forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net


#housing #politics #investing more»
757,246 comments in 78,013 posts by 11,102 registered users, 3 online now: HEY YOU, just_passing_through, WillyWanker

new post

RIP TPP

By lostand confused   2017 Jan 23, 1:18pm 2728 views   50 comments   watch   quote      

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/president-trump-kills-tpp-executive-order-officially-withdrawing/

President Donald J. Trump killed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) once and for all on Monday, signing an executive order officially withdrawing from the trade deal negotiations.

« First    « Previous     Comments 11 - 50 of 50     Last »

11 joeyjojojunior   2017 Jan 23, 3:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

lostand confused says

If Hilalry had won, we would be a TPP country now.

Another alternative fact. Hillary came out against TPP

12 iwog   2017 Jan 23, 3:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Any trade agreement deliberately kept from the public's eye is evil.

Nope, no it's not especially considering the rivalries and downright hostilities between the different nations involved in any trade negotiation. There is absolutely no way something like the TPP could be formulated under public scrutiny.

Dan8267 says

Should a transnational corporation be allowed to sue local or national governments for raising their minimum wages? Should such companies be allowed to sue for governments implementing tobacco restrictions or environmental regulations? How about suing for local municipalities providing open WiFi to its residents? The ISDS's in the TPP allow for all these things. That's just one reason why the TPP is unacceptable, but it's more than enough.

1. You're assuming the ISDS is written into the TPP because it's written into most trade agreements. You don't know.
2. The ISDS already exists and is responsible for some ridiculous decisions. Watch now as Trump doesn't do anything about it.
3. So now what?? The TPP wasn't for China, it was most for our allies in the region. Trump cancelled something. Does he have a plan to replace it?

13 lostand confused   2017 Jan 23, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

Another alternative fact. Hillary came out against TPP

Yeah right.

14 BlueSardine   2017 Jan 23, 4:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Well, I agree...

joeyjojojunior says

This has to be literally the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Free trade is had has ALWAYS

15 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Jan 23, 4:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Another alternative fact. Hillary came out against TPP

Another MSM-style lie by manipulating context and omission.

She said "As written". Which is legalese for "I'll change a few words and then say it's been fixed and it's time to pass it within 48 hours with no debate so I can sign it"

What time she didn't spend on Libya or pushing Fracking worldwide, as SOS, she spent pushing TPP.

She called it the "Gold Standard" of Trade Agreements.

Her "Free" Trade record is pretty stellar. I think they have her at 80%, with 20% because of a couple of agreements that came up during her Senate and Presidential Runs for political strategy purposes she didn't vote on (I don't even think she voted against, just abstained).

16 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 5:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote      

iwog says

Nope, no it's not especially considering the rivalries and downright hostilities between the different nations involved in any trade negotiation. There is absolutely no way something like the TPP could be formulated under public scrutiny.

That's a bullshit excuse. All those rivalries and downright hostilities would be amplified if a trade agreement is made is secret. Furthermore, even if the initial negations were done in secret -- which is always a bad thing -- the trade agreement could be made public and subject to public debate for an entire year before being signed. The argument that it must be signed without public oversight is down right undemocratic and unrepresentative of the interests of the public. So, of course, the public should reject all such agreements.

We live in a global economy with many integrated processes. The time for shady deals in smoke filled back rooms is long over. You cannot run a global economy on secret deals.

[stupid comment limit]

17 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 5:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

1. You're assuming the ISDS is written into the TPP because it's written into most trade agreements. You don't know.

The TPP has a provision many will love to hate: ISDS. What is it, and why does it matter?

One sticking point will be the agreement’s chapter on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

Beware of TPP’s Investor–State Dispute Settlement Provision

While advocates promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as a “free trade” agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim countries, the most economically significant provisions are not cuts to trade barriers. Instead, the key element is TPP’s investment chapter, which gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international arbitration when they feel their newly created property rights are violated

Straight Talk on the ISDS Provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an investment and trade agreement signed last February between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations, contains enforcement provisions, including an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, for resolving potential investment disputes related to the agreement.

[stupid comment limit]

18 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 5:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

2. The ISDS already exists and is responsible for some ridiculous decisions. Watch now as Trump doesn't do anything about it.

The existance of ISDS does not mean that any new ISDS shold be created or that existing ones should be expanded without consideration of the consequences. I'm not saying that there shouldn't ever be any ISDS. I'm saying that every nation and local government should have some say in how far those ISDS go because large corporations will always use such contracts as ways to abuse the environment and workers and commit acts that would be illegal otherwise and should be illegal. Corporations are like horny teenage boys deciding the rules of what goes and doesn't go on a date. Would you really trust them not to take sexual advantage of a girl? ISDS are like agreements that the girl can't say no to certain things and the father can't enforce certain restrictions. You better be damn sure those ISDS's are reasonable, and in the TPP they aren't. That's a prime motivation for the secrecy.

iwog says

3. So now what?? The TPP wasn't for China, it was most for our allies in the region. Trump cancelled something. Does he have a plan to replace it?

Irrelevant. This isn't the ACA. The TPP wasn't even ratified. It does not need to be replaced by something before being blocked. That's like saying you can't shut down a nuclear reactor that's going critical before you replace it with something else. Of course, you can.

19 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 5:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Look, Trump can be wrong about a lot of things, but even a broken clock is right some of the time. It's not a good argument to say, Trump is for X therefore X must be bad. That's just poisoning the well.

I assure you that before the first month of Trump's presidency is over, you'll have plenty of legitimate opportunities to criticize him for stupid decisions. You don't need to jump at the first chance you see.

20 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 5:16pm   ↑ like (4)   ↑ dislike (4)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

Another alternative fact. Hillary came out against TPP

Hillary denounced the TPP after she did everything possible to make it reality. Hillary came out in favor of same sex marriages after she did everything she could to stop them.

She's a two-faced hypocrite. I'd be willing to give her the benefit of a doubt that she had legitimate epiphanies, but how do you go through 60 years of life believing that same sex marriages are an abomination and then, just when pubic support for them reaches critical mass, suddenly think they are a human right?

She's a band wagon jumper, not someone who's seen the light. She's a cold and she's a broken Hallelujah.

21 joeyjojojunior   2017 Jan 23, 6:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Macropodia says

Well, I agree...

Ah... thanks. I missed the grammar police.

22 joeyjojojunior   2017 Jan 23, 6:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Hillary denounced the TPP after she did everything possible to make it reality. Hillary came out in favor of same sex marriages after she did everything she could to stop them.

She's a two-faced hypocrite

She's the consummate politician. She knows which way the wind is blowing and adjusts her position accordingly. Some call that being hypocrticial, others might call it representing her constituents. She is, after all, elected to represent their interests.

So, given that the public mood is definitely souring on free trade, I think it's pretty darn likely she would have scrapped it too.

23 joeyjojojunior   2017 Jan 23, 6:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Ironman says

And that's the person YOU wanted in the white house...

Not really. She was the lesser of two evils in the election, but far from the person I wanted in the White House.

But, again, is it really bad if a politician changes their vote if the public changes its view? In a representative democracy, a politician is supposed to represent their voters views.

24 iwog   2017 Jan 23, 6:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

That's a bullshit excuse. All those rivalries and downright hostilities would be amplified if a trade agreement is made is secret.

Totally wrong. See what happened in the United States for an agreement that you can't even read? Now imagine the populations of 10 different nations all reading the latest developments of the trade negotiations and politically hanging the people in power if they perceive they are getting a raw deal. Instead of one country, the U.S., revolting over nothing, you have ALL the countries revolting over the entire trade deal.

It's utter nonsense that this should have been subjected to public debate at every juncture. Diplomacy is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. It's absolutely ridiculous to think it can be subjected to the mob however these are the times we live in.

Think about Carter, Egypt, and Israel coming to terms if CNN was hovering over the negotiations. That's what you want??

25 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 8:28pm   ↑ like (3)   ↑ dislike (3)     quote      

iwog says

Diplomacy is ALWAYS done behind closed doors.

Not true, and even if it were, a trade agreement isn't diplomacy. In any nation that claims to be a republic, a society of self-government, the people must be able to decide what the law is and that includes how that law relates to international corporations doing business in their country. The people have the right to debate whether or not trade deals are worth letting a corporation pollute a water source and cause birth defects in thousands of children while having zero legal liability for that. Any trade agreement that prevents criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits regarding such atrocities might not be what the public wants. If giving away the basic protections of law is a prerequisite for the TPP, then the TPP should be rejected. If it's such a good deal, it can withstand public debate.

"Trust us, we're the government" doesn't work. Accountability is the price of government power. And if a corporation wants access to our markets, it's going to have to obey a few laws like not poisoning us to death or causing our children to grow tentacles. If you can't make a profit while not causing such harm, you shouldn't be in business.

26 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 8:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

She's the consummate politician.

That she is.

joeyjojojunior says

In a representative democracy, a politician is supposed to represent their voters views.

Within ethical limits. Hitler was elected and he represented those who elected him perfectly. But that doesn't justify the Holocaust. The fact is that human and civil rights trump popular will. It is the ethical duty of all lawmakers to uphold human and civil rights over popular will. Otherwise, slavery and genocide are justified.

Hillary fails in this task, as will Trump.

27 FortWayne   2017 Jan 23, 9:11pm   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote      

Hell must have frozen over, Dan agreed with Trump on something.

28 bob2356   2017 Jan 23, 9:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Totally wrong. See what happened in the United States for an agreement that you can't even read?

Absolutely nothing happened except people expressed their opinions and concerns. That's what is supposed to happen in a democracy.

iwog says

Instead of one country, the U.S., revolting over nothing, you have ALL the countries revolting over the entire trade deal.

If the trade deal is so bad people are willing to revolt then it's not over nothing. Do you actually read what you write?

29 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 9:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

FortWayne says

Hell must have frozen over, Dan agreed with Trump on something.

I base my position on facts and the truth, not which team scores the goal.

30 FortWayne   2017 Jan 23, 9:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Hell must have frozen over, Dan agreed with Trump on something.

I base my position on facts and the truth, not which team scores the goal.

Since when?

31 bob2356   2017 Jan 23, 9:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

And if a corporation wants access to our markets, it's going to have to obey a few laws like not poisoning us to death or causing our children to grow tentacles.

Those laws will be gone by 2020 so that won't be a problem.

32 RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   2017 Jan 23, 10:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

lostand confused says

If Hilalry had won-Obama and the repub congress would have rushed the TPP through and we would be a TPP country . Why do the lefties vote for Hilalry?

because of free shit she promised these losers

33 lostand confused   2017 Jan 23, 10:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Sanders to work with Trump on trade/TPP
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/315655-sanders-ill-work-with-trump-on-trade

Meanwhile that old , ego maniac mcCain who gave the fake Russian dossier to FBI blasts Trump over the TPP-he supports it.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/675215/mccain-rips-trump-withdrawing-from-tpp

This is going to be an interesting few years!!

34 Dan8267   2017 Jan 23, 10:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote      

FortWayne says

Since when?

Since always. You're just so blinded by partisan ideology that you can't see any truth that contradicts your preconceptions. I'm a rationalist; you are not.

35 RealEstateIsBetterThanStocks   2017 Jan 23, 10:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Ironman says

joeyjojojunior says

She's the consummate politician. She knows which way the wind is blowing and adjusts her position accordingly. Some call that being hypocrticial, others might call it representing her constituents. She is, after all, elected to represent their interests.

And that's the person YOU wanted in the white house...

Folks, you can't make this shit up!!!

Oh, but remember, Trump lies.

sounds like a spineless, incompetent idiot who doesn't know what the fuck she's doing and always agreeing with the mob to stay elected.

36 iwog   2017 Jan 23, 11:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says

Absolutely nothing happened except people expressed their opinions and concerns.

Exactly. They attacked nothing. LITERALLY nothing. No one in the media or the genius trusts on these websites has seen a word of it but it's awful.

bob2356 says

If the trade deal is so bad people are willing to revolt then it's not over nothing. Do you actually read what you write?

Oh I think I read what I write. You handle nations involved in trade negotiations like you would handle individuals. You think nations are singular entities united on all fronts.

Of course the reality, the part you haven't even considered, is that nations are diverse and full of factions. A leader might sacrifice textiles in favor of energy if it serves the net good. Maybe a nation will lower tariffs on bananas while needing durable goods because the country as a whole will fare better.

So you want to open it all up? Textiles and bananas go on strike, attack the ruling party, and overturn the current government just like what happened here. Again and again and again I see this country as a nation of stupid, spoiled children. Trade negotiations NEED to be secret because of EXACTLY what happened in this election. What the government didn't count on is a revolt against a box of air. Y'all hated the TPP because nothing. You attacked it because nothing. You voted for Trump because nothing. You PRESUMED based on absolutely nothing that Obama was selling us all down the river..........based on absolutely nothing.

37 iwog   2017 Jan 24, 12:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Okay so you threw out the TPP people. Now what? Business as usual? What if the TPP contained a provision halting the devaluation of currencies? A move that would be extremely unpopular in Asia but great for US manufacturing? Y'all don't fucking know and never will.

38 BlueSardine   2017 Jan 24, 5:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

In other words, pass it so we can see what's in it.
Where have we heard that before, and how did that work out?

iwog says

Okay so you threw out the TPP people. Now what? Business as usual? What if the TPP contained a provision halting the devaluation of currencies? A move that would be extremely unpopular in Asia but great for US manufacturing? Y'all don't fucking know and never will.

39 iwog   2017 Jan 24, 5:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Macropodia says

In other words, pass it so we can see what's in it.

Nope, that's just the stupid version. The real version is congress would be presented with the trade deal, have an opportunity to solicit opinions, and either pass it or kill it. Probably 90% of voters believe the stupid version and 10% of us know how trade bills must be ratified.

Macropodia says

Where have we heard that before, and how did that work out?

Obviously moot.

40 TwoScoopsMcGee   2017 Jan 24, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Fast Track Authority limits the Senate's ability to introduce or pass amendments or debate trade bills.

They usually end up with the Senate Leadership demanding an up-or-down vote within hours - and must take action within 90 days.

Fast Track authority was re-enabled in 2015 and would have been in play for a TPP vote. It had been constantly renewed for the past ~15 years.

Essentially, the Senate limits itself on purpose in order to pass the Treaty ASAP and bypass normal Senate procedure.

So the idea that the Senate would proceed to debate and amend TPP as they would any other Bill or Treaty is not applicable.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tpp-fast-track-passes-tpa/

41 bob2356   2017 Jan 24, 6:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

Exactly. They attacked nothing. LITERALLY nothing. No one in the media or the genius trusts on these websites has seen a word of it but it's awful.

What alternative reality do you live in? Like big sections didn't leak out. Yea sure no one saw a word of it. Right. Duckies world is a strange one.

The full text of the TPP was released nov 5 2015. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text and everyone on the planet saw it including the media and genius trusts.

If TPP was so advantageous to the average American then why did it get forced into fast track? Fast track was actually expired and voted back specifically for TPP.

iwog says

Of course the reality, the part you haven't even considered, is that nations are diverse and full of factions. A leader might sacrifice textiles in favor of energy if it serves the net good. Maybe a nation will lower tariffs on bananas while needing durable goods because the country as a whole will fare better.

So just trust me I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

A leader is elected by the people, the diverse and full of factions people, to do the will of the people. If a leader can't convince the people what serves the net good then a leader has no right to decide on their own. That's called democracy. You seem pretty confused by this concept.

42 iwog   2017 Jan 24, 6:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says

The full text of the TPP was released nov 5 2015. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/TPP-Full-Text and everyone on the planet saw it including the media and genius trusts.

Oh you think? Why don't you grace us with the highlights of why you wanted it dead?

bob2356 says

So just trust me I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Either trust the government or trust anarchy. Your choice. This is not a false dichotomy, you have no 3rd option. Trusting the government when it suits you and rejecting its motives as evil when it doesn't is simply jacking off to your own preconceived bias.

43 Dan8267   2017 Jan 24, 8:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

What if the TPP contained a provision halting the devaluation of currencies? A move that would be extremely unpopular in Asia but great for US manufacturing?

First of all... Holy shit! Did Iwog just come out against currency devaluation? I've been trying to convince you for years that currency manipulation is a bad thing that steals from hard-working productive middle class people.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is saying that there is nothing in the TPP that would be good for America, or for the world at large. There are, however, deal killers. Even more importantly, anything good in the TPP could be put in a new trade agreement that transparent and is publicly debated so that no one is screwed over. By the way, I don't just care about what is good for "America", which is often interpreted as American investors, not workers. I also care about not screwing over third world labor and creating effective economic slave labor, or destroying the ecosystems of poor nations, polluting their drinking water, etc. It's a moral issue. We can have economic prosperity without being evil.

In fact, evil only creates short-term economic wealth at the expense of long-term wealth. Slavery, pollution, economic exploitation ultimately lower the world GDP. Greed is not good, not even for the greedy. Greed creates the tragedy of the commons. It decreases wealth overall, and in the long-run, it even decreases wealth for the wealthy. The rich today would have been richer if slavery never existed in America. When the lords were forced to pay peasants more after the Black Death, it created the Renaissance. The rich were better off losing money. Greed is short-sighted and self-destructive.

44 Dan8267   2017 Jan 24, 8:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Either trust the government or trust anarchy. Your choice. This is not a false dichotomy, you have no 3rd option.

Um, no, that's completely wrong. There are degrees of trustworthiness. There are also things I trust the government with doing, like public health and economic development, because those things are in the interests of those running the government. There are things I don't trust the government with like bypassing due process, interrogating criminals and terror suspects in private, and black ops because those are things in which there are great incentives for conflicts of interest and abuse of power. Not everything is a litmus test. In fact, most things aren't.

In any case, trust isn't a good thing. What we really need is transparency. Transparency gives you all the advantages of trust without any of its weaknesses.

45 Dan8267   2017 Jan 24, 8:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Trusting the government when it suits you and rejecting its motives as evil when it doesn't is simply jacking off to your own preconceived bias.

Government is an imaginary thing. It doesn't make decisions, and it doesn't have motives. People in government make decisions and have motives. We talk about governments, organizations, and nations as if they are individuals. They are not. They are collectives, and collectives have no will of their own. A collective acts based on the wills of the various people controlling the collective. These wills are most often in contradiction with one another. The degree of contradiction varies greatly from one collective to another, but it is always there.

Peirce the veil of the collective and hold individuals responsible for their actions within the collective. Don't make tax payers pay for the crimes of cops. Imprison and fine the cops who commit crimes. Don't throw out government when it violates rights. Throw out the politicians and replace them people who have moral backbones. Don't take settlements from the stock owners of a public company that pollutes. Seize the assets of the CEO and board members. They are the decision makers.

46 FortWayne   2017 Jan 24, 9:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Since when?

Since always. You're just so blinded by partisan ideology that you can't see any truth that contradicts your preconceptions. I'm a rationalist; you are not.

Yes I'm a team player Dan, and my team is called Team America.

47 Dan8267   2017 Jan 24, 9:15am   ↑ like (2)   ↑ dislike (2)     quote      

FortWayne says

Yes I'm a team player Dan, and my team is called Team America.

You clearly hate most of your fellow teammates. That doesn't make you a patriot. A patriot isn't someone who waves a flag and yells "we're the best country in the world". A patriot is one who fights for his fellow countryman against his government, seeks to improve government, protects the environment for future generations, helps the worst off members of his society, and constantly seeks to change his country for the better because it's the people, not the politics or political machinery, that matters. A true patriot will gladly burn his flag to save his country, overthrow his government to save his nation, and curtail power to protect those without it. You are no patriot. You are a pawn.

48 bob2356   2017 Jan 24, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Either trust the government or trust anarchy. Your choice. This is not a false dichotomy, you have no 3rd option. Trusting the government when it suits you and rejecting its motives as evil when it doesn't is simply jacking off to your own preconceived bias.

Too funny. There is only government and anarchy. So if I were in Venezuela right now I should trust the government? How about russia in 1920? A smart person never trusts any government. A government, any government, should always be held accountable to the will of the people. Corporations, governments, and satellites are all like small children. Without adult supervision they wander off and get into trouble. Governments will always strive for more control and power unless constrained by the citizens. That is lesson of history time and time again. Supervision is done with transparency and scrutiny and protest, and voting the rascals out. Probably 90% of "classified" information is to cover up actions government workers and politicians don't want to be scrutinized for political reasons.

Too bad you don't understand any of these basic concepts of democracy.

50 iwog   2017 Jan 24, 2:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says

There is only government and anarchy.

By definition, but you're about to knit a straw man.

bob2356 says

So if I were in Venezuela right now I should trust the government?

No, you should trust a replacement government and fight to get rid of the bad government. However you've now abandoned the issue. We were talking about the presumption of good in trade negotiations. The presumption that your government isn't trying to screw the population unless you have evidence they are.

« First    « Previous     Comments 11 - 50 of 50     Last »

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker: