• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.

benjipwns

Banned
I made a crude version of the 2004 primaries up to the end of 2003 using:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm

9ABtPum.png


Al Gore's at 30-45%, and Hillary at 25-35% in every poll they're in.

dat lieberman lead on name recognition alone
 
Dems better not screw up LA GOV

Unless it means that DWS is finally kicked out.

What can a Dem Gov in LA really do with a full GOP run state apart from vetoes? atleast Kentucky had the state house right?

and yeah, DWS needs a boot. i remember in 2012 they were afraid of replacing her because it looks bad optics wise (Jewish woman from a Purple state)
 
What can a Dem Gov in LA really do with a full GOP run state apart from vetoes? atleast Kentucky had the state house right?

and yeah, DWS needs a boot. i remember in 2012 they were afraid of replacing her because it looks bad optics wise (Jewish woman from a Purple state)

tumblr_m7i41heDNm1r5r8duo2_500.gif


and defeating Vitter

It also shows that Obama is not the boogeyman so many fucks think he is. Sure, having Vitter as a candidate helps but Edwards was a proper Obama supporter.
 
Remember, the point of the "third man" isn't to beat Trump, it's to limit him. So you ram him with someone like Christie to stop him from topping 30%.

Trump 25% - Rubio - 20% - Cruz 15% - Christie - 10% - Paul - 5% - Jeb? - 5% works out in your favor if you can get the Cruz/Paul camp against Trump. You don't need all of it. Just half.


I don't believe the GOP has this. And third party runs after being in the primary gets you kicked off ballots.

in what world where carson isn't running does trump go down in support, rubio double, and christie quintuple in support?
 
Your friend does not concern himself with the morality of the issue of taking a conscious life to satiate himself with. Only the economic viability of it. How...capitalist of him
 

benjipwns

Banned
I saw this story and I thought we should reflect on it since there's often a lot of talk about how crazy Republicans are getting and how scary this field this.

This person was once a competitive candidate for the nomination four years ago and a prominent member in the Republican House caucus:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-convert-many-jews-possible-because-christ-coming-soon
“Almost every article in the paper” has to do with conflicts in Israel, Bachmann said, “and it ties with so much biblical prophecy. This week really was about biblical prophecy in many ways. And we’re seeing as events are speeding up, events are speeding up so quickly right now, and we see how relevant the Bible is, and we’re reading our newspaper, at the same time we’re learning about these biblical events, and it’s literally day by day by day, we’re seeing the fulfillment of scripture right in front of our eyes, even while we’re on the ground.”

“We recognize the shortness of the hour,” she said, “and that’s why we as a remnant want to be faithful in these days and do what it is that the Holy Spirit is speaking to each one of us, to be faithful in the Kingdom and to help bring in as many as we can — even among the Jews — share Jesus Christ with everyone that we possibly can because, again, He’s coming soon.”
And then Santorum was polling over a third of the voters, not under 1%.

There was also a tinge of resigned fate to the same-sex ruling among a decent chunk of the party. Even a lot of the candidates are paying lip service to it and don't seem too interested in making it a big issue.

Things could be worse.

Except for Hillary. If anything these Ben Carson scandals are just going to elevate awareness of how doomed her campaign is due to her own.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Why not make up a hypothetical one where Pataki comes back to take 99% of the vote? it's just as useful in terms of illustrating a point.
Because that one wouldn't have anything to do with the point that Trump and his outsider wing aren't inevitable because of a leading share of the polls? The "establishment" doesn't need to beat Trump with one candidate, just limit his top range to gain the advantage via multiple candidates.
 
What if you realize something is immoral but you aren't of strong enough character to do what is right and make a change. And even if you do, society will march along without you and you'll be complicit in it's sins

..
 
Because that one wouldn't have anything to do with the point that Trump and his outsider wing aren't inevitable because of a leading share of the polls? The "establishment" doesn't need to beat Trump with one candidate, just limit his top range to gain the advantage via multiple candidates.

Your premise is flawed because you've intentionally crafted nonsense numbers to fit your narrative, rather than looking at polls and voter preferences as they actually exist.

Carson drops and Trump's support goes UP making him harder to defeat which is the exact opposite of the narrative you're trying to present here.

