Remember all that TPP trollery here during 2016?

[Skidmore]

All that back to the future thinking? Well, left and right lost. The booby prize was Putin's stooge, Trump.

Trump blew up our trade agreements, beginning with TPP, and started trade wars. Putin has been successful in cutting both America and the UK out of world trade agreements. The world goes on without us. MAGAts undoubtedly will celebrate high taxes as a victory. Be careful what you wish for.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/17/news/economy/eu-japan-trade-deal/index.html

EU and Japan sign trade deal covering a third of the world's economy

The European Union and Japan signed a huge free trade deal on Tuesday that cuts or eliminates tariffs on nearly all goods.

The agreement covers 600 million people and almost a third of the global economy. It's also a major endorsement of a global trading system that is under increasing threat from protectionism.


It will remove tariffs on European exports such as cheese and wine. Japanese automakers and electronics firms will face fewer barriers in the European Union.

The dismantling of trade barriers stands in stark contrast to the approach taken by President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs on a range of foreign goods and is threatening more action....more

[Historic NY]

1. Well that ought to leave a mark,

[Scurrilous]

2. K&R

[NCTraveler]

3. K&R nt

[Hoyt]

4. Definitely remember it, and it wasn't just trolls. As we get closer to trading among ourselves,

we'll see how well that works for -- actually against -- most of us.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. We were proud TPP supporters.

[MineralMan]

5. There was a lot of trollery about a lot of things.

The people who did it, or most of them, don't post here any more. They did their job and fled the scene once the election was over. With luck, we'll have learned from that experience, but I'm not that confident.

[Recursion]

10. That site we shall not name siphoned a lot of them off

But, yeah, I expect several participants were in fact ephemera

[MineralMan]

11. Yes. They abandoned ship and fled to safer ground, I guess.

Once the DU hack was over, somehow, they never found their way back on board. Life's simpler in their new place, it seems.

[Mr.Bill]

26. I was over there for awhile.

It got to the point where if I started a thread called Good Morning, it would be alerted on and hidden.

[Recursion]

6. TPP and Keystone XL were known subjects of Russian active measures

Ryan even talked about it in that leaked conversation about Putin paying Trump

It was an unfortunate time here.

[Skidmore]

7. Yes.

And were both fraught with nuance people refused to consider. Personally, I don't care for that pipeline and consider it a threat to the groundwater so many of us depend on here. As EPA regulations are stripped away, we become very exposed.

[Recursion]

9. A discussion of the merits of pipelines vs. rail transport would have been a good one to have

Equally a discussion of the merits of improving bilateral trade agreements vs. replacing them with regional blocs.

Lots of people went to a lot of effort to make sure those weren't the discussions being had in the US at the time.

[MineralMan]

12. I wrote a couple of long posts discussing that here.

The benefits and risks of both modes of oil transport still need to be addressed. I can't say my threads were discussed much, though.

Here's one of them Zero replies:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028334127

[TheBlackAdder]

13. After a Global Economics course I took, I posted why the TPP would suck for everyone BUT China!

TPP was a boon for China, as they were not going to join. Effectively undercutting TPP nations.

They do this in Central & South America and Africa now.

The US and EU have trade agreements with nations that promote labor, finance and ecology. Most US & EU nations deal on short-term contracts and contracts that are smaller and can be canceled by corporations before their term ends--that causes costs and instability to countries dealing with the US and EU.

China, on the other hand, operates as a collective nation, and says, we'll sign on to multi-decade contracts for goods, and we don't care what you do to your labor, finance or ecology as long as we get the materials. Not only does that create income stability, but it saves emerging economies the costs of adhering to United Nation MDGs.

China is now the chief trading partner with nearly half of the Central and South American countries, displacing the US.

China then sells their goods back to those nations, specifically undercutting US and EU goods to make those nations dependent on China's low costs. More dangerously is that China sells goods cheaper than what are made in-state, so it slowly displaces local workers, lowers wages further and makes the nationals even more reliant on Chinese goods.


===


TPP would hamstring TPP nations to these development goals, while China remains on the outside, picking off the weaknesses of each nations individually, and undercutting other TPP nations. The only way TPP would work is if China was a signer--which they hinted at becoming, but decided not to join. China's leverage remains if they are not a TPP nation.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029438923#post14

.

