66
67

An Important Message Regarding the TPP (self.politics)

zaikanekochan が 投稿

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is going to be put to a vote tomorrow, despite the text of the agreement remaining unreleased. While we don’t know exactly what the agreement contains, leaked provisions show that it would give unprecedented power to sue countries whose laws affect their bottom line, affect our ability to freely express ourselves online, and create criminal enforcement measures for its draconian copyright provisions.

Without knowing the full text, it is difficult to know what the ramifications of such an act would be. To voice support, protest this vote, or find out more information on the act, contact your representatives or sign this petition. There are many petitions out on the web, both for and against the TPP. While this subreddit does not allow polls/petitions/solicitations generally, we are making an exception for this post. Feel free to post any relevant information/petitions/polls/etc in the comments.

全 190 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]malcomte 25ポイント26ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm not a Republican, or remotely right-wing but Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote a letter to the President after going to the secret TPP reading room:

I asked that you make public the section of the TPP that creates a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission. The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the hallmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities.

Reviewing the secret text, plus the secret guidance document that accompanies it, reveals that this new transnational commission—chartered with a “Living Agreement” clause—would have the authority to amend the agreement after its adoption, to add new members, and to issue regulations impacting labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy. Under this new commission, the Sultan of Brunei would have an equal vote to that of the United States.

The implications of this new Pacific Union are extraordinary and ought to be discussed in full, in public, before Congress even contemplates fast-tracking its creation and pre-surrendering its power to apply the constitutional two-thirds treaty vote. In effect, to adopt fast-track is to agree to remove the constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures before those structures are even made public.

I would therefore ask that you provide to me the legal and constitutional basis for keeping this information from the public and explain why I cannot share the details of what I have read with the American people.

Call your representatives and let them know that if they vote yes, you will never vote for them, that they are voting away the country's sovereignty through this "Living Agreement" and ISDS provisions, and that they are voting to offshore American jobs. Or something like that.

[–]azflatlander 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

i have a bridge to sell you, but I won't tell you which bridge until after you agree to buy it.

[–]phocku -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

please... jeff sessions is so full of shit. it's cute that he's now worried about the environment.

[–]WarGodDamn 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sessions is my senator and I assure you that he does not care about the environment, and I imagine he would be insulted if he realized his statement was misconstrued as him being so. His concern is with other countries having a say in how we should regulate greenhouse gas emissions and the like.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Except that as a senator he has immunity from prosecution and could himself read the section into the congressional record (as Gravel did with the Pentaton Papers).

Which makes his letter (oh so coincidentally released to the press) nothing more than grandstanding.

To say nothing of the fact that there are no "constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures"

[–]malcomte 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

It might be grandstanding, but it gives us, the suckers a little more idea of what is contained in the so called treaty.

Don't let your partisan cynicism shoot the message while are trying to shoot the messenger.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It might be grandstanding, but it gives us, the suckers a little more idea of what is contained in the so called treaty.

Then why not read portions of it (if only from memory) into the public record? If he wants us to know what's in it (and indeed he's saying truthfully what is in it) why do it this way?

I'm shooting the message because I doubt the message is true.

Especially since he's invoking constitutional provisions which don't exist.

[–]kevalry 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

if TPP was the most "progressive" trade deal to ever be made to reduce the effects of outsourcing, environmental concerns, labor rights, human rights, poor quality control, etc, How does the Republican Party stand to gain from this trade deal? Do you really think that they will agree to a progressive trade deal?

[–]WarGodDamn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because it's only somewhat more progressive than the others. There are many policies therein that would benefit corporations that have donated to their campaigns.

[–]onique 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

TPP fails in House!

[–]madjack3 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

US Lawmaker Slams Monsanto Provision in Fast Track Bill for TPP

[–]isummonyouhere 30ポイント31ポイント  (15子コメント)

Jesus what a shit title. Complete manipulation.

Just to clarify, the TPP itself is NOT being voted on tomorrow. This vote is whether to grant "fast track" authority.

Which means: once the member nations have actually negotiated a final text, congress would not be able to add amendments to it or change the text. They would have to vote yes or no on the treaty as it stands.

[–]Lionstrong 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

The title is shit? It states "an important message". How much more non-shit can it get?

[–]Geistbar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to clarify, the TPP itself is NOT being voted on tomorrow.

I'm replying after the vote, but: TPP was voted on as a proxy. Without fast track, the negotiations start to fall apart. If the negotiations fall apart, TPP falls apart.

Why? Because if congress can amend TPP, then any concessions that the US gives other nations in exchange for a concession from them will become completely unreliable. A lot of the required components have similar popularity problems abroad as they have in the US. The first few paragraphs of this article give a bit of insight into the negotiation problems that arise without fast track.

No fast track almost certainly means no TPP; the only case where TPP survives is one where fast-track ends up being unnecessary (basically Obama convinces Boehner/McConnell to kill all amendments).

[–]-BMP- 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

Mods gotta promote their agenda to the high schoolers of /r/politics somehow.

