TPP Fast track

[First]

It's odd anyone is riled up about how bad a deal this is when it isn't finalized and has never been revealed. Non-hacks should wait for the actual text.

 

[TheSlamma]

It's odd anyone is riled up about how bad a deal this is when it isn't finalized and has never been revealed. Non-hacks should wait for the actual text.

Ohh I see lets give them the silent treatment, that way Washington has no clue how much we all hate this bill.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's odd anyone is riled up about how bad a deal this is when it isn't finalized and has never been revealed. Non-hacks should wait for the actual text.

The fact that simple legislation take a 60 vote to pass I'd like a major trade agreement that has enormous implications should require the same 60 votes.

 

[First]

Ohh I see lets give them the silent treatment, that way Washington has no clue how much we all hate this bill.

Huh? No.

 

[First]

The fact that simple legislation take a 60 vote to pass I'd like a major trade agreement that has enormous implications should require the same 60 votes.

This statement has nothing to do with what you quoted. Nor should we "require" 60 votes for legislation, generally.

 

[TheSlamma]

Huh? No.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/WarrenReport.pdf

 

[lotus503]

It's odd anyone is riled up about how bad a deal this is when it isn't finalized and has never been revealed. Non-hacks should wait for the actual text.

Investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, that's all I need to know to classify it as dogshit.

 

[First]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/WarrenReport.pdf

Past bills must always the same as future bills.

Investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, that's all I need to know to classify it as dogshit.

Yeah except you don't know, and wouldn't be able to interpret it anyway if your life depended on it.

 

[TheSlamma]

Past bills must always the same as future bills.



Yeah except you don't know, and wouldn't be able to interpret it anyway if your life depended on it.

She has read the bill

 

[lotus503]

Past bills must always the same as future bills.



Yeah except you don't know, and wouldn't be able to interpret it anyway if your life depended on it.

I do know it was part of the proposed agreement from the text that was leaked and I certainly understand the implications.

You have no idea what I would or would not be able to interrupt.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

 

[First]

I do know it was part of the proposed agreement from the text that was leaked and I certainly understand the implications.

You understand both the complexity of the non-final language and its implications? How breathtakingly refreshing.

You have no idea what I would or would not be able to interrupt.

I'm sure you're an expert at interruption.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

Yes, I'm sure avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is an objective party on trade deals.

 

[First]

She has read the bill

No, she read a non-final copy and, more importantly, nowhere does she mention specifics about the bill.

 

[lotus503]

You understand both the complexity of the non-final language and its implications? How breathtakingly refreshing.

I understand the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, its not a new concept.


I'm sure you're an expert at interruption. touche on the mistype



Yes, I'm sure avowed socialist Bernie Sanders is an objective party on trade deals. Seems to be one of the more consistent and honest candidates running.

 

[First]

I understand the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, its not a new concept.

Oh really? So what about the leaked non-final text do you disagree with?

Seems to be one of the more consistent and honest candidates running.

Maybe. He's a politician, almost by definition they're turds.

 

[lotus503]

Oh really? So what about the leaked non-final text do you disagree with?



Maybe. He's a politician, almost by definition they're turds.

I disagree with the idea of an ISDS mechanism, if you payed attention to my initial response you probably could have deduced that.

given its common in trade deals, there is information on how they are used and to what result.

 

[First]

I disagree with the idea of an ISDS mechanism, if you payed attention to my initial response you probably could have deduced that.

And as I said earlier in this thread, ISDS has been around a while and isn't 1) successful against the U.S. or 2) controversial, except to protectionists.

given its common in trade deals, there is information on how they are used and to what result.

I'll quote what I already said earlier in the thread about ISDS:

Over the past 25 years, under the 50 agreements the U.S. has which include ISDS, the United States has faced only 17 ISDS cases, 13 of which were brought to conclusion. During that same time period, the United States government was sued in U.S. courts hundreds of thousands of times – more than 1,000 of those for alleged “takings”.

Though the U.S. government regularly loses cases in domestic court, we have never once lost an ISDS case and, in a number of instances, panels have awarded the United States attorneys’ fees after the United States successfully defended frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious claims. The U.S. federal government defends challenges to U.S. state or local government measures in ISDS disputes.

ISDS has existed since the 60's.

 

[werepossum]

It's odd anyone is riled up about how bad a deal this is when it isn't finalized and has never been revealed. Non-hacks should wait for the actual text.

Clearly the only rational thing to do is to wait until it becomes law and then tell D.C. how grand it is that they've found yet another way to screw the American worker.

When the two parties agree on anything, it's time to start buying lube by the barrel.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/WarrenReport.pdf

I'll have to admit, ol' Fauxcohontas is a true populist. If she weren't so horrible on the Second Amendment, I'd be a huge supporter. I suspect she'd be the lesser evil in primary and general even so. I can't think of a single other Dem for whom I'd vote without a truly loathsome Republican candidate.