But recent polling suggests that Donald Trump, the other political outsider in the race, actually stands to gain the most. A national poll released by Fox News this week asked Republican voters who they'd support with and without Carson in the race. Without Carson, Trump gains 8 percentage points, Marco Rubio gains 5, and Cruz gains 3:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/6/9682082/ben-carson-dropout-trump

it also ignores that "winning" early states tends to have a snowball effect. win iowa and new hampshire and your share of the vote in subsequent states goes up, as one's candidacy becomes legitimized. Obama in iowa in 2008 is a perfect example of this. Likewise losing early primaries back to back without a win will strangle also-ran campaigns as funding and volunteers dry up. No one who isn't self funding can afford to lose Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada back to back and stay in the race- and the only person in a position to self fund is Trump.

Finally it ignores that florida (where trump is currently leading) is winner take all on March 16. Unless Trump miraculously implodes that's 99 delegates and a shitload of "inevitable" press.

revise your hypothesis, it's poor.
 

benjipwns

Banned
A single poll suggesting minor changes that still have three months to work out before the first votes.

Winning Iowa won't matter as much when it's an immediate month long scramble with more races, larger states, and more delegates than ever before. There's zero reason to drop out after losing Iowa, NH and SC because you're gathering delegates no matter what through March 1st. You don't need the money and resources to hang on through Super Tuesday if there aren't massive gaps in the primaries. Most of these campaigns already don't have any money.

Regarding Trump's lead in Florida, again, we are five months out. Five months ago this thread was about nothing but Jeb!'s inevitability and how Trump would never actually enter the race. If you think my hypothesis that the current situation will not necessarily be the one three months from now is poor, you're free to be upset about it but I will stick to it until I see otherwise.
 
A single poll suggesting minor changes that still have three months to work out before the first votes.

it's not a "single poll" saying this, numerous polls have said the same thing about carson and trump's support for months now. That's just the most recent and relevant.

Winning Iowa won't matter as much when it's an immediate month long scramble with more races, larger states, and more delegates than ever before. There's zero reason to drop out after losing Iowa, NH and SC because you're gathering delegates no matter what on March 1st. You don't need the money and resources to hang on through Super Tuesday if there aren't massive gaps in the primaries.

ah, so you're a joke poster. Winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire has ALWAYS been critical to running a successful campaign. Can you name an eventual nominee that didn't manage to win either one in the last 20 years? Hell, go back farther. I can't think of a time when it's ever actually happened. NOT winning them has most certainly killed candidacies stone dead though. (Huntsman, for instance).

Regarding Trump's lead in Florida, again, we are five months out. Five months ago this thread was about nothing but Jeb!'s inevitability and how Trump would never actually enter the race. If you think my hypothesis that the current situation will not necessarily be the one three months from now is poor, you're free to be upset about it.

We are five months out, but trump's lead has been solidly in first nearly since his announcement. We've completed three debates and tons of attack ads and nothing has managed to put a dent in his support. His only legitimate rival (carson) is on the verge of collapse, which will only give him greater support.

if your argument is "well, anything can happen" then feel free to name what that something is. otherwise you're not looking any more rational than Erasuracer and the bernie sanders nonsense.
 

benjipwns

Banned
ah, so you're a joke poster. Winning Iowa and/or New Hampshire has ALWAYS been critical to running a successful campaign. Can you name an eventual nominee that didn't manage to win either one in the last 20 years? Hell, go back farther. I can't think of a time when it's ever actually happened.
Bill Clinton. George McGovern.

We are five months out, but trump's lead has been solidly in first nearly since his announcement.
But it's been all over from 20-30%, this will matter.

if your argument is "well, anything can happen" then feel free to name what that something is.
I thought you were complaining about hypotheticals that illustrate a potential situation?
 
Ben Carson claimed he was named "most honest student" in a Yale class that Yale says never existed.

CTNZepTWEAAkO-7.jpg


http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864

Yeah, that one was covered yesterday. either here or in the "Ben Carson is lying about everything" thread.

Evangelicals are fond of nonsense parables like that to illustrate points, and it looks like Carson's personal biography is full of them. There's also a story about saving white students from protestors or something in a biology lab that also appears to be fictional.

Ben Carson’s classmates and a teacher from Southwestern High in Detroit told the Wall Street Journal they can’t confirm or verify yet another story from Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

Carson told the conservative paper – whose editorial department was the first to encourage him to run for President – that in 1968, on the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, he protected white students from attacks from angry black students.

