one of them changed the Electoral College. So?”””

    Reply
  51. Yes, I have no idea, please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer, which I noticed you have not provided yet. With all due respects to the Founders, they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking, and that is why we have 27 amendments.

    Reply
  52. Yes I have no idea please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer which I noticed you have not provided yet.With all due respects to the Founders they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking and that is why we have 27 amendments.

    Reply
  53. Uh.. no, when I brought up the House, I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers. Regardless, the electoral system is a seriously flawed one if considering the will of the people as a whole, which is one of the reasons why no other country uses it. Yes, yes, I am uneducated, there’s never enough to learn! Thank you for the critique!

    Reply
  54. Uh.. no when I brought up the House I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers. Regardless the electoral system is a seriously flawed one if considering the will of the people as a whole which is one of the reasons why no other country uses it. Yes yes I am uneducated there’s never enough to learn! Thank you for the critique!

    Reply
  55. brendan is too uneducated about the topic to even discusss.. the rules are electoral college wins elections which are based on how many representatives we have and the two senators.. so when you say the senators are supposed to balance that out you completely ignore that balancing out that occurs as a result of that in the electoral college.. Trumps economy is performing amazingly and thats just truth by every metric that matters…

    Reply
  56. brendan is too uneducated about the topic to even discusss.. the rules are electoral college wins elections which are based on how many representatives we have and the two senators.. so when you say the senators are supposed to balance that out you completely ignore that balancing out that occurs as a result of that in the electoral college.. Trumps economy is performing amazingly and thats just truth by every metric that matters…

    Reply
  57. did you even read the deal ? because you obviously didnt read it at all… plenty of things required in the deal most importantly being rules of origin which is all that matters because without that changing china could dump their product in the us from the other countries in nafta.. which they have done and there was no reason to negotiate with china until that loophole was closed

    Reply
  58. did you even read the deal ? because you obviously didnt read it at all… plenty of things required in the deal most importantly being rules of origin which is all that matters because without that changing china could dump their product in the us from the other countries in nafta.. which they have done and there was no reason to negotiate with china until that loophole was closed

    Reply
  59. A popular election is a head count, the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which? ” See, you don’t even know what you are talking about. “As for representation, the flyover states have their senators, they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.” Yes, and in the Electoral College. As the Founders intended.

    Reply
  60. A popular election is a head count” the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which? “”See”””” you don’t even know what you are talking about. “”””As for representation”” the flyover states have their senators”” they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.””””Yes”””” and in the Electoral College. As the Founders intended.”””

    Reply
  61. Notice how he never posted here on NBF with his whines about the electoral college when it elected Obama? And if Hillary had one, would he be complaining now?

    Reply
  62. Notice how he never posted here on NBF with his whines about the electoral college when it elected Obama?And if Hillary had one would he be complaining now?

    Reply
  63. Agree, we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system, pathetic really for a superpower. ” Every country runs an electoral system, even if only for lip service. Well, except for the absolute monarchies. Electoral Systems ~ bit.ly/2zN8T9h

    Reply
  64. Agree we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system” pathetic really for a superpower. “”Every country runs an electoral system”” even if only for lip service. Well”” except for the absolute monarchies.Electoral Systems ~ bit.ly/2zN8T9h”””

    Reply
  65. And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college, which seems made to be rigged in the first place” Something you didn’t mind when it elected Obama. Nor would you have minded it if Hillary had won, right? “…but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER” Show me the “this isn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER” clause in the US Constitution. Anywhere? Just as I thought. “That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs…” Again, not the song and dance routine you were playing when Obama won. Nor would you be doing so now had Hillary won, right? “Of course, not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy.” What does NAFTA have to do with the Electoral College? “…but just sayin'” Yeah. Just saying a lot of Hypocrisy BS or just BS in general.

    Reply
  66. And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college” which seems made to be rigged in the first place””Something you didn’t mind when it elected Obama. Nor would you have minded it if Hillary had won”””” right? “”””…but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER””””Show me the “”””this isn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER”””” clause in the US Constitution. Anywhere? Just as I thought.””””That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs…””””Again”” not the song and dance routine you were playing when Obama won. Nor would you be doing so now had Hillary won”” right? “”””Of course”””” not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy.””””What does NAFTA have to do with the Electoral College?””””…but just sayin'””””Yeah. Just saying a lot of Hypocrisy BS or just BS in general.”””

