|
asdf32 posted:None of you understand negotiation or representative democracy. 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?
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Yeah I'm sure there's nothing at all to worry about an up or down vote with the GOP controlling both houses. Surely they'll stop it if it ends up being a massive giveaway to multinational corporations with nothing at all to benefit anyone else whatsoever  .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(And just one more thought: the pharma companies don't charge 11k a month in other countries, nor would they be able to after TPP. They price based on ability to pay.) For treating HIV for example they're not paying $11k because by and large they're using cheap generics. If those cheap generics were taken away which the TPP might do then HIV care would be majorly affected, which is why HIV treatment organizations have come out against the deal as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Good for you, it's still bullshit, because nothing in his argument leads to "quadrupled prices". If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
asdf32 posted: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. I didn't elect Michael Froman and if his name was on a ballot there's no way I'd choose him to represent me in any capacity. It's of course not practical to elect every single government official and often the people you elect choose to appoint bad people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Pssssst. ISDS provisions exist already and haven't turned the world into shadowrun. Also the reason it exists is because you SHOULD be able to sue governments and that's not necessarily true everywhere. The uproar over them is dumb (yes, that includes Warren's screed) because all it amounts to is a worldwide implementation of the concept of regulatory takings, which is generally a good thing. What is your opinion on these two cases? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...nt-9807478.html http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/06/house-votes-to-repeal-country-of-origin-labeling-for-meat/ Of course in the US case the lawmakers were eager and willing to bow to their corporate masters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 06:06
|
|