It is a dramatic account of courage and kindness, and it couldn’t be confirmed in interviews with a half-dozen of Mr. Carson’s classmates and his high school physics teacher. The students all remembered the riot. None recalled hearing about white students hiding in the biology lab, and Mr. Carson couldn’t remember any names of those he sheltered.

“It may have happened, but I didn’t see it myself or hear about it,” said Gregory Vartanian, a white classmate of Mr. Carson’s who served in the ROTC with Mr. Carson and is now a retired U.S. Marshal.
 
Ben Carson claimed he was named "most honest student" in a Yale class that Yale says never existed.

CTNZepTWEAAkO-7.jpg


http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864
Just posted that benji is correct in the politico thread, and this is also kinda the same story: It's embellishment. He can easily defend himself to his supporters with "this was 50 years ago! Do you remember what class you took 50 years ago? Liberal media devils out to get me, I swear".

But, Carson's embellishments are sort of obnoxious and he never corrects them and this will be his downfall, combined with the drip drip drip nature of so many lies embellishments stacking up in the public sphere.
 
Just posted that benji is correct in the politico thread, and this is also kinda the same story: It's embellishment. He can easily defend himself to his supporters with "this was 50 years ago! Do you remember what class you took 50 years ago? Liberal media devils out to get me, I swear".

But, Carson's embellishments are sort of obnoxious and he never corrects them and this will be his downfall, combined with the drip drip drip nature of so many lies embellishments stacking up in the public sphere.

i called this a "herman cain" moment for carson...one or two small things expose cracks in the facade, leading to a flood of nonsense that ends up burying him.

His reaction was almost as bad as the "lies" were- there's no way to sugarcoat it, carson looked AWFUL responding to the allegations yesterday. The media is definitely smelling blood in the water and they're going to go digging hard into every aspect of his past they can find. I'm not confident Carson will handle that kind of approach with any kind of composure or tact.
 
Just posted that benji is correct in the politico thread, and this is also kinda the same story: It's embellishment. He can easily defend himself to his supporters with "this was 50 years ago! Do you remember what class you took 50 years ago? Liberal media devils out to get me, I swear".

But, Carson's embellishments are sort of obnoxious and he never corrects them and this will be his downfall, combined with the drip drip drip nature of so many lies embellishments stacking up in the public sphere.
This isn't coming from the liberal media! This is coming from GOP establishment media organs like WSJ and Politico. This really doesn't benefit them though, as the polls show any reduced support for Carson will go mostly to Trump. The GOPe should be coalescing behind Carson to block Trump in Iowa. Bury him afterwards.
 
This isn't coming from the liberal media! This is coming from GOP establishment media organs like WSJ and Politico. This really doesn't benefit them though, as the polls show any reduced support for Carson will go mostly to Trump. The GOPe should be coalescing behind Carson to block Trump in Iowa. Bury him afterwards.

librul media is what carson says it is.

other than that I agree with your theory- which would also explain hannity etc rallying to defend carson from the allegations yesterday and backing the "liberal media!" narrative.

If Carson tanks Trump becomes nearly impossible to upset.
 

Owzers

Member
I don't like Sanders' line about needing to stop yelling at each other about gun control, i don't think yelling is the problem so much as people not believing more gun control measures will keep shootings from happening and only think those measures exist to crack down on legal gun ownership and future gun-grabs. It doesn't help that when he uses it, like last night at the democratic forum, he seemed to be the one raising his voice
 

noshten

Member
I don't like Sanders' line about needing to stop yelling at each other about gun control, i don't think yelling is the problem so much as people not believing more gun control measures will keep shootings from happening and only think those measures exist to crack down on legal gun ownership and future gun-grabs. It doesn't help that when he uses it, like last night at the democratic forum, he seemed to be the one raising his voice

When a Jewish man raises his voice some people think it's shouting. lol

He is talking about "shouting" to describe people not listening to each other, rather than "shouting" in the literal sense.
 
What if you realize something is immoral but you aren't of strong enough character to do what is right and make a change. And even if you do, society will march along without you and you'll be complicit in it's sins

..

Man, I feel guilty about eating meat all the time. But yeah.
 

dramatis

Member
I feel like the discussion on TPP is governed by fear and bias confirmation rather than rationality. It's startling to see people fall into the exact patterns that hardcore right wing voters do.

It's also distinctly unpleasant, because you would like to think 'your side' is usually more reasonable about this.
 