[elmac]

48. 100% correct nt

[mcar]

14. Some on this board were vociferous in their hatred of TPP

and of anyone who supported it, including President Obama. SMDH

[oberliner]

15. To be fair, Bernie Sanders was staunchly opposed to TPP

And it was something he talked about frequently.

[mcar]

18. Yes, he was

[Hekate]

22. To be fair, Bernie Sanders was wrong. But it was a great cudgel, wasn't it?

[Recursion]

24. I wish Clinton hadn't backed down on the issue

But, I mean, the political pressure was absolutely astounding

[Omaha Steve]

63. Why labor unions oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership

A shrinking slice of American union workers are in industries exposed to imports and other pressures from international trade. Yet, among all the threats to organized labor and the wages of American workers, the AFL-CIO has made a priority of fighting the Obama administration on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which probably won’t much have much economic impact anyhow. Why?

Snip: “For more than 20 years, we have looked at trade through the very narrow lens of corporate interests,” he said. “In truth, our trade deals were not really trade deals—they were investment deals. Their goal was not to promote America’s exports—it was to make it easier for global corporations to move capital offshore and ship goods back to America. The logical outcome was trade deficits and falling wages—and that’s exactly what we got.”

“The wages of working people have basically not gone up a dime since 1997 when inflation is taken into account. Since then, all of the gains from increased productivity–not some, not most, but all–have gone to the people who need it least. We know that our trade policy is a critical part of the structure of our economy—a structure that either is about raising wages or pushing wages down.” In short, he argues, trade agreements are bolstering the bargaining power of employers at the expense of workers.

To be sure, there is evidence – more than free-trade economists like to admit – that globalization is part of the reason American workers aren’t doing better. As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it recently, “The consensus view now is that trade and globalization have meaningfully increased inequality in the U.S. by allowing more earning opportunities for those at the top and exposing ordinary workers to more competition, especially in manufacturing.”

FULL story: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-are-unions-so-focused-on-fighting-trade-deals/

[JHan]

73. LOL the reason for low wages isn't trade..

it's corporate greed.

My God.

SMFH

[maxrandb]

76. Yes! And Donnie Short Fingers, the Retrumplicans and

our new supreme court majority will be soooooo helpful to organized labor.

But you're right. Bernie used TPP in the same way faux News and Retrumplicans use MS13. Scary, devoid of facts, impervious to critical or long term thinking, and designed to rile up the worst of our base emotions with only a 5 second soundbite.

I will never forgive the anti-TPP ignorant shits.

They did more to elect Donnie Shit for Brains than Faux News and hate radio combined.

[JCanete]

81. that doesn't make any sense. Either you are for it or you are for Trump and the republicans?

This is asinine, and clearly isn't represented in how Sanders voters voted. All of your accusations are baseless here.

[Omaha Steve]

82. Hilary came out against TPP

[LisaM]

25. And to be fair, he and his convention disruptors got EXACTLY what they wanted.

A fractured Democratic party, and no TPP. Yay!

[Hekate]

58. Yippee

[ismnotwasm]

30. Oh yes

Wasn’t the infamous “Piece of shit used car salesman” OP written about Obama over the TPP? So much hate going on I can’t keep track.

[mcar]

31. That was about the ACA

It is hard to keep track but that one is forever seared in my memory because of the rank stupidity - and Obama hatred - and the pile on.

[ismnotwasm]

52. That's right!

That was fucked up

[mcar]

54. Oh yeah!

Completely fcked up.

[Hekate]

61. Amen. Never forgive, never forget. Sorry I am a bit bitter today, what with a treasonous potus & all

...staring us in the face in 2018.

[mcar]

70. I'm right there with you

Never forget, never forgive.

[GulfCoast66]

16. We still have anti TPP and NAFTA members here. Quite a few.

Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2018, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

They are sincere and not the kind to go to misogynistic websites. Just disagree on this issue.


I always enjoy threads pointing out that Trump is doing exactly what they wanted and the far left candidate of our party promised with predicted results.

Their respond is always about how he is pulling out of the agreements the wrong way. They never tell us the right way.

[elmac]

49. so being against one sided, job killing trade deals

makes one a misogynist? Wow, that's deep.

