Those fee million dollars come from the tax payers pockets, and it allows them the ability to circumvent our laws, removing our ability to govern our own country. It doesn't matter if you think they might not take the option to go to a tribunal, the simple fact is that this is in the deal, its a terrible idea, and justifying it like you're trying to do is going against hour own self interest. Also, these trade deals do NOT strengthen our economy here at home, they enable more jobs to be sent overseas, with less repercussions. You may welcome our new corporate overlords but I'll be damned if I will.

NOTE: I don't know my true opinion on this matter, but I always see a giant echo chamber in Britton's threads. Hence why I try to disagree. If anyone needs clarification, please comment below. 1) ISDS: ISDS is in place because, in trade agreements, all nations affect each other. In other words, your laws might be harming our (as in multiple nations) trade; therefore, if a company believes that a law is damaging enough to go through the pricy* lawsuits, then the country will be giving reparations to the company. This is in place to make sure that the company is not harmed, an event that would ultimately harm the trade of the other country(s). Does it make nations vulnerable? Yes, but the many nations have given into that vulnerability for the better trade opportunities (see 2). [u]Furthermore, similar investor rights, like ISDS, and agreements, like the TPP, have been around for a long time **, and [b]the U.S. has never lost a case***.[/b][/u] Edit: ISDS [u][i][b]CANNOT[/b][/i][/u] overturn laws. It is purely for financial reparations. 2) ISDS and TPP: The TPP will be a large boon the the U.S. and other nations' trade because it will make us more open to the growing Asian market, form new ties to new nations, and strengthen those we already have****. Even if ISDS is the literal incarnation of satan on this planet (which it isn't), the trade deal will, overall, help every nation within it. A few million dollars will be am irrelevant fine. Let's face it, China is joining the U.S. as a world economic***** and military****** leader, and if the western world chooses to ignore it, China will bring the rest of Asia with it and surpass us all. There are other arguments regarding TPP, but this focuses on ISDS. It's either a good thing for the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, or it's simply a burden we'll have to carry to obtain something better. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/06/the-tpp-has-a-provision-many-will-love-to-hate-isds-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter/) All below quotes are from this article. * [quote][i]"Investment arbitration claims can cost millions of dollars to litigate, so the TPP will bring enhanced legal certainty to investors that want to attack government regulations in a more straightforward manner."[/i][/quote] ** [quote][i]"TPP opponents, on the other hand, will have to argue why this deal is singularly problematic when there are already 3,200-plus treaties around the globe that already contain[b] similar investor rights[/b]."[/i][/quote] *** [quote][i]"In response, the United States Trade Representative, or USTR (the trade office of the U.S. government), has trotted out an increasingly sophisticated defense of the system, which engages more with critics than in the past. “Not a problem” was the old answer, an easy position to take given that the U.S. has never lost a case.[/i]"[/quote] (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/full-dress-battle-awaits-know-tpp/) All quotes below are from this article. **** [quote][i]"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most substantial trade agreement ever conceived for the Asia-Pacific region. It would be the first “mega regional” of its kind: the 12 participating countries represent almost 40 percent of global output and 25 percent of global exports of goods and services. Dissatisfied with the lack of progress on the multilateral level, the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries are like-minded in their pursuit of a high-standard trade and investment agenda, but of course they have different priorities and sensitivities, which means that negotiations have not been easy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership heads the U.S. trade policy agenda for political, commercial and strategic reasons. Politically, the trade deal embodies President Obama’s famed “Asia pivot” and promises to be the centerpiece of Obama’s second-term legacy. Commercially, the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries account for about 36 percent of U.S. total two-way trade in goods and services. The United States already has free trade agreements with most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership members, but the pact would add Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, New Zealand and Vietnam to the list of U.S. free trade agreements partners. Moreover, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would upgrade existing U.S. free trade agreements, including the venerable NAFTA. Strategically, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will demonstrate to Asian partners that U.S. engagement in the region has an economic focus, alongside the obvious military dimension. [...] Econometric estimates indicate that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will boost the real incomes of member countries by $285 billion over baseline projections by 2025, a gain of 1 percent that continues indefinitely. Japan and the United States would account for 64 percent of the total GDP gains. Exports of member countries will increase by $440 billion or 7 percent. Of course, these gains will require full implementation and national economic reforms to meet Trans-Pacific Partnership obligations and take advantage of new trade and investment opportunities.[/i][/quote] (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-china-challenge-u-s-economic-dominance-with-a-new-bank/) Same as before. ***** [quote][i]"The Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is signing countries up, challenging institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and threatening U.S. economic dominance in the process. The Chinese launched the bank in October 2014, and despite U.S. attempts to keep its allies away, several have applied to join the bank. Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, and now Australia - which originally said it wouldn't join - have signed on. Earlier this week, Iran signed on as a founding member. [...] Like the World Bank and Asia Development Bank, the new Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank would provide funding, credit and financing for developing projects around the world. Financing like this is especially popular for infrastructure projects in the third world, and China is already heavily invested in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and Central Asia."[/i][/quote] (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/asia/china-south-china-sea-airstrip/index.html) ***** [quote][i]"Greg Poling, the director of CSIS's Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, said that China had reclaimed a flat rectangle of land with a retaining wall about 3,000 meters (3,280 yards) in length on Mischief Reef. It's similar to airstrips that China has been building on artificial islands at the Fiery Cross and Subi reefs in the contested Spratly Islands. "If it does turn out to be a runway, China will have three airstrips that can carry any plane the PLA (People's Liberation Army) has to offer," he said."[/i][/quote] Economics eh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enMReCEcHiM

I have no issue with you arguing against my point. Now... The argument that there are other things like it in place already isn't a justification for more of the same. These deals have been shown to hurt the majority of people, and only help the few, under the guise of "increased trade". The only trade that's increasing is our imports, while our exports continue to drop, and our economy and jobs suffer, creating more low income service industry jobs, and elimanting higher paying manufacturing and production jobs as those are shipped off in favor of cheaper labor. Also, why should we give a company power to challenge other countries decisions if they feel its damaging instead of the countires themselves? These corporations do not deserve it need equal legal footing with the sovereign states of our planet. These deals are simply giving more power to the corporations over the countires they deal with, and the consumers and users of those same countries suffer. Just because the wool was pulled over our eyes in the past doesn't mean we let it continue. Also, this deal is not justified by the china boogeyman. Those island airstrips, and their economic plans don't magically disappear by us passing this deal. Those are separate issues that must be actually addressed.

[b]1) You have only provided evidence on ISDS, not any of these statements:[/b] [quote]These deals have been shown to hurt the majority of people, and only help the few, under the guise of "increased trade". The only trade that's increasing is our imports, while our exports continue to drop, and our economy and jobs suffer, creating more low income service industry jobs, and elimanting higher paying manufacturing and production jobs as those are shipped off in favor of cheaper labor.[/quote] So far, the evidence (see: PBS article) has pointed to the TPP being a good thing overall. [b]2) Precedents[/b] [quote]The argument that there are other things like it in place already isn't a justification for more of the same.[/quote] ISDS doesn't actually have to be in this deal, nor did it have to be in any of those other deals. But it is. Why? Well we can sit here with teenage angst and blame it on "Corrupt America" and "Corporate Overlords," or we can subscribe to more intellectual reasons. There was my guess, and then there are others. For example: From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html [quote]But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next. To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements.[/quote] [b]3) Corporation Power[/b] [quote]Also, why should we give a company power to challenge other countries decisions if they feel its damaging instead of the countires themselves? These corporations do not deserve it need equal legal footing with the sovereign states of our planet. [/quote] These trade deals are created for the corporations because they're the only ones who can use them. Furthermore, these companies have access to data and logistics that nations do not, so it makes perfect sense for the companies to be given two things: the power AND the responsibility. The responsibility comes down to the litigation and other factors. This is free trade. [b]4) China[/b] [quote]Also, this deal is not justified by the china boogeyman. Those island airstrips, and their economic plans don't magically disappear by us passing this deal. Those are separate issues that must be actually addressed.[/quote] No, those issues are directly tied to this. I'm not trying to scare anyone, nor am I trying to paint China in a bad light; HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is that Asia is developing. It would be equally as blind for us to ignore that. How do we take advantage of new and large economies? Trade deals. "Mate, we want to work with you, but we will be setting some military and economic boundaries" ~ The Western World to developing Asian nations and China.

We can look at the effects of our past trade deals, for example, NAFTA, which was billed very similar to this trade deal. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/business/international-free-trade-agreements-job-growth-prosperity-impacts http://www.epi.org/publication/infographic-free-trade-agreements-have-hurt-american-workers/ These deals are "good" in that the companies that have use of them, multinational corporations, can more easily play the markets across more countries giving them more profits, but more profits for them isn't objectively good for the people. Also, there's no teenage angst here, there's genuine concern that we are handing our ability to govern ourselves away for the promise of more dollars at the expense of our worker and environmental protections. You're right Asia is becoming more industrious, but once again, that doesn't mean we pass fundamentally flawed deals. I'm all for taking on the global economy and making it work for us. But this deal doesn't do that, it makes it work for the corporations who wish to capitalize on those markets and ignores and the needs of the people. Profits are not the end all be all, especially if those profits are at the cost of the American workers and consumers. Tl;Dr more money for those who can take advantage of the deal doesn't mean its a good thing for everyone. We need to negotiate deals that take everyone's best interest into account. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/tpp-deal-leaked-pharma-000126 http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/06/the-future-of-trans-pacific-trade/congress-should-oppose-tpp-on-environmental-grounds http://www.globalresearch.ca/tpp-ignores-global-warming-and-allows-murder-of-labor-union-organizers/5487148 http://ivn.us/2015/10/27/why-does-labor-oppose-the-trans-pacific-partnership/