HylianTom

Banned
What can a Dem Gov in LA really do with a full GOP run state apart from vetoes? atleast Kentucky had the state house right?

and yeah, DWS needs a boot. i remember in 2012 they were afraid of replacing her because it looks bad optics wise (Jewish woman from a Purple state)

The Governor actually appoints a few committee chairs in the Louisiana legislature, so he has a bit of leverage there, too. New Orleans and the other urban areas who consistently send Democrats to Baton Rouge would suddenly have a voice in the process (as opposed to their usual roles of whispering and being ignored while the state treats us like a piggy bank)
(no, I'm not bitter or anything..)
.

Without the Governor's mansion:
tumblr_inline_nh48ogvq6b1seskow.gif


With the Governor's mansion:
scaled_full_e393ccd9815bdcda238e.gif
 
The Governor actually appoints a few committee chairs in the Louisiana legislature, so he has a bit of leverage there, too. New Orleans and the other urban areas who consistently send Democrats to Baton Rouge would suddenly have a voice in the process (as opposed to their usual roles of whispering and being ignored while the state treats us like a piggy bank)
(no, I'm not bitter or anything..)
.

Without the Governor's mansion:
tumblr_inline_nh48ogvq6b1seskow.gif


With the Governor's mansion:
scaled_full_e393ccd9815bdcda238e.gif
There was also a bill passed by the current legislature that would allow the next governor to take the Medicaid expansion.

Probably set up that way because they knew Jindal would opt out.
 

Cheebo

Banned
The only people I know who read Politico are fellow liberals.

And their writers typically frequent MSNBC, not the other cable news outlets. Politico isn't a GOP site at all lol. They are a news site that tries to be non-partisan. So of course conservatives declare it to have a liberal bias.
 
So basically Ben Carson has spent his entire adult life characterizing himself as someone who was a stereotypical young black thug who was saved by God and/or conservatism or something?
 
I swear to God the same Bernie Sanders supporter keeps calling up Diane Rehm and Tom Ashbrook to talk about Bernie over and over again.

That or they all sound exactly the same. The same exasperated grunts when talking about how the media ignores Bernie, the same comments about Hillary's low favorability ratings, the same clarifications about how Bernie didn't actually absolve Hillary for her email scandal when he made that "sick and tired" comment during the debate.

Is r/SandersForPresident handing out talking points for radio show callers or something?
 

User 406

Banned
So basically Ben Carson has spent his entire adult life characterizing himself as someone who was a stereotypical young black thug who was saved by God and/or conservatism or something?

That's about the size of it.


But you know, the whole respectability politics Cliff Huxtable 2.0 pull up your pants and get a job black people thing just can't be part of the reason why he's so popular with a racist party. It's just completely inexplicable. There's no possible reason for why he's doing so well. Nope, none.
 

sangreal

Member
So basically Ben Carson has spent his entire adult life characterizing himself as someone who was a stereotypical young black thug who was saved by God and/or conservatism or something?

yes, in order to be one of the good ones, he has to first admit that he was born a thug before he pulled up his straps and overcame his instincts with the help of jesus
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
(i always read politico thinking they were a bit too close to the reactionary supposed balance that CNN thinks it occupies and thus think of the site in a conservative light, so..)
 

noshten

Member
I feel like the discussion on TPP is governed by fear and bias confirmation rather than rationality. It's startling to see people fall into the exact patterns that hardcore right wing voters do.

It's also distinctly unpleasant, because you would like to think 'your side' is usually more reasonable about this.


Have you made arguments for TPP rather than just point out that the discussion is governed by fear and bias.

How would it effect Health Care positively?
How would guest workers who can't unionize be protected and won't be undercutting American workforce?
How does the TPP put American workers first?
Why does the TPP also include long reaching provisions that aim to police the internet and technological innovation?
Why are we providing an even broader platform for corporations to cripple national economies?
 
Random OT, but it's kind of head-spinning how the far-right, like the National Review, accused liberals of not being manly enough back in the Bush-Gore election and now those same media outlets complain about "liberal bullies"

And yes, there are definitely a lot of bullies on the left (though less than right I think), but holy shit, what a quick change of message.
 

dramatis

Member
Have you made arguments for TPP rather than just point out that the discussion is governed by fear and bias.

