There is no way to reconcile the TPP with helping working Americans

[MannyGoldstein]

The TPP is yet another awful assault against the 99% by the wealthy and their paid help in Congress and the White House. It is simply inconsistent with Democratic values.

If Democrats want voters to vote for them, they should stop these attacks. And you Democratic voters who encourage and/or enable those who exult in this garbage need to think about what you're doing to our country: you are helping to create more despair, hunger, and homelessness. Please reconsider.

[Rex]

1. Not just the country anymore, global free trade is here and we will eat our serving of it

and be thankful.

[msongs]

2. our president's free gift to the democrats who voted for him nt

[merrily]

78. It will be the "gift" of the US government to all of us, regardless of

how we/they voted. And maybe even a bit of our gift to ourselves, since most of us don't band together and take steps that might have even a dream of being effective or put our money (whatever is left of it) where our mouths and keyboards are. I don't like blaming the victims, but if no one else is helping us very much, we need to get that any improvement is either going to come from us or from no one.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. TPP is a Nation Destroyer. And that's why Obama and his pals have desperately tried to hide

the TPP's details from public knowledge.

And ... Hillary Clinton supports the TPP, too.



TPP is Corporate Fascism.

[hifiguy]

174. Yup. The transference of sovereignty to corporations.

The final blueprint for worldwide corporate fascism.

[cantbeserious]

227. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

eom

[Katashi_itto]

4. Hillary Clinton was an architect for TPP and they want me to vote for her. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[Enthusiast]

201. Maybe Hillary will say,

"The TPP is a mistake, I was wrong. After witnessing the negative effects of trade deals I have decided we can no longer afford to create new ones."

[Katashi_itto]

208. :)

[bvar22]

214. Free Trade has had some positive effects too.

Wages, job security, and benefits for America's Working Class have been decimated,
and Corporate Profits are WAY up.
The 1% have never done better.

What is there for a Clinton not to like?

[hifiguy]

229. And the day THAT happens, you will see flying pigs

circling the upper floors of every major skyscraper in the country.

[uponit7771]

271. Do you have any links to this? I googled "Hillary tpp architect" and came up with nothing direct

[Old and In the Way]

5. let me be the first to congratulate you on another 300+ recommended post.

I won't bother arguing with everyone who will k/r. Because I know you are closely involved with TPP and know more details than POTUS. Because Obama hates America and he is trying to destroy us....amirite?

[MannyGoldstein]

6. You like the TPP?

Then please register as a Republican, they're the party of the 1%.

[Rex]

9. No no no, "Obama hates America and he is trying to destroy us!" is a good dodge!

Already gave you props on a huge thread, said he would not debate anyone in it (because that would mean conversation). That was a good dodge!

Give him props, didn't even begin to talk about the TPP...other than, "Obama hates America and he is trying to destroy us."

[MannyGoldstein]

19. He said what needed to be said.

[sheshe2]

26. I am confused here.

You were a Republican, before you were a Democrat....you said this. You also said you are in an inch away of being a 1%er. Or maybe it was you phase in and out of being a 1%er. How can you speak for us...ya know the little people. So Manny, you sure don't speak for me. If you are that close, you too are a 1%er.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. What the #%*& are you talking about?

That was both bizarre and factually wrong.

(In case I survive the alert, I'd appreciate if someone shares the results, thanks.)

[sheshe2]

41. You are forgetting again. Hmmm...you forgot a post about...

wait, let me think. It had something to do with food. It's alluding me right now. Hm, food, was it a holiday? Wait yes! Damn, was it about Black History Month. I can't remember.

You forget a lot, yet you said it to ProSense. You are a shoe in for 1%. Kudos. I have said this to you before, you never said it was not true, now it is.

I read it, nope can't find it. Call me a liar if you wish, yet I read it here.

Oh, we know who will get an alert here....I may or may not survive another from you.

Night Manny.

[cascadiance]

118. Did he sign it with "TWM" or "Third Way Manny"?...

Unless you've kept up with the history of "Third Way" Manny, you might not get the note that many of his posts are meant to be satire masquerading as the other side to show the lack of logic they advocate in so many cases when trying to appeal to us.

[bvar22]

186. What a load of innuendo and unsupported allegations!

You should be embarrassed by your post.
I would delete it.

[Enthusiast]

203. +1

[WillTwain]

191. FDR and JFK were both 1% by your definition. You need to understand it is a frame of mind before

it is about $$$.

Ed Schultz and Cenk were both republicans. Not any more. You are too rigid.

[Marr]

193. What a shameful, dishonest, desperate smear.

A person with character would apologize.

And to climb up on a cross afterwards, too, with 'they'll alert on me and call me a liar...'

Yuck.

[WillTwain]

35. The Obama Train Is Leading Us Off A Cliff

Manny knows best.

[stillwaiting]

87. I'm confused by this post.

Hillary is a 1%er and she used to be a Republican.

Does she speak for you?

The line of reasoning you provided here would suggest that no, she doesn't.

Unless you left a few things out.

Also, that's what Republicans say to discredit ANY wealthy liberal, and they think that it's a valid argument and that they are being oh so smart. It's not valid, and they're not smart.

[Bobbie Jo]

99. Point of order

Hillary did not "used to be a Republucan."

That's just patently false. There'a enough to pin on her without this falsehood.

As far as "used to be a Republican," I'm pretty sure the OP himself falls into that category, if I'm not mistaken...

[stillwaiting]

101. Okay in high school she used to identify as a Republican.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

She used to identify as a "Goldwater girl". I thought everyone knew that.

So, not completely patently false.

I was not claiming, by the way, that we shouldn't trust anyone who used to be a Republican.

That seems to be what the poster that I was replying to was saying.

[Bobbie Jo]

103. Oh please.

You're going with that?

High school?

Well at least she didn't vote for Reagan.

Sorry, yes patently false.

[stillwaiting]

104. At some point in her life Hillary Clinton spent time and energy for a Republican to be elected.

Barry fucking Goldwater. Who was pretty radical in his economic thinking.

Your mocking is pathetic, and our conversation back and forth is done.

I don't engage with people that communicate like you.

[Bobbie Jo]

110. Well good for you, skippy

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't communicate with people who stretch the truth, beyond correcting their falsehoods.

Barry fucking Goldwater. She wasn't even old enough to vote for him.

Ronald fucking Reagan, and those who ACTUALLY voted for him. Yeah, I have a problem with that.

You're the one who self-described as "confused."

NOW we're done.

[bvar22]

187. If you find being a Republican in High Scool as "funny",

then how about college?


Former First Lady and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was elected president of her College Republican chapter at Wellesley College in her freshman year

[Enthusiast]

205. +1

[bvar22]

212. Where are you, BJ.

This isn't The BOG, so you DO have to provide some support for your claims.

Hillary was elected president of her College Republican chapter at Wellesley College in her freshman year .

Deal with it. Its the truth.

[Bobbie Jo]

220. Wait

You honestly expected a response to that?

Okay, she was 19?

Same answer:

I see the swarm has descended.
+1
+1
+1

I was done with this idiocy this morning. If you would like to continue, have at it.

Like I said, at least she didn't vote for Reagan, much unlike some of the other finger-waggers in this thread.

I'll be damned if I'm going to be lectured by a fucking Reagonite. I don't care how much they profess to have "evolved."

Pfffffffft


btw...I was (get this) at work! Where were you with this stunning revelation this morning?

[bvar22]

224. Ooooo.

I'm intimidated by all the cartoons you used to support your vacuous post.
I guess when one has nothing of import to say, cartoons are the fallback.

...but you are in good company.
When Colin Powell couldn't prove that Saddam had WMD at the UN,
he used cartoons too!
You two should get in touch.

[Bobbie Jo]

230. Meh, was appropriate for the occasion.

but...

Cartoonish is a great description for that clumsy fail of a GOTCHA moment, Columbo.

