HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If you could vote on TPP ...

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:34 AM

 

If you could vote on TPP for America like UK voted on Brexit, how would YOU vote?

TPP:

YES
or
NO


????





I will "vote" below.

164 replies, 8642 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 164 replies Author Time Post
Reply If you could vote on TPP for America like UK voted on Brexit, how would YOU vote? (Original post)
nikto Jun 2016 OP
nikto Jun 2016 #1
cprise Jul 2016 #159
bemildred Jun 2016 #2
GreatGazoo Jun 2016 #3
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #4
nikto Jun 2016 #5
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #6
nikto Jun 2016 #15
Trajan Jun 2016 #32
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #33
nikto Jun 2016 #41
Aerows Jun 2016 #109
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #110
Aerows Jun 2016 #111
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #112
Aerows Jun 2016 #113
TreasonousBastard Jun 2016 #7
BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #8
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #80
seabeckind Jul 2016 #137
nikto Jul 2016 #151
pampango Jul 2016 #141
nikto Jun 2016 #42
Hoyt Jun 2016 #12
pampango Jun 2016 #9
nikto Jun 2016 #44
pampango Jun 2016 #66
Chan790 Jun 2016 #68
pampango Jun 2016 #78
Chan790 Jun 2016 #90
pampango Jun 2016 #94
Doremus Jul 2016 #162
pampango Jul 2016 #163
Recursion Jun 2016 #10
nikto Jun 2016 #45
Recursion Jun 2016 #50
nikto Jun 2016 #55
Recursion Jun 2016 #56
PatrickforO Jun 2016 #61
Recursion Jun 2016 #63
seabeckind Jul 2016 #139
Recursion Jul 2016 #146
seabeckind Jul 2016 #148
Recursion Jul 2016 #149
nikto Jun 2016 #62
Recursion Jun 2016 #64
nikto Jun 2016 #65
Chan790 Jun 2016 #71
Recursion Jun 2016 #106
Chan790 Jun 2016 #69
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #75
Chan790 Jun 2016 #77
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #81
Chan790 Jun 2016 #91
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #92
1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #84
Jack Bone Jun 2016 #11
Elwood P Dowd Jun 2016 #13
smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #14
nikto Jun 2016 #16
Egnever Jun 2016 #37
nikto Jun 2016 #47
hollysmom Jun 2016 #53
nikto Jun 2016 #54
Egnever Jul 2016 #135
MohRokTah Jun 2016 #17
Human101948 Jun 2016 #28
nikto Jun 2016 #48
Chan790 Jun 2016 #72
ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2016 #120
Chan790 Jun 2016 #123
ConservativeDemocrat Jun 2016 #124
seabeckind Jul 2016 #138
truebluegreen Jul 2016 #157
Vinca Jun 2016 #18
sakabatou Jun 2016 #19
Starry Messenger Jun 2016 #20
cali Jun 2016 #21
nikto Jun 2016 #23
cali Jun 2016 #26
nikto Jun 2016 #49
PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #103
nikto Jun 2016 #117
PaulaFarrell Jun 2016 #122
louis c Jun 2016 #22
nikto Jun 2016 #24
Yo_Mama Jun 2016 #25
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #27
Chan790 Jun 2016 #73
Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #100
whathehell Jun 2016 #29
Motley13 Jun 2016 #30
roamer65 Jun 2016 #31
onecaliberal Jun 2016 #34
840high Jun 2016 #35
840high Jun 2016 #36
Egnever Jun 2016 #38
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #88
LWolf Jun 2016 #39
Duval Jun 2016 #40
avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #43
Hekate Jun 2016 #46
cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #51
peace13 Jun 2016 #52
mikehiggins Jun 2016 #57
Arizona Roadrunner Jun 2016 #58
burrowowl Jun 2016 #59
PatrickforO Jun 2016 #60
Chan790 Jun 2016 #67
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #70
Chan790 Jun 2016 #76
nikto Jun 2016 #97
tblue37 Jun 2016 #74
w4rma Jun 2016 #79
YoungDemCA Jun 2016 #83
w4rma Jun 2016 #86
w4rma Jun 2016 #87
woodsprite Jun 2016 #82
OriginalGeek Jun 2016 #85
Warpy Jun 2016 #89
nikto Jun 2016 #98
hobbit709 Jun 2016 #93
Gabi Hayes Jun 2016 #95
nikto Jun 2016 #116
PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #96
nikto Jun 2016 #99
nest Jun 2016 #101
nikto Jun 2016 #102
silvershadow Jun 2016 #104
ozone_man Jun 2016 #105
Night Watchman Jun 2016 #107
Aerows Jun 2016 #108
TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #114
OnDoutside Jun 2016 #115
nikto Jun 2016 #118
KeizoOshima2 Jun 2016 #119
LeftishBrit Jun 2016 #121
nikto Jul 2016 #125
silvershadow Jul 2016 #126
nikto Jul 2016 #127
silvershadow Jul 2016 #131
Rex Jul 2016 #128
silvershadow Jul 2016 #130
Rex Jul 2016 #129
AntiBank Jul 2016 #132
Name removed Jul 2016 #133
Night Watchman Jul 2016 #134
nikto Jul 2016 #136
seabeckind Jul 2016 #140
randome Jul 2016 #142
pampango Jul 2016 #144
randome Jul 2016 #145
nikto Jul 2016 #150
randome Jul 2016 #153
nikto Jul 2016 #161
nikto Jul 2016 #152
pampango Jul 2016 #155
B Calm Jul 2016 #143
louis c Jul 2016 #147
TDale313 Jul 2016 #154
mikehiggins Jul 2016 #156
lonestarnot Jul 2016 #158
My Good Babushka Jul 2016 #160
Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #164

Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:36 AM

1. I vote: No

 

Nope.

Nuh-uh.

Negativo.

Forget it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 08:23 AM

159. I vote: This is stupid. The TPP is not a union

that bestows rights and privileges--even an identity--on each citizen.

Comparing free-trade treaties forged in secret with a union like the EU is a neoliberal rhetorical trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:53 AM

2. Fuck no.

I oppose any and all laws passed without a thorough public airing and debate. If it is not done transparently, down it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:56 AM

3. Is "Oh, Hell No!" an option ?

Needs a catchy word mash-up like UScape

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:58 AM

4. This poll tries to conflate

apples with oranges.

The TPP is a single (albeit large-scale) trade agreement. The EU is an economic, political and social union. BIG difference. The UK just cut off its nose to spite its face.

My vote on TPP would be based on my own study of its provisions rather than on opinions from self-described "experts" or pundits, and certainly not on a DU poll that attempts to make complex things much simpler than they are.

