Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
64. Fail. You're really showing a lack of knowledge here.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:13 PM
Apr 2015
But making Scott Alvarez a household name is child's play compared to Warren's latest fight: whipping up outrage over the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.

In a Washington Post op-ed today, Warren writes, "ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court."

Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

Warren goes on to argue that the rules of that arbitration end up favoring corporations both in the complaints that get hard and the decisions that get rendered. Interestingly, this isn't just a liberal crusade: the libertarian think tank Cato has a lengthy brief slamming the ISDS as "an unnecessary, unreasonable, and unwise provision to include in trade agreements" that, among other sins, "is not even essential to the task of freeing trade."

This puts Warren on a direct collision course with the Obama administration: passing the TPP deal is one of their top priorities this year.

So can Warren get people to care about ISDS? Maybe! As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote in his newsletter last night, Warren "has a unique knack among today's elected officials for seizing on things that are languishing in obscurity and making them blow up. The greatest trick the special interests ever played was getting the world to stop paying attention. Warren makes people pay attention."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114291/elizabeth-warren-tpp





A staunch supporter of fair trade, Sen. Warren has been extremely vocal in her fight against “free trade” agreements. She’s rallied against the Korean – U.S. “free trade” agreement (KOR-US) a number of times, and has recently been heard speaking out against the highly secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), calling for greater transparency during negotiations. In fact, she has even sent a letter to President Barack Obama’s nominee to head U.S. trade negotiations that detailed her concerns about President Obama’s lack of transparency in the TPP negotiations.

In regards to manufacturing and outsourcing, Sen. Warren believes we need to shift the focus from imports and instead focus on manufacturing American-made products. She believes we must go back to our roots, back to what made America great. That means innovation is key so we can invent and create new products to sell to the rest of the world and aid our ailing economy.

Because she is also a supporter of fair trade, Sen. Warren believes that, to maintain a successful economy, the U.S. must strengthen its trade laws with our trading partners and demand those same trading partners respect workers’ rights and environmental standards.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/elizabeth-warren-and-hillary-clinton




I've got more links if you need them!
Maybe. Both are brilliant, and both are future past presidents! NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #1
I thought she wasn't allowed to talk about the details. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #2
So EW is a lying sack of shit? polichick Apr 2015 #3
She's a politician. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #20
NOPE! Not even a funny joke. diabeticman Apr 2015 #4
It's not a joke, but it makes more sense than taking all this insanity at face value. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #7
It makes exactly no sense. cali Apr 2015 #11
Thank You I was just about to say that. diabeticman Apr 2015 #12
You already did. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #14
cali, you have no room to talk on this. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #13
I sure do. I don't make up crazy shit. I post links to well respected sources for my claims cali Apr 2015 #17
I never claimed this was more than pure speculation. I was honest about that. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #18
yes. I can. cali Apr 2015 #24
I'm not referring to history, analysis, or statistics. Just facts about TPP... Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #39
Post Links?? I disagree as to the link thing. Everyday you post opinion pieces. misterhighwasted Apr 2015 #30
here ya go, and FAIL cali Apr 2015 #37
Haahaa. Really? You post opinion pieces every day. misterhighwasted Apr 2015 #38
lol another scared poster cali Apr 2015 #42
Better than your Torquemada approach to any dissension . orpupilofnature57 Apr 2015 #75
I mean...do you really think this? tritsofme Apr 2015 #5
No. I actually think she is Hillary's attack dog on this issue. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #6
The rethugs have liked it all along. Why do you think he waited for a rethug senate majority before RiverLover Apr 2015 #8
"Man, I can't stand RWrs, either party." Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #9
your op is what you claim to hate. a textbook case. cali Apr 2015 #33
Bullshit, cali. I am not painting my speculation as "history, analysis, statistics, and facts." Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #45
YOU said you couldn't abide "non-thinking" cali Apr 2015 #55
no, that's beyond ridiculous and shows no understanding of the history involved. cali Apr 2015 #10
If I recall correctly, NAFTA was supported by the president pro-tem of the Senate. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #15
what does that have to do with the facts I posted? nothing cali Apr 2015 #21
Just a little history and analysis. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #58
gad. It is neither cali Apr 2015 #62
You've been keeping a pretty low threshold for credibility. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #63
There was no purpose to this OP aspirant Apr 2015 #78
excellent cali RobertEarl Apr 2015 #16
Kinda like rejecting the TPP with zero knowledge of what's inside. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #19
we have some knowledge. wish we had more, but yes the three leaked draft chapters, analysis cali Apr 2015 #23
We can't even say for certain what stage these three chapters are in. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #40
When the theory become fact, is it too late? aspirant Apr 2015 #25
NO! There's a public comment period and a full vote of Congress. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #43
After fast track is passed with no amendments and filibusters, aspirant Apr 2015 #77
Here's some knowledge of what's inside. RiverLover Apr 2015 #26
That seems like a reach pscot Apr 2015 #22
Wondered the same thing. Sienna86 Apr 2015 #27
hey, are the other 150+ congressional dems in on this too? cali Apr 2015 #28
Nothing surprises me anymore. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #47
The GOP is not reserving judgment, they like it just fine. truebluegreen Apr 2015 #29
breathtakingly so. cali Apr 2015 #31
"...their masters..." Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #46
that should be obvious: Corporations cali Apr 2015 #50
Ah. Please provide a list of the corporations that wrote this agreement. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #52
what does your demand have to do with republicans being owned by corporations cali Apr 2015 #60
Thank you! This was what I was waiting for. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #61
collapse? you've lost it. cali Apr 2015 #65
Your aim is poor, not unexpectedly. truebluegreen Apr 2015 #66
slow motion train wreck. he knows I didn't claim any such thing. cali Apr 2015 #68
Yes, you seem to be his bete noire, truebluegreen Apr 2015 #69
Yep. That is enough to me Aerows Apr 2015 #57
Interesting idea MFrohike Apr 2015 #32
+ 10000 This ^ misterhighwasted Apr 2015 #35
very good counterpoints. liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #36
mkay Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #48
Sorry MFrohike Apr 2015 #54
Is that the 100th level chess he's playing again? liberal_at_heart Apr 2015 #34
No. That's gibberish nonsense. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #41
It belongs in creative speculation cali Apr 2015 #44
+1 for creative speculation. nt truebluegreen Apr 2015 #67
Gibberish? Were you unable to comprehend my sentences? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #49
Not a... sendero Apr 2015 #51
Really? She has provided nothing of substance to oppose other than the secrecy. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #53
if it is approved. cali Apr 2015 #56
Damned convenient, that. Don't you think? Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #59
Fail. You're really showing a lack of knowledge here. RiverLover Apr 2015 #64
It's hard to debate ... sendero Apr 2015 #71
And the republicans are doing his bidding by pretending to love it, so that Dems will hate it? arcane1 Apr 2015 #70
I do believe the TPP is not nearly as bad as EW describes it, but I think she's Hoyt Apr 2015 #72
we already have formal alliances with those nations cali Apr 2015 #73
The GOP is not blocking this agreement. former9thward Apr 2015 #74
Since Shrub, Bipartisanship screws the rest of us, on almost every subject . orpupilofnature57 Apr 2015 #76
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Elizabeth Warren Doing...»Reply #64