[–]ZipMcCockup 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey we are college freshmen. We know how the world works /s

[–]gazoogle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was the titled edited? The title does not seem the manipulative at all.

[–]DickCheneysRifle 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Which is exactly why all this outrage over the TPP bring fast tracked is nonsense. Almost every trade deal (maybe every trade deal) is fast tracked. Try coordinating a trade deal with dozens of other countries when each country's legislature is making amendments to it. There's a reason trade deals have traditionally been diplomatic in nature, subject of course to domestic democratic ratification or rejection.

[–]Cycloptichorn 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's not nonsense, because passage of TPA pretty much guarantees passage of TPP. It's quite similar to a cloture vote in the Senate. There will be immense pressure to overlook the 'bad' parts of the deal in order to pass the supposedly 'good' parts.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

because passage of TPA pretty much guarantees passage of TPP

Only in the same way any other bill given a straight up-or-down vote is "pretty much guaranteed passage" when a majority of the legislators support it.

My god.

[–]Cycloptichorn 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yes, that's absolutely correct. What's the problem? It's the exact same as whipping against a cloture vote in the Senate. There's no misunderstanding here.

I oppose the TPP and therefore oppose TPA. It's simple.

Good news is that TPA is struggling in the House and looks rather unlikely to pass today, which really puts a smile on my face.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

There's no misunderstanding here.

By you, perhaps. But the number of people who think the TPA obviates the actual vote on the TPP itself make me think there's been some misunderstanding.

All the TPA does is ensure that the agreement is voted on straight up or down, no poison pill amendments, no procedural roadblocks. Straight democratic legislative action.

[–]kwiztas 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Tho our constitutional way of making treaties is to have our congress ratify it with amendments. Kinda shity to go around that even if they have in the past.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Tho our constitutional way of making treaties is to have our congress ratify it with amendments.

Nope!

The constitution doesn't provide any process for the making of amendments other than that they be done with the advice and consent of the Senate. No requirements exist for being allowed to amend the treaty, or that it be presented to the House of Representatives at all.

[–]kwiztas 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Um it does when it comes to powers given to them in the constitution like the power to set tariffs.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is no constitutional requirement that amendments to proposed legislation be possible.

[–]Orangutan 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There’s Bipartisan Hatred Towards TPP … But Corrupt Congress Trying to Pass It, Anyway

[–]ICastleBravoUrBikini -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This doesn't really make much sense, there's also bipartisan support for the TPP, or, at least for trade promotion authority, which is what they're actually trying to pass right now. Are you really trying to argue that it's corrupt for the 533 members of Congress to pass something if two members oppose it, and those two members are from different parties? How is that a rational position?

[–]nicksvr4 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rand Paul demands White House release trade deal text immediately

[–]christ0ph 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The level of dishonesty that has been the norm from this Administration and its allies in the GOP has been unprecedented and far reaching.

It doesnt even start with the fact that three FTAs are in the final state of planning and likely would be passed shortly after a TPA bill was signed, it goes into every single corner of these things. they are lying a great deal about pre-existing commitments, for example, with GATS, the 1995 WTO general Agreement on trade in services. the more important a subject is to the country's future the more they have lied about it.

The country should realize that the media has not even scratched the surface of the depth of what has been misleading.

[–]SomeNorCalGuy 16ポイント17ポイント  (112子コメント)

I'd just like to go on record that I don't believe /r/politics should be using their incredibly large platform to be encouraging their 3 million subscribers to be taking a political action of any sort. /r/politics should remain unbiased, apolitical and neutral regarding politically charged topics like the TPP. It's the same as if they officially advocated for a certain candidate and if it isn't a violation of their own rules it should be.

[–]Flobby17 27ポイント28ポイント  (52子コメント)

/r/politics should remain unbiased

Bit of a lost cause don't you think?

[–]Mick0331 3ポイント4ポイント  (51子コメント)

It's not like this subreddit is notoriously biased and openly mocked throughout the internet. /s

[–]limeade09 4ポイント5ポイント  (50子コメント)

You realize a majority of american's are democrats right? If there was hypothetically a 100% voter turnout at all times, democrats would control everything. These are well known facts. Not everyone on /r/politics votes, obviously.

Also, I live on the internet. This sub isn't openly mocked anywhere on a consistent basis that I've seen. I can't remember a single reference to it honestly. Not to say there hasn't been, but don't get mad because you are in the minority in regards to your beliefs.

[–]be_cool_honeybunny 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

The majority of Americans are democrats? Uh, source?

[–]WhiteyDude -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Independents, actually. But independents lean one way or another, and more Americans lean (D) than (R).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[–]DerJawsh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your own link shows that it changes drastically. Just a few months ago it was 47%(R) and 41%(D). Many Americans change parties to whatever they feel is currently fitting their best interest. Obviously we have the solid 30-40% on either side, but we do actually have a decent amount of swing voters. When Democrat Presidents win, suddenly the nation leans Democrat, when Republican Presidents win, suddenly the nation leans Republican. In actuality, people change to whatever party they feel is doing the best currently.