In and of itself, no trade agreement is harmful. In fact, no business can be conducted without some sort of trade agreement and international business cannot be conducted without international trade agreements.

But what any agreement says, how it can be implemented, how sanctions for violations can be enforced, and how unintended harmful consequences can be mitigated, among other things, are essential to whether it should be accepted or rejected. For example, if we had had eight years of a Democratic administration instead of Bush-Cheney, many, if not all, of NAFTA's harmful effects could either have been mitigated or nipped in the bud altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:09 AM

5. So, is that a "yes"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:12 AM

6. That is ... I am not

falling for some provocative POS poll, which should have been one of your options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:23 PM

15. That's a "yes"

 

Obfuscation Attempt: FAILED.





Thank you very much.
All I needed to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:16 PM

32. +1,000,000 ...

 

Thanks for the shakeout ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:21 PM

33. Only to one with an

authoritarian black-and-white mentality. Buh-bye!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:11 PM

41. Pure projection

 

I thnk I smell a corporatist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:59 AM

109. It was a buttwipe-ish type poll. Thanks for not falling for it. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #109)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:00 AM

110. You are very welcome! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #110)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:01 AM

111. You are the best, Expat

 

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #111)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:04 AM

112. Hardly "the best," lol!

But I am also a Sagittarian! And THAT makes up for a lot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #112)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:08 AM

113. Rock on, dear!

 

It does!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:16 AM

7. Oof... Nuanced answers to simplified questions are not always..

well received.

From what I've seen of the enormous TPP, there are a number of objectionable things in there but it is more of an answer to Chinese expansion and hegemony than anything else.

Brexit is more like the early history of the US-- when the Articles of Confederation weren't working too well, we could have split up into a bunch of small countries. After all, Massachusetts had little in common with Virginia.

But, we took the longer view and strengthened the union. The Civil War then strengthened the union even more after far too much bloodshed.

Strength is with unity and working out our differences instead of magnifying them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:21 AM

8. Thank you very much!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:22 PM

80. And, the first trade agreement (that I am aware of) that ...

 

includes workforce protective measures, including remedial mechanisms, to include the RIGHT of collective bargaining.

As I have said before, the smartest strategy for the American job and wage security is not the protectionist measures of yesterday (i.e., tariffs and currency wars); but rather, the American workforce's full throated advocacy for wage increases in the low wage countries. It doesn't take much of a bump in Indonesian wages to reach the engineering/production, distance to market equalibrium point that justifies labor arbitrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:40 AM

137. That is the most absurd argument I've heard.

And I've heard it a lot. An appeal to my humanity.

What a crock.

I have to give up my job so some person in Indonesia can buy a shoe they make but can't afford?

Oh gee, and make me feel guilty for it.

(added) And the even more absurd part is that after it's all done, that worker will have the same exploited job and I won't have any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeckind (Reply #137)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:32 AM

151. Forgive them. They know not what they argue for

 

They will learn their lesson the hard way, and will see the light,
after they get their hearts broken by their political heroes.

Their "arguments" (pro-TPP) will fade away like the "trickle-down to The People" of a Reagan tax-cut.
If TPP passes, they will learn they were wrong, and they will hate it too, in almost every case, I predict.
Except for the wealthy investors on DU---They will love it.


Give it time.
They will learn, just not from us.

Meanwhile,
you rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:05 AM

141. Speaking of Indonesia, FDR weighed in on it (well on the island of Java actually):

Harry Hopkins (FDR adviser and an architect of the New Deal) interrupted FDR while he was dictating the Four Freedoms speech and told FDR that he should not say "everywhere in the world because Americans are not going to give a damn about people in Java".

FDR replied, "Well Harry. They are going to have to give a damn about people in Java from now on."

The speech delivered by President Roosevelt incorporated the following text, known as the "Four Freedoms":

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb."—Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:13 PM

42. What about TPP's Loss of Sovereignty issue?

 

What do you know about it?
It is a key point, unreported by our major media.

I would suggest, until you know about this aspect,
don't decide yet.

If U need 2,
check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:11 AM

12. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:25 AM

9. Yes. TPP (like the EU is far from perfect) but it is better than sticking with NAFTA and the WTO,

just like sticking with an imperfect EU was better than the alternative, IMHO. (I do hate 'imperfect' choices that life offers. )

In the UK the young and liberal largely voted Remain; the old and conservative largely voted Leave. Polls in the US show a similar pattern for the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:17 PM

44. Again, as I have suggested to another poster ...

 

Before deciding on TPP,
find out about its most explosive provisions----The ones that create a
Loss of Sovereignty for the signing countries.

If you don't know about this aspect,
You don't really know the danger of TPP.


I could give you links to sources,
but I have a feeling you'd trust your own search on this topic.

But please do find out about it.

IMO, you owe it to yourself as a citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:27 PM

66. I value human rights, labor rights and the environment over the sovereignty of the nation-state

that I live in. If you want to argue that the TPP is worse than the WTO and NAFTA with respect to human rights, labor rights and the environment that would be a much more convincing argument than the "my country right or wrong" line of reasoning.

republicans seem to hate all of our international agreements because they all do represent a loss of some of our precious 'sovereignty' in the sense that in each agreement we agree to do or not do something in exchange for the other country or countries agreeing to do or not do something. Giving the ability to do 'something' represents a loss of sovereignty in the eyes of too many conservatives - whether that 'something' is polluting the atmosphere, raising tariffs because we want to, trading a boycott for nuclear disarmament, recognizing a country that conservatives don't like, etc.

It is plain to me that nationalism and the obsession with 'my country' and its sovereignty (and making it great again) has caused more wars and enabled more repression than has the delegating of some of that sovereignty to mutually agreed upon international organizations that promote international cooperation ever has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:47 PM

68. "TPP is worse than the WTO and NAFTA with respect to human rights, labor rights and the environment"

 

It is all of those things.

Nations under any of these FTAs are not allowed to engage in practices to protect their public from exploitation (everything from minimum-wage increases to OSHA-type standards for workplace safety are grounds to pursue litigation under the investor-state relations clauses of these agreements) by foreign governments and corporations. It's also a violation if you pass environmental standards that foreign companies feel they cannot compete within as it denies them equal access to your marketplace. And on and on and on. They give no gains for human welfare that they don't take away with the other hand.

FTAs are literally universally designed to gut progressive advances globally and prevent future advances as being detrimental to business interests. The sooner people start insisting that free-trade become a dead concept, the better for humanity everywhere.

It's rare that the extreme right is right about anything...but they're dead-on FTAs. They benefit nobody but the oligarchs; they're bad for America, they're bad for the citizens of our FTA partners, they're bad for nature, people, labor, the planet, human rights, worker rights, worker safety...fuck FTAs.