    Reply
  67. Canada and Mexico are 34% of US exports. Europe is 20%. South Korea is 3%.” Who cares? What is with this emphasis on, “ooohhhh…trade!” It is all peanuts. Seriously. Let’s just look at the top 6: 1. Canada: US$282.5 billion (18.3% of total US exports) 2. Mexico: $243 billion (15.7%) 3. China: $130.4 billion (8.4%) 4. Japan: $67.7 billion (4.4%) 5. United Kingdom: $56.3 billion (3.6%) 6. Germany: $53.5 billion (3.5%) Total: $833.4 billion. And I consider these numbers inflated, probably including services. But let’s use em anyway. Total US GDP for 2017: $19 TRILLION. Oh, and it is now widely expected that the US GDP for 2018 will hit or even exceed the $20 TRILLION mark. But we’ll use the 2017 figure. (For those of you who ‘know me’, the fact that I am being real generous with the figures in favor of the Foreign Trade Fluffers numbers should be an instant red flag of me closing in on the intellectual kill. If so, your instincts are about to be proven correct.) What percent of $19 TRILLION is $833.4 billion? A measly 4.9% of GDP. That’s it. My point? Foreign trade…for the US…is a ‘convenience’…not a necessity, for the most part. Certain commodities we still do need, yes. But outside of those exceptions, we don’t ‘need’ it. Hence why during the Cold War we traded market access for bribing nations to at least not interfere in our containment of the Soviet Union, not to enrich ourselves. Whereas for ALL SIX of those nations listed in that $833.4 billion total, foreign trade is an absolute necessity. And for the top 3, very much so with regards to access to the US market. Heavily. Especially for Canada and Mexico, naturally. Yes, narrow exporting special interests in the US will scream if we cut that down. They might even experience some real damage as opposed to the BS they spin in the media anyway. But in the end, more jobs would be created as foreigners would switch to exporting things to us and invest in production here in the

    Reply
  68. Canada and Mexico are 34{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of US exports. Europe is 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. South Korea is 3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}.””Who cares? What is with this emphasis on”””” “”””ooohhhh…trade!””””It is all peanuts. Seriously.Let’s just look at the top 6:1. Canada: US$282.5 billion (18.3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of total US exports)2. Mexico: $243 billion (15.7{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})3. China: $130.4 billion (8.4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})4. Japan: $67.7 billion (4.4{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})5. United Kingdom: $56.3 billion (3.6{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})6. Germany: $53.5 billion (3.5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12})Total: $833.4 billion.And I consider these numbers inflated”” probably including services. But let’s use em anyway. Total US GDP for 2017: $19 TRILLION.Oh and it is now widely expected that the US GDP for 2018 will hit or even exceed the $20 TRILLION mark. But we’ll use the 2017 figure.(For those of you who ‘know me’ the fact that I am being real generous with the figures in favor of the Foreign Trade Fluffers numbers should be an instant red flag of me closing in on the intellectual kill. If so your instincts are about to be proven correct.) What percent of $19 TRILLION is $833.4 billion?A measly 4.9{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of GDP. That’s it.My point? Foreign trade…for the US…is a ‘convenience’…not a necessity for the most part. Certain commodities we still do need yes. But outside of those exceptions we don’t ‘need’ it. Hence why during the Cold War we”

    Reply
  69. Agree, we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system, pathetic really for a superpower. Debatable if NAFTA was detrimental to MX as you’ve said, it created plenty of jobs there which brought many out of poverty and increased their contributions to the GDP. Happier people do not mean a weaker Cartel necessarily, most of the purveyors of their products are obviously north of their border, it’s more likely a happy and rich populace will only increase the demands of their trades. As long as humans react to these products, there will always be a market and there will always be Cartels.

    Reply
  70. Agree we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system pathetic really for a superpower. Debatable if NAFTA was detrimental to MX as you’ve said it created plenty of jobs there which brought many out of poverty and increased their contributions to the GDP. Happier people do not mean a weaker Cartel necessarily most of the purveyors of their products are obviously north of their border it’s more likely a happy and rich populace will only increase the demands of their trades. As long as humans react to these products there will always be a market and there will always be Cartels.

