|
I haven't seen much discussion of the fact that the State Department human trafficking report upgraded the status of Malaysia not because their human trafficking situation actually improved but because language in the TPA said that they had to. They were classified as Tier 3 and after language was inserted saying that the TPP can't include Tier 3 countries and all of a sudden they're now Tier 2. I also find it funny how trusting goons are of a deal between corporate lobbyists and people like Michael Froman, normally you'd be wanting to bring out the guillotine now I'm being told to put trust in something concocted by hundreds of these people sitting down and negotiating. I don't see how the interests of workers and normal people could ever have been at the table in these negotiations.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Explaining why trade deals work like this doesn't justify it. The people deserve to know what their temporarily elected representatives are shoving into a bill that wont be up for renewal debate for 25 years. Hey, since this didn't get through your skull the first 50 times let's try for a 51st time: THE ENTIRE TEXT WILL BE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE OF ANY VOTING ON THE BILL, AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR. And THERE WAS NO BENEFIT TO PUTTING OUT THE VARIOUS OFFERS AND COUNTEROFFERS GOING ON FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS OF NEGOTIATION, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE ANYTHING WOULD STAY IN FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT. You really need to remember that, formal negotiation started in February 2008 with Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States. Others joined in over the next 7 years. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Hey, since this didn't get through your skull the first 50 times let's try for a 51st time: THE ENTIRE TEXT WILL BE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE OF ANY VOTING ON THE BILL, AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR. And THERE WAS NO BENEFIT TO PUTTING OUT THE VARIOUS OFFERS AND COUNTEROFFERS GOING ON FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS OF NEGOTIATION, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE ANYTHING WOULD STAY IN FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT. Cool, then report that X country is pushing for Y amendment, like we do with Congress. If a proposal will spark outrage then maybe its worthy of sparking outrage, so long as countries proposing and accepting the amendment are made clear. We don't live in a world where communications technology stopped at the telegraph. 30 days is still a pittance of time to establish opposition when global leaders are touting TPP as an important and historic deal that will be remembered for generations. Right now. The people should be allowed to see what their temporary representives are negotiating and hyping for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Moving this post here so that a diff thread doesn't continue to be derailed:Neurolimal posted:It's a document that has seen arguments from both partisan sides, neither of which have denied the legitimacy of the draft. This is an immense difference from a faked PP video that has been pointed out as fake from multiple official sources and esteemed figures. Nobody but forum posters have denied the legitimacy of the draft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
So do some of you actually support this AIDS agreement or do you actually have faith that our leaders are trying to do what's best for their citizens lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Cool, then report that X country is pushing for Y amendment, like we do with Congress. If a proposal will spark outrage then maybe its worthy of sparking outrage, so long as countries proposing and accepting the amendment are made clear. We don't live in a world where communications technology stopped at the telegraph. But we don't do that with Congress? It's also not about sparking outrage or not. 30 days is more than enough time if there's anything actually bad going on, chief. If the "bad thing" is so arcane and minor that you need more than a month to get people convinced it's bad, it's not actually a bad enough thing to be a problem. They are allowed to see that. When it's finished. Not during the 7 prior years when there wasn't even a consistent number of countries participating. Because what's finished is what's actually going to be voted on, not the status of the agreement 2.5 years prior before Chile made request #459. Alejandro Sanchez posted:So do some of you actually support this AIDS agreement or do you actually have faith that our leaders are trying to do what's best for their citizens lol Describe the agreement's provisions you want to know that people support or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:52
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I haven't seen much discussion of the fact that the State Department human trafficking report upgraded the status of Malaysia not because their human trafficking situation actually improved but because language in the TPA said that they had to. They were classified as Tier 3 and after language was inserted saying that the TPP can't include Tier 3 countries and all of a sudden they're now Tier 2. Just because people were underrepresented doesn't mean that policies deliberately harmful to them were placed into the treaty, nor are the interests of elites totally divorced from those of the average person. Furthermore, the foreign-policy goals could easily outweigh the economic goals of free-marketers, such as the desire to reduce the share of Chinese imports among the signatories being better for the people of most of the nations involved than the negatives.