The only good FTA is a dead FTA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:19 PM

78. "It's rare that the extreme right is right about anything...but they're dead-on FTA's."

OK.

They benefit nobody but the oligarchs ...

The oligarchs did even better under Coolidge and Hoover during the Roaring 20's. Income inequality was even worse than it is now. And there certainly were no FTA's back in those days.

The first multi-country trade agreement was FDR's - so there can be a good TA even if it is not a dead TA.

I will count you as a vote for the WTO and NAFTA over TPP. And a vote against national sovereignty as an ultimate goal of human relations (which seems to one of the common beliefs of the far-right that is indeed wrong).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #78)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:20 PM

90. You can count me as a proponent of withdrawal from NAFTA and destruction of the WTO, TYVM. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 07:02 PM

94. Back to FDR or all the way to Herbert Hooover? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #78)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 08:04 AM

162. Income inequality is at its highest level in American history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doremus (Reply #162)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 08:15 AM

163. "Obama warned that pulling out of trade deals "is the wrong medicine for dealing with inequality."

Donald Trump's vow to rip up free trade agreements and return America to "economic independence" is not only a strident counter to President Obama's calls for a more interconnected world, but an illustration of a broader debate between advocates of globalization and those who oppose it.

"You can look at Trump's campaign as one big push-back against globalization, and the Britain vote too," said Daniel Cox, director of research at the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-partisan group that analyzes cultural, religious and political trends in the U.S.

In a speech last week, Trump criticized a "leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism." ... a backlash, particularly on the right, to a long-held belief by party elites in the U.S. and Europe that open borders, pro-immigration policies, increased trade and overall international cooperation are the best ways to improve the global economy. ... The next day, Obama, in a speech following a meeting with other North American leaders in Canada, warned that pulling out of trade deals "is the wrong medicine for dealing with inequality."

Obama seems aware that his side is not winning the globalization argument. Even as he continually criticizes Trump, the president is acknowledging the concerns of voters here and abroad who have doubts about globalization. ... He added, "And politicians — some sincere, and some entirely cynical — will tap that anger and fear, harkening back to bygone days of order and predictability and national glory, arguing that we must rebuild walls and disengage from a chaotic world, or rid ourselves of the supposed ills brought on by immigrants — all in order to regain control of our lives."

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-s-obama-s-views-globalization-reflect-broader-gap-n601901

You are right about our historic level of income inequality. We surpassed the previous record set in the late 1920's at the end of a republican era of high tariffs, limited trade and general isolationism.

Obama is right that trade is not the cause of our income inequality. Regressive taxes, weak unions, a shattered safety net, inadequate business regulation - all features of the 1920's and modern America - were then and are now the cause of our record income inequality. Progressive countries with world class income inequality levels, have much more trade than we do but have FDR-like policies on taxes, unions, regulation and the safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:31 AM

10. They're not particularly comparable, but I'd give a marginal "yes" for TPP

I don't think it's remotely big enough of an agreement to make much difference, but I like its labor provisions in southeast Asia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:22 PM

45. Please investigate: Loss Of Sovereignty aspect of TPP

 

Don't decide until you know about this aspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:47 PM

50. I do, and your terminology suggests you don't, but just read hysterical articles on the Internet

about it. This is exactly how every single trade agreement since the 1930s has worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:21 AM

55. IT's YOU!! Finally, I have found someone who understands the "loss of soverignty" aspect of TPP

 

You don't have to write a lot.

Perhaps link to intelligent articles that explain what you know?

Give a concise summary of why the issue of fearing ISDS, or "Investor-State Dispute Settlement”
is actually moot, depsite the fears of many people,
including Liz Warren and others.

I am not being smart-ass.

I am seriously asking you to make a convincing defense.
Or find one online you can link to.
This shouldn't be hard to do for an obviously intelligent person like yourself.

I am sincere in asking for a convincing argument defending the ISDS aspect.
Why?
Because, as of yet, IMO, no one has done that.
Please take the time and care to be the first I have encountered.

If you don't, perhaps no one else will?

Please, I sincerely ask you ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:26 AM

56. As concise as it gets:

It's moot because it's the delusional paranoid fantasy cooked up by a horrific combination of unreconstructed Old Left codgers and even less reconstructed John Birch Society codgers (who, frankly, are getting harder and harder to tell apart nowadays).

Trade agreements work, and have always worked, by countries agreeing to submit disputes to arbitration rather than use retaliatory tariffs against each other. This is ISDS. This is the "loss of sovereignty" lie you gullibly believed, and it is as false as it was when Joe McCarthy was running this flag up the pole 60 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:25 AM

61. OK...but did you know the Canadian oil company that was going to

pipe its dirty tar-sand crude through the Keystone Pipeline is now suing the US government under NAFTA for hurting its profits?

See, here's the thing. What we seem to be being told here is, "Oh, well, sure, there are some nasty ol' ISDS provisions but hey, that's NEVER gonna happen here is the good ol' USA!"

So here's an analogy: The GOP for years has been courting its crazy anti-abortion base by officially being anti-abortion. But to educated, professional women, they say, wink, wink, "Oh but you'll never be hurt - we're just SAYING that!" But then look what all these Republican controlled state legislatures have done - it took a Supreme Court ruling to put things back in place.

My point? Just because, hey, that kind of thing would NEVER happen here in the USA even though it is what the TPP agreement SAYS, is a really weak argument. It really is.

How about we NOT ratify the TPP and then we won't have to wink.

Excuse me...I've got something in my eye...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatrickforO (Reply #61)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:11 AM

63. I do know that. Why shouldn't they sue?

We blocked a shortcut of a pipeline without giving them a real reason; we're forcing oil to travel longer over the continental US, increasing the risk of a spill. Is there a reason they shouldn't sue us over that? We set up rules about what the requirements for building a pipeline are, and then we didn't follow them. They'll probably get a few hundred million dollars to cover the work they already did. Sounds like a win-win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #63)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:53 AM

139. Whaaat?


I can't believe anyone other than someone who represents the corporation would say such a thing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeckind (Reply #139)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 03:46 PM

146. I have never ever seen an argument that the existing pipeline is safer

than the proposed shortcut we blocked.

Have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #146)

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 07:31 AM

148. Nice try at shifting the goal post.

But, hey, this new spot is just as absurd as the old one so we'll do it.

If the existing pipeline has safety problems, which has most certainly been demonstrated over the last couple years,

putting in a new one won't fix the old one. Just gives another point of failure.

