Let's say no to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Mr. President

467030560

 

Memo to the President:

I don’t accept your argument

On the trade deal TPP.

I haven’t read it, but who has?

I hear it ain’t good for  the Middle Class

Or for our sovereignty.

It gives multinational corporations

The rights and privileges of real nations.

A dangerous precedent if you ask me.

So why  are you , Mr. President,

For  passing it,  with such intent,

And depriving us of  democracy?

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Do you have some source to what you refer?

  • In reply to jack:

    "One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty." Elizabeth Warren

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I don't think Warren's rhetoric is a source.

    Arbitration is not a new idea in commercial law (especially international commercial law), and all this would be is commercial law.

    "It gives multinational corporations /The rights and privileges of real nations." implies something like they would have sovereign immunity and the right to wage war.

    Also, it it is a treaty and requires ratification by the Senate, it isn't "depriving us of democracy."

    Are you in favor of such things as bringing complaints to the World Trade Organization and expecting China to abide by its decisions? That seems an infringement of sovereignty that already happens.

  • In reply to jack:

    I take it you are in favor of the ISDS? And why couldn't someone's rhetoric be a source of an opinion? Especially if the rhetoric is based on fact.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    First, there is such a thing as the primary source rule. Whatever is in the agreement speaks for itself. In this case, Warren isn't the primary source, the text of the proposed treaty is. Hence there is no showing that the rhetoric is based on fact.

    Someone's rhetoric is her opinion. Her rhetoric may be the foundation for my opinion about the rhetoric, but not my opinion of the treaty.

    As for my opinion of the ISDS, it would first be based on a primary source describing it, and also, as I implied earlier, if it is any different from "WTO’s procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding."

    Finally, I would assume that if you quoted the rhetoric of some far right senator, it would not be to assert it as an underlying fact, but for the purpose of criticizing it.

  • In reply to jack:

    OK, then I agree with her rhetoric. BTW. the whole point of not putting the TPP on the fast track is so the agreement (the primary source) can be exposed to the sunlight and vetted and debated. This is how a democracy should work.

  • The President doth protest too much, methinks.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    I'm not sure what your point is here. I would think you would be in favor of a bipartisan measure opposed only by the "progressive wing" of his own party.

    Or is it that Warren protests too much, in that fast track approval has been used numerous times before, and she is essentially complaining that she will be outvoted in the Senate?

  • In reply to jack:

    My point is Shakespeare's point, I find the President too defensive on Warren's charge. His demeanor comes off guilty.

    What is the harm in making the whole thing transparent? Considering what has happened to this country's employment profile, I appreciate a healthy bit of scrutiny. Regardless of what side of the ACA fence you are on, it was not rolled out truthfully. In light of that and other numerous questionable occurrences, I find the President's act of incredulity over criticism a laugh riot.

    I would like the public to see many different opinions and interpretations on this before it's signed. I do like that it is bipartisan, but I don't like what has happened to American jobs or how corporations have exploited the tax code.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    Amen.

  • In reply to 4zen:

    That point I can see.

    It seems like any point on whether it would be good for the economy or the U.S, workforce is obfuscated by her points about internal Senate procedures and legalisms, and AW only picked up on the latter.

  • Getting back to the headline, this indicates that Mr. President and his Secretary of Commerce are the ones pushing this, so your focus of attack is going to have to be somewhere else.

Leave a comment