    Reply
  71. A popular election is a head count, the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which? As for representation, the flyover states have their senators, they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.

    Reply
  72. A popular election is a head count the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which? As for representation the flyover states have their senators they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.

    Reply
  73. If it wasn’t for the electoral college then CA and NY would just keep kicking the rust belt states in the groin. Seriously instead of crying about the rules try reading the rules. Also send your candidate to Wisconsin instead of taking it for granted.

    Reply
  74. If it wasn’t for the electoral college then CA and NY would just keep kicking the rust belt states in the groin.Seriously instead of crying about the rules try reading the rules. Also send your candidate to Wisconsin instead of taking it for granted.

    Reply
  75. No. I didn’t read both deals and do a thorough analysis. Don’t have that much free time right now. I did read a few reports on it. But I also know that people don’t often cut their own throats. So if Mexico and Canada agreed to it they couldn’t be screwing them self that bad.

    Reply
  76. “You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system.”

    It’s a more fair method choosing the President, then the popular vote. It does a better job at distributing the power the picking the next President, through out the entire country, instead of a handful of the biggest cities choosing for everyone else. But it doesn’t ignore the large amounts of people within those more populated states, when their population goes up, that is reflected in how many representatives they get.

    Reply
  77. Did you ever feel bad about going to a used car dealer and demanding (and getting) a better deal than he thought you should have? As your drove away in your newly purchased vehicle, did you really feel badly about forcing that used car dealership into selling a car at a price they were unwilling to let it go at? On a somewhat different note, if a politician you hate does, say, twelve things, and eleven of them are terrible and one is good, why would you waste effort criticizing the one good one? Or are you the used car salesman (or maybe a friend of his) holding a grudge?

    Reply
  78. Did you ever feel bad about going to a used car dealer and demanding (and getting) a better deal than he thought you should have? As your drove away in your newly purchased vehicle did you really feel badly about forcing that used car dealership into selling a car at a price they were unwilling to let it go at?On a somewhat different note if a politician you hate does say twelve things and eleven of them are terrible and one is good why would you waste effort criticizing the one good one?Or are you the used car salesman (or maybe a friend of his) holding a grudge?

    Reply
  79. The point of the US system is that Republics keep people from just making spurt of the moment emotional decisions.

    It also makes sure that the people in power are answerable to the very people that elect them.

    BTW the US isn’t a democracy. If you actually look up the founders opinions on democracy or hell look up the past democracies you’ll find a lot of horrible stuff.

    Wana know whats wrong with Democracy? If we had 60% of the people tomorrow vote back slavery in a direct democracy it could be legal and accepted. With the constitution our laws and the Republic not so much.

    Reply
  80. “I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system. ”

    No you weren’t. You jumped onto Mordriel’s ‘archaic system’ BS.

    Don’t you remember?

    “Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you?”

    What true Democracy? True Democracy is when everyone votes directly on every piece of legislation, like the ancient Athenians did.

    America does not have democracy. Nor has it ever had it.

    “Sorry, are you even American? ”

    Not only am I American, but I am more educated on these matters that you are it seems.

    Especially after your display of crying out for ‘true democracy’ that we’ve never had nor ever will.

    “As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do comprehend my point.”

    The votes of individuals don’t matter anyway. They don’t vote for POTUS! They vote in what are special plebiscites that are A PRIVILEGE granted by their State legislature to direct which batch of candidate-selected Electors attend the College.

    The system is not flawed. It works exactly as designed and is supposed to. We are a federation of states. And if you don’t like how the flyover states get more power out of this, too bad. That’s your opinion, not a problem. What? You think that you should get special exemption from the Constitution on this matter simply because you and people who vote like you do stupidly self-sorted yourselves into dense geographic locations? That was YOUR choice. All of you.

    If you want to abolish the Electoral College…go for it. 33,000 attempts have been made to amend the constitution. Only 27 have made made it. So, GOOD LUCK with that. Especially since you’ll need the very states that will lose power from this in order to ratify it.