If they haven't fixed the old one, why trust them with a new one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeckind (Reply #148)

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 01:16 PM

149. That's not "shifting the goal". That is the ONLY question that matters

And the anti-XL campaign never even tried to answer it.

Seriously, did you never wonder why the XL's safety was never compared to the existing pipeline's? Not once?

The XL was a shortcut, which meant the oil spent less time in a pipe to begin with. That's kind of presumptively better.

some people believe whatever they read, I guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:05 AM

62. Extremely unconvincing, relies on emotion to Make the case

 

I'm sorry, but "trade agreements work ...by arbitration" is not an argument or case.
That is like the empty case the self-serving corporate negotiators of the pact (like Michael Froman) have given,
and they are nothing. Empty reassurances, just like with NAFTA.

The basic argument they make is that TPP's benefit is self-evident because trade is good,
and TPP benefits trade.


Try serving on a jury and arguing for guilt or innocence on that level.

It's on the level of saying,
"Police always lie"
or
"police are always honest".

It's a feeling, not a fact.

I have served on a number of juries, and I actually have heard BOTH of those vapid arguments.
They lost-out, both times, as most of the rest of the jury grimaced,
and went on with the harder work of more concrete deliberations.

In a related matter to TPP...

What about this dispute happening right now over the Keystone Pipeline, enabled by NAFTA:

http://www.dw.com/en/transcanada-files-suit-against-us-over-keystone-xl-pipeline/a-19357565

TPP will INCREASE the ability of companies to sue the US Gov't (or local governments) for damages (i.e.lost profits).

Do you really think this is a good thing?
Please explain why.

How can it be unfair or cruel of me to ask?



Can you at least link to a good analyst who makes an argument for it?
Try some corporate sources if you must, but dig 'em up and post 'em here.
I'll read 'em with interest.

I'm asking for info.
You got any?


IMO, and forgive me for saying this, but you "argue" rather like a rw Republican
defending voter IDs, or climate change denial, or reflexively attacking any kind of gun control.
All emotion, no real info. Mostly FAITH.

Sorry if that sounds offensive, but it is true in this particular instance with TPP.
And with many others besides yourself.

Honestly, sir, that is the level you are communicating on at this point.
It is well below the information-laden level of the "Anti-TPP" side.
That is the truth.

Can't you do better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:16 AM

64. Whatever

You really don't seem to understand how trade agreements work, so it's probably not going to be a fun conversation for either of us. Cheers!

As a hint, though, I was writing about "how trade agreements work", not arguing "that trade agreements work".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 03:28 AM

65. Except you never made any actual argument--No substance whatsoever.

 

True, 'dat.

And you do argue like a GOPer.

I oughta' know. I've tangled with 'em plenty.

OK, bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #64)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:55 PM

71. So...you agree that they don't work then.

 

Does that mean that you share our belief that we need to stop entering into new FTAs since they do not work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:35 AM

106. No, they are doing a pretty good job. I prefer NAFTA to China's PNTR

I prefer the TPP to China's PNTR.

Why don't you, is the interesting question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:53 PM

69. You know what else works?

 

Market protectionism and tariffs. At least better than FTAs do.

That's the dirty truth...free-trade is a failed policy agenda. It was meant to raise the quality of life for both wealthy nations (us) and the global poor. (Pretty much everybody else outside of the US and Europe)..it does exactly the opposite. It benefits vulture capitalism at the expense of the human rights and well-being of everybody globally.

Nobody is a beneficiary of free trade except the economic vampires. It's time for us to kill it dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:07 PM

75. Tariffs are nationalistic bullshit that will only prop up businesses that can't compete

 

I am perplexed as to why supposed progressives are so enamored with discredited chauvinistic economic policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:16 PM

77. I'm equally perplexed by supposed progressives...

 

that are enamored of of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and the idea of good of the free-market being the highest good, with anything that impedes maximum competitiveness as being evil.

I reject the inherent premise that "competition" is a greater human good than human rights and dignity. Government and economies exist for the benefit of humanity...humanity does not exist for the benefit of the best interests of the economy or the state.

I don't know where this notion came from that competition is in-itself beneficial...but the notion is ridiculous, on par with the idea that business interests are more important than human interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:22 PM

81. Protectionist policies are a godsend to business interests and terrible for consumers

 

Consumers being, of course, all Americans - but especially those who don't have the luxury of paying higher prices for goods and services.

I stand with FDR, who wisely and fortuitously saw right through the right-wing nationalistic bullshit of Republicans and succesfully lowered trade barriers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #81)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:26 PM

91. Fine...can we at-least concede that they're opposite arms of the pendulum swing...

 

and we shouldn't be promoting either totally-protectionist policies or "free-trade" as neither is good for humanity?

We can't afford goods because "free-trade" has destroyed the earning power of the American public by offshoring every well-paying job it can, just as much as neoliberal economics and tax-cuts we can't afford to keep, going all the way back to Reagan..but let's not forget that partition of blame that belongs to Bill Clinton for buying into the economic narrative of the unrestrained capitalists and the FTAs-uber-alles crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #91)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:48 PM

92. I don't dispute that some workers in the US are displaced by free trade

 

That is precisely why I support far greater public investment in those workers' communities than what they receive currently, in terms of education, infrastructure, tax credits, social welfare, job and skills training, health care, and making it easier for workers to organize for higher wages and benefits. The Democrats are much better on these issues than the Republicans are.

Globalization need not be a zero-sum game. Unfortunately, Democrats and liberals in general have little power to alleviate the negative effects of globalization on American workers, in spite of the very real benefits that globalization also has for consumers (especially the lower and middle classes, who simply can not afford to buy the products that would be considerably more expensive under protectionist policies. All of this has made globalization a zero-sum game, but as I said above, that by no means is inevitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:30 PM

84. +1 ...

 

just read hysterical articles on the Internet about it.


Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:42 AM

11. Hell No!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 09:23 AM

13. HELL NO to the giant corporations and banksters

who cooked up this pile of sheet. The damn thing was negotiated by the USTR and their revolving door of Wall Street con artists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 10:02 AM

14. Eff NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:35 PM

16. Important Info for those who are (some perhaps willfully?) blind on Globalization

 

The current brand of corporate Globalization is being orchestrated almost entirely by Bankers, investors and Corporate CEOs.
(Duh!)

Globalization has been recognized as an environmental and climate-change threat, worldwide.

Globalization makes countries dependent on the Top 1%, who are using it to control increasing
swaths of the world's economy, maximizing cheap labor, damaging the environment,
destroying labor unions worldwide, privatizing everything in sight (including public institutions),
leaving millions unemployed, destroyng the social contract
in the US and other countries where social programs were once strong and in-favor.