[–]Isakill 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should know by now /r/conservative is the internet

[–]Gamecocks91 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Actually due to population density and voter distribution that wouldn't be true at all. Dems are heavily concentrated in urban areas and on the coasts. Even with 100% turnout, Dems wouldn't capture large regions of America. Also only a plurality of Americans are democrats, and a plurality of Americans are also conservative.You also assume that Ds will always vote D and R will always vote R. Many races are determined by the candidates running, not just party affiliation . All politics are local, never forget that.

[–]WhiteyDude 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

ctually do to population density and voter distribution that wouldn't be true at all. Dems are heavily concentrated in urban areas and on the coasts. Even with 100% turnout, Dems wouldn't capture large regions of America.

That's why congressional districts are all roughly the same population. Those large regions of America represent a small number of districts. Their political influence isn't weighted by their size.

It's simply a fact that there are more democrats than republicans. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[–]Gamecocks91 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Democrats are geographically located on the west and east coasts and parts of the Midwest. Nationally thanks to CA, NY, and IL they do, but in states like Kansas, Wyoming, or Utah they don't. States have equal rights regardless of population. All states regardless of size get two senators, and that's to stop large states from overrunning smaller ones. Also independents are the largest voting bloc, they could swing either way. It's why your assumption is impossible that they could win everything in every state. America is a federal republic, not a democracy nor an Ochlocracy.

[–]AlaskanPipeline04 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

lol you're kidding, right?

[–]chabanais 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

LOL.

[–]jdw809 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah LOL! Get a load of this guy saying most Americans are Democrats! You got a source for that buddy? Or did you just pull that little fact from out your ass?

[–]Sleekery 14ポイント15ポイント  (17子コメント)

And if they are, they should at least be accurate. The TPP is not being put up to a vote. It can't be. Negotiations aren't even finished.

[–]thatgeekinit 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

Technically correct, but passing "Fast Track" Trade Promotion Authority basically means that there is almost no chance to stop the TPP from becoming law along with some of the other secret trade deals coming down over the next few years.

Unless the negotiations fall apart at the last minute, it will be very hard to prevent the TPP from becoming law if its presented to Congress as all-or-nothing under "fast-track."

Before you tell me about how treaties can't possibly be negotiated if Congress gets to change them, remember that TPP is not legally a treaty. If the President wants treaty, he should go through the treaty process and then the US Senate gets to ratify it with 67 votes. The lobbyists pushing TPP know that 67 Senators will never vote for TPP so they are using the regular legislative process to simply change US law to adopt TPP.

[–]UPGRAYEDD_2 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

Technically correct, but passing "Fast Track" Trade Promotion Authority basically means that there is almost no chance to stop the TPP from becoming law along with some of the other secret trade deals coming down over the next few years.

That's just bullshit.

You want TPP to not become law, you pressure your representatives to vote no when the actual trade deal comes up for vote.

Considering that TPA will barely pass, the actual vote when the full text is public will also be close.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you seriously believe that the GOP will switch their stance on TPP based on public pressure?

[–]thatgeekinit -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

There is plenty of reason to oppose TPA on its own.

[–]phocku 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

like what?

this trade agreement is about the future. the same future current generations has hampered.

[–]Lionstrong 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not convinced. So fuck the TPP. I already have no trust in the government or large corporations. So fuck trade deals. I support no action and will vote against my representatives if they vote for this deal.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

there is almost no chance to stop the TPP from becoming law

Because the majority of the duly-elected representatives of the the people of the United States support it. And the only way to block is is either a poison pill (change it so dramatically in committee through amendments that it is no longer the agreement as negotiated) or dilatory tactics (filibuster, procedural roadblocks) to make it untenable to pass.

So let's at least be clear why it "can't be stopped."

If the President wants treaty, he should go through the treaty process and then the US Senate gets to ratify it with 67 votes

You say that like trade agreements are new, and were in the past done as treaties. It has long been established procedure that trade agreements are sent to both houses, as they involve a far more substantial change to US law, not just military policy. There are some great law review articles out there on the accepted process, you might want to read some before making thoroughly misinformed claims about what the "regular" route is.

[–]thatgeekinit 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

No I said that the constitution provides a process for laws and that includes all the procedural steps.

I understand that trade agreements have long bypassed the treaty process but don't confuse what has been done in the past for what ought to be done.

This is not a nomination. There is no filibuster going on. The TPP proponents want a change in US law and those who don't should use the process to block it, just as proponents used the secrecy to keep the people's representatives out of the negotiations.

When all proponents of this bad law have is meaningless and misleading process arguments, we know there isn't anything good in TPP that they can point to.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

No I said that the constitution provides a process for laws and that includes all the procedural steps

Then I'm pretty sure you haven't read the damned thing, because that statement is completely wrong. The constitution doesn't provide for amendments, time for debate, or filibusters. Know what it says?

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Stop saying what the constitution does if you don't know a damned thing about it.

I understand that trade agreements have long bypassed the treaty process but don't confuse what has been done in the past for what ought to be done

Except that "treaty" as understood in article III doesn't refer to agreements which will have an effect on US domestic law. And since changes in U.S. domestic law are passed by a majority in both houses, that's how agreements are enacted.