[GulfCoast66]

51. I left out the word not( ironic on today of all days! It's fixed)

Please reread and put the entire post in context.

That said I think you are 100% incorrect on the job killing thing. We have way more jobs now but Americans have accepted that service jobs are just low paid. No reason they have to be. Of course the destruction of Unions explain lots of that.

And we still manufacture a shit load. It just takes less people due to Automation. Should we ban automation?

[Blue_true]

60. Machines are job killers, and it is only going to get worse.

I am doing an evaluation now where I am looking at automating two functions instead of using people. The net effect on per unit gross margin is minimal, but the machines allow way more to be done to meet demand, thereby greatly increasing revenue. Companies all over the place are making that type of analysis, and in most cases, people lose out.

The issue should not be about trade as much as it should be about post worker economies and owners sharing profits made from using machines with society.

BTW, anyone that think service jobs won't go away are fooling themselves, as soon as machines are made cheap enough to replace people and increase output, machines will be used. Look at what has happened to banktellers and insurance agents.

[GulfCoast66]

62. I do not share your pessimism

I do agree machines displace workers. No denying that. Always have.

But there has not been a related decline in the total number of jobs even as automation grows. They go somewhere and do something else.

But totally agree with sharing profits- More progressive tax structure with much higher maximum tax, livable wages and health care for all Americans.

[Blue_true]

64. The issue as of now.

Is service jobs are low paying hourly. It is difficult for machines to replace low paid service workers because the cost benefits of buying and installing the machines is not there. Once hourly rates for lower paid service workers rise about a certain value, the cost benefit of replacing them with machines become a reality. Banks used to employ a lot of loan managers, there may be one or two part time in a bank now, and they do other jobs.
Bank loan managers were examples of higher paid service workers that automation eliminated. That dynamic is working it's way down and soon will be more common in food service, the lowest paid. It is already decimating retail.

[Blue_true]

56. TPP was a net job creator for the USA.

Trade deal or no trade deal, time will bring about advances that kill jobs. I foresee soon where lots of farmers will no longer have work because tower farms will displace land planting for most produce and many fruit. Long haul truck drivers have largely lost out to intermodal rail transport. Auto plants employ a fraction of the workers that they used to, as does metals processing. Technological change causes changes in jobs, and there are winners and losers in that, the situation is centuries old.

[GulfCoast66]

57. Agreed

We need to stop accepting that people who work for a service company worth billions do not deserve a living wage.

Wal Mart could pay much better wages and if Unions again had public backing they would.

Industrial jobs payed shit in the late 1800s. Then people fought and some died for unionization and wages rose.

[maxrandb]

77. No, but believing that President Obama

would support "one-sided, job-killing trade deals" makes one either an ignorant fool, or an irrational reactionary.

Serious people, including one of the most progressive presidents in our history worked for decades on the TPP to open the largest markets in the world and the future, and folks just threw that away for some orange haired shitgibbon who told them what a great "dealmaker" he is.

Anti TPP folks can wail all you want, but YOU OWN THIS SHITSHOW

[Blue_true]

55. They don't know the right way.

They just throw up angel dust and expect that it all falls into place. When they do post "economic" tables to buttress their claims, if you analyze their "data" closely, it is full of assumptions that are big enough to drive a semi through. And their tendency to dismiss anyone that questions their logic as rightwing really rips my ass and leaves me enraged.

[Omaha Steve]

68. Like those dirty stinking union members?

IF it is good enough the AFL-CIO to be against it, so am I!

UNIONS are the top 10 donors to the Democratic Party and candidates.

[Whiskeytide]

17. TPP was like any international agreement ...

... there were pros and cons. Compromises to get some of what you want and give those across the table some of what they want. I remember being surprised that the discussion seemed so one sided and such harsh shutdown argument tactics were used so often here.

A lot of 2015 and 16 has come into clearer focus over the last year.

[Hekate]

19. Blanketyblank yes I certainly do remember. Not one of DU's prouder moments. nt

[Nitram]

20. Yes I do. First thing that came to mind when I read the news about Japan and Europe.

Am I mistaken, or was it the Bernie crowd that were rabidly anti-TPP? What was that all about, anyway? Who stood to gain by the US jumping out of the the TPP? China and Russia? Yup.

[EllieBC]

21. It wasn't all trolls. There are people who don't understand

that the horse has left the barn and the barn door was open so long the horse is probably long dead. There's no getting it back in the barn. Move forward.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Canada got TPP revised and then joined in. World now trading around USA.

Trump started a six-front Trade War, because he's a stable genius at "stratagery" and has a degree in Economics!

Result: World rapidly moving to make other arrangements. It won't happen overnight but it will take years for the USA to regain that business.

[elmac]

27. all the trade deals this country signs

is targeted at corporate profits, not jobs. This will not change until we wave bye bye to fascist capitalism. A far as other countries trade deals, well, good for them, if they have a government for the people, by the people.

[elmac]

28. Hey, I'm all for trade deals that ship our jobs overseas and destroy the middleclass

wait, come to think about it, no, I'm not for that. This thread will do nothing but stir up a lot of bad feelings and plays right into putins playbook.

[Skidmore]

32. Huh???

Putin's reorganization of world economies playbook is being operationalized by Trump now.

[bettyellen]

36. How you loving the protectionist tariffs, then?

[elmac]

43. oh brother

[George II]

29. And we're left out in the cold holding our..............whatever. Remember all the haranguing.....

.....by DEMOCRATS (presumably) of Clinton because she was in favor of the concept of the TPP?

Where did that get us other than contribute to trump's election.

[Skidmore]

33. Yup.

Farmers here are missing their markets. Spun right round.

[karynnj]

37. You DO remember that she came out AGAINST TPP in the primaries?

Your comment is correct because of the word "concept". It is true that even as she came out against TPP, she did not rule out all possible trade deals.

I personally think she would have done better to defend TPP, while arguing that fixes or side deals were needed. That would have been a consistent position. It also would have played to the fact that she is good speaking on policy details.

[George II]

65. Yes she did, she didn't like the last draft (don't think it ever was final)....

...And it was never implemented.

[karynnj]

67. The changes from 2013 to th final version agreed upon by the international community

strengthened per the Obama admininistartion. It was a political choice to oppose it. When Obama did win a vote to get it fast tracked - meaning no amendments, Clinton refused to take a position. Had Clinton won, many speculated that Obama would have gotten it passed in the lame duck session. This would mean that Clinton would not have been forced to choose.

[JHan]

74. You can't separate Clinton's position from the political climate at the time.

Certain actors were already pushing ignorant narratives about trade, and even Obama got slammed and smeared for it. I'll never forget an idiotic post by Robert Reich where he flat out insinuated Obama may have been paid off or worse, with all sorts of conspiracy theory mongering in the comments.

The NYT editorial board finally decided after the damn election to post a column about the fall out if the U. S reneged on the TPP. Lazy journalists, ignorant Cable News Anchors just ran with populist narratives instead of interrogating and analyzing those narratives. And they had no excuse given the length of the 2016 election cycle. VERY LITTLE POLICY was discussed, and Corporate Media heads were focused on maximizing populist rhetoric for profit.

You must contextualize Clinton's position in light of these factors.

Appeasing "allies" was the approach Clinton took. In what happened, she says that President Obama advised her to not go after Bernie too harshly - it was obviously her choice to take his advice on board and that's on her but the stupid establishment/corporatist vs progressive fake dichotomy factored in trade with Sanders and his allies applying pressure to say no on the deal. It was a disgusting dominance game. And Clinton did not want to alienate the most vociferous of Sanders' allies. It was a thoroughly fucked up situation.

Triangulation and brief appeasement on an issue aren't new concepts in politics, it was obvious Clinton had to make a "political choice".

[karynnj]

83. As I said, it was a political decision

She is a politician and all politicians involved in an election make some decisions for political reasons. It was not because of Obama's advice to not go harshly after Bernie. That did not mean that she has to move to his position on something where she disagrees. (Did she blame the shift on TPP to avoiding going harsh on Bernie or is that specualtion? I have not read the book.)

I think that she would still have won the primary had she gone with a pro TPP, but it needs changes. It would have also shown her as willing to stand up for something even if it were not "popular". That would have helped her on the character issues -- against Bernie and would have helped in the a general election against a man with no principles.

As it was, for any absolutely anti TPP person, for whom that was the main issue, she was seen as the candidate who was more likely to push to pass a TPP.

[JHan]

84. An understandable political decision given the climate...

If she had gone pro-tpp, that would have given Sanders' people more ammunition against her and the so-called "establishment". Yes she was going to win the primary, but that isn't the point - after divisions created in the primary, anything sowing further discord would be problematic. Yes, she herself said in her own words she heeded Obama's advice on how to deal with Bernie - I'm not going to question her choice there, it is what it is.

you forget that Sanders turned the TPP into a litmus test of sorts during his talks with Clinton after the primaries or whenever it was.

The toxicity of this issue was really real.

[karynnj]

86. I get she decided that on dealing with Bernie

I also think that was good politics. Does she specifically say that had anything to do with her TPP position?

[JHan]

87. I think she didn't want further antagonism - that was my reading of it..

that there were too many fractures.. as you rightly surmised, the TPP would have passed in lame-duck session had she won the presidency.

(Personally, I'm with you in that I wish she fought for it, I wanted her to defend some ideas that challenged populist narratives - ideas that needed to be defended.... but she was fighting weird asymmetrical warfare from all sides, so I also understood why she chose to play it the way she did)

[karynnj]

34. My memory is 180 degrees different - The MAJORITY view here was TPP was evil

Hillary Clinton, moved from her 2013/2014 support for it as the "gold standard" to being against it. I am still stunned that she did that rather than take a moderate position that "it was not perfect and their were some things she thought needed along side it, but it was to the US interest". People such as President Obama and Secretary Kerry articulated what the US interest was -- and those are the things now seen as lost. It was the keystone to the "shift to Asia".

Bernie Sanders has been against EVERY trade deal. It is absolutely ideological and he never deviates from that. His opposition is honest, but I think it is 100% wrong. He, like many against the trade deals, assign all the negatives that globalization has brought to the existance of trade deals. In fact, globalization internationalizes the labor pool with or without trade deals. Bad trade can make things worse, but trade deals might be the ONLY tool to ameiliorate the impact of globalization by setting global mininimums on workers rights and environmental standards.

In 2016, I was one of a small majority that bothered to post in favor of TPP. I can tell you People rarely agreed with me - even though President Obama spoke strongly on it and he was well respected by the vast majority of DU.

There is no way the majority of DU were trolls -- and that both Sanders and Clinton were trolls.

I have posted since the election that I think Clinton should have stayed behind TPP - maybe with a caveat that there are some fixes needed outside the already negotiated international deal. It would have helped as it could have been cited as an example where she went with a policy she believed in that was not favored by the Democratic base until she made the case for it. It would have meant that when the Goldman Sachs tape of her praising TPP in 2013/2014 (when she also praised it publicly), it could not have been spun against her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Hoyt and I were vocal proponents of TPP on this board.

President Obama said it was a hedge against China. I believed him because it had the benefit of being true.

[Hoyt]

38. Exactly. Obama took a lot of misplaced flak on TPP, NAFTA and Trans-Atlantic agreement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Every Democratic president since FDR has advocated free trade.

[karynnj]

41. Exactly

There were people who were in favor, but my perception was that at least in 2015, 2016, we were in the majority.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. The campaign against TPP on this board was ferocious.

Trade is always going to create winners and losers but it always creates more of the former. Presidents have to represent the interests of the entire nation. That is why every Democratic president since FDR has been in favor of free trade while individual Democrats representing certain constituencies oppose it.

[bettyellen]

39. It was really just a very vocal sector- notably the Manny acolytes who were being very

Divisive and resorting to name calling over it. Really a lot of people got sick of being corporate shills for not being 100% opposed to it. I thought it needed some changes, but damned if I wasn’t constantly attacked and alert stalked here for saying so. The trolling over this was huge.

[karynnj]

42. I was a coward and posted only when I had something where Obama, Kerry or others spoke of it

-- and with the expectation that it would either sink or be attacked.

[bettyellen]

66. I knew it was above my pay grade to judge the agreement, but so many others were just spewing from

some script they all copied and pasted from.... I thought t was pretty obvious at the time most of it was trolls, with a few people who weren’t too bright being influenced by them- same mix as those who went to JPR.

[Hoyt]

45. I remember. I even got private mail by someone who wanted to throw me in a woodchipper after

torturing me. Never was sure if it was over trade or guns, or both.

