How would you vote on the TPP?

[TNF]

Nay (opposed to secretive international bodies nullifying US law if it conflicts with corporate profitability)

[Zioneer]

Yeah not a fan of corporate overlordship, so nay.

[Suburbia]

No. (I)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Filibuster for sure

[Sumner 1868]

Nay (D) (opposed to secretive international bodies nullifying US law if it conflicts with corporate profitability).

[Ban my account ffs!]

Filibuster for sure

For sure...

Or refuse to show up.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Abstain (D)

[TJ in Oregon]

Probably Aye (R).

I have some concerns about surrendering enforcement power to international bodies, but I do think free trade is beneficial on the whole even if there are some losers. It probably won't be good for US manufacturing or my hometown, but it will lower (slightly) our cost of living, increase our exports, and help create jobs overseas in the developing world. Yes, I know there is exploitation that goes on with overseas manufacturing but I do think the construction of infrastructure there are infusion of resources generally outweighs the costs.

[James Monroe]

Aye(I)

[Samantha]

Nay (D) (opposed to secretive international bodies nullifying US law if it conflicts with corporate profitability).

This.

[Lief 🗽]

Most of the arguments against it honestly just sound like hysterical and ignorant high school leftist nonsense. Like the "secret negotiations!!!!111!" scare tactic. Of course the negotiations are secret. Negotiations are always secret. You think they're going to live stream this on YouTube or something? Jesus.

Note that I would still probably vote against, if only for the intellectual property provisions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Don't know enough to have a definite opinion, but I would lean Nay.

[H. Ross Peron]

Don't know enough to have a definite opinion, but I would lean Nay Aye.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes of course.

[Brewer]

I agree somewhat with Lief's criticism of the "secret negotiations" hysteria, but still am adamantly opposed to the deal.

[Murica!]

Nay (opposed to secretive international bodies nullifying US law if it conflicts with corporate profitability)

[Ebowed]

Against.  From what I understand, this will extend the more generous American patent system to other signatories, meaning that if medicine is created in America, it will be longer before pharmaceutical companies in other countries would begin making cheaper generic versions of patented medication.  Anything that extends US observation of patents, and indeed intellectual property law, further entrenches another portion of the world in a system that nobody, American or not, should really want.  It should not be even easier to protect US pharmaceutical profits in a time when they are already heavily subsidized by the federal government; no, spreading the perverse medicine-for-profit approach on an international scale is unthinkable.  I also have concerns that giving multinational corporations a larger say in international courts, where they would have the opportunity to sue governments that threaten their investments, could have a catastrophic impact on attempts to protect the environment worldwide, among other adverse effects.

[Simfan34]

Aye, and I wouldn't dawdle on it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Nay (Republican)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

My economics professor supports it, in one of our few disagreements on economics.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree somewhat with Lief's criticism of the "secret negotiations" hysteria, but still am adamantly opposed to the deal.