This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] wearethemusicmakers [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
All legislation is developed behind closed doors. And why shouldn't companies be able to sue governments. I really don't get all the hysteria.
[–] thcinc 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
well my reply conformed to your request to be within 2-4 sentences, so of course a short answer leaves a lot unanswered questions. Ill pick one point to elaborate on to hopefully get you interested in researching any questions you might have. In regards to corporations/companies being able to sue governments, the terms of the policy allow not any company but only "multinationals" (companies in many countries, so only the big players) to sue governments for any losses in "expected future profits".
[–] wearethemusicmakers [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
But can't ordinary companies already sue governments? Maybe the issue here is that multinationals don't currently have standing? Either way being able to sue or bring a case forward seems far from unreasonable. It doesn't mean you're going to win. But either way this issue just doesn't rise to the level of vehement opposition these trade deals seem to elicit.
[–] tchouk 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Your question and the answers in this thread seem to be very disingenuous. You most likely are a TPP supporter trying to manipulate people to your point of view instead of outright saying why you support it.
To address your first point: legislation is very much open to public debate before anyone votes on anything and bills become law. Granted, the actual drafts are created in private, but these drafts are made publicly available when the time comes to discuss them in Congress.
This is clearly not the case with this trade agreement.
Just as clearly, the consequences of this agreement will be no less important than some of the laws passed by government.
This by itself is reason enough to be vehemently against this treaty.
However, it goes deeper than that because the treaty obviously favors large corporations. By itself, outside of context, this is not a bad thing. But you are an idiot if you don't consider context, and the context is that the current economic situation in the US is already very heavily imbalanced and the imbalance 100% favors large corporations and their owners to the detriment of the working "middle class" person.
More of the same is 100% not going to improve this imbalance. Trying more of the same to to improve this imbalance -- and I believe it does have to be improved -- is the very definition of insanity.
So either the people backing this treaty are insane or they are interested in further screwing the economic balance from the middle class in favor of corporate interests. Logically, it follows that most of the "common" people will be against this.
Since you yourself seem to be a proponent of the treaty, you are probably one of four things: 1. Not a middle class common person -- this means you wouldn't really understand our opposition in the first place 2. You are insane -- which means you should probably get help instead of posting here 3. You are a masochist and want the economic imbalance to screw you over -- See above 4. You are being payed to shill -- in which case I'm sorry you have to earn your living doing this
[–] wearethemusicmakers [S] ago
Paranoia may destroyaaaa