    In other words, it will never happen. Never. You’ll have a better chance of getting fools to push through an amendment that redefines the cosmological constant or something than that.

    So all you are doing is trolling on the internet about it here. Why should I or anyone else take that seriously?

    Reply
  81. No Ape, you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it, I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system.

    “So what?”

    Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you? Sorry, are you even American?

    As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do not comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic, it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.

    Reply
  82. No. It is the reply when you get caught and are trying to hide your tracks.

    Esp when you post something straight out of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (or US Chamber of Commerce for that matter) play book.

    Reply
  83. Nope, I am agreeing because you are just rehashing the obvious about our current system, I’ve never disputed those facts.

    On Hillary, yup, I would.

    You still did not give a coherent answer on why you are against the popular system. Please enlighten us!

    Reply
  84. No Ape, you missed the point yet again. My point isn’t to debate the formulas of the electoral system or the legitimacy of it, I was advocating for the adjustment/substituting thereof for a popular system.

    “So what?”

    Ok, so you’re saying you’re do not believe in true democracy, as indicated by the popular vote, and that means nothing to you? Sorry, are you even American?

    As for the votes of individuals being worth more in flyover states, it seems that you still do comprehend my point. Please Google up the logic, it is exactly why the electoral system is flawed.

    Reply
  85. “Bro, you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people.”

    Translation: You got caught being full of BS and now trying to get out of it.

    “On Hillary, yes I would, 100%.”

    No you wouldn’t.

    ” I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy, and without that, the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished, if not outright disputed.”

    Tell that to your President Xi. I am sure he’d love that, wu mau.

    Reply
  86. “Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet.”

    Uh.. no you didn’t, remember this reply you provided (as above) when you refused to give an answer?

    Seriously, are you schizophrenic or have multiple personalities? I will tune my replies going forward so as not to encourage a relapse.

    Reply
  87. Bro, you’re stating all the obvious and I am not saying you’re wrong. All I am saying is that the popular vote system is more representative of the true will of the people.

    May I ask exactly why you are against that?

    On Hillary, yes I would, 100%. I think the will of the people is the true foundation of democracy, and without that, the legitimacy of any presidency is vastly diminished, if not outright disputed.

    Reply
  88. “Yes ape, I know that, but I was referring to Congress in my original statement, not the electoral system, perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House?”

    Yes, I did. You just don’t seem to be aware how the EXACT SAME formula used to figure out a state’s total representation in Congress is the same one used to determine how many Electors it can send the the EC…for the EXACT SAME REASONS as the Founders designed it to be.

    “I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states”

    Which is not the case in the US. And all voting in the US has to do with the States. It is the states that run the voting systems, after all.

    “ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people”

    So what?

    “As you know, the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system”

    No it isn’t. Only Senators & Representatives get voted into office by the People. What planet are you on?

    Reply
  89. “Heh heh, sure thing ape, that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on! ”

    I did answer. But your poor English comprehension skills is a problem for you, not me.

    Reply
  90. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes, twice.

    So? He wasn’t elected by that vote. No president ever has.

    ” This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. ”

    So? The majority voted against Bill Clinton — BOTH times. Yet, he won because he got the Electoral Vote.

    “Had Hillary won without the popular votes, I would think she’s unfit as well.”

    No you wouldn’t.

    Reply
  91. Sigh… not sure if you’ve actually taken Economics 101 in college (been to college right?). Try reading up some of the ancillary macro effects of trade, especially pertaining to job creation, and the contributions to the GDP as a results of these effects.

    Reply
  92. And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college, which seems made to be rigged in the first place. I mean, it probably wasn’t, but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER. It’s a lot harder to rig a popular vote. That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs (along with all insects that sting [but not really, since they pollinate]). Of course, not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy. A stronger Mexico would mean happier people there, and weaker cartels (YAY!). That’s an oversimplification, but just sayin’

    Reply
  93. And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college which seems made to be rigged in the first place. I mean it probably wasn’t but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER. It’s a lot harder to rig a popular vote. That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs (along with all insects that sting [but not really since they pollinate]). Of course not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy. A stronger Mexico would mean happier people there and weaker cartels (YAY!). That’s an oversimplification but just sayin’

    Reply
  94. Yes ape, I know that, but I was referring to Congress in my original statement, not the electoral system, perhaps you didn’t read about the parts about the Senate and the House? I was also referring to how a popular voting system will have nothing to do with states vs. states as all individual Americans are counted equally, which both you and Derek seem to have conveniently missed, and that is why it’s preferred by logic. (Come on ape, please show us that you do pay attention when you read, we all know you’re the resident expert of all things!)

