Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
the get-go. They were not allowed to have their aides read it, nor copy and take those copies with them outside the room. As an FYI, ALL trade deals in the past were negotiated out of the public eye. This, in order to boost confidence and trust with the nations we were negotiating with. So why hold President Obama to a different standard?
Why was Clinton for it until she was against it?
She's not completely against the TPP. She disagrees with some provisions that could be stronger, and I'm certain that should Congress not vote to pass the TPP, she'll make those changes. But to believe she's against it is downright stupid. She understands that we're a global economy and we need strong provisions in order to level the playing field and that trade agreements will be negotiated with or without our input. She understands that we can't let another powerful country, like China, sit in the driver's seat and dictate trade agreement provisions that can harm American workers, jobs, and export.
Why are there provisions for the multi-national corps to have greater sovereignty than actual countries?
There aren't. Perhaps you need to read the TPP before judging it? You can start here.
Governments are clearly and explicitly granted authority to regulate in the interest or welfare of the public as well as the environment.
Chapter 9, Article 9.9 not only guarantees a government's full right to regulate in the "public welfare and objectives" (including, explicitly, public health) it allows domestic courts, administrative processes and other domestic arbitration to impose, as punitive measures (after due process of the law) trade restrictions on a bad actor corporation that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. In other words, not only can governments regulate in the interest of public welfare, they can revoke privileges afforded to corporations under the TPP should corporations break those laws though an entirely domestic process of law.
The governments' ability to preserve natural resources and the environment is even more encompassing under TPP. Corporations are also shut out from using the TPP to stop a government from enacting or enforcing laws in the first place:
“(Rights of investors) shall not be construed to prevent a Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures:
(i) necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with this Agreement;
(ii) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or
(iii) related to the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources.”
Chapter 9, Article 9.9 not only guarantees a government's full right to regulate in the "public welfare and objectives" (including, explicitly, public health) it allows domestic courts, administrative processes and other domestic arbitration to impose, as punitive measures (after due process of the law) trade restrictions on a bad actor corporation that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. In other words, not only can governments regulate in the interest of public welfare, they can revoke privileges afforded to corporations under the TPP should corporations break those laws though an entirely domestic process of law.
The governments' ability to preserve natural resources and the environment is even more encompassing under TPP. Corporations are also shut out from using the TPP to stop a government from enacting or enforcing laws in the first place:
“(Rights of investors) shall not be construed to prevent a Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures:
(i) necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with this Agreement;
(ii) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or
(iii) related to the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources.”
Why is your Obama avatar multi-colored? Obama led from behind on LGBT issues. He had to "evolve" before he was close to being a progressive on these matters of human rights.
The VAST majority of Americans had to evolve. The majority were against same-sex marriage (including Sanders) and against doing away with DADT. He's the president of ALL the people, not just a select group. When it became apparent that moods and attitudes shifted in favor of equal rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters, President Obama shifted, too. It's what a good leader does. Oh, and he was voted as OUT100 magazines ally of the year and graced their cover in November 2015.
[center]
[/center]
I hope the above cleared it up for you.