Globalization is transferring wealth from the bottom to the top all over the world.

All these things have been extensively explained and de-constructed by Chomsky,
Chris Hedges, Richard D Wolff and other smart, non-corporatized (i.e. non-biased) observers
and analysts.

TPP is a perfect example of the deception regarding Globalization.

One cannot be an honest, sincere environmentalist, and be for TPP, since TPP
will result in a LOSS of every signing nation's ability to enforce environmental laws
in the face of the *International* corporate tribunal TPP will form to resolve disputes in corporations' favor,
and to the extreme detriment of individual countries' ability to govern themselves
thru their own sovereign laws.

This is unequivocal, and has been known for years.
Globalization is a rigged game, as it now exists.

Eventually, there may be a plan for economic Globalization that is balanced, environmentally sound,
and fair and equitable for The People,
and not just a wealth & power-grab for top elites.

But the current strain of globalization ain't that, by a longshot.

Bam!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:32 PM

37. Sounded reasonable

 

Then I read this and realized that you likely hadn't even looked at the actual agreement.

will result in a LOSS of every signing nation's ability to enforce environmental laws


The top specifically says any signatory can enact any laws they want that pertains to the health of the nation's citizens that includes health care and environmental issues. It also sets environmental standards as a floor. It can be argued the enforcement mechanism is weak but the idea it results in a loss of an ability to enforce environmental laws is nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:39 PM

47. You need more info

 

Signee nations can pass any laws they like. But any strong regulations will face challenges from an international tribunal,
and perhaps even make local governments who have disputes with any international corporation
pay damage$ to the corporation to compensate for the corp having to follow the law,
making enforcement difficult at best, and impossible at worst.

TPP installs this system OVER our national laws.

This sweeping provision is called, ISDS, or "Investor-State Dispute Settlement”.

Read about it here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

Here's another, with more info:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/05/fasttracktpp-the-death-of-national-sovereignty-state-sovereignty-separation-of-powers-and-democracy.html

Inescapably, this is a big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #47)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:07 AM

53. it is basically what happened under the wto - remember how the US passed that

said meat had to be labeled as to country of origin and processing and some other stuff. well Canada and Mexico sued us under the wto and we could keep the law and pay their cattlemen association millions for every day there was that law, or we could and did revoke that law - I never saw congress act so fast. So sure - you can pass what ever law you want, but you may not be able to afford keeping them Like Keystone is suing the US for dropping the pipeline under NAFTA. They have a good chance of winning Billions. this involves not backing the pipeline but also seizing land of Americans against their will. Besides That there is the copyright extension where singers and actors may like it, but it will also cost most people around the world a fortune in medication because of extending the timeline when generics can be made and sold. Like that fund guy who bought a company that made a drug and raised the cost 100 times what it cost to make it because he could

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollysmom (Reply #53)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:13 AM

54. Excellent points, all

 

I have yet to find even ONE supporter of TPP who can offer anywhere near
as much basic info/substance as you can in pointing out its dangers.

Nice job.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #47)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:32 PM

135. Both articles were written before the actual text was available

 

both of which were completely wrong so maybe you should ditch the woo and read the actual text.

The actual text is available and you can read it yourself.


https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Environment.pdf

Specifically

The Parties recognise the sovereign right of each Party to establish its own
levels of domestic environmental protection and its own environmental priorities,
and to establish, adopt or modify its environmental laws and policies accordingly.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:36 PM

17. YES!

 

A thousand times YES!

Globalization is happening whether we are on board with it or not. It is the natural progression of capitalistic economies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:00 PM

28. Did Darwin tell you that?

 

You are a big cheerleader yet you have no cogent argument as to why this will be a great benefit to the majority of Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Human101948 (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:41 PM

48. Exactly!

 

Again and again I find many TPP supporters are enabled by simply not knowing very much about it,
as far as I can tell.

It always helps to point that out.
Thanks for helping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:00 PM

72. That sounds more like an argument for why we need to murder capitalism.

 

If FTAs are the natural necessity of capitalism and nobody can actually tell us how humanity benefits from either capitalism or FTAs, but everybody can see how they're a leech on humanity...

then, why are we continuing capitalism or free-trade?

A failed ideology is best abandoned quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #72)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:11 AM

120. Murder capitalism? Forget neo-liberalism, it's all the neo-communists running around

Making up new words to pretend that they don't mean the same old discredited ideas and scapegoats.

"Corporatism" "neoliberalism" "the 99%" (for the proletariat), blah, blah, blah.

They still only make up about 2% of the public, though damn they're prolific screed writers. Almost as bad as the hate-filled fascist Republican kooks.


TPP isn't a bad plan. It's also by no means perfect. I see both Obama's and Clinton's view on it, both for and against. If this were a normal Republican congress instead of a bunch of sociopathic crybabies, I'd suggest Hillary link TPP to a set of laws to help the middle class, and give that to the Republicans to decide if they wanted a win-win (for the rich they represent vs the middle-class Democrats) or not.

Unfortunately, I think the Republicans are so deep in their mad-dog frothing at the mouth insane hatred that they'd turn the thing down, no matter how much their business backers would tell them otherwise. So there's no deal there.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #120)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:10 AM

123. Realizing that you're not a political scientist...

 

most-all of those words (other than references to the 99%) aren't really new and they all have definitions that separate them from what you misunderstand them to mean and the words you think they're substitutes for.

It's simply not worth my energy to explain political vocabulary, frankly, because "conservative Democrats" strike me as misinformed Republicans that think we give a shit what they think and are confused by us not wanting conservatives in our tent at all. There are very few things that progressives and the establishment center-left can agree on...I'm pretty sure the lack of interest in allowing a seat at the table for actual right-of-center Democrats is one of them.

Conservative Democrats are a figment of imagination on par with liberal Republicans, unicorns, benevolent capitalists, "male-enhancement" pills that work, 1-900 psychics that aren't con-artists, snow on the equator, and Brussel sprouts that taste like candy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #123)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 09:02 PM

124. You're clearly not a political scientist either...

...if you don't know that Conservative Democrats represent more of the Democratic party than "Very Liberal" Democrats do.

And frankly, you can go sulk in the corner of the tent, if you want. You don't own it, and your attempt to kick people out has only made most of us non-fringers laugh. It didn't help you in the primary, though frankly, I didn't get my first choice either - which was Biden.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #123)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:45 AM

138. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #17)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 07:50 AM

157. And "capitalistic economies" are a good thing

 

that require endless growth in a closed system. Yea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:37 PM

18. No. And I also wish we could have a vote on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:37 PM

19. Against

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:38 PM

20. I would hope that teh TPP would actually be released for study before we voted on it.

The implications of Brexit don't seem to have been very well explored before put to referendum. I wouldn't be able to vote on something I know every little about at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:38 PM

21. this op, whether intentionally or not, conflates the TPP with the EU

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:48 PM

23. Why is the EU so much better than TPP?

 

I mean, maybe it is.

