• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement?

For or against the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement/.


  • Total voters
    55
Way to misstate what was said. :doh
I said you bought into it.

But way not to accurately interpret what another has said. :thumbs:

That doesn't speak well to your interpretation of the topic. :shrug:

:shrug: accusing someone of holding their position only because they have "bought into it" pretty implicitly argues that they have been suckered.

But let me know when you have something other than a Just So argument. I find it interesting that you would accuse others of having been "bought in" to their position, yet seem unable to defend yours with any data capable of withstanding scrutiny.
 
Today they last 20 years, which seems fine.

...For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, utility and plant patents are granted for a term which begins with the date of the grant and usually ends 20 years from the date you first applied for the patent subject to the payment of appropriate maintenance fees for a utility patent. There are no maintenance fees for plant patents . Design patents last 14 years from the date you are granted the patent. No maintenance fees are required for design patents.

Note: Patents in force on June 8, 1995 and patents issued thereafter on applications filed prior to June 8, 1995 automatically have a term that is the greater of the twenty year term discussed above or seventeen years from the patent grant....

So... not forever.

And, again, patent protection is good for the US because we are the ones with the patents who are being violated.

I was talking about copyright lasting too long which is the life of the author plus 70 years, it should be 30 years or death of the creator, whichever comes first. Patents have other issues.
 
Currenlty copyrgiht last way too long for that to happen and patents have issues with them being issued for things that are too vague and the further issue of patent trolls which both stifle innovation and only lead to frivolous lawsuits.

no system is perfect. when I was a young attorney at a big firm, we represented a pharmaceutical concern that was a producer of generics. They would have the line up and running before the expiration so they could jump into the market ASAP. advantages to the consumer-lower cost

disadvantages if there is no protection, companies like that didn't have the resources or the wherewithal to bring a new drug to market and meet all the strict governmental testing requirements
 
I was talking about copyright lasting too long which is the life of the author plus 70 years, it should be 30 years or death of the creator, whichever comes first. Patents have other issues.

Oh. Well then I don't give a crap. Pay for your music.
 
:shrug: accusing someone of holding their position only because they have "bought into it" pretty implicitly argues that they have been suckered.

But let me know when you have something other than a Just So argument. I find it interesting that you would accuse others of having been "bought in" to their position, yet seem unable to defend yours with any data capable of withstanding scrutiny.
:doh
And again. No.
Your interpretation skills are currently way off.
 
no system is perfect. when I was a young attorney at a big firm, we represented a pharmaceutical concern that was a producer of generics. They would have the line up and running before the expiration so they could jump into the market ASAP. advantages to the consumer-lower cost

disadvantages if there is no protection, companies like that didn't have the resources or the wherewithal to bring a new drug to market and meet all the strict governmental testing requirements

I see the Democratic position as one similar to what Cruz did with the House in the gov't shutdown.
The Senate is more 'sensible' and 'conservative' in the case of the TPP, so it passes there.

Sen. Warren will gin up the liberals in the House while the Black Congressional members don't appreciate Obama playing the 'CBC' card.
The key on the left is whether Pelosi will whip votes FOR Obama--my guess is NO, as with allowing DEMs to vote YES on the Cromnibus.

Then there's Boehner's problem with the Freedom Caucus led by Ohio GOP Rep. Jordan and his 60 or so members--they're against TPP.
As I've said before, the TEA/LIB coalition is growing in numbers and in strength .
 
I see the Democratic position as one similar to what Cruz did with the House in the gov't shutdown.
The Senate is more 'sensible' and 'conservative' in the case of the TPP, so it passes there.

Sen. Warren will gin up the liberals in the House while the Black Congressional members don't appreciate Obama playing the 'CBC' card.
The key on the left is whether Pelosi will whip votes FOR Obama--my guess is NO, as with allowing DEMs to vote YES on the Cromnibus.

Then there's Boehner's problem with the Freedom Caucus led by Ohio GOP Rep. Jordan and his 60 or so members--they're against TPP.
As I've said before, the TEA/LIB coalition is growing in numbers and in strength .

TPP will pass both houses and BHO will sign it into law.
 
Obviously whether one approves of a trade treaty or not has to depend on the final content. But on the whole I favour the promotion of greater free trade.
 
:doh
And again. No.
Your interpretation skills are currently way off.

:) let me know when you have something other than a Just So argument.
 
No it isn't.
But you can't see that becasue you have already bought into it.
Hook, line, and sinker.



As opposed to buying into The Daily Sheeple. With a subtitle of "Wake The Flock Up!"

Here is your totally non-conspiracist source:

...Abbott drew heavy fire (pun intended) when he initially called for the Texas National Guardsmen to monitor these drills and make sure none of the citizens of Texas had their rights trampled. Now, though, Newsmax reports that Abbott, “has talked to members of the military who assure him no such worries are justified.”

You see? The governor talked to some members of the military and he has had assurances that the exercises are “going to work out just fine.” Gee, I know I feel better, don’t you?

How is it normal and just accepted for our now standing army to infiltrate and try to blend in with domestic civilian populations? Because Main Street America just looks so much like the foreign battlefields in other countries across the world that these training drills are supposedly for in the first place, right?

But, again, the governor talked to some unnamed members of the military at multiple levels and it’s all “going to work out just fine.”

Whom it would work out “just fine” for, by the way, the governor did not specify....


:lol: the comments' section is hilarious :)
 
From the parts of the agreement we know; I am 100% against it. We know what NAFTA caused, and I honestly have no idea why any working or middle class American would be for this agreement, this agreement is essentially NAFTA on steroids.

Hear hear. If it turns out to be as profitable as NAFTA for the middle class, and trickled down for the rest of the people not in the 1%, I'd say no.
Let the odds play in our favor for once.
 
:doh
And again. No.
Your interpretation skills are currently way off.

Hey, how would you interpret paving the way for a one-world government?


Apparently that mega-big-government totally-not-ever-a-little-loony Rand Paul is behind it all. Who knew? I'll admit, I was surprised.


That's why I'm glad they have a New World Order for Dummies section.


....At the very low level of political awareness the first thing you would think of is a conspiracy theory. But having researched and understood it in depth, you would be speaking against it fearlessly, understanding that nothing can be scarier than living under a fascist global regime, which this time around will be on steroids.

You would see dark gathering clouds naturally predicting the coming political storm. You would see the societal move towards global poverty, oppression and totalitarianism in which there is no place for personal freedom. You would recognize the arms of the evil octopus wearing the masks of Agenda 21, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Eugenics, Transhumanism, and Codex Alimentarius, to name just a few.

These are the code names and different faces of the same agenda to harness humanity. These names might appear disconnected and even abstract, but only to those who aren’t aware and informed. I would encourage you to do your own research into this subject but in the meantime I would like to offer you a synopsis made of a simple words which will help you to understand what the New World Order means to you.

In any totalitarian system of control, there is zero tolerance for individuality, self-expression, creativity and other forms of self-empowerment. Realizing one’s self as a cosmic consciousness which was fortunate enough to receive a human body to experience life, would naturally resist any form of tyranny and enslavement....
 
Last edited:
I'm not an American but maybee it can be a bipartisan issue to be against both TTP and TTIP (a similar trade deal between USA and EU) in USA. For example the left can be against it because it will give increase influence to big business and the right against the negative effect on national sovereignty and state rights. Because it is a risk both agreements will include ISDS. ISDS allow foreign companies to sue national goverments and states in international tribunals if the companies believe their profits from investment is threathen by new laws.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose - The Washington Post

Britain isn

https://www.foeeurope.org/how-taxpayers-footing-bill-europes-trade-deals-041214

It is atleast a change that TTIP will fail because of not only greater opposition from civil society but also from national goverments in EU and parties and members of the European Parliament.
 
Last edited:
It's for working class and middle class Americans that know what they are doing, and for processes that patents can protect to keep them in America. It also wouldn't make logistical sense to ship out a lot of the jobs that this supposedly would ship out because of cost of freight. It could for example, bring more regional factories for certain devices (electronics) and encourage the production of hybrid cars within America rather than China because prohibitive cost are taken out.

Yes, because corporate executives and industry lobbyists are rolling up their sleeves and making this happen for the American worker. :roll:
 
All you have presented to me is a partisan think-tank...I'm all for research but even though I'm democrat I don't believe their own BS unless it's backed up from something unbiased or has a good counter point.

Does it bother you at all that the party of no, suddenly trusts Obama with "decider" authority on this and his own party is against it? No cause for pause at all huh?
 
David Ricardo demonstrated how free trade benefited both partners centuries ago. For it.


For the claim that it was made in China by China: :lamo[/QUOTE]

To the bolded, agreed.
 
Oh G_d, no.
You are to far gone.
There is no conspiracy.
The arguments are relevant.
And clearly you have bought into it being a great idea when it isn't.

The two biggest proponents of TPP here were for TPP back when it was first mentioned, when scant little was even known about it.
 
Nope. I asked what your preferred immigration policy was. Are you in favor of the DREAMers? Amnesty? Where do you stand on actually securing our border? Because large scale immigration of low-skill workers has the exact same effect you are decrying from the TPP.


Which you probably didn't stop to think about until now. Which is probably why you are trying to dodge the question.

My prefered immigration policy is to simplify our immigration system, and implement a policy where its easier to become legal citizens, allowing them to become legal taxpayers and also ensuring that they are not being exploited for illegal wages. But again, I dont think thats the root of the problem, I think its clear that the root of the problem is our trade policies especially when it comes to immigration. Its also to point out the part your quoted isnt even about immigration in the first place.
 
My prefered immigration policy is to simplify our immigration system, and implement a policy where its easier to become legal citizens, allowing them to become legal taxpayers and also ensuring that they are not being exploited for illegal wages. But again, I dont think thats the root of the problem, I think its clear that the root of the problem is our trade policies especially when it comes to immigration. Its also to point out the part your quoted isnt even about immigration in the first place.

So yes, in fact, you support immigration policies that have the exact same result as that which you decry in the TPP. What is the difference, for you?
 
So yes, in fact, you support immigration policies that have the exact same result as that which you decry in the TPP. What is the difference, for you?

:doh
"I dont think thats the root of the problem, I think its clear that the root of the problem is our trade policies especially when it comes to immigration. Its also to point out the part your quoted isnt even about immigration in the first place."

Its not the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem is the trade policies themselves. Example: NAFTA and Mexico. NAFTA essentially allowed for the flooding of US subsidized crops (especially corn) and other goods into their markets in which return Mexican producer prices dropped hurting small farmers and other producers. NAFTA also called for the essential removal of the ejido farm process which the vast majority of Mexican farmers operated under. Millions of Mexican workers were forced to leave their land and jobs. Many in Mexico had no where to look. Its foolish to say that somehow me being in favor of an immigration policy that isnt as strict as your or militarized or whatever it may be, means that the "real problem is the immigration policy". I would say no, the real problem is the trade policy. That is the root cause of the problem. You cannot implement a policy that destroys millions of jobs, keeps people in direct poverty, and stifles wages, and allows little to no opportunities to the millions of impoverished in a country and not expect this. Its not that we are "not tough enough on immigration", its that we literally destroyed millions of people livelyhoods and they have no where else to look. Lets stop shooting ourselves in the foot by passing such trade policies that allow actions like this to happen. You think its a coincidence that immigration from Mexico to the US doubled from 1993-2000 during the years NAFTA was implemented? You think its a coincidence that since 1993-2011 it increased 185%?
 
Obviously we haven't seen it. But it is concerning that while the GOP doesn't trust Obama on anything, suddenly they trust him with fast track authority on this, and most democrats are steadfastly against it. Furthermore, there's 28 committees composed 85% of corporate executives and industry lobbyists. It is problematic.
I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.

I am, however, very much put off by the fast track aspect. I'm sorry, but no... things like should not be fast tracked. They should be carefully negotiated and include some level of public knowledge and comment.
 
I'm not a big fan of these big trade agreements, but the world is still turning so I guess they're not as dire as many originally predicted.

I am, however, very much put off by the fast track aspect. I'm sorry, but no... things like should not be fast tracked. They should be carefully negotiated and include some level of public knowledge and comment.

The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.



Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The
 
The worst trade deal imaginable isn't likely to stop the earth from revolving, but if that's the bar..............................!!!!!

So Perot has been vindicated in his opinion; expanded free trade has not been accompanied by an increase in jobs in the U.S. relative to the vast numbers of jobs created in the rest of the world as NAFTA became just a stepping stone on the pathway to global commerce.

Just how much the giant vacuum has been collecting has been calculated at GEI Analysis. The results are shown in the following two graphs. The first shows manufacturing jobs lost each year starting with 1992 that are equivalent to the U.S. goods trade deficits over the past 19 years. The second shows the cumulative job loss, amounting to almost 29 million jobs by the end of 2010.



Read more: Looks Like Ross Perot Was Right About The

Here's something more recent.
NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations

Council on Foreign Relations › Trade


Council on Foreign Relations


Feb 14, 2014 - ... and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have ... But economists still debate NAFTA's direct impact, given the many other ... such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders.

[h=5]How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?[/h] . . . Wide disagreement persists on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty should not be ignored. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality in the United States has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee, the deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free-trade agreements unless they include provisions that raise labor and environmental standards, said that NAFTA forced "workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." Public Citizen, the left-leaning Washington nonprofit consumer rights organization, said in a report that the "grand promises made by NAFTA's proponents remain unfulfilled" [PDF] twenty years after implementation and resulted in the loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004.
But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA. . . .
 
Here's something more recent.
NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations

Council on Foreign Relations › Trade


Council on Foreign Relations


Feb 14, 2014 - ... and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have ... But economists still debate NAFTA's direct impact, given the many other ... such as the movement of some jobs and industries across borders.

[h=5]How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?[/h] . . . Wide disagreement persists on how and to what degree NAFTA accounts for changes in net employment from adjustments in the labor market. Supporters of NAFTA, and many economists, see a positive impact on U.S. employment and note that new export-related jobs in the United States pay 15 to 20 percent more on average than those focused on domestic production. But side effects of the treaty should not be ignored. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality in the United States has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee, the deputy chief of staff at the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free-trade agreements unless they include provisions that raise labor and environmental standards, said that NAFTA forced "workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." Public Citizen, the left-leaning Washington nonprofit consumer rights organization, said in a report that the "grand promises made by NAFTA's proponents remain unfulfilled" [PDF] twenty years after implementation and resulted in the loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004.
But most economists say it is a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. Manufacturing in the United States was under stress decades before the treaty, and job losses in that sector are viewed as part of a structural shift in the U.S. economy toward light manufacturing and high-end services. Alden says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment, such as China's economic rise, wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA. . . .

Yeah I know, doesn't sound good.
 
Back
Top Bottom