    My point is that while the electoral system may have the intent of balancing, it ended up unbalancing the voting power of individuals and in turn may defy the will of the people (as compared to a popular vote). As you know, the vote of a single person in any flyover state is worth more than one in CA/NY under the current system, but everyone is Americans all the same, and this is exactly why it needs to be changed.

    Reply
  95. Because Obama won on the virtues of the popular votes, twice. This meant that the majority of the country supported him as the President. Had Hillary won without the popular votes, I would think she’s unfit as well.

    Reply
  96. Heh heh, sure thing ape, that’s the correct way to show me how much I don’t know by not answering. Surely you must know more than you let on!

    Just because the electoral system hasn’t been changed doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be. Again, why do you think there are 27 amendments?

    Reply
  97. “Uh.. no, when I brought up the House, I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers.”

    Yes, Idiot. That is HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE is also determined, for the EXACT SAME REASONS.

    Amazing. You don’t even realize how ignorant about which you write comes out every time you type up words.

    Reply
  98. “Yes, I have no idea, please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer, which I noticed you have not provided yet.”

    Why should I? Not my job to save you from looking like a fool on the internet.

    “With all due respects to the Founders, they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking, and that is why we have 27 amendments.”

    Yeaaaah…and not one of them changed the Electoral College.

    So?

    Reply
  99. Yes, I have no idea, please kindly educate me Mr. Ape Sir with the right answer, which I noticed you have not provided yet.

    With all due respects to the Founders, they cannot possibly foresee the the future looks like or problems certain parts of the Constitution will create or is lacking, and that is why we have 27 amendments.

    Reply
  100. Uh.. no, when I brought up the House, I meant it was a balancing factor at the behest of the less populous states against the Senate (not the electoral system) at the times of the framers.

    Regardless, the electoral system is a seriously flawed one if considering the will of the people as a whole, which is one of the reasons why no other country uses it.

    Yes, yes, I am uneducated, there’s never enough to learn! Thank you for the critique!

    Reply
  101. brendan is too uneducated about the topic to even discusss.. the rules are electoral college wins elections which are based on how many representatives we have and the two senators.. so when you say the senators are supposed to balance that out you completely ignore that balancing out that occurs as a result of that in the electoral college.. Trumps economy is performing amazingly and thats just truth by every metric that matters…

    Reply
  102. did you even read the deal ? because you obviously didnt read it at all… plenty of things required in the deal most importantly being rules of origin which is all that matters because without that changing china could dump their product in the us from the other countries in nafta.. which they have done and there was no reason to negotiate with china until that loophole was closed

    Reply
  103. “A popular election is a head count, the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which? ”

    See, you don’t even know what you are talking about.

    “As for representation, the flyover states have their senators, they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.”

    Yes, and in the Electoral College. As the Founders intended.

    Reply
  104. “Agree, we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system, pathetic really for a superpower. ”

    Every country runs an electoral system, even if only for lip service. Well, except for the absolute monarchies.

    Electoral Systems ~ bit.ly/2zN8T9h

    Reply
  105. “And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college, which seems made to be rigged in the first place”

    Something you didn’t mind when it elected Obama. Nor would you have minded it if Hillary had won, right?

    “…but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER”

    Show me the “this isn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER” clause in the US Constitution. Anywhere? Just as I thought.

    “That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs…”

    Again, not the song and dance routine you were playing when Obama won. Nor would you be doing so now had Hillary won, right?

    “Of course, not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy.”

    What does NAFTA have to do with the Electoral College?

    “…but just sayin'”

    Yeah. Just saying a lot of Hypocrisy BS or just BS in general.

    Reply
  106. “Canada and Mexico are 34% of US exports. Europe is 20%. South Korea is 3%.”