But you need to make clear WHY and HOW,

Because, honestly, no one else has done that, yet.


Perhaps it is your opportunity to clear things up, explain the differences,
and make the case, in rational, non-emotional, terms.

Frankly, nobody else has.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:55 PM

26. what? I didn't say it was.

 

I honestly don't know what you're talking about- or what your position on the TPP is.

It's hardly a secret that I'm firmly against the TPP because I've spent a lot of time researching it. I am not well informed on the EU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:46 PM

49. I guess I just need someone to tell me ...

 

How the EU was a good thing for average working people (90% of the population).

I haven't seen anyone do that yet
Not even the most vociferous critics of Brexit.

BTW,
I know you oppose TPP, and have many other good opinions.

Good 4 U.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 01:59 AM

103. Maybe you should research

You seem to have lots of time on your hands and the info's out there. try reading this for starters describes all the protections for workers enshrined in EU law:
http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/DocImages/1154.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PaulaFarrell (Reply #103)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 10:28 PM

117. Not bad, but ...

 

Lacks wage protections (except for gender differences), but seems o provide some nice provosions protecting
jobs (sadly some of which were exported, I would think).

But I admit, at least EU has some apparent benefits to workers and average people.

TPP has NONE, aside from the bleating of favored insiders that "It will, it will! Just
let us lock it in it first, and you'll see!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #117)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 03:10 AM

122. I don't support TTP or TTIP

I would vote against given the opportunity. But trying to equate TTP with the EU is a false analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:39 PM

22. I would vote "NO" to TPP, and stay in the union

 

MY UNION. IBEW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:51 PM

24. Truly, TPP and Labor Unions are mortal enemies

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:53 PM

25. NO. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 04:56 PM

27. Seriously people are voting yes on TPP???

 

No. Hell no NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silver_Witch (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:03 PM

73. This surprises you?

 

In any society, there are willfully suicidal individuals...and people that just want to watch the world burn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #73)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 11:43 PM

100. Actually yes it shocks me on DU...

 

Truly shocks and surprises me. I am very very sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:01 PM

29. I would vote NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:03 PM

30. ask me an easier one

Fracking, no, no, no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:07 PM

31. No.

But the global elites make that stuff doesn't get to be voted upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 05:45 PM

34. Not only no, hell fucking no!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:21 PM

35. Yes to Brexit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #35)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:24 PM

36. No to TTP

 

TPP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:36 PM

38. Yes

 

The bill certainly has portions I am not pleased with but overall it looks like a good step forward.

The world continues to shrink. That is not going to change it will only get smaller as more and more of it becomes connected through the net. There needs to be frameworks of some sort to facilitate that connection.

Doing nothing is not the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:47 PM

88. +1 Well said

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 07:29 PM

39. Hell NO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 07:33 PM

40. Absolutely NO!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:17 PM

43. NO, NO, NO!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:32 PM

46. As a Californian, I am sick of referendums on the ballot. We elect people to do a job--do it!

The US Congress should stop reflexively opposing everything Obama proposes, amd do the job the people sent them to Washington to do. Read the damn bill. Consider it. Discuss it in committee. Listen to experts and the President. And with an open mind, vote on it in Congress.

Otherwise you end up with the great mass of morons voting with their guts and not their brains. And John Oliver will make fun of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:57 PM

51. Not only no but FUCK NO. Tap tap no tap backs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:58 PM

52. No...I'm not stupid, greedy or crazy!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:26 AM

57. NO! eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:29 AM

58. NO NO NO!!!!!!

 

The fact that TPP has been the subject of so many posts tells you how much of a loser it is. If it isn't opposed in the Democratic platform, Trump will be able to use it against all Democrats and this will be a problem especially in Ohio and Pa. By the way, it could be a problem for the Republicans too given Trump's position so far. (you never know day to day what it will be.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 12:40 AM

59. I would vote NO to TPP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:17 AM

60. NO. TPP is a BAD policy, a BAD agreement that will undermine democracy and

further undermine the American middle class.

NO, NO, NO, NO - a thousand times NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:34 PM

67. No.

 

I'm a staunch protectionist; free-trade is bad for Americans and it's bad for the global poor exploited by free-traders for cheap labor and the natural resources of their countries.

Free trade is only good for bankers, Wall St., the US politicians in their pockets, and the robber-capitalists of third world countries exploiting their own people and resources.

Fuck free trade. Fuck the TPP. Withdraw from NAFTA, CAFTA-DR, and the rest of these thieving agreements. Burn them all and send the assholes that signed them into retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:53 PM

70. I'd much rather prefer it if China writes the rules of international trade than the US

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:09 PM

76. There is probably no more ridiculous argument for FTAs than this one.

 

It's right up there with "We had to destroy the village to save the village!" in the annals of human avarice and stupidity. It is the positing of a greater evil as a hedge against an impossible lesser one.

China does not have the GDP to even stand in a trade war with the US, let alone come close to winning. If this is the best reason anybody can come up with for why we need FTAs, then we clearly don't need FTAs. FTAs are worse than the possible outcomes of China dictating international trade policies,,,which they can't do without getting steam-rolled by the US economy due to our superior GDP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 11:33 PM

97. Don't you realize that is an empty attempt at an argument?

 

I'll bet you wouldn't take such superficial, vapid statements from a RW GOPer doubting climate change,
or insisting the Texas voter ID laws are just to "protect voting integrity", right?
You'd challenge their nonsense by demanding a more substantive answer (which they could not give).

So, what happened with you and TPP?

Now, why are you allowing yourself to embody the same ("GOPer-type" mindset in defending TPP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:04 PM

74. No. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:21 PM

79. Unequivocally, no. With no chance of ever regretting that 'no'.

 

It's opposed by just about every progressive interest group for a wide variety of strong and different reasons. The TPP has no redeeming qualities. And 'free' trade deals like the TPP/TTIP are a strong reason why Brexit passed and why fascism is taking hold, throughout the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #79)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:26 PM

83. It's also supported by most reputable economists

 

But I'm sure that they don't know what they're talking about - after all, they only study the global economy. Who needs experts when you have cynical appeals to the base motions and anti-intellectual ignorance of the public?