She also writes some damned good, straightforward, commonsense legislation. Lot to like there.

 

[lotus503]

And as I said earlier in this thread, ISDS has been around a while and isn't 1) successful against the U.S. or 2) controversial, except to protectionists.



I'll quote what I already said earlier in the thread about ISDS:



ISDS has existed since the 60's.

Take a look at ISDS as it relates to other countries and you will see it isn't as benign as you present. In Canada for example the mechanism was used because Canada had decided they didn't want to allow certain chemicals in pesticides. We are in an unprecedented era of Multinational corporations and anything that extends their power and influence in government is a negative in my opinion.

 

[Brainonska511]

Take a look at ISDS as it relates to other countries and you will see it isn't as benign as you present. In Canada for example the mechanism was used because Canada had decided they didn't want to allow certain chemicals in pesticides. We are in an unprecedented era of Multinational corporations and anything that extends their power and influence in government is a negative in my opinion.

Got a link for that? Because the only thing I've seen is Dow suing over Quebec banning 2,4-D for political reasons (eg: "chemicals are bad" chemophobia and it's a pesticide that has not been show to be harmful to humans), and it looks like Dow settled the issue with Canada and Quebec didn't have to change its stance.

 

[lotus503]

Got a link for that? Because the only thing I've seen is Dow suing over Quebec banning 2,4-D for political reasons (eg: "chemicals are bad" chemophobia and it's a pesticide that has not been show to be harmful to humans), and it looks like Dow settled the issue with Canada and Quebec didn't have to change its stance.

That is the example I was referring to. A multinational corp should not be able to sue to force a country to allow anything.

 

[First]

Take a look at ISDS as it relates to other countries and you will see it isn't as benign as you present.

So not only are you not disputing my source, but you're now saying you know enough about international laws to say that the ISDS results of other countries can be extrapolated to US ISDS? Interesting.

In Canada for example the mechanism was used because Canada had decided they didn't want to allow certain chemicals in pesticides. We are in an unprecedented era of Multinational corporations and anything that extends their power and influence in government is a negative in my opinion.

That would certainly by my general feeling as well, I agree with you here. But I think the split isn't as lopsided; as in, most of the time corporations don't exactly have public policy in mind, but the split is more like 70-30 than 99-1. So we do indeed need to be wary and suspicious of their motives, sure.

 

[werepossum]

So not only are you not disputing my source, but you're now saying you know enough about international laws to say that the ISDS results of other countries can be extrapolated to US ISDS? Interesting.

That would certainly by my general feeling as well, I agree with you here. But I think the split isn't as lopsided; as in, most of the time corporations don't exactly have public policy in mind, but the split is more like 70-30 than 99-1. So we do indeed need to be wary and suspicious of their motives, sure.

You don't see any conflict between "we do indeed need to be wary and suspicious of [corporations'] motives" and "look at this great system that allows corporations to overturn a nation's protectionist laws"?

I find the term "protectionist" to be as laughably specious as "climate denier" or "nativist". It assumes that nations should not be able to protect themselves as they see fit, right or wrong. I probably have less fear or wariness of corporations than either of you, but corporations have no inherent right to sell a particular product anywhere they wish.

 

[First]

You don't see any conflict between "we do indeed need to be wary and suspicious of [corporations'] motives" and "look at this great system that allows corporations to overturn a nation's protectionist laws"?

I find the term "protectionist" to be as laughably specious as "climate denier" or "nativist". It assumes that nations should not be able to protect themselves as they see fit, right or wrong. I probably have less fear or wariness of corporations than either of you, but corporations have no inherent right to sell a particular product anywhere they wish.

Frankly I'm not an international legal expert so I don't have a strong enough opinion about corporation's international rights to say either way (they may indeed have that inherent right, why not). But overall, no, I don't find it likely that one of the most liberal admins in history is suddenly going to sell out to corporate interests over workers/unions/etc. Sorry, I don't buy that. Not yet, until I see the text and interpretations of it.

 

[lotus503]

So not only are you not disputing my source, but you're now saying you know enough about international laws to say that the ISDS results of other countries can be extrapolated to US ISDS? Interesting.

No what I am saying is that when I see the various actions brought by Multinationals internationally I do not see it as benign as your source data.

I'm not an expert on law, I just see something wrong with allowing multinational corporations the ability to seek remediation via tribunal.

That would certainly by my general feeling as well, I agree with you here. But I think the split isn't as lopsided; as in, most of the time corporations don't exactly have public policy in mind, but the split is more like 70-30 than 99-1. So we do indeed need to be wary and suspicious of their motives, sure.

response in bold