Slashdot Mirror
All 12 Member Countries Sign Off On the TPP (freezenet.ca)
Dangerous_Minds writes: News is surfacing that the TPP has officially been signed by all 12 member countries. This marks the beginning of the final step towards ratification. Freezenet has a quick rundown of what copyright provisions are contained in the agreement, including traffic shaping, site blocking, enforcement of copyright when infringement is "imminent," and a government mandate for ISPs to install backdoors for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement on the Internet.
Now any corporation can sure your country, but you can't vote on the selling out of your rights to foreign corporations.
Are you happy yet?
Days like this I wish I'd never helped create the Internet or the tools you use, or let it escape from academia.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Don't forget, we're putting covers on our TPP reports before we send them out now.
But has it passed Congress yet?
Why else would they be permitted to sue countries/governments over alleged threats to their 'perceived potential profits' due to new laws (such as environment protections laws that might forbid those companies from operating under these new laws) passed by said countries.
AC comments get piped to
Right, because an international agreement negotiated by a Democratic administration is some hope to be blamed on the Republican party.
Pull your head out of your ass. The Establishment is the problem, If you are remotely considering voting for HRC or Rubio, THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
Vote Sanders, or Vote Cruz as you like but do not allow HRC or Rubio to get nominated!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It hasn't been ratified though. There are significant benefits to being an original signatory on any international treaty, and every member country is afraid of being left in the dust if they don't. There are provisions requiring signatories to ratify certain provisions, but it has not been ratified yet, only signed, and there is a big difference.
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States - unfortunately, at the expense of other countries involved. A number of provisions in it give an unfair advantage to the US, because they have demanded that these provisions be put in.
Michael Geist is doing a very good review of all the problems with the TPP, and has been posting daily about it for about a month now. It's a rather Canadian perspective on it, but a good read nonetheless.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Would it have been that hard to expand that initialism? I've got far too many TLAs floating around in my head to be able to figure out what context you are talking about. The inability to introduce a topic properly within a slashdot summary irks me more than all the other stuff people always moan about here.
Investor-state dispute settlements here we come
According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be required to conform their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP Agreement, which includes provisions on government spending in certain areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Investor.E2.80.93state_arbitration_.28ISDS.29
Welcome to shadowrun chummer
Republicans rule all three branches of our government so that doesn't matter.
Correct. President Obama is what we would have describe as a Republican President until this century.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The latest economics study on the TPP suggests it will "cause some job losses and exacerbate income inequality in each of the dozen participating nations, but especially in the largest — the United States"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/business/international/economists-sharply-split-over-trade-deal-effects.html
No, only Malaysia has ratified.
It is a silly headline. The 12 countries that agreed to have their negotiators, whose only authority is to negotiate the text, sign what they negotiated. This is not an approval step in any of these countries, or intended to be. It is just a signing ceremony. The news was months ago when they agreed to a text; countries that didn't agree then were not on the list they're using here. They make it sound like all the countries that negotiated signed. Not true at all. The countries that came to a deal, signed the deal as the first step towards referring it to their respective national processes.
Republicans in the US House have suggested that the only chance they'll have enough votes is if they pass it during the "lame duck" session after this year's Nov election. I agree that is their one chance, but I think they might have a hard time selling it to voters this year and if it is a major election issue then it won't pass the Senate. Elected Republicans mostly like it, but most Republican voters don't.
You are a special kind of troll that we should all cherish.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
^^This, a million fucking times this!
Corporatism knows no party, and cares for none but one driving ideology: profit.
The sooner you partisan asshats get that through your skulls, the better off we'll all be.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Just give in to the Hollywood studios, world. It's BLISSS.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I can start respecting copyright at the same level as the average Chinese person does
With utter contempt
If you think Cruz isn't supported by the real establishment, you might want to dig a little deeper, past the dislike that the Washington DC political establishment has of him, and take a long hard look at some of the places he's getting his money from. Cruz is not an outsider - he's played a very calculated, cynical game to take on that role because he thinks it's his route to power. The main reason that he's upset the many Republican officeholders that hate his guts is because he's refused to play by their rules, and promoted his own career at their express expense, because he found that running against Washington DC, including the Republicans of Washington DC, would help him win.
You're just shouting, without checking the positions. What if it really is a partisan issue, and Obama is the only high profile Democrat supporting it? Then what?
Clinton and Sanders are both against the TPP. Not sure why you're spewing anti-Hillary stuff here. Trump is also opposed. Rubio says he is undecided.
Cruz supports the TPP, but doesn't think that Congress should vote in a lame duck session.
Even counting withdrawn Democratic candidates, you'll find that Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb both opposed it.
Presidential candidates supporting the TPP are only: Bush(R), Cruz(R), Kasich(R), Rick Perry(R), Rick Santorum(R), Scott Walker(R)
Maybe yes are: Rubio(R)(maybe; supported before now says undecided), Rand Paul(R)(opposes Presidential authority to negotiate it, but open to voting for the actual deal)
Moderators, please note that many of the comments in this thread are a troll replying to himself to make it appear like a conversation. It's one jackass who posts this type of spam on a regular basis, replying to himself as AC. And, of course, he never says anything of substance, just one line nonsense.
Here's one example: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8657315&cid=51359929 (posting about how Republicans want people to die)
Another example: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8685139cid=51400945 (making BS claims about Facebook tolerating and promoting gun violence)
Yet another: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8700601&cid=51428235 (Claiming that Republicans are always tracking and spying on everyone)
There are others. It's almost certainly one assclown who ought to be banned or at least modded into oblivion. I'm hoping the new owners get rid of some of the shit like this. I don't really mind real trolls that post on-topic stuff. Some of it's actually pretty damn funny. Even some of the old -1 logged-in posters like cyborg_monkey were entertaining. Besides, they didn't waste mod points because they were already at -1 and you could easily avoid reading them. But I'd like to see really stupid nonsense like this go away. As one user said, real trolls would either make us laugh or piss us off; this guy does neither and is just a waste.
According to Michael Geist, TPP requires implementation of a DMCA-style take-down notice system, while eliminating the good faith belief requirement. Oh please oh please let it pass. YouTube? I'm sorry, it infringes. All of it. Vevo? Infringing. Take it down. Redtube? Infringing. Take it down. If TPP is implemented, it is our duty to see to it that no automated take-down system in any of the 12 countries will work anymore. And it will be legal.
Finally all those spam botnets will have a productive use.
Or vote for Gary Johnson! https://www.garyjohnson2016.co...
Cruz does not support TPP. He does support TPA. Get your facts straight.
Hillary being "against" it is hilarious because you have to remember that this thing has been going on long enough that she literally was involved in negotiating it. Her hands are already all over the TPP. The only reason she's "against" it is because Bernie is against it. Once Bernie loses the nomination (and he will, democracy doesn't mean shit to the DNC), she'll forget all about being "against" the TPP.
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Clinton was in favor of the TPP until recently when she realized she has to be against it to win the primary. There's every reason to think she'd be for it again if elected.
This space intentionally left blank
We're headed deaper into the world of cyberpunk once more with all its hallmarks, including corporate socialism (corporates reap gain, citziens/taxpayers pay loss). TPP is just another step along the way. ... I wonder when there will be a counter movement. ... Right now everyone get's bored when I try to explain software and algorithm patents to them.Or they simply believe it doesn't exist.
Whatever happens, I want a cyberdeck and Kanedas bike from Akira. ... And a tank with a few clones of me so I don't grow old. :-)
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I vote for Cave Johnson, with Lemons for VP.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Be careful. VP Lemons might burn down your house.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
being involved in negotiating doesn't give you much control over its contents. There's only so much one person can do when there are this many parties involved.
In short, we've been screwed again.
While both Democrats and Republicans just love screwing us, they usually do it in different ways. This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
Nope. Most Democrats oppose the TPP because the unions oppose it. Many Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it. It will not pass, or even be voted on, until after the election. If Bernie wins, TPP is dead. If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it. If Trump wins, it is likely dead. If an establishment Republican wins, it will have a good chance of being ratified.
So who does have control over it's contents? You've just eliminated both the people that did have control and the people that didn't. Good luck with that argument.
I think there's enough blame to go around, so I'm being bipartisan. The Democrats cannot pass this without a lot of Republican help, and I'm going to blame everyone involved.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Have you never tried to do any sort of group project (college comes to mind for me) where you have no way (or authority) to fix everyone else's stupid?
I have done plenty of group projects. It works best when you reasonably present good ideas, work with others, and show respect. We all encounter stupid people in our lives. That is normal. If everyone you meet is stupid, then chances are you're the stupid one.
Again, if the people negotiating weren't responsible for it's contents, and the people not negotiating can't be responsible, then who is responsible for it's contents?
What does religion have to do with it?
Do you mean a philosophy by which you try to live your life and help make life and death decisions with? In that case, then everything with everybody has to do with religion.
Unfortunately Congress already preapproved it. They don't need to vote on it again. Let that sink in... The Republicans preapproved a deal by Obama, before it was even done, and before reading any text from it. This is how much money is involved and how corrupt it is.
TPP is the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" trade treaty that is a massive scam to hand the sovereignty of many nations to multinational corporations. It lets the super-rich move labor and products around tax-free while using that total mobility to escape local laws, regulations, oversight and public scrutiny. There is NOTHING in the thousands of pages to increase democratic functions, and everything that multinationals and the super-rich who have private jets and armed private security and who hang-out at Davos want.
TPP has been a major international and political issue for well over a year (and was being worked-on less-publicly for much longer) so anybody on the half of the planet who is affected and yet does not know about it is a willful idiot who should never be allowed near a voting booth.
Republicans rule all three branches of our government so that doesn't matter.
So, and? Looks like people who can vote need to learn a lesson, just a question how long it takes and what gets destroyed in the meantime.
Can't milk a hungry cow and the Elysium implementations possible now still are on this planets surface. Not the first time a population gets decimated by some cause - climate change (ice age 70 k years ago), overuse in connection with lack of knowledge etc. Maya sure may not had the knowledge which is available now:
http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...
"We modeled the worst and best case scenarios: 100 percent deforestation in the Maya area and no deforestation," says Sever. "The results were eye opening. Loss of all the trees caused a 3-5 degree rise in temperature and a 20-30 percent decrease in rainfall."
One would think something has changed by then....
Yes, but Hillary was one of the authors of the TPP. And in the debate she didn't say she wouldn't support it when asked, she just waffled.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
>> If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it.
You must be new here. Nothing pivots like a Clinton in office.
Read the summary as if, like me, you have no idea what 'TPP' is or means.
Editorial fail.
Nothing pivots like a Clinton in office.
Hakeem Olajuwon?
Nothing posted to
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
Well, people have been asking for it, and now, here it is, the Corporate Death Penalty! Coming soon to a city-state near you. We can eliminate threats to Intellectual Property and not tie up the local court systems. We can handle these recalcitrant individuals ourselves. We will have justice for our IP, it has rights, you know, it says so in the TPP. . .
Wait, what!? You wanted the ability to use it on Corporations? Citizen, no! These institutions are the job creators. Destroying them would be hazardous to local and the global economies. You may have victory against us, but in the meantime, you'd have wars, famine, plague, and pestilence because we wouldn't be around to provide for you. You shouldn't want that - no one really wants that. If you do, well, you should see the company doctor. It's provided here, in your wage-slave contract. Don't worry, your contract provides you with six hours of free time per week, with an additional whole day++ off. ++24 hour 'day off' period will typically be surrounded by 2 12-hr work periods. You are expected to sleep a minimum of 6 hours after every 12 hour work period, and at least 6 hours before a 12 hour work period. Remember, a sleepy worker, is an unproductive worker, and unproductive workers will receive only 1/2 pay.
And remember, you cannot destroy us, for we are too big to fail!
This view of your future brought has been brought to courtesy of the TPP, and underwritten by East Asian Motors.
I am a bit of a student of history. I am not, by trade, a historian. However, it is my observation that the pendulum swings in (at least) two directions. The further it swings in any direction, the further it swings back.
So, if history is any indication as to social, political, or economic events, and I think it is, there will be a backlash and it probably won't be pretty. It's quite likely that it will take some years and some push but the people will fight back eventually.
If you knock someone down in the corner and then keep kicking them, they'll eventually get up and fight back - and be mighty pissed. Well, not everyone. Some folks will not only take it but lick the boots that kick them while asking for more. I'll let you speculate as to whom that might be but, rest assured, they exist.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The DNC does not have that kind of power. If they shove Clinton through by stomping on Bernie, a lot of his supporters will simply not vote on election day, effectively handing the presidency to the Republicans.
And they only did it that way so they could like they opposed it later.
Play Command HQ online
I lot of these guys would rather have a Rubio than Sanders.
Play Command HQ online
Who will now be able to sell dozens and dozens of Kg of sugar to the US, provided it does not compete with US farmers...
Hi KGill. :-)
Some of the things I'm seeing: .bit exist
- Google and Apple, Facebook/Whatsapp not yet cooperating with getting rid of encryption
- lots of open source encryption tools
- slowly but surely we are seeing some more open source hardware projects
- Bitcoin and the follow altcoins exist - some even have some coinjoin system (anonymity)
- OpenBazaar exists (not full anonymity yet) - open trade, no borders
- decentralized DNS with
So at least some of the tools are in place...
New things are always on the horizon
Hello there, Lennie.
You raise some interesting points. All quite true for those - which does overlap in other areas. So, maybe? At least I think I get what you're saying. This might be a bit long but I'll do my best to be concise and articulate.
If you don't mind, and treat these as rhetorical in all or in part if you prefer - though I do welcome a reply, if I ask a question or two?
Do we, as a citizenry, have enough impetus to act?
Will we, in viable numbers, actually act and make changes to our own habits?
Have we reached a point where action is of dire importance?
Are we, as a group, so disenfranchised, disillusioned, and jaded that we are willing to risk persecution?
Bread and circuses (beer and television) go a long ways, Lennie. Throws in some creature comforts, some modicum of freedom (even if only a matter of perspective) of choice, fear, and cowardice (I can think of no better word)... Then, well... Pithy, yes... We've still got tools, we still have options. Will we use those options before it is too late?
The sooner the pendulum can be swung back the better and the less destructive those swings will be. It's a bit like speed-wobbles on a bicycle or a skateboard. It's hard to tell, from my perspective, how far we've come. I'm inside looking inside - not outside and looking in. How much is too much? When do we make use of those tools with an adoption rate large enough to matter? When do we begin the deconstruction process and do we need to? What will that look like? When it comes time to throw stones, which side will you be on?
So, those aren't really rhetorical but you can interpret them as such. Buggered if I've got all the answers. I know that, historically, things like the French Revolution look good on paper but that actually lead to a horrific time and didn't really start to die down until Napoleon. For a while, it was pretty damned crazy - including changing calendar dates, use of shaming, forced adherence to social standards, encouraging spying on ones neighbor, and a whole lot of head removal.
Why do I mention the French Revolution? Well, it wasn't quite like a lot of people expected and it's not really covered well in history. No sides were innocent but one side is a bit better able to whitewash the history because they still had their heads. That leads back to the question - which side will you be on?
At any rate, the tools are there. Some people are not actively abetting and those people have some sway - but how hard will they push when push comes to shove and the pendulum swings a bit further still? The less the pendulum moves, the less force it has when it swings back. Entropy is the natural thing - it will swing back for the foreseeable future. For all our pomp and circumstance, I can think of no greater arrogance than that displayed by those who believe we are at the pinnacle of morals and education. Well, except maybe that displayed by those who would deem themselves your master.
During WWII and the Siege of Stalingrad, it was not uncommon for roving groups of young men to gather in groups to accost the old and feeble. They'd do so simply to steal their bread. One journalist, from that time, retells a story about a lady who came upon such a lad, by himself that time, who'd done such a thing. When she came across him, he was down on the ground and being beaten to a pulp by the witnesses. She realized what was happening and joined in with the group who was beating that boy. Somehow, in the mix, she managed to get that piece of bread - small, some 50g, in her hands and she did not recollect how. Then, again without knowing how - while still a part of the group kicking the thief, she proceeded to stuff that purloined bread into her mouth and eat it - others noticed and where aghast but, seemingly, unsurprised. Which side will you be on when the stones are thrown?
It's all rather complex, I'd say. The less swing to the pendulum, the better and more prosperous the society seems to be. That can be extrapolated to those who advocate
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The RIAA/MPAA actually become a mafia entity with enforcers ...
Oh, so it's historical sci-fi then?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
It works best when you reasonably present good ideas, work with others, and show respect.
And you can only control yourself. Not the other people in the group.
Again, if the people negotiating weren't responsible for it's contents
I never said that. I said that a dissenting person can't be held responsible for contents that they didn't agree to- what could they have done about it? Some of the other people negotiating are responsible.
No, Congress gave the President "fast-track trade promotion authority" which allows the President improved power to negotiate because it ties Congress' hands so that they can only ratify or reject a trade agreement; they can't modify it, and in the Senate they can't filibuster. They still have to vote "yes" for it to be ratified. ;)
Congress improved the likelihood of passing a trade agreement in general by preventing themselves from getting in the way with parliamentary procedure. As somebody who dislikes the agreement I think that is great, they've backed themselves into a corner and they're going to have to have public debate on the actual subject being decided! I don't think that leads to passage of this thing. If it was popular, this would aid passage; since it is unpopular, it harms passage.
The main reason for it was so that the negotiators could tell the other countries, "this is the real deal that Congress is going to ratify." In past rounds of negotiation, Congress has often passed bills changing the details of the American implementation of trade deals. That possibility meant that other countries weren't believing that the details would hold up, and so not wanting to compromise. It is hard to do a compromise on specific issues if the other side might change the rules later.
The fast-track trade rules are not bad law, and they don't prevent Congress from fulfilling its role. It just prevents them from bungling around and exceeding it on this issue. Don't assume that because you're against this or other specific trade agreements that the "trade promotion authority" bill was automatically bad. Congress sucking less is good, even where you still want them to vote no.
I did get my facts straight. He did a bunch of work promoting the TPP, and the TPA last year.
He obfuscated his TPA support by voting yes to stop debate and override the filibuster, but then he let it pass without even voting, so he could mask his support since. That is the facts of his record on this, he talks out both sides of his mouth, but he does support it.
If he wants to change his opinion, it takes more than saying so at a campaign stop in Iowa during a contentious primary. He needs to do like he did in support, and make a formal statement that retracts his support. Then he'll change columns on lists. Right now the best you can argue is that, "Cruz flip-flopped on that, I promise!"
But look, even after flip-flopping on TPA, he still said he might support TPP. He was never opposed to it. He said at a couple campaign stops recently that he was against it, but he had said both things prior to TPA, and his votes in the Senate when TPA was passed were to assist it in passing without even voting on it in the end, even though he was there and helping it overcome the filibuster. That is after he claimed to oppose it, after having supported it.
So, no. Get your facts straight.
Clinton was undecided, when she was Secretary of State it was her job to support whatever trade deals her boss, the President, was having negotiated. The deal was not yet actually negotiated though. Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a political role; they are not even supposed to be providing their opinions, they provide the official US Government opinions, because they're not elected they're appointed.
Post Secretary of State, when she is giving her own opinions, she started out undecided but hopeful, and as soon as the details of the agreement started leaking, she was opposed. She's been solidly opposed to it.
Fact-checking isn't even hard. https://ballotpedia.org/2016_p...
She didn't change her position for the primary, that is a silly accusation. Was she supporting it during the TPA debate? No, she was already opposing it. When she was Secretary of State and made statements in support, she had also been told that they were going to include strong worker rights protections, and environmental protections, neither of which are included. None of the people who supported the idea of the deal before it was negotiated were told the deal would be as it actually is; they were told it would have the worker and environmental protections that past trade agreements lacked. Lots and lots of people would have supported a deal that had the right sort of protections, because trade barriers are often bad. The deal that was negotiated does a lot of other things, and almost none of those hopeful early supporters are supporting the deal.
Clinton has opposed the deal consistently since it was actually negotiated and existed as a thing with known details.
And don't forget that Cruz has direct insider ties to Wallstreet's biggest bunch of crooks: Goldman Sachs.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Goldman Sachs? Are you serious? It's not like he was paid (bribed) $675,000 for three speeches to GS. How many former GS executive have worked for the Obama Administration? You can't complain now, if you didn't complain before.
How many of our previous politicians had a spouse that was a relatively high level Goldman Sachs employee while running on an anti-establishment platform?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Insomniac ? I hope you don't have that regularly, if so I suggest you do something about that. Less caffeine and less stress ?
OK, I'll be the first to admit it. I'm no expert, I suggest you talk to one.
I'm also not completely sane at this moment, this is the morning after a night on the town, their is still a lot of alcohol in my body. ;-)
Anyway, about the topic at hand...
Yes, I do think about it like a pendulum as well and about how far it can or will be pushed in one way (maybe even multiple pendulums). I think most people would really want to avoid full on revolution. Because it's hard to predict the outcome. Take for example the Arab spring. Also look at ISIS/IS/ISIL/Daesh they came out of the chaos largely created by the US (but that is a whole different topic).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think at least some people in government get it.
Sometimes when I see police in countries like the US get more and heavier arms, I'm thinking someone is preparing for that future in a very negative way.
But let's look at the positive.
Let's take for example the people that claim that automation will take our jobs:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Maybe they are wrong, but one thing is correct, technology can cause a lot of change and it probably will. Maybe even accelerate.
When talking about that, you'd always keep in mind what Voltaire said: Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need.
Then you look at what people in some governments are trying to do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From a US perspective you'd think it's some kind of socialist system, but a lot of the ideas behind that came from the US from people like: Friedrich Hayek, Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman. Or as Andrew McAfee likes to say with a big smile: frothing-at-the-mouth socialists ;-)
In Europe we now have a bunch of organisations, countries and cities looking seriously into this and testing it in real life again.
From a pure technology perspective, I can see technology solving the need problem.
If energy prices do really keep falling like they have with capturing the energy from wind and solar light and heat then it will get easier (=cheaper). Take for example the Sahara Forest Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Energy storage is also still improving too: http://rameznaam.com/2013/09/2...
They seem to be on a Moore's Law like trajectory.
They might claim to be the first:
http://inhabitat.com/worlds-fi...
But automatic milking also has been doing very well for how long ? over 10 years now ?
If you combine: cheap energy, cheap clean water, cheap electronics/communication, cheap energy storage, cheap food production
you get a very potent mix to solve a large part of the problem of need that Voltaire talked about. In the documentary I linked they also talk about cheap health care (I hope so). Those are some very positive trends.
Cheap technology also seems to create a more decentralized future, so maybe in that sense Bitcoin/OpenBazaar and solar panels are similar.
I'm from Europe, I personally don't see the state as my enemy like some people in the US or some in Bitcoin do. For example I think of the government as the biggest VC funder/risk taker of them all. Who would spend more than 10 years on fundamental research with a high amount of risk of failure and then give it away for free (simple example: Internet, funded by ARPA now called DARPA. I don't know if it was considered a risky endeavour at the time, but it's an ex
New things are always on the horizon
You might want to look up the word "literally." It literally does not mean what you say here.
So, surely you recognize that somebody who wasn't involved in the negotiations at all, but worked for one of the parties in the negotiations when the negotiations had started, but had not worked for that organization for a few years when the agreement was made would not know anything at all about it.
At least certainly less than any of the people who had ever been in the room... ;)
She wasn't even a dissenting member, she was never even a trade negotiator, and wasn't working for the government at the late stage when the compromises were being worked out.
She said it was going to be great before it was negotiated, when she worked for the government. Then they negotiated it, and by then she didn't work for the government. She got the details recently, same as the rest of us, and she has opposed it since the first real details were leaking out early last year.
I'm not sure what his angle is here. She quite simply has nothing to do with this deal, and the entire reason to discuss her stance on it has to do with if she would sign it as President.
If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it.
Do you really believe campaign propaganda?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...who is responsible for it's contents?
Industries seeking cheap/free labor, indefinite copyright, and special protections from the state. They are the ones who wrote the bill.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Which obviously means she supports it but can't say so yet until the election is secured.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”