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Explaining why trade deals work like this doesn't justify it. The people deserve to know what their temporarily elected representatives are shoving into a bill that wont be up for renewal debate for 25 years. Especially when everyone in this thread (and this forum) will agree that politicians tend to be biased towards the elite due to the lobbyist system. Your final sentence is actually childishly naive and anyone who has learned to thank grandma even when you didn't like her Christmas present or has gotten through middle school lunch table politics should understand that the truth isn't always better. Why would I bring up middle school? Because that's basically the level that international politics operates at. Skilled negotiation requires saying and offering different things to different people at different times. If everyone knew everything you offered or conceded to everyone else it would literally be like tipping your whole hand at the card table. If you want longer than 30 days, then say you want longer than 30 days. Stop making yourself look like an idiot who has no grasp of how life actually works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But we don't do that with Congress? It's also not about sparking outrage or not. It would be more than enough time, provided the media could be trusted to report on the bill in an objective manner. As this is not the case it is a very good thing that we have presidential candidates and a strong protest movement opposing the bill now. If the day-to-day negotiations of a trade deal are so insignificant, then there is no reason to oppose say, a website that updates with the current agreed-upon details of the bill alongside changes and proposals made by the members of the deal. You brought up in another thread that this is impractical because the members shouldn't be "expected to argue against billions of people". But this is disingenuous; the only people the members would be arguing against would be the people they have been chosen to represent. This is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It would be more than enough time, provided the media could be trusted to report on the bill in an objective manner. As this is not the case it is a very good thing that we have presidential candidates and a strong protest movement opposing the bill now. Why do you think the media needs to be involved? Also there isn't a strong protest movement. I said the opposite, that the day-to-day stuff is rather significant. Again, having your dumb website goes against the entire spirit and process of massive negotiations. The general public is too untrained to understand the consequences of arcane and rapidly changing trade law. That is why there is no value to having billions of people involved in the negotiations before they've reached a final point: the point where it can actually be ratified, and where the complexity has been lowered because there will be no changes: that text is final and all there is is no say yes or no to the whole thing. We've already seen the idiocy arising from people seeing unverified and highly fragmentary supposed "leaks", such as yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The general public is too untrained to understand the consequences of arcane and rapidly changing trade law. That is why there is no value to having billions of people involved in the negotiations before they've reached a final point: the point where it can actually be ratified, and where the complexity has been lowered because there will be no changes: that text is final and all there is is no say yes or no to the whole thing. You are acting like what's being advocated is a billion-person vote, when all that is being suggested is transparency in the details of a bill before it is hyped for a year. If a representative is pushing for a proposal or accepting a proposal that the represented disagree with then the represented deserve to be allowed to know about it so that they may pressure their representative otherwise. This only becomes more important with the introduction of Fast Track, which outright removes the ability of the represented to pressure the tepresentative into removing aspects of what may otherwise be an acceptable bill. If you are correct that 30 days is enough time to motivate the represented into pressuring the representative, then it is entirely beneficial in a post-fast track landscape for both the negotiators and the represented; transparency allows minor and major questionable aspects to be presented to the public and be altered before the entirety of what may otherwise be a good bill is killed by it. Of course, this matters less for the negotiators when someone both believes that 30 days vs. A year is not enough time, and the bill is not otherwise good for the represented. quote:We've already seen the idiocy arising from people seeing unverified and highly fragmentary supposed "leaks", such as yourself. It is not idiotic to preempt awful legislation based on uncontroversial evidence of said awful legislation. The fact that so much awful negatives have been found based on fragments does not make the case for TPP better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It is not idiotic to preempt awful legislation based on uncontroversial evidence of said awful legislation. The fact that so much awful negatives have been found based on fragments does not make the case for TPP better. Like what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Like what? Neurolimal posted:Liberalizes global trade (the benefits of which workers rarely see), putting more foreign goods on par with domestic goods (which is a bad thing when one country has vastly worse wage laws and worker protections than the domestic one), replaces functional tariffs and regulation with "disciplines", strengthens IP law which harms the generic medication industry, employment-granting industries in countries such as India based off of reverse-engineering patented vital products (IP law itself seeing very little benefit for the worker), establishes a corporate court which operates outside the jurisdiction of any country in the deal, and makes any future fight for workers rights significantly more difficult as a result of having a global pool of scabs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Alejandro Sanchez posted:So do some of you actually support this AIDS agreement or do you actually have faith that our leaders are trying to do what's best for their citizens lol May as well not have any government ever then. I'm a libertarian now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Also, here's