Kokeile poliittinen tietokilpailu

0 Vastaa

 @2Q6VKQZNew York _ vastattu…4v4Y

Yes, with the provision that companies may not move their base. This is to incentivize trade and create jobs and a stronger economy- we should have provisions and guidelines in place for participants to ensure the continued growth of the american workforce.

 @2Q6L3VVNew York _ vastattu…4v4Y

No, free trade must be allowed and not subject to treaties guaranteeing reciprocity. We should not engage in trade wars; the market will provide the incentive for other countries to stop protectionism; even if they are deaf to the market, using force is counterproductive.

 @2Q5W52YVirginia _ vastattu…4v4Y

No, HELL NO. I live and work in China now. I'm here because I can't find a job in the US. Do something to make jobs at home so I can come home!

 @44gangsterMaryland _ vastattu…4v4Y

It's like the Affordable Care Act; too complicated for the average citizen to understand and suspected of having hidden clauses. Build our economy and trade one on one with other countries

 @2Q3SN7JGeorgia _ vastattu…4v4Y

Yes, but only if it were guaranteed that the companies would employ American workers, thus not taking away from American job opportunities.

 @songtureTexas _ vastattu…4v4Y

from leaked documents, this is a very biased agreement in favor of multinational corporations and their interests that will override other issues such as the environment and civil liberties.

 @2MBZ243Georgia _ vastattu…4v4Y

No, it is secret and will affect us all. Restrictions on intellectual property, outrageous extranational courts negating sovereignty and infuriating Internet rights infringements.

 @2MBSN9BCalifornia _ vastattu…4v4Y

Without knowing what has been negotiated, I can't say. There are geopolitical reasons to have trade agreement with the countries engaged in these discussions. It could be an effective way to counterbalance China's influence.

 @2MBJY6CCalifornia _ vastattu…4v4Y

No, tariffs are an important source of revenue. Instead of pursuing a free trade strategy, the United States should pursue an equal trade strategy, where signers of the partnership agree upon a universal tariff rate.

 @29G823TLibertaarinenvastattu…4v4Y

Favor free trade in principle as beneficial, but dislike increasing intellectual property law guarantees.

 @2MBGD2TTexas _ vastattu…4v4Y

 @2MBBYF8Massachusetts _ vastattu…4v4Y

 @2MB8H68Maine _ vastattu…4v4Y

No it reduces a country's sovereignty and makes it easier for corporations to exploit countries for economic gain. Some countries will see a reduction in their food safety standards and some will miss out on jobs. Countries will loose some of their authority and will be able to be sued by corporations.

 @2M9YRTZNew York _ vastattu…4v4Y

support it, but only with the caveat that they limit the size of the operations allowable overseas and a majority % of jobs must remain stateside.

 @2M9XS6ZColorado _ vastattu…4v4Y

 @2M9VQDSNew York _ vastattu…4v4Y

No... While I believe in free trade, I don't believe in all the hidden riders that the government will hide within the bill.

 @2M8Q3PKAlabama _ vastattu…4v4Y

No, I do not support any kind of agreement that may, by circumstance or design, force Americans to do business with any country or persons who commit criminal acts against humanity, as several of the intended "partners" are known to do.