Is it any different from the US and how dependent countries are on it?
Hence the phrase "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds".
It's not Russians who are depriving him of healthcare, it's Americans.
you can support forms of boycott divestiment and sanction which don't have the same effect as (for example) the sanctions regimes placed on venezuela and Iran. the latter is what state sanctions are more likely to resemble
Well I do agree on that, and it's what I have in mind when I say that Russia or China should be sanctioned--not to try to cut them off from the rest of the world.
Sanctions are how the Iran nuclear deal was even possible. Like I'm all for welcoming refugees but I don't understand how you can say this unless you're ignorant.
The scope of the BDS movement now and the Disinvestment from Apartheid South Africa movement then is much broader than just sanctioning the leaders of those countries.
Russia is an oil-dependent, third-rate kleptocracy with an enormous nuclear arsenal and significant covert ops, foreign affairs, etc. institutional knowledge built up during the Cold War.
I'll let you know once I'm elected. But for now, I would say to use the economic pressure of the United States and the European Union considering the importance we form to their economy.
That is the Boycott and Divest part of it. The Sanctions part of it literally calls for governments to impose economic measures against Israel: to cut off trade deals with Israel, and to boot them off international forums, similar to what was done to Apartheid South Africa. They may not be as all-encompassing as what we are doing to Iran, but they are sanctions nonetheless.
He quite pointedly said "economic" price
www.reuters.com
Pardon me for taking so long to reply, I've been running errands and doing college work pretty much all day. The Vox article linked earlier in this thread pretty much describes my grievances with the deal in a succinct fashion. It was very much made as a sort of hawkish preemptive strike against future Chinese trade hegemony in the Pacific Rim but ultimately gave way too much of a say in big corporate and pharmaceutical interests. Draconian IP protections, pharmaceutical price gouging, and risking the employment of domestic workers without a proper safety net to fall back on or a plan to reemploy them somewhere else are all major downfalls of a deal that pretty explicitly puts all the cards in big business' hands just so that China doesn't do it first.
Here's a WaPo opinion piece by Elizabeth Warren going into detail about a major provision in the deal known as ISDS which allows transnational companies to sort of have free reign in the deal at the expense of taxpayers.
So like do you believe we should make some deal but something a bit more progressive?
I think the concept of a Pacific trade deal is fine itself, the problem is factors that tend to be outside of its scope. We need to rethink how companies' profits are distributed and we absolutely have to have a semblance of a social safety net at home to help mitigate the domestic recoil of globalizing our industries. I'm not a 200 IQ policy wonk so I'm not really the guy to be talking to for concrete solutions about this, I just have general ideas of what needs to be done before we can engage in something as ambitious as TPP. Unfortunately the backdrop of the deal is very much a race against China, I don't know if we can have a solid trade agreement that won't leave the common man to the wolves in time for their inevitable rise to #1. This shit is super complicated and relies on a litany of domestic and foreign factors while also being influenced by the ebb of historical precedent in regards to how we often conducted business abroad in the past. We've always kind of let our big multinationals do what they want