the opinion of a highly esteemed, uncontroversially respected organization:TEAYCHES posted:its a really really good deal I'm sure they're also just overreacting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:You are acting like what's being advocated is a billion-person vote, when all that is being suggested is transparency in the details of a bill before it is hyped for a year. If a representative is pushing for a proposal or accepting a proposal that the represented disagree with then the represented deserve to be allowed to know about it so that they may pressure their representative otherwise. This only becomes more important with the introduction of Fast Track, which outright removes the ability of the represented to pressure the tepresentative into removing aspects of what may otherwise be an acceptable bill. Hey, I get that you don't think too well, but there is no value to the negotiation in having everyone able to pore through reams of legalese that won't even be valid within a week. Also the legislature being able to reject random segments of the deal while accepting the rest makes it impossible to meaningfully negotiate, because anything promised can be taken away by the legislature, dude. So frankly, the only reason to be against "fast track" is colossal ignorance of what a treaty even is. You have to make it all or nothing. Something that can be 70% ratified and the rest unratified or whatever is useless for actually being a treaty. Every country would just approve only the parts that most favor them, and the result would be a do nothing treaty. Neurolimal posted:It is not idiotic to preempt awful legislation based on uncontroversial evidence of said awful legislation. The fact that so much awful negatives have been found based on fragments does not make the case for TPP better. There has been no uncontroversial evidence, what aren't you getting here? You seem like if I submitted a leak to wikileaks tomorrow claiming your mom was involved in espionage, you'd believe it. Neurolimal posted:Also, here's the opinion of a highly esteemed, uncontroversially respected organization: That is opinion not facts, and since it's based on the completely unverified and fragmentary leaks from years ago, yes, it's overreacting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Also, here's the opinion of a highly esteemed, uncontroversially respected organization: Given that they based those statements on inaccurate leaks, yes, they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Hey, I get that you don't think too well, but there is no value to the negotiation in having everyone able to pore through reams of legalese that won't even be valid within a week. If it's all just pointless legalese that most people wont read, where is the harm in publishing it anyways in the name of transparency? quote:Also the legislature being able to reject random segments of the deal while accepting the rest makes it impossible to meaningfully negotiate, because anything promised can be taken away by the legislature, dude. So frankly, the only reason to be against "fast track" is colossal ignorance of what a treaty even is. If allowing congress to influence the deal makes it impossible to negotiate the seal, then perhaps A) the qualms of the represented should be considered before the compromise is made concrete, through transparency, or B) the deal is inherently terrible for the represented without the promise of <compromise> that in turn fucks over another nations' represented more than you. If a compromise is objectionable then it should be objected to when there is still time to object, instead of waiting for its permanent role in the pouson pull. quote:There has been no uncontroversial evidence, what aren't you getting here? You seem like if I submitted a leak to wikileaks tomorrow claiming your mom was involved in espionage, you'd believe it. If this were done then I, someone with decades of experience with her, would call into question the veracity of those claims if they were to affect her life. Nobody with an interest in TPP has argued against the legitimacy of the draft. quote:That is opinion not facts, and since it's based on the completely unverified and fragmentary leaks from years ago, yes, it's overreacting. How often does MSF partake in political overreactions based on unverified information?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often does MSF partake in political overreactions based on unverified information? In this case? Every statement they've made about the TPP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:In this case? Every statement they've made about the TPP. So they do not typically involve themselves in political issues or trade deals? But they, experts in their fields and assisting developing nations, have found cause to denounce TPP now, after its finalization and long after the release of the leaked draft? Why should a mystery bill deserve more faith in its beneficial nature than faith that MSF, an incredibly professional and noble organization, has done their homework on the subject?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Kalman posted:In this case? Every statement they've made about the TPP. Also you're ignoring the fact that if people hadn't reacted to the leaks like they did, what was leaked would have been a lot closer to what we got.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Even if you believe that the leaked documents are 100% legit why would you also believe that nothing has changed over the course of years? What were those extra years of negotiations for if the leaked documents are representative of the final agreement?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Here's another good post that elaborates well on aspects of the deal I've brought up, and another global organization of medical professionals denouncing the deal:Jewel Repetition posted:Okay, let's actually get into this. It's a garbage deal. The onus should be on those pushing the deal to convince otherwise. They have failed to do this. quote:Even if you believe that the leaked documents are 100% legit why would you also believe that nothing has changed over the course of years? What were those extra years of negotiations for if the leaked documents are representative of the final agreement? What reason do we have to believe all the globally disastrous leaked policies have been removed? Politicians, human beings are even more capable of changing over time. We still judge them based on actions and stated ideals. We dodn't suddenly assume Mitt Romney would become a leftist democrat in office. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