But I like the idea that it's more respectful to the democratic process to have it passed solely by the senate just because you think that's less likely to lead to passage in the current legislature.

There is no filibuster going on

Then why do you mind that a filibuster would be prohibited?

When all proponents of this bad law have is meaningless and misleading process arguments

I know, right? A straight up-or-down vote? How much more Byzantine and complicated, not to mention anti-democratic, can you get?

[–]thatgeekinit 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I demand an up or down vote on my bill to defund the US Trade Representative's office permanently and withdraw from NAFTA.

Where is my vote? You see how things work now. Congress decides what they want to vote on as-is and what they want to debate and amend.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I demand an up or down vote on my bill to defund the US Trade Representative's office permanently and withdraw from NAFTA

Great! Now get elected to office, and get the majority of both houses to support your bill and I'm 100% on board with it being voted on straight up or down.

You see how things work now. Congress decides what they want to vote on as-is and what they want to debate and amend

Yes, they've decided that a complete agreement which only functions if passed without extraneous amendments, and where amendment functions as a failure to pass it, shouldn't be subject to amendments. And that bills actually being written within Congress which can be changed without being rendered moot can be changed.

My god, the horror.

[–]thatgeekinit 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Your argument would have merit if the agreement had been negotiated in public view or if they at least had released the current draft and had a period where they let transparency work on stripping out or toning down the most egregious parts.

Because it was done in secret, there is every indication from the leaks that those with privileged access got to slip all kinds of complex special deals for themselves in to the draft.

The deal has 29 chapters reportedly, perhaps at least our elected representatives ought to be able to up or down on each one individually?

Or if you care so much about democracy, let's amend the constitution and have a national referendum on TPP. Up or down vote. I bet that will happen.

The people who want this deal, used the process to keep those who would be hurt by it, like me and most other people who work for a living out of the negotiations by keeping it selectively secret. So now we will use the process to try and keep TPP from passing.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your argument would have merit if the agreement had been negotiated in public view or if they at least had released the current draft and had a period where they let transparency work on stripping out or toning down the most egregious parts.

Because of the part of Article I I'm missing which dictates that negotiations in secret cannot then be passed by Congress?

But you also seriously misunderstand international negotiations, because "transparency stripping out the more egregious parts" (and fifty bucks says you have bought into the misinformation that corporations being allowed to sue means they can stop the government from doing anything they don't like) is the same thing as "the agreement no longer happens."

Once the parties have agreed, any party rewriting it means there's no longer an agreement, and everyone has to go back to the negotiating table.

The deal has 29 chapters reportedly, perhaps at least our elected representatives ought to be able to up or down on each one individually

Sure! Except for the part that this means the agreement can't be enacted even in part. For a good analogy, read up on contract law. Redlining any part of it makes it a rejection and counter-offer.

Or if you care so much about democracy, let's amend the constitution and have a national referendum on TPP. Up or down vote. I bet that will happen

Oooh, what a good straw man. I care about democracy in the legislature. I fully accept that we are a republican form of government. Oy.

The people who want this deal, used the process to keep those who would be hurt by it, like me and most other people who work for a living out of the negotiations by keeping it selectively secret.

Except for the part where it will be disclosed once finished, and voted on after two months during which you (please don't speak for the whole working population, I'm one of them and you do not speak for me) can read it, comment on it, and phone-bank against it.

So now we will use the process to try and keep TPP from passing.

I like the argument that you can mislead the public about what fast-track authority does because an international negotiation was (as has been commonplace for more than a century) not released to the public until the negotiation was done.

I'd call it you saying you get to take a cookie because another kid did, but the other kid didn't take a cookie.

[–]thatgeekinit 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is nothing democratic about having lobbyists and appointees write law in secret and then give us an all-or-nothing choice. Democracy does not mean up/down votes. It means public participation in the process and transparency. Choice is meaningless when the only choices are predetermined without any accountable process.

We elected Congress to write laws and debate. We did not elect the US Trade Representative or his corporate cronies.

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Exactly and in this case they are proposing to change the rules to favor TPP and the rest of these bad trade deals. So I am fairly opposing the rule change which will hurt the chances of all three.

Straight up/down votes on nominees may be democratic. You can't amend a human being. However this is a complex law. Why are the TPP shills so afraid to let the legislature do its job?

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Democracy does not mean up/down votes

Huh, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what democracy represents: voting. Silly me.

It means public participation in the process and transparency.

How odd, since if those things were really central to the concept of democracy you would expect them to be part of Article I (concerning the legislature). I'm sure there's a public disclosure requirement, and a requirement for time to be given for public input. Hell, I'm sure there's a constitutional provision for filibuster and amending legislationz

Goodness am I red in the face, since no such requirements exist.

Choice is meaningless when the only choices are predetermined without any accountable process

Except for the process of "the legislators can either vote for or against it" and the accountability of you being able to (a) write, protest, etc., or (b) vote against a representative who votes in a way you disagree with.