How would it effect Health Care positively?
How would guest workers who can't unionize be protected and won't be undercutting American workforce?
How does the TPP put American workers first?
Why does the TPP also include long reaching provisions that aim to police the internet and technological innovation?
Why are we providing an even broader platform for corporations to cripple national economies?
Have you read the TPP? All 6000 pages of it? Which chapter is about intellectual property? Which chapter is about government procurement? Which chapter covers the dairy industry? Which chapter talks about currency manipulation? What does each chapter mean? What provisions cover all the contents of the TPP? Which chapter details ISDS?

I'm waiting for more thorough analysis and not kneejerk reactions from the various parties and interest groups that have already decided what their stance on the TPP was before the full text is even out.

Pointing out that the discussion is plagued with fear and bias is a reasonable standpoint; if you would like to argue how it is not, given that a pile of people just considered NPR a corporate mouthpiece equivalent to Fox News because of one podcast, go ahead. If you take criticism of the discussion itself as "arguments for the TPP", that's your prerogative as well. Taking the popular opinion and asserting your righteousness is also your right; I have an equal right to tell you how rather much like the far right you are acting is.

Just don't pretend you're any more knowledgeable on the subject of the actual trade agreement itself. I freely admit my ignorance, but I will educate myself later on when people have actually pored through the content and have thorough analyses. That is what I am waiting for instead of making rash criticisms of any outlet that doesn't express the exact same opinion I pre-formed on the subject. That's not what rationality is.
 

noshten

Member
Have you read the TPP? All 6000 pages of it? Which chapter is about intellectual property? Which chapter is about government procurement? Which chapter covers the dairy industry? Which chapter talks about currency manipulation? What does each chapter mean? What provisions cover all the contents of the TPP? Which chapter details ISDS?

I'm waiting for more thorough analysis and not kneejerk reactions from the various parties and interest groups that have already decided what their stance on the TPP was before the full text is even out.

Pointing out that the discussion is plagued with fear and bias is a reasonable standpoint; if you would like to argue how it is not, given that a pile of people just considered NPR a corporate mouthpiece equivalent to Fox News because of one podcast, go ahead. If you take criticism of the discussion itself as "arguments for the TPP", that's your prerogative as well. Taking the popular opinion and asserting your righteousness is also your right; I have an equal right to tell you how rather much like the far right you are acting is.

Just don't pretend you're any more knowledgeable on the subject of the actual trade agreement itself. I freely admit my ignorance, but I will educate myself later on when people have actually pored through the content and have thorough analyses. That is what I am waiting for instead of making rash criticisms of any outlet that doesn't express the exact same opinion I pre-formed on the subject. That's not what rationality is.

I'm not pretending to be more knowledgeable, hence I'm asking you questions about the 6000 page agreement that seemed to have riled up opponents of the deal. So you can present why the opponents are fear mongering some of these specific points. Until proof is presented that this is the Gold Standard of trade deals I'd rather be a lot more skeptical about this 6000 page document being fast tracked. To me it appears that the bloated nature of the document and the amount of provisions that would effect both the US and adversely effect third world nations where corruption is rife.

Let me give you an example
- Vietnam tries to pass a law to protect workers and suits are filed from some of the biggest companies in the World who's profits dwarf Vietnamese GDP many times over.

To me TPP seems like a way for corporation gain complete control over smaller nations unable to maintain basic progress for their citizens because it might cut into profit. Sure corporations should be protected from aggressive nationalization of their investments, but that's not the type of suits which are being filed. For example a corrupted political establishment agrees with a deal to line their pockets that has adverse effect on the nations health. New government comes in and tries to reverse policies that were made to create a better "big business climate" and can't even control policies they enact or try to reverse disastrous leases they have made that allowed some corrupted government official to make millions.
If I'm misconstruing the possibilities of TPP, please let me know what provisions protect nations in such instances. It's a pretty specific question and it won't effect the US as much as it would effect smaller nations who can't afford the best representation against a corporate entity which some times employees thousands of lawyers across the World.

Below is an article about the type of suits corporations file against sovereign nations I recommend you read it and tell me what type of this process is advancing humanity rather than corporate profits and policies.

The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries
http://www.theguardian.com/business...stem-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid
 

dramatis

Member
Foreign Policy has a very lengthy piece up following Hillary as secretary of state, accompanied by analysis of her actions as well as supplementary information of the various opinions on the table.

