|
Kaal posted:You might think so, but that isn't actually true. People deal with sensitive information all the time in all sorts of fields. It's not like a nurse or a soldier or a lawyer or a bureaucrat can't talk about her job without also divulging secret information. Somewhere, in whatever office or division you work in, there is a PR person whose job is to work with the press and portray your work in an open and non-classified manner. I might think so, because I see it everyday in D&D. My job is in Tomahawk cruise missiles, staff operations and planning. I see bullshit and misinformation in D&D all the time but I can't discuss exactly why someone is completely off base other than just saying, "You're wrong, but I can't tell you why but you should trust me" because obviously that doesn't work in D&D because it's just an argument from authority. If someone demands proof or logical reasoning, I am legally prevented from doing so. How can you not understand how this is a problem in public discourse? If you want to argue that I'm not smart enough to tell you why someone might be absolutely wrong about an opinion they have which is based off incomplete information, while providing proof of why they're wrong, that I'm not able to release, then you may be right. If you want to argue that the administration has handled the PR of this negotiation poorly, then that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the actual secrecy of the negotiations. I guess I'm kind of stumped because when you look at the poll - most people are against the TPP. Yet, the only thing we know about it is a small sliver. How can people be against something that they have no idea about? Could it mean that confirmation bias is going to play heavily in any story about it? Boon fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jun 14, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Boon posted:I might think so, because I see it everyday in D&D. My job is in Tomahawk cruise missiles, staff operations and planning. I see bullshit and misinformation in D&D all the time but I can't discuss exactly why someone is completely off base other than just saying, "You're wrong, but I can't tell you why but you should trust me" because obviously that doesn't work in D&D because it's just an argument from authority. If someone demands proof or logical reasoning, I am legally prevented from doing so. How can you not understand how this is a problem in public discourse? Lol. Ok well I know for a fact that you aren't "legally prevented" from talking about the basic principles of your job, why it's important, how it functions on a day-to-day basis, who are the organizations involved, etc. You might not be able to talk about specific elements about operational deployments or equipment design, but you're more than capable of discussing the broad strokes of your job in a way that the public understands and is able to base policy opinions on. Beyond that, you'd be quite able to speak even more freely with congressional representatives in a closed session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Lol. Ok well I know for a fact that you aren't "legally prevented" from talking about the basic principles of your job, why it's important, how it functions on a day-to-day basis, who are the organizations involved, etc. You might not be able to talk about specific elements about operational deployments or equipment design, but you're more than capable of discussing the broad strokes of your job in a way that the public understands. L-O-L indeed. The broad strokes aren't what's important duder. They're superficial, as you'd imagine. You're talking PR, however, so we're not talking about the same thing. Boon fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Boon posted:The broad strokes aren't what's important duder. You're talking PR. Well, duder, that's pretty much totally bullshit. Human society works on knowing the broad strokes. You have political, personal and professional opinions on a broad range of topics, and none of them are based on the exact wording of all the laws that govern them. There's no need to know every last detail about a topic before forming a meaningful opinion about it. Certainly if you work with classified material then you should know that. Which brings us back to the point, which is that it is quite possible for the TPP to be talked about in a fairly open way without necessarily divulging any information that needs to be sensitive. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Well, duder, that's pretty much totally bullshit. Human society works on knowing the broad strokes. You have political opinions on a broad range of topics, and few of them are based on the exact wording of the laws that govern them. There's no need to know every last detail about a topic before forming an opinion about it. Certainly if you work with classified material then you should know that. Opinion, yeah you're probably right. To effectively debate and negotiate however? The fewer details I know the worse position I'm in. Then again, you have nothing to lose by just blasting an opinion out there so why should you care about the details? You might as well just use your statement there as a justification for Fox News to continue to do whatever they do on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Boon posted:Opinion, yeah you're probably right. To effectively debate and negotiate however? The fewer details I know the worse position I'm in. Then again, you have nothing to lose by just blasting an opinion out there so why should you care about the details? "That's just, like, your opinion man" is not a particularly persuasive response. Political discourse is the exchange of opinion. Democracy is pretty much founded on the idea that a good society incorporates the opinions of all its citizenry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"That's just, like, your opinion man" is not a particularly persuasive response. Political discourse is the exchange of opinion. Democracy is pretty much founded on the idea that a good society incorporates the opinions of all its citizenry. But not a representative democracy, which is what we are. Our opinions are voiced at the polls, and only at the polls when it comes to federal matters. Can broad ideas for a very complicated policy lead to speculation or interested opposition and eventually bad opinion? Can bad opinion be destructive to good policy? In this situation, good policy is just an idea not related to any current policy. Boon fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Boon posted:But not a representative democracy, which is what we are. A representative democracy is a democracy, and it is also founded on the same principle of open public participation and investment in the political process. Society becomes unstable when large parts of the population feel disengaged from the wheels of power. These are basic principles of government here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Don't patronize me. What you're saying does not mean that you have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time you wish. You've ceded that right by simply existing in a representative democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:Our opinions are voiced at the polls, and only at the polls when it comes to federal matters. This isn't true at all, particularly in a representative democracy where the representatives are bound to uphold the interests of the people they represent. quote:Can broad ideas for a very complicated policy lead to speculation or interested opposition and eventually bad opinion? Can bad opinion be destructive to good policy? In this situation, good policy is just an idea not related to any current policy. It is not within the power of government to simply decide it no longer wants to listen to its citizens, nor is that within its best interest. Understand that fundamentally you are crafting a "Father Knows Best" argument, which is pretty much antithetical to good government. Boon posted:Don't patronize me. What you're saying does not mean that you have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time you wish. You've ceded that right by simply existing in a representative democracy. It may still be a democracy but it's got that caveat. Not all matters of state at any time, but most matters of state at most times. And that doesn't have to do with the representative democracy / pure democracy distinction at all, since even a pure democracy can recognize the need for discretion and find accommodation. Similarly, not all of our representatives have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time, but they still figure out ways to maintain congressional oversight as a collective entity, and they also maintain their right to review most matters of state at most times (which is also a real problem with the TPP). Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Not all matters of state at any time, but most matters of state at most times. And that doesn't have to do with the representative democracy / pure democracy distinction at all, since even a pure democracy can recognize the need for discretion and find accommodation. Similarly, not all of our representatives have an explicit right to review all matters of state at any time, but they figure out ways to maintain congressional oversight. If you cede that not all matters of state are under your purview at any given time then what mechanism decides what you get to see whenever you want? What defines, "most"? Boon fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Boon posted:Also, the idea that any corporate involvement in a treaty is bad is ludicrous. At some point, business MUST be tied to the negotiations. You wouldn't draft a massive international scientific treat without direct input from scientists. So why would you expect business to be exempt from an international trade treaty? The idea here being that we actually believe our executive branch is capable and willing to do it's job with the best interest of the country (not public - the country) in mind. I am okay with businesses providing input. Input is different from, "Here, Mr. MPAA lobbyist, is the super top secret classified agreement (  ) with what you requested, how do you like it? "I guess we just trust lobbyists more than congress? I guess businesses are the only things that have a stake in this that actually matter? And why should we believe the executive branch is "willing to do its job with the best interest of the country in mind?" Is this just supposed to be taken on faith?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Boon posted:If you cede that not all matters of state are under your purview at any given time then what mechanism decides what you get to see whenever you want? What defines, "most"? I'm not "ceding" anything, these are basic principles of our government. And specifically the mechanism is the US Constitution and a series of Supreme Court judgments that have made it clear that the public has a fundamental right to know. That right is balanced against the government's responsibility to guard American interests. The enforcement of that balance is generally contingent upon the proof that censorship is required in the interests of national security, or personal privacy. It's the difference between saying, "There's a Tomahawk cruise missile with XYZ specifications and design specs, which is located at the following coordinates" and "There's a Tomahawk cruise missile with Block B Specifications and is located at the Howardson Strategic Air Force Base." There's a whole host of elements that you could look into, far too many to go into in a thread like this, but a good place to start would be Near v. Minnesota, and of course the First Amendment. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I'm not "ceding" anything, these are basic principles of our government. And specifically the mechanism is the US Constitution and a series of Supreme Court judgments that have made it clear that the public has a fundamental right to know. That right is balanced against the government's responsibility to guard American interests. The enforcement of that balance is generally contingent upon the proof that censorship is required in the interests of national security, or personal privacy. It's the difference between saying, "There's a Tomahawk Cruise missile with XYZ specifications and design specs, which is located at the following coordinates" and "There's a Tomahawk Cruise missile with Block B Specifications and is located at the Howardson Strategic Air Force Base." There's a whole host of elements that you could look into, far too many to go into in a thread like this, but a good place to start would be Near v. Minnesota, and of course the First Amendment. I don't need too (I will look at the case though) because it's not necessary to make my point, which is that the TPP is subject to law which is the mechanism that defines what the public has within their purview. The operating assumption here is that the secrecy of the negotiations are not against the law - this secrecy is what my original post addresses if we rewind the conversation (which I've enjoyed, by the way). People in this thread have an idea that the TPP negotiations should be subject to their purview including the details, which I contend is ludicrous. Most especially when there is no treaty. When said treaty is actually established I would agree that it is subject to open discourse. Boon fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
I'd agree that it's been a good conversation. Certainly I think that we've discussed the point pretty well and have a good idea of the other's position, and since I need to run off to work I think that I'll just have to leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I understand the need to keep it under wraps until the negotiation is over but why does TPA have to remove the senate's ability to filibuster the deal? The filibuster is essentially immoral. cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. The full terms will be made public before it can actually be voted on to pass. Right now it's nowhere near finished enough to be at risk of passing any time soon. As a matter of fact, the treaty is likely to not be done until after the 2016 elections or even later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
General statement but please keep the ad hominems out of the thread and stay on topic.
Thunder Moose fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:The containment argument never made much sense to me. The idea as I understand it is that an FTA that excludes China would divert the members' trade away from China and toward each other - strengthening all the other parties while weakening China. But of the twelve countries negotiating the TPP, seven of them already have free trade agreements with China, an eighth has been negotiated but not come into force yet, and a ninth is being negotiated right now. So if those nine countries see benefits, then some of those will spill over into China. And many of the TPP parties already have free trade agreements and other diplomatic ties with each other - is another FTA going to have that much effect on US trade with Canada and Mexico? Or bring us diplomatically closer to Japan or Australia? A) The Chinese economy is already doubling down on nationalism because their economy is starting to show signs of being hosed. This idea that China will become more assertive unless they're accommodated is false, they've become progressively more assertive over the past decade despite being accommodated constantly. The idea that the TPP would somehow cause the Chinese to retaliate and therefore we shouldn't pass it is not only immoral (an authoritarian country should not be dictating US trade policy) but also false, because they're already "retaliating." B) The point of the legislation isn't to "hurt" China, it's to counterbalance China. Like you said, a lot of those countries already have free trade agreements with China and have China as their largest trading partner. The problem is that China is an authoritarian country with revisionist, regional ambitions that has shown in the past they aren't above using their economic status as a bludgeon to get their smaller neighbours to do what they want. The TPP essentially robs China of this option because the world's largest economy, along with all the other large/advanced economies of the Pacific, becomes a viable alternative. China's ability to block imports/exports, raise tariffs, etc. becomes impotent when the countries that it might be bullying can simply turn to Japan or the US instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
I thought the TPP was about normalizing the international IP regime, not free trade?  How does that contain China?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I thought the TPP was about normalizing the international IP regime, not free trade? well the biggest stickler for the whole concept is how it will move fights over IP and other local laws to a WTO style international tribunal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I thought the TPP was about normalizing the international IP regime, not free trade? Nope. I mean, it covers some IP issues but it's mostly about plain trade rules. Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan are currently involved in the negotiations. The Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea may join in in a while. The plan for it started in 2005, formal negotiation rounds have been going on since 2010.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:A) The Chinese economy is already doubling down on nationalism because their economy is starting to show signs of being hosed. This idea that China will become more assertive unless they're accommodated is false, they've become progressively more assertive over the past decade despite being accommodated constantly. The idea that the TPP would somehow cause the Chinese to retaliate and therefore we shouldn't pass it is not only immoral (an authoritarian country should not be dictating US trade policy) but also false, because they're already "retaliating." If the TPP is effective at diverting trade from China to the US, that would reduce their ability to use trade measures against TPP member neighbors. I agree with that part of your argument. But it also reduces the cost to China of using those measures. They won't be losing as much money, so they'll screw with trade more frequently. And China has other levers of influencing their neighbors. If the TPP diverts trade away, then they'll have less to lose and so they'll be more likely to engage in diplomatic or military ways of poking their neighbors. I also agree with you that China is already being assertive in the status quo, but that doesn't mean they won't become more assertive if they're contained. (Note the 'if' there - I think it's highly possible that the TPP will indirectly benefit China. If Chile makes more money because the TPP lets it sell copper to Malaysia, and then turns around and uses that money to buy textiles from its bilateral FTA partner China, then China is helped by TPP, and not contained.) I guess to rephrase my earlier post: if the TPP does what you say, and makes it impossible for China to use trade to bully its neighbors, how do you think China is going to react to that? By admitting that they should stop bullying, and bandwagoning with the US and the TPP? Or by doubling down on the assertiveness and finding their own partners to balance against the US? Ponsonby Britt fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Boon posted:I guess I'm kind of stumped because when you look at the poll - most people are against the TPP. Yet, the only thing we know about it is a small sliver. How can people be against something that they have no idea about? By default. Are you in the habit of wagging your tail and blurting out "I support this" when you know nothing about it, just because your paymasters told you it was worth supporting? That explains everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Boon posted:
Hmm, I can't think of another major piece of law proposed by President Obama that few people read or understood but was widely opposed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hmm, I can't think of another major piece of law proposed by President Obama that few people read or understood but was widely opposed. Brand Loyalty Politics
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:By default. Are you in the habit of wagging your tail and blurting out "I support this" when you know nothing about it, just because your paymasters told you it was worth supporting? That explains everything. Oh cool you're attributing opinions to me I've not voiced or implied. The post merely states that people are not objectively approaching this and that bias is likely weighing heavily. I dont think that's all too out of line considering the poll and your response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
etalian posted:well the biggest stickler for the whole concept is how it will move fights over IP and other local laws to a WTO style international tribunal system. A secret tribunal which looks to be massively weighted in favour of corporations. It's true that ISDS is not new and this is just an expansion of previous treaties. But those previous systems are already terrible and we don't need to double down on them. They have already been used by coal companies to sue governments for favouring renewable energy, and by cigarette companies to sue a government for limiting their marketing capacities. I have read the official US response to this criticism that was linked earlier in the thread. Basically it seems their answer was, "dont worry, ISDS can't force governments to change legislation, it can only force them to pay compensation" - because the threat of massive costs never had any impact on government policy, right? The greatest challenge of the 21st century is to dismantle the fossil fuel industry. If we don't do this then civilisation as we know it will collapse. The TPP is going to give that industry new and more powerful weapons to defend itself. That alone is enough to oppose it IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Boon posted:Oh cool you're attributing opinions to me I've not voiced or implied. The post merely states that people are not objectively approaching this and that bias is likely weighing heavily. I didn't attribute anything to you, I simply asked if you are as credulous in other matters as you are in this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I didn't attribute anything to you, I simply asked if you are as credulous in other matters as you are in this one. Not making the automatic leap to not supporting something because I'm not privy to it's details makes me credulous? How is the exact opposite not true? I realize you're SedanChair and will try your hardest to not have a good faith discussion, but here we are. Boon fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Boon posted:Not making the automatic leap to not supporting something because I'm not privy to it's details makes me credulous? How is the exact opposite not true? Because the default position is to not support things. If you support them without knowing about them that makes you credulous. That's the definition of "credulous."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because the default position is to not support things. If you support them without knowing about them that makes you credulous. That's the definition of "credulous." I know this may come as a shocker to you but it turns out someone can have a position other than "support" or "not support". In fact, there is even a spot for it on the poll in this thread! Boon fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:I know this may come as a shocker to you but it turns out you can someone can have a position other than "support" or "not support". In fact, there is even a spot for it on the poll in this thread! No, there are no other positions. That option amounts to "not support." If your position is that you need more data before deciding whether to support something, you are currently in a state of not supporting it. If your position is "I don't deserve more data, I support it even if I don't have any data," guess what that is? It starts with a "c."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, there are no other positions. That option amounts to "not support." If your position is that you need more data before deciding whether to support something, you are currently in a state of not supporting it. If your position is "I don't deserve more data, I support it even if I don't have any data," guess what that is? It starts with a "c." How can you not be in support or be in support of something that does not exist, SedanChair?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:How can you not be in support or be in support of something that does not exist, SedanChair? I'm sorry what are you circling around to now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Unless I'm mistaking your incredibly insignificant argument, you're implying or outright stating that I am in support of something which does not exist beyond an idea (TPP) and stating that I am credulous for not stating that I am by default not in support of something. Ironically, it seems to me that defaulting to any position would be credulous but whatever. You're who you've always been and I don't really care to pursue this pointless game of judgement based on non-existent positions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Here's a question for the TPP defenders in the thread: What's your response to this critique? Doctors Without Borders is calling the TPP "the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries." That seems pretty damning. In particular, what is your defense of the provisions they single out on page 3? "Medecins sans Frontieres (pdf) posted:Data exclusivity grants a distinct monopoly status to medicines, even when patents no longer apply or exist, giving companies a new way to keep prices high for longer and This is particularly bothersome for me, based on my own personal experience. I have moderately severe ulcerative colitis, a condition which causes constant, bloody diarrhea if untreated. Luckily, I was able to get onto a biologic which has largely reduced these symptoms. Unluckily, it took me about a year to do so - a year of arguing with my insurance company, jumping through hoops to convince them that other drugs were ineffective, and getting charity assistance to defray the drug's costs. Biologics are extremely expensive - the initial price I was quoted was $11,000 a month. I'm not a drug expert. I don't know whether biologics are so expensive in the US because the drug companies are using their patent to gouge consumers, or because they're simply expensive to produce. (Or both.) But it seems clear that something is broken about US drug law when the prices are so high, and it's so difficult for someone like me (and I have insurance) to get biologics covered. Either the patent system is allowing bad faith gouging, or it's failing to promote good faith competition to lower prices to an affordable level. And this is the system that the TPP would extend to other countries? Ulcerative colitis isn't a fatal disease, but it's extremely unpleasant and disruptive of normal life activities. And we want to make it harder to treat in other countries? We want to charge $11,000 a month to some factory worker in Malaysia who gets paid $110 a month? Who does this provision help besides pharmaceutical companies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Boon posted:Unless I'm mistaking your incredibly insignificant argument, you're implying or outright stating that I am in support of something which does not exist beyond an idea (TPP) and stating that I am credulous for not stating that I am by default not in support of something. Ironically, it seems to me that defaulting to any position would be credulous but whatever. You're who you've always been and I don't really care to pursue this pointless game of judgement based on non-existent positions. If you support something despite "not being privy to the details" you are credulous. Having a default position of not supporting something that is being kept secret from you is not credulous, it's what humans with discernment do. And the by the time the TPP exists, it will be a done deal, so saying "it doesn't exist yet" is a particularly craven form of disingenuousness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The problem is that China ... has shown in the past they aren't above using their economic status as a bludgeon to get their smaller neighbours to do what they want.  given what has been leaked.Additionally, as someone in nz, every part of the TPP that has been leaked is a huge step backwards for the majority of the people living here and it's infuriating how powerless I am to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:This is pretty Yeah I mean, China, America, what's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Vote for Toyama Koichi in 2016, everyone! Pass TPA now so Toyama will have the power! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:30
|
|