For the record, in a democratic republic you always have only two choices: to vote for a candidate, or vote for someone else. This isn't a direct democracy or model UN.

We elected Congress to write laws and debate. We did not elect the US Trade Representative or his corporate cronies

It's called delegation of powers. Shall I assume you also have disdain for the FCC, USDA, FEC, IRS, and every other administrative agency in the country?

However this is a complex law. Why are the TPP shills so afraid to let the legislature do its job

  1. Accusations of people being shills is pretty much a sure sign you don't have a good argument. While I'm not employed by the USTR, or anyone involved in the TPP negotiation or debate, it doesn't matter if I were. Argue substance, not ad hominem.

  2. This is the legislature doing its job. It's the legislature deciding that because any amendments would effectively be the same as not passing the agreement, and dilatory tactics shouldn't be used to stall good foreign policy, it will vote straight up or down on it.

If your arguments is "OMG they should be able to amend", you're misunderstanding how international agreements function. If your argument is they should be able to filibuster, you never again get to complain about "obstructionist" tactics in the senate.

[–]mrglass8 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thank you. I'm not a fan of the TPP myself, but if the mods could at least try to APPEAR unbiased, I'd certainly appreciate it.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the mods are biased - and how could they not be - then shouldn't we want them to be upfront about it? As opposed to pretending to be neutral and hiding their agenda.

[–]Neopergoss 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

r/politics should be -- and is -- biased towards the truth. That's what real objectivity is. It's not the same thing as neutrality or impartiality. When one person is lying and another is telling the truth, the right thing is to be honest when reporting on it rather than to resort to "he said she said" lapdog journalism that you always see on CNN.

[–]funkalunatic 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

1) The erosion of sovereignty and imposition of draconian IP regimes in several countries is a bigger evil than some Internet discussion board displaying a bit of bias.

2) You are a serial poster in support of Hillary Clinton and are linked at least indirectly to her campaign. You moderate an elections-related subreddit which was featured on /r/hillaryClinton before you received even 5 subscribers. (At the time, it was featured more prominently than the other elections subreddits it links to.) Hillary Clinton has (prior to this campaign) long supported, promoted, and pushed the TPP as a crucial part of her foreign policy, and she has been criticized for not taking a stand on TPP in this campaign. Now I admit that I am biased, but I think you are probably a little biased here too. So maybe remove the plank from your own eye first, eh?

[–]SomeNorCalGuy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

1) I'm not going to respond to because I feel there simply not enough information publicly available about the TPP to make an informed and unbiased opinion. Perhaps that's reason enough to be against it for some. I myself am withholding judgement until I get more information than a handful of leaks.

2) I am a serial poster of facts and context regarding election polling and statistics. For now the facts and context regarding the election favor Hillary Clinton and given the last ~50 years or so of election history things bode well for her for the future. I am not linked with anyone with her campaign. (I don't even know how you would come to that conclusion, frankly. I'm a stay-at-home dad in Northern California with some spare time to read polling cross tabs. Not much more I'm afraid.)

And going back several months of posting I have never advocated for Hillary Clinton in any of my posts in /r/politics. At no time have I said, "Vote for Hillary! She's Grrrrreat!". What I have done is point out that she's consistently polling 40-50 points ahead of her closest competitor and that the history of elections tells us that primary frontrunners leading by that amount don't generally lose. Even the ones like Gary Hart and Rick Perry who fall hard after a massive snafu still lose only about 20-25 points or so of their support, presuming they stay in the race in the first place. I also like tackling the "Hillary is unpopular" meme by pointing out that since announcing her run her polling has stayed consistent, shifting from 48% to 46% over that time and how that 46% is still the highest favorability rating among anyone running for President.

These are all facts. They are all verifiable statistics openly available to anyone who has the time and will to look for them. If you don't like them, I'm sorry. But I can't do anything about that.

And thank-you for mentioning my subreddit. It's /r/Forecast2016 and I've worked and continue to work very hard to put together and maintain what I feel is one hell of an elections-related subreddit. Yes, I casually made a comment about a month ago after I first got my sub up and running (before it was quite so pretty) and I got 5 whole subscribers and one of the moderators of /r/hillaryclinton asked if they could add me to the sidebar. I agreed. My sub is also in the /r/politics wiki and if there's any other moderator out there for /r/SandersForPresident, /r/JebBush, /r/RandPaul2016, /r/Marco_Rubio, /r/Walker, /r/MartinOMalley or any other candidate or politics themed sub that wants to add it to their sidebar or wiki, please do so.

And while I can't speak for Secretary Clinton on her opinion or lack thereof of the TPP, my feeling and what I've read is that while she was responsible for the initial framework of the deal, since then she's become a private citizen and was not privy to the final details nor would she be privy as a private citizen of the contents of the trade agreement as it sits. Sitting senators like Warren and Paul and Cruz and Rubio and Sanders are or should be privy to those details, so if you want an informed opinion, I'd listen to them. Or look up your own Senators and see what they have to say. Clinton in the meantime can't really do that because she doesn't have access to the full text, which you would need to make an informed opinion.

[–]malcomte -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

unbiased, apolitical and neutral regarding politically charged topics like the TPP

And who would determine that? If you are for TPP you can be for it and try to defend it here or in the comments of the numerous submissions regarding TPP so far.

Your pretense that /r/politics should be neutral and apolitical is a fantasy that began in the early broadcast days of the MSM. There is no objective news source, all are founts of various degrees of propaganda, political and commercial.

It's the same as if they officially advocated for a certain candidate and if it isn't a violation of their own rules it should be.

No, it's not the same. A policy is quite different than a politician. If you don't like the rules, make your own sub. Or you know, suck it up.

I would be more upset if /r/politics was going through another censorship phase than advocating actions like these.

[–]zlex 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Either you are purposefully obfuscating the issue by discussing media bias or you are completely missing the point. This is not about news submissions by users. The moderators of this sub are supposed to at least pretend to be neutral and unbiased. This kind of behavior compromises the integrity of this subreddit as a place for political discussion by openly advocating a particular political position and encouraging users to take political action.

This is a subreddit for political discussion, not a platform for moderators to push a political agenda.

[–]G-Solutions 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A political agenda and a link to a petition paid for by a Democrat running for Congress.

© 2015 | Paid for by Sean Patrick Maloney for Congress, 

[–]gaussprime 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

He's telling people to advocate against a piece of legislation. This isn't a gray area where it's tough to say if it's biased or not.

This is pretty clearly over the line.

[–]thatgeekinit 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Over what line? This is not C-Span. /r/politics isn't some non-partisan think tank.

[–]gaussprime -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Post by posters, sure. That's the nature of the beast.

But a sticky by the mods telling people to people to oppose a bill is just embarrassing.

[–]thatgeekinit 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

Even a newspaper has an editorial page.

I get what you are arguing, but what about CISPA or Net Neutrality or some other thing that basically united Reddit with the rest of the tech industry.

[–]azflatlander 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

what would Charles Foster Kane do?

[–]Drunken_Economist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

/r/Obama used to be a default. Taking a stance is nothing new

[–]balancetheuniverse -5ポイント-4ポイント  (21子コメント)

This is unbiased. This is bipartisan. Both sides of the isle don't like this.

[–]CQME 14ポイント15ポイント  (8子コメント)

This is biased against the TPP. It most certainly is not taking a neutral position.

[–]Drunken_Economist -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

There aren't many ways to spin TPA/TPP in a positive light

[–]thatgeekinit 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

If TPP were so wonderful how come the billion or so people who will have to live with this deal don't get to find out what is in it until after its too late to change it?

This isn't a deal about nuclear weapons reductions, and spy swaps, and delicate international disputes deserving of secrecy. This is about big business profits and how much the working men and women of planet Earth and their children have to sacrifice for those profits.

[–]Sleekery 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

If TPP were so wonderful how come the billion or so people who will have to live with this deal don't get to find out what is in it until after its too late to change it?

But it will be publicly released before it's voted on.

[–]azflatlander -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Less than 60 days prior to Obama's signature. Just long enough to have the media frenzy die down.

[–]Sleekery -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

America has 15 free trade agreements. All but one were passed via fast-track.

[–]Canada_girl -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wups it is? Time to goal post switch!

[–]Sleekery 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

Both sides of the aisle also like it.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because these guys also like it:

3M Company

Abbott

ACE Group

Advanced Medical Technology Association

Aflac International

American Apparel & Footwear Association

American Automotive Policy Council

American Chemistry Council

American Council of Life Insurers

American Farm Bureau Federation

American Feed Industry

Association American Forest & Paper Association

American Insurance Association

American Legislative Exchange Council

American Meat Institute

American Soybean Association

Amway

APL

Apple

Applied Materials

Archer Daniels Midland Company

American Natural Soda

Ash Corporation

Association of Global Automakers

Biotechnology Industry Organization

Boeing

Business Roundtable

BSA – The Software Alliance

CA Technologies

Cargill

Caterpillar

Chevron

Chubb Corp.

Citigroup Inc

Coalition of Services Industries

The Coca Cola Company Inc

Computing Technology Industry Association

Conoco Phillips

Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA)

Corn Refiners Association

Cotton Council International

Council of the Americas

Crop Life America

The Walt Disney Company

Distilled Spirits Council of the United States

The Dow Chemical Company

EBay

Emergency Committee for American Trade

Facebook

FedEx Express

Express Association of America

Exxon Mobil

Financial Services Forum

Fluor

FMC Corporation

Food Marketing Institute

Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America

Gap, Inc.

General Electric

General Motors

Glanbia USA

GlaxoSmithKline

Goldman Sachs

Grocery Manufacturers Association

Halliburton

Hanesbrands

Herbalife

Hewlett-Packard

Honda North America

Idaho Potato Commission

IDS International

IBM

Information Technology Industry Council

Intel

Interactive Advertising Bureau

International Dairy Foods Association

International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)

J.C. Penney

John Deere

Johnson & Johnson

Kraft Foods

Levi Strauss & Co.

Lilly Louis Dreyfus Commodities

Mars

McGraw Hill Financial

Metlife

Microsoft

Mondelez International

Monsanto

Morgan Stanley

Motion Picture Association of America

Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association

National Association of Manufacturers

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

National Center for APEC

National Confectioners Association

National Corn Growers Association

National Council of Wheat Growers

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Fisheries Institute

National Foreign Trade Council

National Milk Producers Federation

National Oilseed Processors Association

National Pork Producers Council

National Potato Council

National Retail Federation

National Turkey Federation

Nike

Northwest Horticultural Council

Novartis

Oracle

Outdoor Industry Association

Pet Food Institute

Pfizer

Philip Morris International

PhRMA

Plastics Industry Trade Association

PPG Industries

Procter & Gamble

Qualcomm Incorporated

Retail Industry Leaders Association

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International

Software & Information Industry Association

SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association

Sudbury International Sweeteners

Users Association

Target Inc.

TechAmerica

Telecommunications Industry Association

The Entertainment Software Association

The National Chicken Council

Time Warner Inc.

Toyota North America

TUMI

U.S. Apple Association

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

U.S. Grains Council

U.S. New Zealand Council

U.S. Wheat Associates

USA-ITA

United States Council for International Business

United Technologies Corporation

UPS

US-ASEAN Business Council

Viacom

Visa

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Washington Council on International Trade

World Trade Center San Diego

Xerox

Zimmer

[–]20PNP20 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Uh oh! Corporations! EVILLLLLL!!!!!!

[–]SomeNorCalGuy 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

It does not matter. It should not be the moderators' prerogative to take an official subreddit position that advocates for or against any candidate or legislation.

[–]JoyousCacophony 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm curious. Did you feel the same way about the blackouts surrounding SOPA? Many websites and subreddits officially endorsed that.

[–]rydan -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

What about all those fringe third party people? Do they like it or do they hate it?

[–]beauzero 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

What about all the normal people? Do they like it or hate it? We will tell you as soon as we can actually see the content. If this thing is so awesome why do we have to give up some of the constitutional protections we have in place? Grid lock was built into the system for a reason.

[–]BolshevikMuppet 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

why do we have to give up some of the constitutional protections we have in place?

Name one constitutional protection which the fast-track authority gives up.

[–]Reddirator 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This has nothing to do with partisanship.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd just like to go on record that I don't believe /r/politics should be using their incredibly large platform to be encouraging their 3 million subscribers to be taking a political action of any sort.

That's kind of like saying newspapers shouldn't have editorials.

There's no such thing as an unbiased news source. It's literally impossible to have one, and pretending to be unbiased just obfuscates their stance.

[–]Neopergoss 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I want r/politics to call a spade a spade and to point it out when someone's lying. I don't want impartiality when one side is lying. I want bias towards the truth, also known as objectivity.

[–]andrew12361 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

We all need to take a break from the partisan BS and come together as working class Americans. Our politicians, representing multinational corporations instead of us, are about to sell us all down the river by passing "fast track authority" on the Trans Pacific Partnership. I literally have not met a single person who is for this deal! The only people I see talking positively about it are some bought off talking heads on TV. The Tea Party, Green Party, Rush Limbaugh & Liz Warren are all against this. Have you ever seen such dissimilar people on the same side on an issue? The Trans Pacific Partnership is going to have Americans competing for manufacturing jobs with child labor in Vietnam, and slave labor in Malaysia. It will also give up American Sovereignty to multinational corporations who will be able to sue us if our laws interfere with their profits! The bought off politicians of both parties are voting on this now so please call your (alleged) Representative and let him/her know you will vote their butt OUT if they vote for this deal.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I literally have not met a single person who is for this deal!

Nice to meet you!

It will also give up American Sovereignty to multinational corporations who will be able to sue us if our laws interfere with their profits!

And fortunately the difference between "able to sue" and "will win if they sue" aren't the same thing. This is like saying 42 USC 1983 is bad because that crazy Incel guy is "able to sue" the U.S. Government for not getting him a girlfriend.

[–]rydan 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

To voice support, protest this vote, or find out more information on the act, contact your representatives or sign this petition.

How can we possibly be for or against the TPP? We don't even know what it is about.

[–]vecnyj 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

But the corporations!

[–]kevalry 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

TRADE! Are you against trade? Why dislike access to foreign goods and globalization? Say goodbye to cheap prices! Save manufacturing? modern Luddites? Protectionism? Bad economics much?

[–]ktetch 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's the TPP got to do with trade? What barriers are there to trade right now?

[–]let_them_eat_slogans 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

There's a basic introduction to some of the controversy. More in depth:

The USTR is ignoring the input of workers, implementing the exact language proposed by corporations instead.

The EFF has extensively documented how the IP provisions look disastrous (example).

The ISDS provisions are only necessary if you think corporations don't have enough leverage over domestic courts.

Healthcare professionals are concerned that it could limit access to medicine in developing countries.

Even prominent pro-free trade economists like Paul Krugman are against it, because the TPP has barely anything to do with free trade.

[–]artvaark 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Done, I've signed others, called and emailed my Senators and Representatives, and tweeted tons of them. I don't know what else I can do, I'm not a multinational corporation with the right to read and influence these agreements

[–]raise-the-avanc 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

My one-of-the-most-liberal-members-of-congress-congressman just posted on facebook he's supporting it. Hundreds of negative comments. So much for representing your constituents.

[–]limeade09 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, because a hundred people on facebook are representative of all of his constituents, right?

[–]phocku -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

those people do not donate.. and most probably don't vote.

[–]jeremiah256 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I disagree. The average person doesn't know who their representatives are, let alone follow them on Facebook. These just might be the hardcore minority that does vote and donate money.

[–]raise-the-avanc 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know that applies to me.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

My god, hundreds of comments!

What I find interesting is the inconsistency between "omg will of the people" and arguments that the government should do what's best regardless of popularity of the views.

The majority of people opposed Obamacare, but I imagine you support it. And your response to that polling would be that they are misled, misinformed, and ignorant.

Weird.

[–]raise-the-avanc 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think you're confusing me with the broad stereotype you've drawn of anyone who disagrees with you.

For the record, I opposed Obamacare, though probably for different reasons than you did.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was taking a guess.

But whatever your politics I can guarantee there's a subject where the majority of people disagree with you and your stance is "fuck that noise, governance is about leadership not about slavish devotion to whatever misinformed braying the plebeians are engaged in."

[–]Canada_girl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why is r/politics using it's position here! And why so Misleading? The tpp is not being put to a vote. This is just plain embarrassing.

[–]Reddirator 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The big businesses of this world are oppressors. We live in modern day feudalism. Notice we pay for everything and they pay for nothing.

[–]UPGRAYEDD_2 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why is this a sticky?

The partnership is not going to be put to a vote. Trade promotion authority is being put to a vote. There is a difference.

[–]malcomte 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is a difference, but a vote for TPA is a vote for TPP, TTIP, and TISA.

[–]UPGRAYEDD_2 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, it isn't. A vote for TPA is a vote for TPA only. There will be another separate vote for TPP at a future date.

Again, this shouldn't be a sticky. At least change the OP to make it accurate and explain that no one is actually voting for TPP tomorrow.

[–]paulen8 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

TPA will all but guarantee TPP, likely along with several other terrible trade deals.

[–]gaussprime 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This being sticky is an embarrassment.

[–]Bhill68 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Probably one of the best comments about TPP that I've read and explains it way better than I could.

http://np.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/32bdez/my_grandad_reads_the_paper_everyday_and_hasnt/cq9w6y2

Also, I agree that /r/politics should not be partisan on certain issues as a sub. Just because a lot of people don't like it doesn't mean the sub should officially swing that way.

[–]let_them_eat_slogans -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is this partisan? The issue has support and opposition from both parties.

[–]G-Solutions -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sticky is literally calling people to action to sign a petition that is © 2015 | Paid for by Sean Patrick (Democrat) Maloney for Congress, 

Is this what this sub has devolved into? Why not a sticky saying vote for Obama /r/politics during the last election I mean if we are getting rid of any pretense.

[–]thatgeekinit -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I called my Congressman's office (Chris Van Hollen, D-MD) and thanked him for openly opposing TPP.

[–]paulen8 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sum Of Us Petition

[–]BolshevikMuppet -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is going to be put to a vote tomorrow

No.

That's not even close to true.

The fast-track authority is being put to vote, which (if it passes) would bring the TPP to the floor as-is and provide for a straight up-or-down vote.

Which, from where I'm sitting, sounds a lot like the kind of thing that /r/politics has been asking for when it comes to any number of legislative actions. No poison pill amendments, no dilatory tactics, just the will of the majority of the legislature.

[–]Judg3Smails -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mods gonna mod.

[–]limeade09 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

So many of you whining about how this is sponsored by a democrat are the ones making it partisan. Perhaps you should read closer, because while I think this being stickied is ridiculous, it's not supporting or not supporting the TPP.

Without knowing the full text, it is difficult to know what the ramifications of such an act would be. To voice support, protest this vote, or find out more information on the act, contact your representatives or sign this petition. There are many petitions out on the web, both for and against the TPP.

Where in this post did you read that the TPP is explicitly a good or bad thing?

[–]gaussprime 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Referring to something as being "draconian" is usually considered pejorative.

[–]Canada_girl -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No no, draconian is a good thing! /S

[–]IEatAnyAss -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Row Row Fight The Powah!

[–]curly_spork -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reading these comments, I don't think this is a safe zone....

[–]DruknUncel -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I identify as trade-partnership-kin and this sticky is oppressing me by lumping my identity in with trade-partnership-authority-kin, which is fine on its own and I accept and love, but is racist to think we are the same.

Basically you're saying, "all Asians look alike."

I've been on Facebook chat with my spiritual guru all morning because this has triggered me into PTSD. I must go blog about this now or I may destroy environmental regulations in Portugal.