    Who cares? What is with this emphasis on, “ooohhhh…trade!”

    It is all peanuts. Seriously.

    Let’s just look at the top 6:

    1. Canada: US$282.5 billion (18.3% of total US exports)
    2. Mexico: $243 billion (15.7%)
    3. China: $130.4 billion (8.4%)
    4. Japan: $67.7 billion (4.4%)
    5. United Kingdom: $56.3 billion (3.6%)
    6. Germany: $53.5 billion (3.5%)

    Total: $833.4 billion.

    And I consider these numbers inflated, probably including services.

    But let’s use em anyway.

    Total US GDP for 2017: $19 TRILLION.

    Oh, and it is now widely expected that the US GDP for 2018 will hit or even exceed the $20 TRILLION mark. But we’ll use the 2017 figure.

    (For those of you who ‘know me’, the fact that I am being real generous with the figures in favor of the Foreign Trade Fluffers numbers should be an instant red flag of me closing in on the intellectual kill. If so, your instincts are about to be proven correct.)

    What percent of $19 TRILLION is $833.4 billion?

    A measly 4.9% of GDP. That’s it.

    My point? Foreign trade…for the US…is a ‘convenience’…not a necessity, for the most part. Certain commodities we still do need, yes. But outside of those exceptions, we don’t ‘need’ it. Hence why during the Cold War we traded market access for bribing nations to at least not interfere in our containment of the Soviet Union, not to enrich ourselves.

    Whereas for ALL SIX of those nations listed in that $833.4 billion total, foreign trade is an absolute necessity. And for the top 3, very much so with regards to access to the US market. Heavily. Especially for Canada and Mexico, naturally.

    Yes, narrow exporting special interests in the US will scream if we cut that down. They might even experience some real damage as opposed to the BS they spin in the media anyway. But in the end, more jobs would be created as foreigners would switch to exporting things to us and invest in production here in the US instead. Like the Japanese have been doing since the 1990s.

    So I just don’t get the hype. It’s worse than the hype from Musk Fluffers. Seriously. A lot of people live in La La land when it comes to this most basic fact of US economics.

    Reply
  107. Agree, we’re the last country on earth still running an electoral system, pathetic really for a superpower.

    Debatable if NAFTA was detrimental to MX as you’ve said, it created plenty of jobs there which brought many out of poverty and increased their contributions to the GDP. Happier people do not mean a weaker Cartel necessarily, most of the purveyors of their products are obviously north of their border, it’s more likely a happy and rich populace will only increase the demands of their trades. As long as humans react to these products, there will always be a market and there will always be Cartels.

    Reply
  108. A popular election is a head count, the candidate with the highest headcount wins. How does that have anything to do with which state is kicking which?

    As for representation, the flyover states have their senators, they are meant to counteract against the House as the framers intended.

    Reply
  109. If it wasn’t for the electoral college then CA and NY would just keep kicking the rust belt states in the groin.

    Seriously instead of crying about the rules try reading the rules. Also send your candidate to Wisconsin instead of taking it for granted.

    Reply
  110. Did you ever feel bad about going to a used car dealer and demanding (and getting) a better deal than he thought you should have? As your drove away in your newly purchased vehicle, did you really feel badly about forcing that used car dealership into selling a car at a price they were unwilling to let it go at?

    On a somewhat different note, if a politician you hate does, say, twelve things, and eleven of them are terrible and one is good, why would you waste effort criticizing the one good one?

    Or are you the used car salesman (or maybe a friend of his) holding a grudge?

    Reply
  111. And this is what happens when you have an archaic system like the electoral college, which seems made to be rigged in the first place. I mean, it probably wasn’t, but it wasn’t meant to be used as a voting system FOREVER. It’s a lot harder to rig a popular vote. That’s why the minority here favors the electoral college and the majority wants to banish it to the pit beneath the lake of fire where it belongs (along with all insects that sting [but not really, since they pollinate]).
    Of course, not that NAFTA was a good deal in the first place. It did wipe out the Mexican economy. A stronger Mexico would mean happier people there, and weaker cartels (YAY!). That’s an oversimplification, but just sayin’

    Reply

Leave a Comment