The Hillary Clinton Doctrine.
Hillary Clinton will not put a new face on America, as Obama did; there is hardly a face more familiar than hers. But America is no longer in recovery from George W. Bush, and it is no longer in urgent need of a new face. What it needs is a fresh source of inspiration, a sense that the world matters and that American leadership matters, a recognition that power is not a bad thing so long as it is accompanied by humility and restraint. The pendulum of American action in the world swung very sharply from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Perhaps it now needs to swing in a more modest arc from Obama to Hillary Clinton.
Warning, it is a very long article (probably the amount of words I should be writing for Nano), but quite detailed and not particularly slanted.

Only downside is that there's not much free access to FP. After reading that one article apparently I am unable to read other articles.

I'm not pretending to be more knowledgeable, hence I'm asking you questions about the 6000 page agreement that seemed to have riled up opponents of the deal. So you can present why the opponents are fear mongering some of these specific points. Until proof is presented that this is the Gold Standard of trade deals I'd rather be a lot more skeptical about this 6000 page document being fast tracked. To me it appears that the bloated nature of the document and the amount of provisions that would effect both the US and adversely effect third world nations where corruption is rife.

Let me give you an example
- Vietnam tries to pass a law to protect workers and suits are filed from some of the biggest companies in the World who's profits dwarf Vietnamese GDP many times over.

To me TPP seems like a way for corporation gain complete control over smaller nations unable to maintain basic progress for their citizens because it might cut into profit. Sure corporations should be protected from aggressive nationalization of their investments, but that's not the type of suits which are being filed. For example a corrupted political establishment agrees with a deal to line their pockets that has adverse effect on the nations health. New government comes in and tries to reverse policies that were made to create a better "big business climate" and can't even control policies they enact or try to reverse disastrous leases they have made that allowed some corrupted government official to make millions.
If I'm misconstruing the possibilities of TPP, please let me know what provisions protect nations in such instances. It's a pretty specific question and it won't effect the US as much as it would effect smaller nations who can't afford the best representation against a corporate entity which some times employees thousands of lawyers across the World.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...stem-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid
Ironically, the TPP specifically addresses Vietnam's workers' rights.
The Obama administration is hoping that the accord’s labor protections, along with separate bilateral agreements on labor and human rights between the United States and Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei, will help persuade some Democrats to back the deal. The administration is especially eager to promote its agreement with Vietnam, which commits its communist government to change its laws to allow workers to freely unionize and to strike, not just for better wages and hours but also for improved working conditions and other rights.

“Without reservation, I think this is the best opportunity we’ve had in years to encourage deep institutional reform in Vietnam that will advance human rights, and it will only happen if T.P.P. is approved,” Tom Malinowski, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, said in an interview.
There is disagreement about how effectual those labor rights provisions in the agreement will be. That can be disputed.

However, you also lack understanding of ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) and how effective they actually are for corporations. The answer is that they are actually not all that successful for corporations.
ISDS is an arbitration procedure – similar to procedures used every day by businesses, governments, and private citizens across the globe – that allows for an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts and has been important to encouraging development, rule of law, and good governance around the world. ISDS does not undermine U.S. sovereignty, change U.S. law, nor grant any new substantive rights to multinational companies.
[...]
It is an often repeated, but inaccurate, claim that ISDS gives companies the right to weaken labor or environmental standards, for example, suggesting that a trade agreement could result in the United States having to lower its minimum wage.

The reality is that ISDS does not and cannot require countries to change any law or regulation. Looking more broadly, TPP will result in higher levels of labor and environmental protections in most TPP countries than they have today. If TPP is passed by Congress, it will also create strong, enforceable new labor protections that would allow the United States to take action – on its own, or on the basis of a petition from labor unions or other interested parties – against TPP governments that don't honor their labor commitments. The same is true for enforcing environmental commitments.
[...]
There have only been 13 cases brought to judgment against the United States in the three decades since we’ve been party to these agreements. By contrast, during the same period of time in our domestic system, individual and companies have brought hundreds of thousands of challenges against Federal, state, and local governments in U.S. courts under U.S. law.

We have never lost an ISDS case because of the strong safeguards in the U.S. approach.

And because we have continued to raise standards through each agreement, in recent years we have seen a drop in ISDS claims, despite increased levels of investment.
Notably, the tobacco companies were so odious to Australia that tobacco companies are explicitly excluded from being able to make an ISDS case altogether under the TPP.


I think unquestionably there are going to be aspects of the trade agreement that are bad for consumers, such as the pharmaceutical-related portions. Screaming 'corporate control', however, is just an easy, populist way to garner opposition against something that the layman (both you and me) lack significant understanding of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom