|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made. This agreement helps some corporations whose interests seem to be opposed to mine as a working class, US citizen. We're already struggling in this country to bring wages back up to livable levels; a complicated multinational agreement with absolute sovereignty over even our domestic courts does not seem to further this agenda, nor benefit the working class. Similar agreements, with similar promises, have failed to make good on their claims to benefit working class Americans, and this agreement is being couched in the same language, with the same promises being made. So, even without knowing what's specifically in the bill, an understanding of history tells me that when the government tries to put together an enormous international treaty, takes the advise of private interested parties while shunning public scrutiny, and promises economic prosperity for all, I should be skeptical if not immediately opposed to the agreement.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public? The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all. But at least we knew. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Excellent defense of your position. Thanks, arguing with pedantic idiots seemed to be a waste of time, so calling out someone who's zeroing into the one point people continuously err over (the secrecy) and derailing the thread incessantly seemed to be the right call.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah. It's almost like this forum was called Debate and Discussion or something. Fine, we'll play the game. computer parts posted:Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public? None. This is a strawman argument. I never said that treaties "have ever or should ever be conducted completely in public." Well, that was fun, thanks everyone!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You said this one shuns public scrutiny. Aren't all treaties at some point shunning public scrutiny? To varying degrees, yes. And your point is? Also, still a straw man as my personal dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency is a completely separate issue from my supposedly thinking "all treaties must be conducted completely in public." - a statement I do not agree with. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal? Its actually the first part of the sentence that upsets me most, not this trivial poorly phrased tack on at the tend! Its access. There is access to this treaty, its just that the people who most successfully represent and defend me don't seem to have access, while the people who seem to be doing everything they can to lower my standard of living do. Also, one can discuss the contents and intentions of a treaty without giving up specific information within it. In addition, there is often illegal/illicit sharing of treaty information, a practice I approve of, even though its "against the rules." edit: The point is, the whole "secrecy" thing wouldn't matter if there were people in the negotiations the public believed would look after our interests. Instead, its a complete lack of these people that has everyone worried. "But what about the government!? They look after our interests," a moron was heard asking. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why are industry lobbyists getting access to, and getting their input sought over, a trade deal were secrecy is, for some reason, vitally important? Everything that's leaked over it (see - the wikileaks stuff) casts some serious doubts that it is in the public interest. Bingo, no one cares if its secret as long as there are people there looking out for you and protecting you. Its almost like people are using the word "secrecy" as a stand in for the complicated idea "preferred access."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:As per the constitution the president I voted for is overseeing the negotiation of the treaty which will then become public and be ratified (or not) by the representatives I also voted for. RaySmuckles posted:edit: The point is, the whole "secrecy" thing wouldn't matter if there were people in the negotiations the public believed would look after our interests. Instead, its a complete lack of these people that has everyone worried. "But what about the government!? They look after our interests," a moron was heard asking.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The purpose of fast-track from all reports I've seen is for the benefit of other governments, since the US has a precedent of establishing treaties and then not ratifying them. Cool, that still makes it seem like an attempt to reign in delegated congressional authority.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It is in a way except congress is the one doing it by choosing to pass the fast track itself. Yes, at the behest of the executive in a two party state. In other words, by the leader of half of Congress. And regardless of who carries out the action, its still an attempt to reign in delegated congressional authority which is the main point of Ponsonby Britt, and that point still stands, completely unchallenged.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Of course you're assuming the other countries would pass whatever the US would pass. Hey, maybe the US government was designed to keep us out of these kinds of agreements! Like, a colony from an Empire littered with complex international agreements might have seen the damage these agreements can do and made it systematically challenging to get involved in them in the first place? More importantly, Socrates, what are your opinions on the TPP? So far in this thread you've -questioned other people's posts -tried to stir poo poo up How about a contribution? What are your opinions on the TPP, Computar Part?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh, so you're an isolationist. There's that straw man again. Contributions, Computar Part, contributions. What are your opinions? edit: and here we see the state of D&D. Earnest posters come in looking for an interesting discussion to be chased out by pedantic poo poo-stirrers who can't even be assed to voice their own opinions. And by that I mean people who realized long ago its much easier to tear someone else's argument down than erect a solid one themselves. Cowards, basically. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:59
|
|