As for Brexit and fascism, free trade really has little to do with them - you're thinking of racist/nativist opposition to immigration. I don't blame you for confusing them though, since they both represent attempts to cut the US off from the rest of the world, and all of the benefits that come from international engagement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:34 PM

86. TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #83)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:36 PM

87. And *no*, "most reputable economists" do *not* support the TPP. They are split.

 

Economists Sharply Split Over Trade Deal Effects

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and presidential candidates are having their say about the 12-nation Pacific Rim trade accord that is President Obama’s top economic priority in his final year in office. But lately the liveliest debate over the deal is among blue-ribbon economists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/business/international/economists-sharply-split-over-trade-deal-effects.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:22 PM

82. No, no way. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 02:31 PM

85. Nope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 05:29 PM

89. OUT. Free trade without fair trade is killing us.

This wasn't quite the case with the EU which strengthened protections for labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #89)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 11:38 PM

98. I agree. Also----that's the 1st good thing I've heard about the EU

 

Thanks for sharing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 06:52 PM

93. The same way I vote on a lot of things.

If the corporations are for it, I'm against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #93)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 07:59 PM

95. pretty damn close to reality, there. the only good corporation is a........one.

 

hate to do that to a person, wouldn't we?

that said, the ONLY way to achieve fairness in a global economy is to assure that ALL workers are treated and paid, uhhhh, equally. what a concept! and we all know that is NEVER going to happen without a revolution the likes of which have ever existed. what is far more likely is that the zaibatsus who control the world economy for the most part will insist that, under the guise of the terror war, all civil liberties go bye bye, and a totally authoritarian system will clamp down on all dissent or action to provide a living wage to all citizens of the planet. good luck with that one.

and think of the TPP's ludicrous, secret 'arbitration' system to radioactive waste. there is simply NO WAY on earth to get past the completely toxic, unmanageable effects of either, one on the environment, the other on any sort of vestigial sovereignty that hangs on perilously, by the skin of its teeth.

we are so screwed.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #93)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 10:13 PM

116. "If the corporations are for it, I'm against it."

 

Good rule of thumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 09:37 PM

96. No.

 

Hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jun 28, 2016, 11:42 PM

99. It seems like finding good things to say about TPP is as easy as ...

 

...Finding good things to say about Cholera.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 12:57 AM

101. Hillary will re-negotiate TPP and take

out the bad things so I will support it. The Chinese will make decisions for us if it is not passed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nest (Reply #101)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 01:40 AM

102. JMO

 

That is ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 02:05 AM

104. No. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:15 AM

105. No. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:39 AM

107. Trade Trump to North Korea

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:58 AM

108. Fuck no to tpp. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:59 AM

114. Whatever is the next up from fuck no.

Are our labor and environmental protections increasing?

Are our wages going up?

Are more jobs being created for Americans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 08:05 AM

115. YES !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 12:18 AM

118. Here's something happening RIGHT NOW, that will only worsen under TPP ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 12:32 AM

119. It's definitely a "NO" for me

 

The TPP will only cost hard working Americans more jobs, while enriching the elite and corporate types. Sadly, our government won't listen to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:45 AM

121. From a UK-er: TPP and Brexit are not comparable!

Brexit is more like 'would you vote for your state to secede from the United States?' or perhaps more 'would you vote for the USA to withdraw from the UN?' (which Fox News indeed thought we had!) While people voted for it for many reasons, the people in charge of the campaign were mostly right-wing and some were roughly British equivalents of Donald Trump - indeed he endorsed Brexit!

If a UK-er can answer your question: I have signed petitions against TPP, AND I campaigned and voted against Brexit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #121)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:57 AM

125. Thanks for the response

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:03 AM

126. I mean, I see the interest in the question. Just curious- why did you not just make it a poll? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #126)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:11 AM

127. I guess I'm not "special" enough to do a poll

 

Site won't let me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #127)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:22 AM

131. Thanks. I just found out you have to be a paying member. Sorry.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #126)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:13 AM

128. Have to be a paying member.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #128)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:22 AM

130. Ah, I actually didn't realize that. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:16 AM

129. No.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:36 AM

132. Absolutely NO nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)


Response to nikto (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 04:27 AM

134. Free Scotland!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 05:20 AM

136. This changed my mind on Brexit--Here's the best explanation of Brexit I've heard yet (Audio)

 

Last edited Tue Jul 5, 2016, 04:42 AM - Edit history (1)

The great Richard D Wolff comes through again.
This was recorded just a couple days ago.

The Brexit section starts at 29:57.

Here's the Audio:

http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20160701-Fri1000.mp3



He has helpd me see the light with his clear and unequivocal explanation.


I now realize Brexit is not
the answer to financial-elite capital globalization.


Leave it up to a Marxist Economist to get it right when so many others, on both sides, are vague
on some of the realities involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:55 AM

140. No.

It took how many years before those who were opposed to the Taft-Hartley Act to be proven right?

Arbitration. Great idea in theory but as soon as the game is rigged...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:21 AM

142. Voting for Brexit and a hypothetical about the TPP is no different from implying...

 

...that we should have the opportunity to vote on the Iran arms deal or any of a thousand other decisions that are made by those we elect to do our decision-making for us.

The TPP is a step in the right direction to more directly unify the world. It isn't perfect by a long shot but it makes progress on bringing us all under the umbrella of public law instead of backroom deals.

There are those who don't bother to see all the ramifications of the TPP. I would put it that they disapprove of something they don't understand. It is very, very complex and I won't pretend to understand everything about it.

With that in mind and having an idea of the character of the President (who is not out to 'get us' and is not under the evil thrall of ghostly corporate villains), I would vote Yes.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #142)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:44 AM

144. FDR: Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism ..., may obstruct the path to

international peace."

International cooperation on which enduring peace must be based is not a one-way street. Nations like individuals do not always see alike or think alike, and international cooperation and progress are not helped by any Nation assuming that it has a monopoly of wisdom or of virtue.

Perfectionism, no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics, may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a direct attack against international cooperation but against the alleged imperfections of the peace.

In our disillusionment after the last war we preferred international anarchy to international cooperation with Nations which did not see and think exactly as we did. We gave up the hope of gradually achieving a better peace because we had not the courage to fulfill our responsibilities in an admittedly imperfect world.

It is our purpose to help the peace-loving peoples of Europe to live together as good neighbors, to recognize their common interests and not to nurse their traditional grievances against one another.

We and the other United Nations are going forward, with vigor and resolution, in our efforts to create such a system by providing for it strong and flexible institutions of joint and cooperative action.

We support the greatest possible freedom of trade and commerce.

We Americans have always believed in freedom of opportunity, and equality of opportunity remains one of the principal objectives of our national life. What we believe in for individuals, we believe in also for Nations. We are opposed to restrictions, whether by public act or private arrangement, which distort and impair commerce, transit, and trade.

