a reasonable compromise proposal would be to replace the existing process with something that has a democratic mandate. these judges should be accountable to the people, not to head office.

you could set up a process where cases need to be put before regular judges, and subject to rigorous due process, by setting up an appointment process that is agreed upon by all three countries. so, a judge would potentially need to be approved by houses in all three countries. these would need to be learned judges, able to cite the laws and precedents in all three countries and able to come up with rulings that balance the interests of the laws in all three jurisdictions.

and, you're not going to figure that out by friday.

but, a good first step would be to throw the existing process out the window.

chapter 19 sets up these goofy kangaroo courts, with "judges" bought and paid for by corporate interests, in order to overturn the democratic mandates of either country. it's a total subversion of democracy. and, when you hear the media say it works in canada's interest, what they mean to say is that it works in the interests of international capital with offices in canada - and at the expense of american democracy.

it is trudeau that is working for head office here, and trump that is standing up for democracy.

very similarly, taking away supply management would be something that would help these big corporate farming conglomerates, at the expense of actual farmers. and, don't believe the hype around prices, either. remember when they told you that privatization would reduce energy costs? that's nonsense. the price of milk is not determined by supply management.

it's just a constant across this government - it works in the benefit of international capital, and doesn't care about actual people. trudeau's strange brand of liberalism is just another type of crony capitalism that puts profits, and investors, before actual people.

if the media is right and he attacks farmers in order to win concessions for bankers, he should be widely indicted for it.

see, i never supported the isds - i agree with trump that it is an attack on sovereignty. or, i should say that i agree with naomi klein, or noam chomsky, that it's an attack on sovereignty. this is a position most frequently presented by the hard left.

i think it's the things we're not hearing in the media we're not going to like.

but, if i was representing my country at that table, i would be looking to "compromise" on the isds (i'd have volunteered getting rid of it...) in order to save the supply management - not the other way around.

as i've said repeatedly, if i find myself forced - forced - to work at some point, i would prefer mindless drone labour over anything difficult, because i don't want to waste my brain at work - i have better uses for it than that.

i would rather work part time as a cashier.

i really would.

sorry.