• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Chitchat TPP Officially Dead Unless Hillary Clinton Wins Election ...

Pinkieslut

Alfrescian
Loyal
washingtonpost.com
TPP trade deal is dead until a new president revives it, McConnell says
https://www.facebook.com/nakamuradavid

The Senate’s top Republican said Thursday that the sweeping 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal championed by President Obama will remain on ice until another president revives it.

And with both current presidential nominees opposed to the deal’s ratification, that could be the death knell for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, barring a major shift from Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump.

“Since they negotiate the deals and they send them up, the president is a big, big player in trade,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a news conference Thursday. “If we were going to have another discussion about trade, it would have to be led by whoever the next president is.”

Obama has made a renewed push in recent months for congressional ratification of the trade agreement, known as the TPP, with an eye toward persuading Congress to hold a vote on the deal in the post-election lame-duck session. The president has called the largest regional trade and regulatory deal in history one of his top economic priorities and a crucial strategic initiative in the fast-growing Asia Pacific, where the administration has sought to hedge against China’s growing influence.

[With time running out, Obama to make final push on Asia trade deal that Clinton opposes]

McConnell, who had previously ruled out a lame-duck trade vote, reiterated that position Thursday.

“Let’s just be honest about the political environment,” he said. “I believe if it were brought up this year it would be defeated anyway — leading you to raise the obvious question: If you’re interested in America still being in the trading business in the future, in what way is it advantageous to have a trade agreement go down?”

Obama aides have suggested that McConnell is reluctant to move forward on trade ahead of the elections to protect vulnerable Republican incumbents and GOP candidates from having to weigh in on the pact in manufacturing-heavy swing states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the administration officials have privately expressed hope that McConnell will change his mind after the election.

“The choice facing members of Congress is clear: either we can set the rules of the road for global trade in the Asia-Pacific region or we can cede that responsibility to China,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said. “The president believes that America should set those rules.”

The TPP covers nations that represent 36 percent of global gross domestic product, including Japan, Mexico, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam. The accord has drawn broad endorsements from influential business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Obama met in the Oval Office two weeks ago to discuss its merits with bipartisan political and business leaders, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), both of whom support the pact.

In the administration’s most recent public push, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech Wednesday that a failure to ratify the agreement would carry “serious consequences” for American foreign policy.

“We can’t withdraw from the TPP and still be viewed as a central player in the Pacific Rim and an undisputed force for peace and prosperity across the globe,” he said. “Our partners worldwide need to know they can always look to us for principled leadership, with no uncertainty and no doubt.”

[Kerry warns of ‘serious consequences’ if U.S. backs away from TPP trade pact]

There is little stomach among congressional Democrats to push through the TPP anytime soon. One of the TPP’s leading Democratic supporters, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), said ratification “is really going to come down to only one question: Does Mitch McConnell put this in play?”

Both McConnell and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) generally favor free trade, and both supported a bill that passed last year granting Obama and his successor special “fast track” authority to negotiate trade agreements such as the TPP.

But that was before trade became a major issue in the presidential race, pushed front and center by candidates such as Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination. Both of them blame free-trade agreements for the loss of working-class American jobs.

Clinton had been a forceful advocate for the TPP while serving as secretary of state during Obama’s first term, calling it crucial to the administration’s strategy to “rebalance” American foreign policy attention and resources towards Asia. But Clinton announced her opposition after the deal was finalized last fall during her closer-than-expected primary fight against Sanders.

[Trump is upending the free-trade debate in both parties]

Ryan has also voiced skepticism on the TPP’s prospects, despite his personal support for trade. Some Republican lawmakers typically inclined to support trade deals have objected to some provisions in the TPP that could hurt tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.

“The Obama administration negotiated a deal that cost them dozens of votes in Congress,” Ryan said in a Wisconsin Public Radio interview in August. “The votes are not there, they have to fix this agreement and renegotiate some pieces of it if they have any hope or chance of passing it, and I think that the sand is running through the hourglass pretty fast.”

Wyden said he was skeptical that the deal could be reopened to address those concerns, and warned that any attempt to appease Republicans would generate Democratic opposition. “I am going to be fighting that every step of the way,” he said.

McConnell said Thursday that the United States needs to “work our way back into the trade business,” but he acknowledged “that’s become a very, very difficult thing politically. That will require presidential leadership from the next president.”

He noted that “fast track” authority will continue throughout the next president’s term and that there is no set timeline for the TPP’s ratification. “America has been a great trading country going back to the founding of the country,” he said. “But right now, it is politically toxic, and I don’t think the Congress is ready to tackle it in any positive way.”
 

apogee

Alfrescian
Loyal
The TPP is not a trade pact. It is a political pact to contain China.

It will not benefit anyone except to cause more strife.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
The TPP is not a trade pact. It is a political pact to contain China.

It will not benefit anyone except to cause more strife.

Wrong. It is a multilateral trade deal that disregards sovereignty, much like prior to the EMU. It excludes China because they are openly protectionistic. It hurts tax collection in net importer countries and displaces workers in uncompetitive industries. Everyone benefits in theory, but if a small place like Singapore cannot properly deal with structural unemployment, what you think is going to happen to the larger countries? Loong is a fool to think Hilary can manage her anti-trade constituents who are well researched and informed while you are a simpleton who states the obvious. :rolleyes:
 

dr.wailing

Alfrescian
Loyal
Everyone benefits in theory........

Sir,

Pray tell me for I'm not schooled in economics, business or finance....

What are the assumptions on which this TPP theory is based? Could you enumerate and elaborate them please?
 

Rogue Trader

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The TPP is a mega FTA (free trade agreement) between a dozen countries

Like all FTAs, the reduction of tariffs and entry barriers only benefit multi-national companies. This erodes consumer rights and privacy rights of individuals..

For example, if a movie studio wants to persecute sinkies who downloaded the latest Star wars movie, it can easily request for info from Singtel/Starhub/IDA under a pre-stated TPP clause

So once again, the little man on the street is screwed.

China has opted to be excluded simply because they are big enough to negotiate their own FTAs with other countries.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sir,

Pray tell me for I'm not schooled in economics, business or finance....

What are the assumptions on which this TPP theory is based? Could you enumerate and elaborate them please?

RT has said it well. By everybody we dun mean you. You the individual is too small to be considered in postmodern economic theories! By everyone we mean business, governments and average households. And of course there is no such thing as an average household in highly unequal societies with a dwindling or non existant middle class. Benefits will accrue to owners of capital and a small select group of scarce labour, aka not you. That is the promise of free trade. :cool:
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
The TPP is a mega FTA (free trade agreement) between a dozen countries

Like all FTAs, the reduction of tariffs and entry barriers only benefit multi-national companies. This erodes consumer rights and privacy rights of individuals..

For example, if a movie studio wants to persecute sinkies who downloaded the latest Star wars movie, it can easily request for info from Singtel/Starhub/IDA under a pre-stated TPP clause

So once again, the little man on the street is screwed.

China has opted to be excluded simply because they are big enough to negotiate their own FTAs with other countries.

All true but very minor complaints dun you think? Lower tariffs means stronger exports. Stronger exports means more jobs more foreign investments. Prosecuting a few movie thieves in exchange for a lot of economic growth. Fair trade no? :confused:

The China container theory is just a clever rhetoric by lobbyists to convince hawks in Washington to throw their support behind a deal that stinks for Americans. :cool:
 

dr.wailing

Alfrescian
Loyal
RT has said it well. By everybody we dun mean you. You the individual is too small to be considered in postmodern economic theories! By everyone we mean business, governments and average households. And of course there is no such thing as an average household in highly unequal societies with a dwindling or non existant middle class. Benefits will accrue to owners of capital and a small select group of scarce labour, aka not you. That is the promise of free trade. :cool:

Sir:

Thanks for your response but you still haven't enumerated and elaborated the assumptions on which the theory of TPP is based.....
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Sir:

Thanks for your response but you still haven't enumerated and elaborated the assumptions on which the theory of TPP is based.....

Theory of absolute advantage by Adam Smith. Theory of comparative advantage by David Ricardo. You can wiki both for more, the gist is not do yourself what others can do cheaper, better, faster. This the basis for all free trade arguments and is typically taught in jc economics classes within 2 weeks, most of which involves drawing magic charts.
 

hsienloong

Alfrescian
Loyal
[h=2]Trans-Pacific Partnership: Another Trade Liberalization Scam[/h]
The TPP represents not "freer" trade, but re-regulation of trade to entrench corporate profit making. Economist John Weeks skewers the free trade dogma that is the ideological justification and corporate sales pitch for neoliberal globalization.
The gathering pressure for Congress to "fast track" the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) demonstrates yet again that trade liberalization is one of the few aspects of economic policy about which there is agreement across the mainstream of the political spectrum, in both the United States and Europe. Almost all conservative commentators endorse it with gusto, for centrists it is an article of faith, and even many progressives accept it implicitly by their criticism of industrial country protection.
The neoliberal ideologues sell it by bestowing the label "free trade," which is allegedly reached by repeated measures of "trade liberalization." No matter that the TPP has little to do with trade and everything to do with setting loose capital on a global scale. Well tested and demonstrably disastrous in the North American Free Trade Association, this liberating of capital includes 1) global extension of corporate patents under the moniker "intellectual property rights," 2) shifting enforcement of those patents from national governments and courts to ad hoc international tribunals, and 3) prohibiting as "protectionist" measures protecting labor rights and the environment.
This is not "freer" trade, but re-regulation of trade to entrench corporate profit making. However, if you call it freer trade, you can sell it to the public. In order to discredit this corporate sales pitch, I have to drive a stake through the heart of the Free Trade dogma that is the ideological justification for neoliberal globalization.
The greatest economist of the 20th century, J M Keynes, explicitly recanted his support for free trade. In a rarely quoted (suppressed?) passage in The General Theory, he wrote:
So lately as 1923, as a faithful pupil of the classical school who did not at that time doubt what he had been taught and entertained on this matter no reserves at all, I wrote: "If there is one thing that Protection can not do, it is to cure Unemployment. . . . So absolutely overwhelming and complete has been the domination of the classical [free trade] school. (The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936, Ch 23, Section 1).
The disgust of Keynes over free-trade ideology did nothing to weaken the commitment of economists to this pernicious propaganda. The putative advantages of liberalizing trade are as well-known as they are bogus. It will increase welfare though a better allocation of production and consumption in every country (specialize in what you do best). It will increase domestic competition and lower prices for consumers. And it will stimulate exports and employment as the mirror of the cheaper imports. Better use of resources, cheaper goods and more employment. What's to be against?
The simple answer is, as I show in my new book, Economics of the 1% : Everything. Jagdish Bhagwati, today's leading advocate of "free trade" and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, demonstrated 50 years ago that the assumptions required to conclude that free trade improves human welfare are absurdly restrictive and - he should have written - an insult to the intelligence. They include 1) continuous full employment of all resources in all countries; 2) all countries can produce all traded commodities; 3) the consumption patterns of people of all countries are the same; and 4) in every country, the same technology is used to produce each commodity. (The true believer in free trade might wish to read the Jagdish Bhagwati 1964 article, "The Pure Theory of International Trade," Economic Journal, 74, 1-78).
Accept these absurdities and the most that can be demonstrated is that some trade is better than no trade (autarky in the economics lingo). It cannot be demonstrated that more liberalization is an improvement on less. This inability to generalize about the consequence of reducing protection measures goes by the oxymoronic name "Principle of the Second Best." The point is simple: Some policy measures may exist to protect the population against fraud, deception and market power of global corporations. Removing one of these while leaving others in place may facilitate those maladies.
Second - and contrary to oft-repeated assertions - in practice, protection (tariffs and quotas) rarely reduces competition from foreign suppliers. If effective, tariffs and non-tariff measures increase the prices at which imports sell. This does not prevent competition from being intense in the protected domestic market. As part of an industrial policy, trade protection can be designed to foster competition, as in South Korea over the last four decades. And, of course, it is quite common in small countries for the allegedly competing imports to be marketed by the domestic producers of the same product (who have production facilities abroad). When this is the case, removing protection increases the profits of the monopoly importers.
Third, there is no theoretical basis for the argument that freer trade stimulates domestic production and employment. It is quite impossible to produce such a theoretical conclusion, because as I wrote above, trade models assume full employment. Adam Smith made the argument that trade provided a demand outlet for a country's surplus production ("vent for surplus") and thus could increase domestic employment. Subsequent economists rejected this sensible idea as naïve and simplistic.
As well they would. If domestic demand were insufficient for full employment, increased public expenditure or private domestic investment would resolve the problem as well as export demand would. The exception would be if a country requires a demand stimulus when it simultaneously suffers from an unsustainable import level. However, by letting in more imports, trade liberalization makes that problem worse, not better, as many African countries discovered in the 1990s under World Bank "adjustment" programs.
Always lurking in the free-trade wings is the argument that developing countries benefit from the elimination of industrial country protection, especially on agricultural products. Perhaps the most surprising thing about this argument is that anyone other than a true believer in free trade would take it seriously.
Most agricultural products protected by rich countries are not grown in the poor countries. The benefiting countries could be middle income (e.g., Argentina), where the agricultural population (and, therefore, number of beneficiaries) is small. Second, for those few products that are produced by low-income countries (cotton in Mauritania is invariably cited), the most likely beneficiary of a production decline in the United States and the European Union would be China, not a poor country in sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition, domestic processing and consumption of these products while diversifying exports might be a considerably better outcome than mutual trade liberalization. Better that Mauritania gins its cotton to make thread to clothe its population, than export it and import the clothes from China, the United States and Europe. Trade liberalization in exchange for access to foreign markets has been the death blow to industrialization strategies in many, if not most, poor countries.
As for trade in manufactures, the chart below shows the overwhelming beneficiary of increased access to developed country markets will be Chinese capital and global capital with production facilities in China. From about 5 percent of global manufacturing exports in 1999, Chinese companies in 2012 accounted for just over 20 percent. A recent report by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean demonstrates Chinese high-jacking of Mexico's trade in manufactures with the United States

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/it...partnership-another-trade-liberalization-scam

[h=2]The TPP: Another Trade Scam[/h]
A cabal of global corporations and their friends in the Obama Administration are waging a wholesale assault on our jobs, environment, health, and even our people’s sovereignty. Their weapon is a scheme hidden inside a scam. Called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the scam is their claim that TPP is nothing but another free trade deal that ties our economy to Brunei, Vietnam, and nine other nations around the Pacific Rim. But of the twenty-nine chapters in this deal, only five are about tariffs and other trade matters. The real deal is in the twenty-four other chapters that create a supranational scheme of secretive, private tribunals that corporations from any TPP nation can use to challenge and overturn our local, state, and national laws. All a corporate power has to do to win in these closed proceedings is to show that a particular law or regulation might reduce its future profits. This is big stuff, amounting to the enthronement of a global corporate oligarchy over us. Yet it’s been negotiated among trade officials of the twelve countries and 500 corporate executives in strict secrecy. In March, the President arranged a briefing to woo House Democrats to support the TPP. But he classified the briefing as a secret session, meaning the lawmakers are not allowed to tell you, me, or anyone else anything about it. A gag order on Congress? Holy Thomas Paine! The only reason Obama is desperate to hide his oligarchic scheme from us is because he knows the people would overwhelmingly oppose it. So he’s resorting to government by sucker punch. It’s cowardly—and disgraceful. The wonkish, gibberishistic jargon in these corporate boondoggles they call “trade deals” is toothachingly boring and incomprehensible. Could that be on purpose? Of course! If they wrote these wage-destroying, environment-killing, sovereignty-sucking scams in plain English so we commoners could understand what they’re doing to us, they couldn’t get away with it. So the TPP, by far the largest trade flim-flam in history, is written in legalistic gobbledygook and was negotiated by corporate lobbyists and government lawyers. Even Congress doesn’t know what’s in it—yet the plan is to hustle TPP into law through a super-rushed, rubber-stamped process called “fast-track.” No need to worry about the content, though, for an upstanding new group called Progressive Coalition for American Jobs now assures us that this global deal “will support hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the United States.” Hello! Do we have sucker wrappers around our heads? That’s the exact same claim that President Clinton and the corporate elite made in 1993 for NAFTA, which siphoned hundreds of thousands of jobs and entire industries out of the United States. Who are the members of this “coalition”? Every progressive group I know of is adamantly against the TPP, and no progressive has stepped forward to claim ownership of this PR push. “Good trade agreements can only be negotiated in the open,” write Representatives Raúl Grijalva and Keith Ellison, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “The U.S. must stop using trade agreements as investment deals for the world’s wealthiest corporations and instead prioritize higher wages, safer work and environmental standards and a healthier world economy.” Now that’s progressive

http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/05/188130/tpp-another-trade-scam


[h=1]The Trans-Pacific Partnership is Really a Trans-Pacific Ponzi Scheme[/h]http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...rship-is-really-a-trans-pacific-ponzi-scheme/
 

Rogue Trader

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
All true but very minor complaints dun you think? Lower tariffs means stronger exports. Stronger exports means more jobs more foreign investments. Prosecuting a few movie thieves in exchange for a lot of economic growth. Fair trade no? :confused:
It's 2016. only the naive will still believe that any deals made between capitalist organisations will eventually trickle down and benefit the common man. Look at the fate of the sinkie PMET after cross national employment barriers have been lifted? Look at the fate of the steel workers in Detroit after foreign steel levies have been removed?

Also, also sure you are one of those morons willing to pay for watching a 40 year old re-run of Star wars


The China container theory is just a clever rhetoric by lobbyists to convince hawks in Washington to throw their support behind a deal that stinks for Americans. :cool:

Trump is attacking the TPP simply because it was negotiated by the Obama administration when Hilary was the secretary of state.

FTAs are long and complicated contractual deals which normal people may not have full information to. Whenever Straights times announce that sinkieland has signed a new FTA with another country, it's made to sound like a good thing. But what the exact terms and implications are are never fully reported.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
It's 2016. only the naive will still believe that any deals made between capitalist organisations will eventually trickle down and benefit the common man. Look at the fate of the sinkie PMET after cross national employment barriers have been lifted? Look at the fate of the steel workers in Detroit after foreign steel levies have been removed?

Also, also sure you are one of those morons willing to pay for watching a 40 year old re-run of Star wars


Silly lah you RT! :rolleyes: Ang moh dun have PAP, they dunno laid off workers in Detroit must retrain, reskill and deep skill to retool themselves into other low paying work. To be fair, they cannot convince workers because they rather stay unemployed and on the dole. A mistake the PAP never makes. Since no minimum wage, there is always work for elderly or unskilled labour if they want a job they will find one easily. Of course, so will thousands of transient workers who cross the Causeway every morning but we brudder brudder lah, historical ties, dun be so calculative. :cool:

So labour force rigidity is not a problem for us because the PAP does not enforce minimum wage or dole handouts. You work, you eat. It as simple as that. And whatever labour displacement from shifts in industrial production can be solved on its own by allowing the disenfranchised a taste of poverty for as long as they like. :cool:

Trump is attacking the TPP simply because it was negotiated by the Obama administration when Hilary was the secretary of state.

FTAs are long and complicated contractual deals which normal people may not have full information to. Whenever Straights times announce that sinkieland has signed a new FTA with another country, it's made to sound like a good thing. But what the exact terms and implications are are never fully reported.

Every country have secrets. Of course secrets must be kept secret otherwise they will not be secret. Secrets are secret for a reason, and if secrets become not secret, there will be consequences. Since people directly elect their own representatives in Congress as well as their President, the President and Congressmen represent the interests of their constituents. However the powers are vested separately between the executive and legislative. There are things that the Executive know that the Legislature do not need to know, and vice versa. Trade deals happen to be an example. The fact that terms are never fully reported does not mean they are bad. Indeed it is possible they are bad. But secrets are secret for a reason, and if people do not wish to allow the executive to keep such secrets secret, they should either elect someone else they trust or run the country themselves and devolve the country into anarchy. To do otherwise, such as willfully demanding transparency, is obstructionist and untrue to the priciples of democracy. :cool:
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
TPP will be resurrected by Clinton under a new scheme. China must be contained. It is good for us too.

TPP is not about containing China,dont be so arrogant and naive,u think Singapore,australia,japan these midget countries can contain China?there is currently tens of millions of PRCs residing overseas,colonising the world from australia to africa.theres millions of chinese students studying in american universities and working in american companies,siphoning every military secret,every commericial secret and academic research and transferring it to the motherland.chinese businesses is becoming more competitive,more advanced and more sophisticated by the minute,u honestly think any singaporean company or australian or jap stand a chance?the China juggernaut is unstoppable,it is only a matter of time.Singapore australia and jap is nothing but a bunch of ants and cockroaches struggling in toilet bowl water,trying desperately not to be swept away by the tide.TPP is just a competition for running dogs to see who can suck ameriKKK's cock hardest,so bend over sinkies and start sucking!!!!!

[video=youtube;yURRmWtbTbo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yURRmWtbTbo[/video]
 

Pinkieslut

Alfrescian
Loyal
TPP is not about containing China,dont be so arrogant and naive,u think Singapore,australia,japan these midget countries can contain China?there is currently tens of millions of PRCs residing overseas,colonising the world from australia to africa.theres millions of chinese students studying in american universities and working in american companies,siphoning every military secret,every commericial secret and academic research and transferring it to the motherland.chinese businesses is becoming more competitive,more advanced and more sophisticated by the minute,u honestly think any singaporean company or australian or jap stand a chance?the China juggernaut is unstoppable,it is only a matter of time.Singapore australia and jap is nothing but a bunch of ants and cockroaches struggling in toilet bowl water,trying desperately not to be swept away by the tide.TPP is just a competition for running dogs to see who can suck ameriKKK's cock hardest,so bend over sinkies and start sucking!!!!!

That is why the Pinoy President very smart. Stop sucking angmo cock quickly go claim Xi Jiping is his long lost relative LOL.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
That is why the Pinoy President very smart. Stop sucking angmo cock quickly go claim Xi Jiping is his long lost relative LOL.

Aiya. If you cannot look beyond your next meal, you no different from my Pomeranian lah, dumb dumb! :rolleyes:
 

dr.wailing

Alfrescian
Loyal
Theory of absolute advantage by Adam Smith. Theory of comparative advantage by David Ricardo. You can wiki both for more, the gist is not do yourself what others can do cheaper, better, faster. This the basis for all free trade arguments and is typically taught in jc economics classes within 2 weeks, most of which involves drawing magic charts.
You're very sure the theories that you listed above are the assumptions on which TPP is based?
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
You're very sure the theories that you listed above are the assumptions on which TPP is based?

They are the theories that lay the foundations for the argument for free trade. You asking me if these are the same theories that form the arguments in favor for TPP then I would say yes. The TPP is a free trade agreement therefore arguments in favor of free trade must apply to any free trade agreement. I sense you are not going anywhere through this line of thought so I ask you to consider your next question carefully so as not to derail the thread assertion that TPP will be revived if Clinton wins the election.
 
Top