We have house-cleaning of our own to do in this regard.
But it is our hope, not only in the interest of our own prosperity but in the interest of the prosperity of the world, that trade and commerce and access to materials and markets may be freer after this war than ever before in the history of the world.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=16595

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #144)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:53 AM

145. Perfectionism is like Trump tearing up every agreement that doesn't make us masters of the world.

 

It's like immigration, isn't it? Sure, more immigrants means more people competing for the same jobs but so what? We're rich, we can afford that. And free trade is the same. We can give up a tiny bit of our sovereignty if it makes the world a little more united and a little less scary.

I can only laugh when some say the TPP doesn't have enough protections about the environment or workers' rights. It's a trade treaty! It's about trade!

Let's talk about environmental issues with environmental treaties. Let's talk about workers' rights with workers' rights treaties. But this idea that we should insert ancillary provisions wherever we can sounds too much like Republicans trying to insert abortion restrictions in a budget bill dealing with infrastructure.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #145)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:29 AM

150. It sounds like you don't know the first thing about TPP

 

IMO, Your post was embarrassing in its naivety.


TPP is about de-regulation, and unprecedented new powers for international corporations.
Can you talk about those at all?









Ah, what's the use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #150)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 05:32 AM

153. New powers? Like the ISDS? There have been arbitration courts for over 50 years now.

 

A corporation cannot sue under ISDS unless a country is actively discriminating against it. In other words, if a country passes a law that favors its own companies over foreign companies, that's where ISDS comes in.

Both sides in a dispute choose one judge and agree to a third. Do you think a country will choose judges that will help it lose a case?

And there are protections for workers' rights baked in. It's a bare minimum of standards, to be sure, but it's better than nothing, which is what they have now. The only way to raise standards in other countries is not to demand wholesale changes but to gradually ease them in. Otherwise, they tell us to go to hell and nothing gets done.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/tpp-mexico-labor-rights/426501/

Most everyone agrees the agreement is an improvement over NAFTA, signed in 1995. Labor advocates have many complaints about that decades-old agreement, one being that many of the provisions meant to improve life for workers were unenforceable. In response to complaints about the lack of labor rights in NAFTA and other trade agreements, Congress came up in 2007 with the May 10th agreement, a bipartisan compromise aimed at ensuring that trade partners were actually working to improve labor conditions. It required that member countries adopt and enforce the basic labor standards set in the 1988 Declaration of the International Labor Organization. It also made labor disputes subject to the same settlement procedures as commercial trade disputes, meaning that countries that violated labor rules could be subject to sanctions. May 10th required the U.S. to hold countries more accountable for labor standards—Congress did not vote on trade agreements negotiated with Peru, Colombia, and Panama until those countries had changed their labor laws.

The TPP’s Labour chapter reiterates that all members should adopt and maintain the labor rights of the ILO. It also calls for all participants to end child labor and forced labor, and to allow workers to form unions and collectively bargain. It requires a minimum-wage, and safety and health standards meant to prevent common abuses like overcrowding, fire hazards, and overwork. But the document does not specify how any of those measures should work. And that’s a big shortcoming, according to John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director with Human Rights Watch. The minimum wage, for example, could be set at a penny an hour—which wouldn’t do much to help workers.

Countries such as Vietnam would have to completely revolutionize their legal systems to comply with the labor-union requirements, which doesn’t seem likely, Sifton said. That’s why the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) negotiated the real teeth of the improvements on labor rights in consistency plans with some of the countries with the most serious human-rights violation records: Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, he said. A consistency plan outlines changes a country needs to make before the trade agreement comes into force—and then relies on the U.S. to enforce those changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #153)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:59 AM

161. "Better than nothing", "better than we had before" etc etc etc etc

 

Nothing in your quote convinces me of TPP's safety at all.

It is a big bunch of nice languaging with little binding in it.


I still believe the numerous experts I have read or listened to who clearly explain how TPP IS a threat to soverignty,
and will inhibit the fight against climate change as well as making our environmental and business-regulation laws
in general much more difficult to enforce.
BTW, these experts are diverse, and include Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Congressman Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders,
Economists Richard D Wolff and Paul Craig Roberts, and even old conservatives like Phyllis Schlaffly (who is finally right about something, for the 1st time in her life, perhaps )
and longtime trade experts like Lori Wallach,
who has been director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division for nearly 20 years.

They've been on Democracy Now, Thom Hartmann, The BradCast, Truthout, TruthDig, and others.
But I never see 'em on supposedly "Liberal" MSNBC, or any other corporate source ----
Not CNN, not Fox, not CBS, ABC or NBC.
Also, I never read more than what your Atlantic quote says
in my LA Times, or NY Times. A lot of vaguely comforting words, IMO.
Sort of like mental codeine, unlike the specific arguments AGAINST I get from the people I mention above.

Sorry,
but I'm going to need more anesthetic than that to ignore the very real dangers of TPP,
as well as the coming TTIP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #144)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:40 AM

152. The Corporate Devil's Dictionary Definition of, "Perfectionism" (as used by Centrist Democrats)

 

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Perfectionism is
the non-attainable and totally unrealistic qualities of justice, fairness and equity to the American masses, that inhibit some
damn good busine$$ deals, and must reflexively be excluded or avoided at all times.






Apologies to Ambrose Bierce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #152)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 06:05 AM

155. Agreed. FDR warned against letting 'the perfect being the enemy of the good'. He would certainly

have rejected a "corporate devil's definition of perfectionism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:24 AM

143. NO!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 04:32 PM

147. NO

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 05:53 AM

154. Fuck no.

This is a horrible agreement and needs to be stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 07:37 AM

156. vote no eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 07:53 AM

158. surprised?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 08:27 AM

160. No

I think all trade agreements should be revisited and much more weight given to environmental/climate concerns and labor rights. We need to start acting the the planet and the people on it are real things, that a "livable plant" is a narrow, closing window and we can't negotiate with the physics of climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Original post)

Thu Jul 7, 2016, 08:23 AM

164. If you could vote for apples, would you vote also for oranges?

 

The two things do not compare at all. Specious OP.

I assume that these outlandish pro TPP arguments get made out of shame for the actual content of the TPP. The OP wants us to think that a country which executes LGBT is the same as France, that an agreement which allows citizens to live in many countries is the same as an agreement that allows companies to work in many countries while leaving the citizens stuck in a newly legitimized genocidal theocracy.

So OP. Would you make a favored trade agreement with Apartheid South Africa? If not, explain how TPP is any different than doing that. Why is it ok to favor anti gay nations? Be as clear and precise and detailed as you can be. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread