Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership • Hacker News Board

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#201

Post by iofj » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 3:19 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #150

izacus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. I'm not sure why that would affect this debate at all?

If your local legislature doesn't enable the treaty, you aren't bound by it: it isn't a part of your law. A trade treaty is essentially a promise to pass a set of laws.

Generally treaties are negotiated by the executive of a country, not the legislative force. Even in the cases where there is still a ratification step, the initiative is taken away from the legislative, and the law is written by indirectly (at best) elected commissars (in the case of the EU), rather than directly elected representatives.

In the case of the EU, there isn't even a ratification step once the EU commission (which isn't elected) agrees to a treaty.

And of course ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law)

That means that with EU commission agreement you get the supreme court (that supersedes all local courts) arguing that anything the commission agrees to can countermand local constitutions.

So local legislature agreement required, in many cases, is incorrect.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#202

Post by iofj » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 3:21 AM UTC

proksoup wrote: post #131

tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.

Because it's no longer as simple as repealing/passing a domestic law but in addition to that becomes an issue of reneging on an agreement with other nations. In practice maybe we don't respect treaties very much, but it does seem to be an additional barrier, at least in the public discourse about what laws to repeal/pass.

This is the theory that the EU tries to push on it's member states. They have accepted that international treaties carry greater weight than the local laws and even the constitution of the local countries :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_(European_Union_law)

As to whether it applies to all treaties or just the EU ones, ... good question. In practice courts haven't really followed it.

Also, just as a data point, I've been working in Brussels for close to 20 years now and seen the evolution. I work as a consultant, so it has been a mixed bag for me. However, for just about everyone else, workers, middle class, business owners, ... it has been a consistently worsening disaster.

Having regularly worked for the EU commission, let me tell you this : any idea you may have that this organization has anything but their own economic interests at heart can be cured by chatting with one of them for 5 minutes.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#203

Post by iofj » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 3:23 AM UTC

webkike wrote: post #163

nostromo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

Pretty sure Hillary's views are well aligned with a typical leftist agenda. I don't see her passing pro gun or anti abortion laws for example.

The president doesn't have legislative authority, and cannot pass either pro-gun or anti-abortion laws.

All they can do is, like Obama did with Obamacare, run what is essentially an advertising/pressure campaign to get something passed.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#204

Post by narrowrail » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 3:28 AM UTC

jillop wrote: post #128

npunt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On [2], the article you link to provides strong evidence for why Google isn't doing that, and if it was its not specifically for HRC but for just about any person. In other words, they're simply running search differently from Yahoo and Bing.

Try typing in 'crooked h' and see how that autocompletes. Keep adding letters... Guess what? A week and a half ago you got 'crooked Hilllary' now you don't, and it's nowhere to bed found.... They censored the results in her favor, no doubt about it.

Did you really create this account to write one comment? This is complete noise.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#205

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #143

harry8 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trump isn't genuinely anything but pro-trump.

Hillary reads the same to me, I must say. I have no idea what she genuinely believes. But, honestly, why would anyone run for president unless they were an insane egoist or craved power? It's not a job a sane person would volunteer to do. There are a few rare individuals that do it out of desire to do good, but they seem rarer by the day.

[deleted]

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#206

Post by rory096 » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 4:25 AM UTC

fattire wrote: post #172

dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trade agreements are basically never treated as treaties, but are, after negotiated, submitted to Congress for passage as regular laws -- as TPP has been -- so it will take a simple majority in each house of Congress, followed by the signature of the President (or, 2/3 of each house to override a veto if one occurs.)

FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down, and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote. The vote was 60-38. Around that time, Clinton did refer to the secretly-written TPP as the "gold standard" in trade negotiations, but possibly due to pressure from Sanders…

> FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down,

This is true. A supermajority in Congress chose to preemptively waive its filibuster, as it has routinely in such situations since the 1970s. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to set its own rules. Many believe the filibuster shouldn't exist.

> and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.

I don't understand how people are still making this argument.

The text has available for seven months at this point and no vote is in sight. There's been plenty of time for both NGOs and individuals to review. The treaty is fairly lengthy (it did take seven years to negotiate after all), but it's certainly readable.

If you're so concerned about not knowing the text, why don't you read it?

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#207

Post by josho » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 4:25 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #159

_delirium wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this as an American as well. Obviously worries about the NSA getting your data are moot if the data was American to begin with, but there are a lot of other concerns, too. I wouldn't feel comfortable with my medical data being stored just anywhere, and I think it's entirely reasonable that the U.S. government should be able to put some restrictions on where it's stored. It may be possible to come up with…

The EU did this, remember, by agreeing to a "safe harbor" agreement with the US, where companies could certify that they would voluntarily treat personal data from the EU according to EU data protection rules. But then it transpires that we can not actually trust this, because US companies do not have the ability to control this. That said, as as long as TPP only requires that there is no discrimination, that should…

Quoting the eff:

stronger privacy laws are outlawed if they amount to an “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade.”

it would seem that google's opinion is that protecting my health data is a restriction on trade. That's why I'm concerned with the TPP.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#208

Post by webkike » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 4:29 AM UTC

iofj wrote: post #203

webkike wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Hillary's views are well aligned with a typical leftist agenda. I don't see her passing pro gun or anti abortion laws for example.

The president doesn't have legislative authority, and cannot pass either pro-gun or anti-abortion laws. All they can do is, like Obama did with Obamacare, run what is essentially an advertising/pressure campaign to get something passed.

They can pass it by signing it.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#209

Post by shawn-butler » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 4:43 AM UTC

labster wrote: post #170

daveguy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Elizabeth Warren had run. She is a prime example of a sane down to earth person turning down the position everyone else lusts after.

She's so sane and down to earth that she'd rather be the most powerful Senator for 20 years than President for 4 years. You should be thanking her for playing the long game.

There is nothing preventing any former President for running for another elected office that is not in the line of succession.

I think Andrew Johnson ran for the Senate while still POTUS if memory serves.

Re: Google endorses the Trans-Pacific Partnership

#210

Post by xienze » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 5:05 AM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #192

jedberg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did that because he had to pick a party. He could have just as easily run as a Democrat and used the same tactics with different talking points. He doesn't really alight with either party. But he's most certainly anti-free-trade. All of his business and money is in the US (mostly in real estate). It's in his best interest to artificially prop up US industry by shutting down inbound trade.

He became a Republican because he is a corporatist. It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights. He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs. When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_..…

> When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_....

First of all, HuffPo is uh, far from an unbiased source when it comes to Trump. But secondly, a lot of that stuff has very flimsy reasoning behind it:

> 11. Claim: “She wasn’t dragged to the ground.” — Trump on Fields.

> Reality: Trump implies here that Fields said she was dragged to the ground. She never did.

> She said, “I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance,” which is what the video shows.

If you follow the link with her quote, right before the "I almost fell..." sentence, in her own words she says "Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down."

Which directly contradicts

> Reality: Trump implies here that Fields said she was dragged to the ground. She never did.

So uh, HuffPo is lying here about a time they claimed Trump is lying?

And then you get stuff like this:

> 53. Claim: “I am not soliciting money from insurance companies and from lumber companies and from banks and from — if I did, I would have made Jeb Bush look like a baby.”

> Reality: He made Bush look like a baby anyway.

Are we reaching here or what? They're seriously trying to say he's lying about not making Jeb look bad? And then you've got stuff like this:

> 40. Claim: “Only a fool would give a tax return [during an audit].”

> Realty: Lawyers do advise against doing this. But nothing about being audited prevents Trump from releasing his tax records.

So yeah, he's right that he shouldn't give out his tax return during an audit. What is he lying about here? He never said he couldn't, just that he shouldn't.

If the disclaimer the HuffPo puts on every Trump article hasn't clued you in, they've clearly got an axe to grind against him and you're not exactly guaranteed to get unbiased reporting about him from them.