Sorry people got caught in all that.

[elmac]

46. so, what I've gathered from reading the posts on this thread

being against one way trade deals means you are misogynistic, working for russia or love tRump. A circular firing squad.

[tammywammy]

85. I agree, most on DU were anti-TPP

I was for it, and disappointed when Hillary changed her stance but felt it was the political thing to do. I think I only posted my support of it a couple times, because frankly I didn't want to deal with getting flamed for being pro-free trade.

[Blue_Tires]

47. Not naming names, but I took a lot of shit from certain DUers

just for daring to ask why Julian Fucking Assange of all people had such a vested interest in a trade deal that wasn't going to affect him either way...

I am interested to know why the "human rights" left has been so notably quiet over the dozen or so major trade deals that have happened since 2016...

[bigtree]

50. we asked for Democratic amendments to a bill which weakened consumer rights

...and effectively gave immunity to some corporations from lawsuits, among other objections DEMOCRATS had to the legislation.

It was a severely flawed bill.

I guess Hillary was a troll for opposing it in her campaign.

Played right into the hands of Trump, did she?

[nycbos]

53. I am willing to admit when I was wrong.

[Cha]

59. That's Class.. all the way!

[Yavin4]

69. The emotional appeal of 1950s America will. never. ever. die.

We're never going to have middle class paying, low skilled factory jobs any more. In fact, there are very few low-skilled factory jobs in the world. You can blame whomever and whatever you need to blame or rail against, but those jobs were gone starting in the very early 1960s, and they're never coming back.

Global markets are our current reality. What we should do is allow labor to move as freely.

[Hekate]

71. 1950s America, where women were fired overnight after VJ Day so men could have their jobs back...

Where both women and POC knew their rightful place in society and so forth. It was magic, I tells ya.

Actually, having been a white child in SoCal in the 1950s, in a blue-collar family, some of the mystique was almost true. My parents bought a tiny house and Dad made almost enough for us to get by on his pay at Lockheed Aircraft. Mom squeezed every nickle pretty hard and sewed our clothes; we should have gone to the doc more often, it's true, but we had regular dental and vision care as those were a priority in our family.

Another thing you cannot gainsay: people may have complained about taxes, but they seemed to have an intelligent idea that taxes paid for public schools, colleges, roads, and bridges. Howard Jarvis and Grover Norquist hadn't been invented yet.

No beggars, talking to themselves or otherwise. Seriously, I never saw a beggar until Governor Reagan closed the state mental hospitals to save money, and that was much later.

But to return to my first two sentences: all of this was due to change in just a decade because of pre-existing conditions in society: racism, mysoginy, and a war that made no sense. Add to that the dawn of the electronics age that doomed many jobs. The 1950s were never Camelot, but some of the nostalgia is for real reasons.

[JHan]

72. I see the misinformation about the TPP remains ...

In any case, for all the nonsense floating about denigrating it, it will happen. And it will now happen without the U.S.

and that's the point: trade deals will happen, it's a matter of whether America will be a part of them or not - indeed this is the case with all trade deals. It's why Japan - observing the fuckery of this Administration and this REVERSION to protectionism - is shopping elsewhere to get this deal on the road. The difference is - America won't be a part of it, and will have no say.

Way to go America, you played yourself.

[former9thward]

75. Hillary Clinton was opposed to the TPP

Are you saying her supporters were "trolls"?

Clinton has publicly opposed the TPP since October, 2015, when the text of the deal was finalized. "I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president," she said at a campaign rally in Michigan in August.


http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-policy-on-tpp-trade-deal-2016-10

[Jim Lane]

78. Nor was Clinton the only "troll"

Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, a bunch of other Democratic Senators and Congressmembers, the AFL-CIO, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Medecins sans Frontieres, the Sierra Club -- doesn't matter to some people, anyone expressing an opinion with which they disagree must be engaged in "trollery".

[KG]

79. I lulz'd

again

[JCanete]

80. Just because we didn't like the TPP as it was doesn't mean we were against trade deals. There's a

difference, and those of us here voted for Clinton, whether we were Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters from the get-go, and isn't on us. Just because what Trump has done has undermined our influence and trade leverage in the world doesn't make TPP automatically good.