You just can't trust those MSF fellas - they don't support our troops. A 30 day review period before a yes or no vote is all we need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If it's all just pointless legalese that most people wont read, where is the harm in publishing it anyways in the name of transparency? I never said that it was pointless legalese, just that it is legalese and thus very difficult for average people to understand. The harm is: it makes it way harder to negotiate, what part aren't you getting, exactly? No, this is completely bullshit. Also, hello, the will of the people will be considered before the deal is complete because the legislatures of nations must vote on it before it goes into place. You keep trying to pretend like being able to vote on it all or nothing doesn't count, which is stupid. Compromises on already agreed negotiations are inherently unacceptable, the time for compromises to be made is during the negotiations. If not everyone finally ratifies the agreement, then further negotiations can be done whiel it goes into effect for the other countries. You're still ignoring that no one has actively claimed and proven that any of the "leaks" are legit. Many other leaks on wikileaks have been confirmed by outside sources, this hasn't happened in 2 years plus for the supposed TPP leaks. They're doing it right now, at this very moment, with the wikileaks stuff. Neurolimal posted:Here's another good post that elaborates well on aspects of the deal I've brought up, and another global organization of medical professionals denouncing the deal: There you go again citing completely unverified years ago excerpts as reflective of the actual deal. Stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
It's hard to find an up to date response from MSF to the final deal because, y'know, the other thing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:It's hard to find an up to date response from MSF to the final deal because, y'know, the other thing The final deal hasn't been released yet, so they can't have responded to it yet regardless. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Here's another good post that elaborates well on aspects of the deal I've brought up, and another global organization of medical professionals denouncing the deal: The "corporations can sue governments" thing, as presented is also mostly BS. It's an enforcement mechanism which is designed to ensure that the agreed upon treaty is evenly followed. Allowing companies to sue nations works exactly like it does in any normal liberal state which allows people and corporations to sue the state. It's a check that ensures agreed upon laws and regulations are followed. The alternative is that the treaty won't be followed, which is obviously pointless, or some other check must be implemented that results in the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:What reason do we have to believe all the globally disastrous leaked policies have been removed? For one thing, what details we have now on Oct 6 2015 look different from what was supposedly leaked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The final deal hasn't been released yet, so they can't have responded to it yet regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I never said that it was pointless legalese, just that it is legalese and thus very difficult for average people to understand. The harm is: it makes it way harder to negotiate, what part aren't you getting, exactly? The legalese can be summarized and interpreted by members of the community who then explain the legalese to others. If the interpretation is incorrect or beneficial it would be the representative's job to correct or defend it to their represented. I dont give a poo poo about how difficult it makes negotiating. I give a poo poo about just and transparent negotiations approved by tbe people of a nation. I put as much weight into streamlining negotiating as I do Rand Paul promising to streamline my tax forms down to one page. quote:No, this is completely bullshit. Also, hello, the will of the people will be considered before the deal is complete because the legislatures of nations must vote on it before it goes into place. You keep trying to pretend like being able to vote on it all or nothing doesn't count, which is stupid. When the people have thirty days to ignore a year of pro-deal hype, interpret the legalese, and convince others of the damage the deal will cause (likely without the assistance of any news organization), then yes. I do believe that the will of the people is being subverted. It may or may not be an i tentional subversion and it may have historical precedent, but I still consider it terrible. quote:Compromises on already agreed negotiations are inherently unacceptable, the time for compromises to be made is during the negotiations. If not everyone finally ratifies the agreement, then further negotiations can be done whiel it goes into effect for the other countries. The point is that the people should know what rights and securities they are compromising on before they are baked into what may be an otherwise positive bill. Reducing this down to legislative "warmer...colder..." in the hopes that the public will be able to generate outrage each time the revised bill comes into vote is absurd. quote:There you go again citing completely unverified years ago excerpts as reflective of the actual deal. Stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion. I've yet to see anyone, even people invested in arguing against your pedantry, take you at face value on this. I could just as easily say the same last sentence to you (not that it would do you any good, since you've firmly drilled your head into the sand)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:When the people have thirty days to ignore a year of pro-deal hype, interpret the legalese, and convince others of the damage the deal will cause (likely without the assistance of any news organization), then yes. I do believe that the will of the people is being subverted. It may or may not be an i tentional subversion and it may have historical precedent, but I still consider it terrible. So how does one ensure that everyone "gets it" so the will of the people isn't being subverted? Aside from the obvious "once everyone agrees with my position"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The legalese can be summarized and interpreted by members of the community who then explain the legalese to others. If the interpretation is incorrect or beneficial it would be the representative's job to correct or defend it to their represented. Well if you actually care about the constituents then it makes sense to give every advantage to the people negotiating on their behalf: that demands secrecy and fast track. If you just think representative democracy doesn't work then say so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So how does one ensure that everyone "gets it" so the will of the people isn't being subverted? Aside from the obvious "once everyone agrees with my position" In a transparent setup, the questionable amendment would be observed by watchgroups, interpreted into easy to comprehend explanations, and protest/outrage would be channeled through protest groups to influence the representatives. It is up to the representative to decide if the outrage is small enough to ignore or large enough to take notice. If this happens then the representative opposes the amendment or recants it before it earns a permanent place in the deal. If the amendment is not objectionable by the people then it wont generate enough protest. This has little to do with my beliefs and everything to do with making sure the people are given the time and chance to interpret and judge their representative's actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:In a transparent setup, the questionable amendment would be observed by watchgroups, interpreted into easy to comprehend explanations, and protest/outrage would be channeled through protest groups to influence the representatives. It is up to the representative to decide if the outrage is small enough to ignore or large enough to take notice. If this happens then the representative opposes the amendment or recants it before it earns a permanent place in the deal. What about issues that are controversial where there are always going to be not-insignificant groups that might be opposed to such a deal, issues such as, say, trade, where someone always loses?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The legalese can be summarized and interpreted by members of the community who then explain the legalese to others. If the interpretation is incorrect or beneficial it would be the representative's job to correct or defend it to their represented. You're still not getting that you are not owed a seat at the negotiating table. You should give a poo poo about it making it difficult to negotiate, if you're not a fan of war being used to enforce things instead. Your personal wants are compeltely at odds with peaceful negotiations. Ah yes, all that pro-deal hype like, uh, what exactly? Face the facts: it probably won't actually damage anything, least of all in the US since all the low hanging job exporting fruit was picked in the 70s through 90s. The will of the people is not being subverted in the least. If the bill is is overwhelmingly positive, why do you want it struck down? Again: it's equally as easy to defeat the bill and thus the whole treaty as it is to approve it. In fact it's a bit easier to defeat it if enough people don't like provisions in it. You're pretty bad at seeing things in general, you don't know much of anything about government, politics, treaties, etc. But hey keep ranting about like 3 fake fragments from 2 years ago as if that's the whole bill agreed upon today! But of course you are ignorant enough to believe there's a leftward surge in Europe as well, so reality isn't your strong suit. Neurolimal posted:In a transparent setup, the questionable amendment would be observed by watchgroups, interpreted into easy to comprehend explanations, and protest/outrage would be channeled through protest groups to influence the representatives. It is up to the representative to decide if the outrage is small enough to ignore or large enough to take notice. If this happens then the representative opposes the amendment or recants it before it earns a permanent place in the deal. Why are you so opposed to take it or leave it on the deal? You've never elaborated on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What about issues that are controversial where there are always going to be not-insignificant groups that might be opposed to such a deal, issues such as, say, trade, where someone always loses? Then the negotiated deal doesn't go through, because an enormous portion of the public that the representative has chosen not to ignore opposes it. If the people opposes liberalizing free trade, then free trade should stay regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then the negotiated deal doesn't go through, because an enormous portion of the public that the representative has chosen not to ignore opposes it. Congratulations you've successfully created a system where literally nothing happens ever because there is always going to be opposition to any given issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Congratulations you've successfully created a system where literally nothing happens ever. If the people choose to never behead themselves to amuse stockholders, then that is their choice and it should be respected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then the negotiated deal doesn't go through, because an enormous portion of the public that the representative has chosen not to ignore opposes it. This already happens in the actual system, once the deal is negotiated and in a votable form. Why do you oppose this? What's the benefit gained by ending it earlier?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:15
|
|