[Andy823]

234. Good one. +100 nt

[bvar22]

233. You DO know that when you are 19 and committ a crime

You DO know that when you are 19 and commit a crime,
you are judged as an adult.

BY the time I was 19, I was a mainstream FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT,
and I could tell you why.

Are you saying Hillary didn't have very good sense when she was 19?

[Bobbie Jo]

239. Sure

When I was 19, I quit my job and hopped a plane to Florida. I was going to braid hair on the beach for drinking money.

I knew that was legal.

Now you DO know there are those (on this very thread, even) who were grown-ass adults when they voted for Reagan.

Sorry, finish *this* (whatever this is) on your own. This thing shot past silly several posts ago.

[bvar22]

240. Your post has absolutely no relevance to either this thread,

or our conversation. Pure Diversion.

*When someone pointed out that Hillary was a Republican in HighSchool, you denied it.

*When I then pointed out that she had been elected as the President of the Young Republicans at Welsey, you quickly started tap dancing and throwing glitter in the air to hide your exit.

[font size=3] Face It.
YOU were absolutely WRONG when you said that Hillary had never been a Republican.[/font]

If I were you, I would go delete that embarrassing post.
You don't have any credibility to worry about losing,
but deleting that ridiculously false post would be the first step.

[immoderate]

246. You got an alert on this.

It's funny. The "leave its" all point out there is no violation of TOS. The "hides" have nothing to say. I suspect they are trolls.

--imm



Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Your post has absolutely no relevance to either this thread,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6420924

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Make your point without the nasty, insulting personal attacks. Time to step away when it gets to this point.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:53 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I wish people would stop beating the Goldwater Girl horse to death. But alas, I see nothing wrong with this post. Vote to leave.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing stated in this particular post was or should be considered inappropriate. In my opinion bvar22 hit the nail on the head on all points.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see ANY personal attack. Really.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: THIS was altered on? Complete waste of a jury's time. Leave it alone.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bobbie Jo]

248. Tedious.

Take a deep breath and wipe away the spittle there, Matlock.

YOUR OBNOXIOUS FONT DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHTEOUS OR SUPERIOR.

Are you going to stomp your feet too?

I won't be deleting shit, and you can take your passive aggressive "credibility" nonsense and try it out on someone who might actually be concerned with your opinion of them.

The post was based upon a load of misleading crapola, and then you took it to a whole other level of ridiculous. She was a Democrat when it fucking mattered in college (see Vietnam) and she sure as shit didn't go on to vote for Ronald Fucking Reagan.

Is this some kind of homework assignment for the Fox School of Journalistic Integrity?

Speaking of "credibility," the resident Reaganites sorely need your concern and attention in this regard. Perhaps they would benefit from your keen character analysis.


Done. Here.

[Major Hogwash]

252. Boo-yah!!!

Well said, Bobbie Joe!!

Accusing Hillary of being a Republican before she was 21 years old is just like rooting for an investigation into Bill Clinton's high school years, which is exactly what Ken Starr did!!
Only to find that, as a 17-year old, Bill owned a Camino with astroturf in the bed of his pickup!!!

Bill Clinton was the only person I know of who was investigated as an adult to before his 18th birthday.
Normally, especially in criminal cases, an adult does not have his record as a minor used as evidence against him in a case in court.
But, some people just love to dig, dig, dig, hoping to find something other than a hole!!

[Omaha Steve]

7. Not a single R has said no to this

That should tell you something.

[sheshe2]

8. +1000!

Thank you.

[Rex]

10. If only it had something to do with Obama. I don't expect him to sign it.

And saying, "Obama hates America and he is trying to destroy us" as an excuse to what is in the TPP won't fly.

[sheshe2]

18. I just found this....

Chris Matthews on GOP: They 'Hate,' Hate,' 'Hate,' 'Hate,' 'Hate,' 'Hate,' 'Hate' Obama - See more a

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You want to know about that fight among Republicans running for president is all about? What's it all about? It's about who can hate President Obama the most. And Rudy Giuliani proved it by questioning the president's love of country. Is there someone in the Republican Party who will blow the whistle on this crap? And that's the right word for it.

snip/////

MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this contest of hate we're watching among the Republican candidates for president. How much do you, how much can you, hate President Obama? It's like old time events at the country affair. You pick up a big hammer and see how hard you can bring it down. The guy who gets to bell the ring and ring the loudest is the stud of the walk.

I've said what I thought of Rudy Giuliani's comment about Obama not loving the country, but loving it the way -- not loving it the way that he, Rudy, and others like him were brought up to. Well, that's Rudy and it's never easy to take back what you've said. But what truly astounds me here is the dittoing of his remark by Republican candidates for president. They have time to think, to talk to people, to hear people react to the "Obama doesn't love America talk," and yet, with all of the advantage of time and thought, except for Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, they've either agreed with Rudy or refused to give out a significant comment.

The answer foretells what's coming in the long battle for Republican presidential nomination. The battle line seems to be who hates Obama the worst? And who is positioned out there with the deepest contempt for the president? Not simply as a political adversary, but as a man. Look, if this continues to be contest, count on the sad stroll to Cleveland next summer because the right wing of the Republican Party may be looking for its champion hater of Barack Obama, while most people are looking for a strong, can do leader who comes from somewhere near the political middle, politically, and can make the compelling case that he or she can take this country where it wants to go, to greater opportunity for our children, to greater security for us all. And yes, to less stupid, wasteful, disgusting crap fights over the kind of Mickey Mouse stuff that Rudy had just thrown into the arena.

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/02/24/chris-matthews-gop-they-hate-hate-hate-hate-hate-hate-obama#sthash.Z2ZYgxj9.dpuf

My level of tolerance is pretty low right now. I have lost to many people near and dear in my life recently, last week another, a 37 year old co-worker. I have spent 2 days trying to compose a letter to his fiancee. A sweet man. I can't listen to the crap. I hate all this bashing. I am so tired Rex.

[Rex]

24. I know SheShe2, he really does get dragged through the mud.

I am sorry about your loss, sheshe2 much love from me! I can understand the negativity being so hard to take right now. Loss is hard on the body and mind.



IMO, Obama is sticking with the Rope a Dope game plan for the next two years. He finally realized that he is dealing with mental midgets she. The ONLY reason it took this long (imo), is that he had no way of knowing how far the RWing would take destroying America - all over his skin tone. I don't think anyone on the Big Tent side was expecting it. However currently, knowledge is power and it is all in Obama's court right now.

I'm trying not to even look at the GOPukers she, Ted Cruz is from my state and everyday I want to wake up, puke and crawl back into bed.

[sheshe2]

33. I thank you Rex. Tears and Hugs. Whoosh, I cry a lot

Sorry, I know Texas is a mess. Yet...you will get there, you tried with Wendy Davis. Damn I love that woman. However, think about it, Mass. A blue state elected a GOP GOV 2014!! Damn us! Shame on us.

I like this....it is spot on.

Barack Obama has generally taken a simple but deadly effective approach to neutralizing Right wing belligerence. Hand them enough rope, wait for them to screw up, then move in at lightening speed. He said it a long time ago, even before he was president, that he would work with anyone, but if you come at him with an attack posture, he will knock you out.

Now he has used that tactic with the precision of a neurosurgeon against Bibi's follies, and at the same time, tied and hung Netanyahu like a sinking rock around the American far Right's neck, all the while continuing to advance his global leadership. The GOP is back in a box: if they now back Netanyahu, they are committing sedition by backing a foreign leader who not only spied on the US but passed that info to unauthorized individuals, and if they don't, their base is going to call them a n____ lover. Welcome to the Netanyahu Paradox.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026415116

Luv ya, I thank you Rex~

[Rex]

39. No matter what happens, we will hang in there together. Even if it came down to just you and me.

As long as we promote progressive ideas and moderate policies, we will be okay and so will our future. That is my hope. I believed Obama when he said we can do it together and I believe it to this day.

I sorely underestimated the man in his first term and shamefully now believe it is due to no small amount of white privilege on my part. He is a hurricane, yet he can move with the stillness of a morning breeze she. Running the country for 6 years has created a powerful, self-empowered statesmen. I wish I could vote for him again.

I hope you feel better soon my friend.

[sheshe2]

47. Dayum....

I sorely underestimated the man in his first term and shamefully now believe it is due to no small amount of white privilege on my part. He is a hurricane, yet he can move with the stillness of a morning breeze she. Running the country for 6 years has created a powerful, self-empowered statesmen. I wish I could vote for him again.

Me, a white woman. My family had a hell of problems when I was growing up. Yet, bless them, they taught me the right stuff about color lines and hello, I met my first gay couple at the age of 5. They came to our home and were welcome.

A hurricane! With the stillness of the morning breeze. Wow! That says it all.

Thank you for you words.

[WillTwain]

37. Mathews also called Bernie a relic from the 60s so do not give him too much credit.

[Art_from_Ark]

288. He also swooned about GWB looking "manly"

in his codpiece-bedecked flight suit during his "Mission Accomplished" charade.

[WillTwain]

44. Race has less to do with their hatred than liberalism

If Obama was white, they would find another reason to hate him. See Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Being black just makes it easy for them to rally the pig racists. But make no mistake his color is a convenience not the driving force in their hatred.

[sheshe2]

50. Nope.

Wrong. They would be lauding the white man for his job record.

They would laud the man on his achievements. They would not have met on Inauguration night 2008 to plot against him had he not been a man of color. They wanted to make him a one term President.

Do you wish to hear it again?

They did not do this to Clinton or Carter. They did it to the black man.

Dayum I love my President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WillTwain]

52. Being black just helps them facilitate the rage

I do not know if you were around during the Clinton years, but he was demonized day and night. They accused him of murdering his childhood buddy Vince Foster. How Clinton got through those eight years is commendable. This is about ideology first not race. The pricks on the right would have set forth the same plan if an albino was elected in 2008 - no doubt about it. Race just makes it easier for the cynical Republican dickheads. It is a bonus.

[Art_from_Ark]

289. And the right-wingers really hit on Jimmy Carter back in his day

[WillTwain]

290. Hillary is right, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy.

I just posted a story about Mark Halperin, Morning Joe regular. His TPP coverage - check it out if interested.

Also, MSNBC laughed at Bernie last night. Odd.

[sheshe2]

219. "Please stay on topic."

Do you tell all posters that, or only the ones you do not like?

I seem to remember another poster........oh, never mind.

[bvar22]

226. Do you tell all posters that?

No. Only the ones who try to hijack threads, post false information,
or say something really dumb.

[sheshe2]

228. I think I may know one...

Lol~ never saw you there chastising them.

[bvar22]

242. Well, you thought Hillary had never been a Republican,

so what claims can you make about your memory.

I can assure you that anyone who posts something so completely FALSE as you did,
WILL get a response from me.

[sheshe2]

251. excuse me?

Well, you thought Hillary had never been a Republican,
so what claims can you make about your memory.

I can assure you that anyone who posts something so completely FALSE as you did,
WILL get a response from me.

I said that where? Quote please? You are a tad confused. Lol!

brava bvar or is it bravo? link please.

[hedda_foil]

22. Excuse me if I'm busting your bubble, but this is his administration.

His people are negotiating this monstrosity. He keeps telling us how great it's going to be. His peeps have insisted on many, if not most of the truly repulsive portions of it. And he's been pushing congress for fast track authority, so it cannot be changed or amended by them. Unless you think him as feckless and clueless as Bush Jr, there's no way he won't sign it. He knows what's going on with it because he owns it.

[Rex]

25. He's been playing rope a dope with the GOP for months now.

It took 6 years, but I think he finally knows how to deal with them. He doesn't have to sign it, the ACA will be remembered as his main achievement in office imo. Not the TPP.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Given that our President has already forced three Bush "free" trade agreements

through Congress and signed them without reservation, I unfortunately don't share your optimism.

[Rex]

43. You know what, I kinda felt that from the moment I met you.

Let us just say I think he is keeping all his card up against his chest until the final minute. Just remember he is working in the same system that is controlled by a plutocracy of corporations as the GOP. I think he wants it fast tracked to his desk, so he can veto the shit out of it and watch the GOP fall apart.

My opinion of him has changed as the years have changed him in office.

If he does sign it and it is just a horrible as we are reading right now...I will join you in song as we drown our sorrows.

[WillTwain]

45. I am so sick of the he is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers mentality

For six years he has been out-foxed by Mitch and John. Give America a raise president Obama - not gonna happen.

[sheshe2]

56. He has been out-foxed by Mitch and John!!!!?????????????

The do nothing congress, holy shit. The congress that wishes America to fail. The shutdown that cast the tax payers

A government shutdown will cost us billions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/a-government-shutdown-will-cost-us-billions/

No. We have some assholes that want to play a game. Not the President. THEY COST US MONEY!!!

Really

Give America a raise president Obama

I am sick of slogans, Obama has tried this. Talk to the GOP that gives no a shit about jobs or the working class.

[WillTwain]

58. I do not agree with the results, but they, not Obama, got their wishes.

Victory to the thugs.

[bvar22]

221. Playing Chess?

That is the game where the Working Class Pawns are sacrificed to protect the Royalty.
YES. Obama IS playing Chess,
and playing it well.

It only sucks if you are a Pawn, like 99% of us are.

[WillTwain]

223. Hell ya bvar22, now you are talking

[lumberjack_jeff]

135. Denial.

This deal is secret because Obama wants it to be secret. Those are not the actions of someone who doesn't support it.

[WillTwain]

138. Zombies

[Luminous Animal]

12. Finally, WE THE PEOPLE, (thanks to Wikileaks) get to know as many details as POTUS.

I know, us peons should have never seen the cake and only accepted the crumbs.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Cake?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405584

[Luminous Animal]

40. Indeed.

[sabrina 1]

29. Don't forget that the overwhelming opposition to the TPP forced them to finally 'allow' some members

of Congress to have a peek at some of what was in it about a year ago. The opposition of people here and in the other countries involved slowed it down for a while.

AFTER getting that peek, AND after a couple of other leaks from Wikileaks, on the Environment aspect of these 'secret' talks and the freedom of the Internet, Ron Wyden WARNED, AGAIN, that 'if the people knew what was in it, they would oppose it'.

Elizabeth Warren echoed that sentiment when she spoke about it also and said 'the reason it is so SECRET is because, my colleagues tell me, if the people knew what was in it, they would oppose it'.

Are we a democracy are we not? WE the people have lost all power for some reason and we have the most corrupt, greedy, psychopaths making decisions for us as if we don't count at all. How did it get to this point, where they actually don't care one bit what we think or want?

[sabrina 1]

27. I trust the Democrats, like Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren who have been warning us about

the TPP for years. NOW that Wikileaks has posted ANOTHER leak, it's clear to anyone who CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY that they were RIGHT.

I have no clue why Obama is supporting this abomination, maybe there are things we don't know, deals made in order to get other things done, like Peace in the ME.. If that is the case then he NEEDS US to be the ones to end any such deal.

Because after reading through the leaked draft there is NO WAY any Democrat who dares to call themselves that, could possibly be ANYTHING but OUTRAGED.

It is virtually, as was thought, giving up our sovereignty as a nation.

People in the other involved nations are also hugely opposed to it and are working hard to prevent it from getting to the point where it is too late to stop it.

Frankly most people I know and reading around the world, have had it with politics. It's beyond that now. It's about US, not THEM anymore.

[NanceGreggs]

42. You'll notice ...

... that the usual contingent are up in arms over the "leaked draft", which they have all read and understand completely.

Who knew that DU was so full of experts on international law!?!

I've been a court reporter for thirty years, and have been on many cases involving int'l trade agreements - and have seen lawyers (and judges) who are experts in the field, with decades of experience in the this specific area, who spend months trying to unravel the legal-speak of certain provisions, and how they are to be interpreted and applied.

But apparently it only takes some DUers thirty minutes with a Wikileaks page to KNOW what the treaty means, down to the minutest detail.

You can ask them over and over what the treaty contains that they find so objectionable - and the only answer you'll get is "It's an abomination! It's horrendous! Obama is handing the US gov't over to the corporations!"

Just don't ask for any details as to how that's true, what specific provisions mean or how they will be enacted or enforced - because the self-proclaimed "experts" don't have any answers beyond "It's an abomination! It's horrendous! Obama is handing the US gov't over to the corporations!"

If only the complexities of int'l agreements could be as easily understood by the courts as they are by the average poster on a message board, the disputes that invariably arise over them could be settled in a half hour or less.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. So Elizabeth Warren is out of her league?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/elizabeth-warren-target-trans-pacific-trade-deals-115561.html

Good luck with that argument.

[NanceGreggs]

53. Again, Manny ...

... you reply with something about EW. Am I to blindly follow her in lockstep, and agree with her every opinion?

While EW's credentials are very impressive, her areas of expertise do not include int'l law or treaties.

The link you've provided - apparently for no particular reason, if I am not meant to lockstep behind her every opinion - says "The senator says Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership would empower corporations", and quotes her as saying, "It could allow multinational corporations to gut U.S. regulations and win big settlements funded by U.S. taxpayers but decided by an international tribunal."

"Could" doesn't sound like she herself knows that this will be a consequence of the treaty, but is wary of the possibility. And that's good. And no doubt she will be investigating further as things progress, and will make her concerns, if any, widely known.

But nowhere in the article does EW say that this treaty is an abomination, a horrendous betrayal of the American worker, a literal handing over of our gov't to the corporations", and all of the other hair-on-fire rhetoric running rampant on DU.

If EW was screaming (and she's been known to raise her voice when warranted) that this deal will destroy the middle-class and the American worker, I would understand how and why others would be doing likewise.

But EW isn't screaming that, is she?

[morningfog]

88. Could doesn't mean only that she doesn't know.

"Could" could also mean "if" it is signed as is.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. So, to be clear, are you claiming that Senator Warren...

isn't sure if she's against the TPP?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

177. You can't talk to a court reporter like that!

Well, maybe you can, but it seems like one of those things that would be a rule.

[NanceGreggs]

179. Why do you always find it necessary ...

... to state that someone has "claimed" something they obviously didn't?

You're the one who linked to EW's statements. Is she screaming that this treaty will destroy American workers and hand the gov't over to corporations? Did she even hint at saying: "The TPP is yet another awful assault against the 99% by the wealthy and their paid help in Congress and the White House. It is simply inconsistent with Democratic values"?

No, she didn't. Perhaps those who claim to trust her judgment should listen to what she does say once in a while.

[L0oniX]

284. LMFAO ...I can't believe I used to take you seriously.

[Vincardog]

54. It does not take a scholar to know that a treaty that subordinates our laws to a tribunal judged by

Corporate Lawyers when they have time off from representing their corporations
is a TREASONOUS document. You can get as confused you want to be.
Every thinking person knows it is a NATION KILLER.

[NanceGreggs]

57. No, it doesn't take a scholar at all ...

... to be an expert on international law.

You just have to post on DU - where you can be anything you want to be. You can be an expert on int'l law, you can understand the complexities of int't trade agreements with ease and accuracy - whatever you want!

Isn't the internetz great?!?

[Vincardog]

59. Ignore the point and post your spin. Do you support the TTP? IF so why do you think Corporations

should have priority over citizens?

[NanceGreggs]

63. I have not read the finalized version of the TTP.

So it would be foolish to declare that I am for or against something when I don't know its content.

And when its content is known, I will be looking to considered opinions rendered by experts in the area of int'l law, and specifically the law surrounding trade agreements, in order to have a better understanding of what the TPP entails, its impact and its consequences.

IOW, I will not be relying on DU's usual "I'm no scholar, but ..." self-declared experts on the complexities of international law.

[Vincardog]

64. While you are waiting they are destroying democracy. Your complacency is astounding.

[NanceGreggs]

67. Yes, of course they are.

It's not complacency. It is mere amusement at the seriousness of this week's outrage - which will be followed by next week's outrage - a period during which this week's outrage will be forgotten.

[morningfog]

94. It is also amusing to watch the reliable "outrage-squashers" poo-poo any and

all criticisms. The sole objective being to impugn discourse. It's easy to take the position, "I haven't read it, I am not qualified to give an opinion, so YOU AREN't either!"

[Autumn]

120. Obviously some people really aren't qualified to give an opinion

but it sure doesn't stop them. I'm not commenting on it because I haven't looked at it but the politicians I have deep respect for are saying it's bad and I think I trust their qualifications and their opinion. And we have some pretty darn smart DUers that do know how to read what's been leaked and understand and I trust them and their opinion. Maybe some "writer" should do an OP on how no one here knows jack shit and people just need to wait and see what's in it when it's done.

[morningfog]

121. When it is all a done deal, the poo-poo-ers will say we have to wait toi see how its implemented.

Because our feeble minds just can't understand.

[Autumn]

123. Or they will just say it serves us right for picking on the President.

and never having his back.

[QC]

131. You never really loved him!!!

[Autumn]

167. Curses!! You have found me out and discovered what a fickle person I am!

[QC]

213. I bet the president breaks down in tears when he comes here

and sees what you say about him!!!

[Autumn]

133. I have already been told we are spreading FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

To me that FUD sounds like a RW dog whistle to the religious right.

[Dragonfli]

129. Such a "writer" that could take on such an OP, should have a complete mastery of italics

To really bring home the important point that the only sensible course involving politics is too await finalization of the entire deal so as to optimize the benefit of blind trust in the members of the most noble of professions, the altruistic politician. After all, only a politician can possibly understand "words" placed together in "sentences", after divining the mysteries of such "written words" it is also apparent that only such masters of the arcane arts of communication, politicians are capable of choosing what is best for us with no regard to those that would profit from such agreements should they turn out to be less altruistic than such agreements almost always turn out to be.

[Autumn]

169. Have you seen this OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026419077

This part from the article posted jumped out at me.

...The cases are argued, tried and judged by a small, revolving group of elite corporate attorneys, taking turns playing the role of judge and prosecutor. The potential for conflicts of interest and secret handshakes exceeds even the current regulatory revolving door, in which industry lawyers, officials and consultants move into key positions in public agencies, alter governmental regulations in industry’s favor and then return to their bespoke industry.

[Dragonfli]

171. No I haven't, but I am heading over there right now to read it. /nt

[NanceGreggs]

172. I've stated that I haven't read it.

And, as a result, have not offered any opinion on its content.

[morningfog]

181. But you have. Your opinion is that it is too complex

for the average DUer to understand. And too complex for the average DUer to rely on the reading of it by journalists and elected officials.

Your opinion is that other's opinions and criticisms of it are not valid because you haven't read it but that they couldn't possibly understand it.

[NanceGreggs]

184. That is not what I've said at all.

I've said that int'l law, and particularly trade agreements established thereunder, is extremely complex.

I doubt that the "average DUer" is an expert in int'l law - despite their claims on a message board.

[morningfog]

185. Keep going. Therefore, their questions, concerns

and criticisms, including linking to other's analyses are invalid and should be poo-pooed, right?

[NanceGreggs]

188. Questions and concerns are natural.

But claiming that you've read the Wikileaks document and understand it fully is laughable - something that many are claiming here.

[GoneFishin]

232. "Let's wait until it is passed to see what's in it". SCREW THAT.

It's a giant turd that will hurt anyone whose job is not depositing dividend checks into their Cayman Islands bank account.

[WillTwain]

145. This is beyond complacency

It is group think and reckless loyalty. This administration will be measured against its ability to conquer the biggest problem of our time - wealth distribution. The final grade will be D-.

[Vincardog]

149. That or complicit they are incapable of responding to reality.

[WillTwain]

150. Wilfull ignorance

There defensiveness completely overwhelms logic. The Tea-party is no different.

[Vincardog]

151. Agreed that explains their condescending tone...

[G_j]

176. The TPP is not a passing outrage

where have you been?

[NanceGreggs]

190. It gets dredged up every so often ...

... shock is expressed, hyperbole rules the day, and the hair-on-fire brigade claims that we are a nation doomed.

And within a few days, no one even mentions it - because they've moved on to yet another outrage that sparks the same shock, hyperbole, and claims of doom.

[G_j]

196. speechless..

that is hilarious.. should I believe you or my lying eyes?

[WillTwain]

200. Do you really think the country is moving in the right direction?

You have been around a while. What do you blame the shrinking middle-class on?

[LondonReign2]

115. Sweet. You'll be able to know its content four years after its been in effect

We'll look for your report then

[NanceGreggs]

182. It's the negotiation process ...

... i.e. the "working papers" that will be declassified in four years, NOT the contents of the agreement itself.

That fact has been pointed out repeatedly - but has been repeatedly ignored by those who have determined that that fact does not accord with their outrage.

[WillTwain]

143. Pot calling the kettle black

There appears to be a DUer here that knows all about the TPP and it is not Manny.

Isn't the internets great?!?

Why should we believe you over Manny? You are an Obama groupie that will defend him until you die. Manny is a free thinker. Judging by positions you have taken in the past, I am with Manny.

[NanceGreggs]

173. Where did I suggest ...

... that you "believe me" over Manny - or anyone else?

If you want to put your faith in an anonymous poster on a message board, that is certainly your prerogative.

[WillTwain]

180. You made no suggestion

I made a commentary based on the historic judgments you and Manny have posted. I trust Manny based on his DU history. Yours is a bit dubious.

Similarly, I trust Robert Reich over President Obama on the middle-class issues like TPP. Once again, I use their collective history to trust the lauded economist over a president that signed the Cromnibus (allowing pension raiding for the first time in 40 years) and pushed for cuts in Social Security through chained C.P.I. It is a simple trust issue.

[whathehell]

204. THANK You! n/t

[sheshe2]

68. Ah shit. I am out of fire extinguishers here,

You'll notice ..
... that the usual contingent are up in arms over the "leaked draft", which they have all read and understand completely.

Who knew that DU was so full of experts on international law!?!

I've been a court reporter for thirty years, and have been on many cases involving int'l trade agreements - and have seen lawyers (and judges) who are experts in the field, with decades of experience in the this specific area, who spend months trying to unravel the legal-speak of certain provisions, and how they are to be interpreted and applied.

another crisis, more heads explode. sigh~

[eridani]

69. Please tell us why you are in favor of allowing tobacco companies to sue governments for

--requiring lwarning labels on on cigarettes. You don't need to be an expert in any particular field in order to read or think.

http://www.thenation.com/article/202409/free-trade-isnt-about-trade-its-about-bureaucrats-and-guns

Let’s dig into an example. In 2011, Australia passed the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, designed “to discourage the use of tobacco products” by, among other things, requiring cigarette packages to have larger warnings, ugly colors, and no logos or advertisements. This act is clearly a “predatory intervention” against tobacco companies, designed explicitly to reduce their business in Australia by lowering smoking rates. As a result, Philip Morris Asia, a part of the American company Philip Morris International, is using an investor-state dispute settlement to stop enforcement and demand compensation, claiming this is a discriminatory “expropriation.” Instead of just the bureaucrats at the Australian government creating and administering rules for the selling of cigarettes, there’s an additional layer of international bureaucrats—positions created by trade agreements—who can overrule them.

[NanceGreggs]

71. Where did I say I was in favor of any such thing?

I didn't. So why you are asking me to explain why I am in favour of something I never spoke about is beyond me.

[eridani]

72. You spoke about giving TPP a chance, and it strongly enhances the ability of corporations--

--to prevail in such suits. If you are against that, then you are against the TPP. So why not say so?

[NanceGreggs]

73. Again - where did I say anything ...

... about "giving the TPP a chance"?

[eridani]

77. You said that no merely literate and rational adult could possibly undertstand the leaked info

That translates as "Don't worry your pretty little heads about this--your betters can figure it out ant think for you." You refuse to look at the links and other posts which offer very specific objections based what is in the current leak as well as previously leaked material.

If you wish to abdicate your duties as an adult citizen, fine. Just don't demand that everyone else do the same.

[hatrack]

105. After all, it's just the "outrage of the week", per Nance

[WillTwain]

144. Blindly following "our betters" has been a disaster.

The idea that this administration is 'focused like a laser" on the working class is insane.

[NanceGreggs]

206. Again, I said no such thing.

And it follows that something I didn't say doesn't "translate" into anything.

[eridani]

255. Then you really didn't mean this? "Who knew that DU was so full of experts on international law!?"

This is a specific assertion that in order to object to corporations suing governments over health, safety and environmental laws, it is necessary to be an expert in international law.

[NanceGreggs]

256. Again, I said nothing remotely like that.

"This is a specific assertion that in order to object to corporations suing governments over health, safety and environmental laws, it is necessary to be an expert in international law."

Where did I say that it was "necessary to be an expert in international law" - or an expert in ANYTHING - in order to "object" to anything at all?

My reference to "DU being full of experts" was about those who claim to have read the leaked TPP drafts and understand absolutely everything they contain, and the implications thereof.

[eridani]

257. Silly straw man. You don't have to know everything about the drafts

--to be qualified to object to corporations being able to overrule democratically elected governments. And that fucking well IS in the drafts.

[morningfog]

92. I like the pivot from "you haven't seen the TPP" to "you can't possibly understand it!"

Well done!

Can't ask questions while in the secretive negotiation phase because it's all conjecture. Can't ask questions when the document is leaked because it is too complicated for any of us plebeians to understand.

And, coming soon: can't ask questions because it's signed and a done deal. Time to question it as passed.

[djean111]

97. Yes, the word salad is pretty obvious, as is the back-tracking and deflection.

Familiar, now.

[Marr]

195. No shit. It's pathetic. /nt

[NanceGreggs]

236. Well, let's see ...

Has anyone here seen the finalized version of the agreement? No, they haven't, because it hasn't been finalized yet.

Where did I say no one can ask questions? In fact, that's part of the problem here - no one is asking questions They're simply yelling about "This abomination! This monstrosity! This horrendous act of betrayal!" There's a good reason people are describing the deal in hyperbolic generic terms - because they don't understand the details they've read and, as a direct result thereof, can not frame their outrage in terms of specific provisions, what they mean, how they will be implemented and enforced, or what their impact will be.

There is a "secret negotiation phase" for all such treaties. Do you know how many such treaties the US is a signatory to? Did you ever raise your voice about any or all of those secret negotiations? If you believe there is something nefarious about closed-door meetings, why haven't you raised your concerns about any of them before now?

"Can't ask questions when the document is leaked because it is too complicated for any of us plebeians to understand."

That's not even close to what I've said. What I have pointed out is that int'l law is a very complex area. So when I see someone on a message board claiming to comprehend that complexity within thirty minutes of reading the Wikileaks draft, I am extremely doubtful that they know what they're talking about. Again, that's why you're not seeing any detailed analysis here on DU - because those claiming to comprehend the document simply don't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. Explain this to me as if I were a third-grader.

Why is the deal secret, if it's a good deal for the people from whom it is being hidden?

Defense of this deal is entirely a function of personal affinity to the President.

[randome]

141. Most treaties are negotiated in secret. It's the final product that gets voted on.

As witness current negotiations with Iran. Do we really want Congress meddling in every single facet of a treaty?

It's the same with the TPP, I think. If Congress starts gettings its hands on it, we will have abortion restrictions and anti-gay riders added every step of the way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. Yet... it is not secret from the corporations writing it. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

175. Trade deals are always negotiated in private.

Do you have any idea how many trade agreements the US is a signatory to? They were all negotiated the same way - behind closed doors.

And I have not 'defended' anything - which, if you had actually read my posts here before replying, you would be well aware of.

[WillTwain]

139. Some people are smarter than others, intuitively understanding what a lifetime of denial cannot teach

others. Bias kills reason

[bvar22]

244. #1, your premise is a Strawman,

#2...Most of us have had over 25 years to study these so called "Free Trade" Treaties,
and the actual results of these Free Trade Treaties.

We have had more years studying:
*CAFTA,

*Obama's Free Trade Deal with Colombia and Panama,

* and the more recent South Korean Trade Deal which PROMISED thousands of new American Jobs, but instead, sent over 60,000 jobs immediately off shore and immediately INCREASED the trade deficit.... the exact opposite of what the Administration promised it would do.


Yes. Many of us in the Working Class have paid attention and studied for years as our jobs went overseas and wages and benefits for the Working Class disappeared., so your claim that we have become experts "overnight" doesn't hold any water. It has been a long, frightening, painful education.

After getting screwed by our leadership more than 3 times on Free Trade Deals, it is well within any sane person's rights to question the TPP, Fast Track, and what is IN the damned thing.

[NanceGreggs]

254. I never argued the point ...

... that people have a right to question anything, and to try to ascertain "what's IN the damned thing".

But there doesn't seem to be much questioning or determining anything here. It's been a non-stop screamfest, every time the TPP is even mentioned, consisting of "It's an abomination! It's a betrayal! It's selling the entire country to the corporations!" - without one iota of actual fact coming into play.

Have you seen anyone here say, "According to Clause 3 (b) (iv) on page 23, the following will happen ..."? How about, "The wording in subparagraph 14 of provision 62 will result in ..."?

No, you haven't - because the people claiming to have read the leaked drafts and understand their import and impact actually don't know anything of the kind. They simply substitute hyperbolic rhetoric for facts, while holding themselves out as experts in int'l law and treaty protocol.

If one has already taken the position that this agreement is "handing over the US gov't to corporations", regardless of what is in the final treaty, so be it. They have every right to take whatever position they choose.

But the self-proclaimed "expertise" displayed on DU of late has quashed many a potential discussion of actual facts, and actual consequences. That's been the case with "legal experts" on the TPP, the Assange case, the Snowden case, the Zimmerman trial - the list goes on.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the implications of the TPP - or anything else, for that matter - with people whose only "expert response" on any topic is "we're gettin' screwed again, man!" without ever being able to offer a crumb of an explanation as to how they came to that conclusion - other than the fact that they read it on DU, and that's what everyone else is saying.

You have offered your own explanation, in that you feel you've been screwed before and it's a matter of once burned/twice shy. At least that's something, and I can't argue with your reasoning.

But the DU "experts" - whose expertise apparently includes everything from int'l trade agreements, to Swedish law pertaining to the interviewing of witnesses on foreign soil, to trials where prosecutors are somehow allowed to conduct trials without regard to criminal law - are too busy declaring themselves as experts to actually engage in meaningful discussion.

[Historic NY]

286. Everybody is running gaga over this supposed Wikileaks draft...

Guess they forgot the drafts was put out in 2011.

http://keionline.org/tpp

There are more leaks than a plumber could fix.

[rhett o rick]

146. This is the best that anyone that supports the TPP can offer in the way of

argument. As a "political liberal" you should be embarrassed to post this kind of post. It offers no argument one way or other but insinuates that if one opposes the TPP then they must hate Obama, love Republicons and eat babies.

The TPP is a very important issue and yet you seem to want to shut off all discussion.

[Trillo]

156. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

let me be the first to congratulate you on another 300+ recommended post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6416072

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OK, here's clear and brief: This asshole is saying the OP thinks "Obama hates America and is trying to destroy us". Why do personal attacks rule this site and why are they so often allowed to stay?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 26, 2015, 09:54 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate, nor constructive in any shape or form.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calls poster an asshole and complains about personal attacks?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Maedhros]

158. This is a very insipid post.

Were you to pay attention, you would find out that there has been a lot of vetted information that has been leaked about the TPP, and none of it is good.

Your attitude is what scares me most about today's Democratic Party: it will defend the most anti-worker, anti-peace, anti-human-rights nonsense simply in the name of blind party unity.

[WillTwain]

192. Robert Reich knows way more about the TPP than POTUS and hates it.

Go ahead though, Paul (Ayn Rand) Ryan has been very reliable working class hero. POTUS has strange bedfellows.

[Number23]

222. Heh. Our buddy hasn't gotten 300 recs since MIRT stepped up

[Autumn]

268. Manny's OPs getting a sizable number of recs really seem to upset some people.

This Op doesn't quite have 300 so far only 153, so he must be slacking. In just about any Manny thread one can see some post complaining about the recs his OP gets. I have often wondered if it's jealousy or what. I do think it must be jealousy because the ones who complain about it don't dispute what Manny has posted, just that he gets too many recs and they don't seem to like him... because Obama, Democrats, or whatever they are outraged about.

[jwirr]

11. Manny, what is your take on the SCOTUS? Can we afford to lose that?

[Luminous Animal]

13. That is a rock and a hard place, ain't it. We lose our Democracy either way...

[MannyGoldstein]

14. What does that have to do with a treaty that savagely attacks the 99%?nt

[jwirr]

20. What it has to do with the TPP is that both issues are equally important and we may end up having

to choose which one is more dangerous. Your OP also sounds like you are suggesting that we have nothing to vote for. Our nation is in danger but not from just one issue.

I do not support Hillary but if I have no other choice in 2016. I will vote for her and then fight like hell to stop the TPP.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Voting for the lesser of two evils is one thing

Encouraging fellow Democrats to encourage such a choice is quite another thing.

[jwirr]

23. Isn't that what a discussion board is all about? I have never hidden the fact that I do not think we

can afford to lose this time. The Rs will have things locked down so tight if they get another four years that we will all be lucky if any of us get to vote in 2020.

I am hoping we can find someone who does not support TPP during the primary but so far no one seems to be stepping up. So I am being reasonable. I may have no good choice in 2016. I can't afford to throw my vote away.

[DeSwiss]

93. You lost a long time ago.

- You're still asleep, but not to worry you'll awaken shortly.

[jwirr]

113. If I must awaken by electing a R then I will awake to the death of my disabled daughter because

they have destroyed the safety net. I will awake to find myself in an advanced corporatism which is practicing the very methods of Nazism including TPP and surveillance of everyone. I will awake with no right to vote because they have either gerrymandered me out of the picture or passed another bill to suppress my vote. I will awake to hunger and starvation and water shortages everywhere because they ignored climate change, if not worse. And worst of all I will awake to find myself and all other progressives totally powerless and seen as enemies of the state because we would not vote for a less than perfect candidate.

Is that awake enough? This is not an election on one issue. They are all combined. We have lost ground in this fight in 2012 and we need to maintain our present power if we cannot get a better candidate in the primary.

[Maedhros]

159. Whether a Republican or Hillary is elected,

* The TPP will find support in the White House
* The surveillance state will grow in power and intrusiveness. Note that the current Democratic President has helped it do so.
* Climate change will be ignored. When has Hillary ever expressed interest in fixing this problem?
* You and all other progressives have been powerless for a long time, even when the Democrats held the White House and both houses of Congress. Hillary is less likely than Obama to change this.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that "we" have any power, and that Hillary has any intention of helping us get any. Hillary is about as pro-establishment as it gets.

[jwirr]

160. So good lay down and give up. I will not.

[Maedhros]

164. Well, no, actually you are.

You are accepting the Republican meme that the U.S. is a "center-right nation," and therefore are willing to settle for absolutely reprehensible policies from Democrats.

I refuse to settle.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. That is certainly your right to do so. As is my right to do otherwise.

If you feel losing a position on the Supreme Court is the bigger threat then you should vote based on that. The biggest threat to me is the attack my autistic son is under with the crappy Race to the Top education policy and the attack my daughter is under with massive college debt and low wages. So, I will vote according to what I feel is the bigger threat. We all have to vote according to our own beliefs and priorities, and they will not be the same for everybody.

[jwirr]

114. Oh I agree but we act as if these issues are not all hooked together. They started with raygun and

the Rs are still fighting for them. I also have a disabled daughter who will not live without Medicare and Medicaid. I have fought the Rs for ages to get care for her. Why in God's name would I vote for the very people who are going to take that away now.

And what makes you think that a R packed Supreme court cares about anything other than cutting funds for the things we care about? They will most likely if elected in 2016 be able to add at least 3 judges to the court for life. They will control our whole way of life for at least 20 years or more. They will help the Rs and the corporations do what they want just like they "elected" W for us. Forget the New Deal programs, forget rights, forget public education, forget climate change, etc.

The issues are all combined. Their plans in every area of our lives detail cuts and privatization of everything except war.

The Democratic Party is definitely NOT perfect but do you have an alternative? As soon as I see one that can keep things out of the hands of the Rs I will vote for it.

[liberal_at_heart]

178. As I have said if voting for a Democrat no matter what is what you feel is best then do so.

I will not do that anymore. From now on Democrats will have to earn my vote, and right now they are not earning my vote. When there are Socialist Democrats or left of center liberal Democrats to vote for I will vote for them. When there are none to vote for I will not vote Democratic.

[sabrina 1]

32. No we can't, so we need a GREAT DEMOCRAT to run for the WH so we can go out and enthusiastically

support and work to get that Democrat elected.

If the Dem Party doesn't mind losing SCOTUS, they will simply give us a candidate many people will not be able to support.

So now, it's up to the Dem Leadership to respond to the people and provide them with a candidate they can vote FOR.

IF they use fear to push THEIR choice of candidate, then it's more than likely they will lose.

[NYC_SKP]

15. I don't think that any of our good Democrats support this POS, right? I mean, yanno?

So proud that as leaders step forward and throw their hat into the D ring, that all will be outspoken opponents to trashy secret trade deals.

Right?

If by any chance one, even one, who supports the deal mentions running for POTUS, I will fight them to the bitter end.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Self delete

Didn't mean to post here.

[midnight]

16. So we should not sign that corporate give away....

[mckara]

30. It's Class Warfare!

Where is media?

[RiverLover]

86. Helping its class.

If the media can ignore 300000 Americans marching to protest the inaction on climate change, ignoring the biggest trade deal in history that cannot be changed once done unless all countries agree will be a piece of cake.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. A certain "inevitable" candidate has strongly supported TPP

This is forcing some people to tie themselves into pretzel-like knots in order to defend her without defending it.

My heart goes out to them.

[bvar22]

231. The following post by Manny was a TERRIBLE hide,

...one of the wost I have ever seen on DU3.
Stalkers much? shopping for their jury?

[RufusTFirefly]

253. Certain posters are jumping in minutes after an OP

It can't simply be serendipity.

Methinks it's the HRC Hazmat team. America's neo-liberal cleanup crew.
I'm sorry that Manny was the latest victim. Perhaps if he swirls around in a nice refreshing container of Roundup, he'll feel refreshed.

[Rex]

34. Here is Andrew Raposa, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts State University in Westfield Westfield

Also discussing Milton Friedman's delusional view of a single concept of capitalism and democracy combined;

"Friedman’s vaulted ideological paradigm consists of a demand that government withdraw from its regulatory commitments so capitalism can organize the economic activity of society without political interference or coercion. This thinking encourages rational individuals to pursue from the market those goods that best serve their individual self-interests.

True individual freedom of choice in the market will be guaranteed when nation states begin to decentralize their welfare activities. Only then will individual freedom be advanced. However, coercion in capitalism occurs when individuals choose not to be in a market-driven society. Moreover, Friedman does not factor in his thesis the ethical and moral claims of equality and justice. This is an ideological system that punishes individuals who choose not to enter market relations and prevents them from opting out of the system imprisoning them.

A new political approach is needed to challenge capitalist hegemony and the new political consensus. It becomes necessary to agitate for public policies that will meet the social needs of populations. Modern information technology can become an invaluable mechanism to demonstrate the many social pathologies produced by unaccountable corporate power. It is hoped that a new global awakening will occur to provoke opposition to market tyranny."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/25/selling-the-transpacific-partnership/

[Joe Turner]

36. Thanks Manny for getting this issue out into the open

where hopefully it will die with the light of day.

[zeemike]

49. It depends where you are in the percentage don't it?

If they are in the 10% then why would they care about helping people in the 90% right?
TPP could make their investments which is there source of wealth greater and so the choice would be between the 90% and money...and money trumps all don't it?

Let them eat cake is not just a saying it is self preservation of their wealth...because what good is wealth if it cannot continue to grow.

[joshcryer]

55. As long as Americans want cheap goods from Asia...

...things like TPP are geopolitically necessary.

[markpkessinger]

60. Funny .. .

. . . I'm almost 54 years old, and I never recall being asked if I wanted "cheap goods from Asia."

[joshcryer]

61. Pick up the nearest anything.

And look at the label for where it was made.

TPP is a symptom of a high tier consumer society.

[markpkessinger]

62. The fact that Asian-made merchandise is just about the only thing available to purchase . . .

. . . is a different question from whether I, or Americans generally, "want cheap goods from Asia."

[joshcryer]

65. It is what it is.

What do you propose? Instating high tariffs? We figure that if we're going to play the game we should instate intellectual property, environmental, and labor provisions. It won't be good for US workers, and it'll benefit those states more.

Manufacturing will come back here once automation takes over, but there will still be a labor force missing. What needs to be seriously discussed, now, not tomorrow, not ten years from now, is a basic income / living wage / negative income tax for every single person in this country. Goods will continue to drop in cost, but if you can't get a job, what good is that.

[eridani]

70. What I support is refusing to allow corporate motherfuckers to sue democratically elected--

--governments for enacting laws protecting health, safety and the environment. This has fuckall to do with tariff levels--just like most of TPP.

(I think your quite right about automation and the necessity for a guaranteed income.)

[joshcryer]

74. ISDS heavily tilts lawsuits in our favor.

Any lawsuits would be handled in ICSID, with US lawyers and US judges (yes, venue changes can happen but if its against our interests we wouldn't allow it). Warren's hypothetical that a polluting corporation in another country could sue us over an environmental law is extremely silly and without merit. They can sue, mind you, but they wouldn't win.

ISDS exists so we can win the court battles, not to weaken our hand. Look at ISDS cases under NAFTA regarding Canada.

I think TPP is just a kludge for a much greater problem that we are going to be facing in a very few short years. They're trying to expand our manufacturing grasp but it's not going to help us in the long run. It's a bandaid when major reconstructive surgery is going to be needed.

[eridani]

76. "Our" favor? Whatchu mean "we" kemosabe?

Is "we" the 1% or the 99%?

That tobacco company suit against Australia was real enough. Regardless of how it came out, the governmental bodies have to waste time and money on defense. Such suits should never even be allowed to exist in the first place. No corporation should ever have that right. (They can keep suing each other over torts as long as they want, IMO)

[joshcryer]

79. The US.

These are companies suing governments over laws that they perceive as hurting their investments. Corporations can file lawsuits against governments every day and night. ISDS sequesters it in secret tribunals where the outcome is per-determined in the US's favor.

The draft is fascinating and proves what I've said all along, the reason the negotiations are secret is because some countries get a better deal than others, Australia, Chile, and Canada are all getting their own exemptions. (In particular, Australia got an ISDS rule exemption, probably due to the Philip Morris thing.)

I'm not defending this btw, I'm expressing why I think it exists, and it's more nefarious than "evil corporations being allowed to sue governments." It's more like "developing countries are fucked by US secret tribunals."

Here's a pro-ISDS site claiming it's good because the government wins most of the time (there's a good PDF on the site that breaks it down, and governments win overwhelmingly and the settlements are quite small): http://csis.org/publication/investor-state-dispute-settlement-0

[eridani]

80. It costs governments money to be able to fight the suits

Winning isn't a positive event--just the absence of a negative event.

[joshcryer]

82. Under ISDS the loser pays.

[eridani]

84. Corporations challenging any democratically determined law should not be allowed, period n/t

[joshcryer]

85. They can do that anyway.

ISDS gives government more sway.

[eridani]

154. If that were true, why the skyrocketing trade deficits with signatory countries in other

--"free" trade deals?

[joshcryer]

259. That has literally nothing to do with lawsuits.

The trade deficits are because we give foreign countries a "better deal" because we like slave labor producing goods for us. This isn't going to last forever which is why I always bring up a basic income, because eventually the tides will turn, and we'll "bring manufacturing back home." Only, the cheap BS trinkets and crappy dollar store and Wal-Mart style items will be created in the US, with machines, and little labor.

[eridani]

262. It has to do with corporate power n/t

[joshcryer]

263. Sure. Change the judges, empower the SEC.

But that's too much to ask. Instead increased monopolization is literally the norm. The SEC is so neutered as this point it's a wonder why it even exists. All thanks to Bush appointed judges shooting down every single ruling.

[Art_from_Ark]

81. Cheap goods have been coming from Asia for 50+ years

TPP was not necessary then, it is not necessary now. It's just one more backdoor way to screw average citizens in signatory countries.

[joshcryer]

83. Intellectual property theft has been going on too.

I don't question that it won't screw over Americans which is why I noted that we're going to need a basic income / living wage / negative income tax. And pronto.

[stillwaiting]

91. Has a single politician spoken about a basic income/living wage/negative income tax?

Since the probability of that is as near zero as possible, it would probably be good to oppose something that you don't question will screw over Americans.

We have to fight back some day!

Exerting effort to push back against those that are upset and wanting to fight back seems counterproductive in light of the two realities above.

[joshcryer]

95. Bernie Sanders supports basic income.

Warren hasn't touched the issue.

This is why if anyone asks who I'd support in the primaries (or general) I support Bernie Sanders.

Basic income / living wage / negative income tax is going to be the central issue in 10-15 years. We can't ignore it. The very structure of our society is based upon people having jobs. 20% unemployment due to technological changes is unsustainable.

I'm dead freaking serious. It's a big huge monumental issue:

[stillwaiting]

96. I love your thinking on the issue, and I agree it is needed.

But, if only Bernie is talking about it, then there is no realistic chance that it will come to fruition in the near to even medium-term future.

We have to work like hell to build awareness of the need for progressive solutions, make Americans understand that the current Democratic Party is not currently fighting for these solutions, and reform the Democratic Party in a massive overhaul for basic guaranteed income to ever become a reality in this country. Easy, huh?

So, we are basically in a VERY defensive position (as we always seem to be these days). We HAVE to fight this or we will lose a lot of ground.

[joshcryer]

98. I believe it will happen.

But only as a "reaction." The US government isn't going to ignore the issue, but it will respond to it as it happens. I believe we will have a great recession or even a great depression before the US reacts. It is unfortunate, many people will die, many people will become destitute, in my humble opinion.

Would it be that politicians recognized the issue before it became apparent. I think Julian Castro will be the one to see it happen. It won't be Hillary Clinton, I don't think she's that forward thinking enough. It's going to require thousands of policy wonks to recognize the issue and even more to figure out the (easy) solution. A basic income will be realized, in my opinion, by around 2030. Just as AI is taking over.

[appalachiablue]

197. Why aren't people esp. here discussing this looming reality. I saw the 2013 Oxford Martin report

that irreversible technological unemployment, aka US 'job losses' would be 50% over the next 20 years. Starting yesterday. Whether 20% or 50%, which we haven't seen since the Great Depression I don't get it. And it's here in 10-15 years. Saw this video last year, of value but the tone is strange. If people learned that half of us would be w/o water, or food in 10-15 there would be unbelievable chaos and action. Basic income? we can't get the minimum wage increased but yes it's a huge matter that needs big attention.

[joshcryer]

264. Because irrelevant issues like TPP take the stage.

Basic income should literally be the discussion topic of the day. Every day. For now and forever until we have it. It's far more important than health care, it's more important than anything. We're looking at minimum 40% job losses due to technological changes in the next 20-30 years. We should live to see it starting, at least, I mean, in 10 years, some 5 million will be rendered jobless due to self-driving cars alone.

This is a huge problem, it's monumental. Climate change, I argue, is still the most pressing issue, but a basic income comes in a very close second.

[appalachiablue]

282. Basic income will be brought up by only Bernie as you say and it's critical to discuss now.

The automation underway, and climate change are enormous, life threatening issues that need immediate work. But agree that Dems. are in a defensive, weak position with some of them advocating the corporate coup d'état TPP takeover like the Repubs. What a mess, Christo-Fascism rising-

TPP= Toilet Paper Party AND Trans Pacific Partnership
cuz we're being trashed, TP ed!

[cascadiance]

119. The "from Asia" part isn't what most Americans care about having as a part of that statement...

They just want "cheap goods", and the way our system has been engineered with crappy trade deals and other things, the system has been engineered to make sure that the cheap goods available to us are from places like Asia, and it is also engineered to ensure that we have had our jobs scarce, salaries low, and wealth redistributed to the top so that many of us feel forced to have "cheap goods" to survive.

All part of the bastard oligarchs' plan! And we shouldn't accept their plan if we know what's good for us! But unfortunately, education is also being kept expensive and made unavailable to many of us, and our media also kept "dumb" to keep many of us from thinking about these questions too!

[joshcryer]

265. What do you think TPP means?

From not Asia? TPP is designed to leverage Asian countries. It's geopolitical in nature. The US doesn't want to see China (and Russia) dominating the trade sphere in the future, and the US has come to accept that Americans want cheap slave labor produced goods from Asia. So it's creating a trade deal that allows us to continue reaping the benefits of slave labor without relying on China.

[cascadiance]

275. I think what it really is is a "Toilet Paper Party" for the 1%ers here...

... who profit from outsourcing of our jobs overseas moreso than the rest of us do who may get some things cheaper, but lose a lot more with lower salaries and fewer jobs.

They're basically TP'ing us and laughing all the way at us accepting it if we don't tell our reps to stop it.

It sounds like even Chuck Schumer, who's been a traditional sellout when it comes to helping crap like H-1B quota expansion passing here, is starting to read between the lines about what the Fast Track and TPP bill crap is and is knowing that at some point the Democratic Party will pay a big price if its members don't work to stop it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pearl-korn/senator-charles-e-schumer_b_6858236.html

Was pleasantly surprised to see a solicitation just yesterday from him to sign a petition to speak against the tenets of Fast Track legislation and its efforts to ramrod TPP through without amendments.

http://www.prioritizejobs.com/#schumer

[appalachiablue]

279. TPP= Toilet Paper Party AND Trans Pacific Partnership- truth! Shumer supports the increase of

H1-B visas, but there's also an article on DU now where, like other reps. he regards the TPP as having too many problems. Could be spin, or multiple personalities.

[cascadiance]

280. Yep, we need to sell more of these at rallies. TPP=Toilet Paper Party & Trans Pacific Partnership

We need to use these to do real constructive TPP of those who support this crap (and that play on words is intentional!)!

[appalachiablue]

283. Indeed! Put that up in posts on DU now re 'TPP', the real bipartisan, global 1% corporate

party & partnership-TPP- GLOBAL CORPORATE CONTROL

[brentspeak]

183. Yeah, whenever I go shopping

the very first thing I ask is: "Where's your 'Cheap Goods From Asia' section? I drove 10 miles just to get some cheap, made-in-China crap. I really want to depress my own wages -- and similarly undermine the economic livelihood of 90% of the rest of the United States by shipping my dollars overseas to China and into the pockets of a few Wall St. oligarchs -- so where is it?"

Congrats on winning Dumb Post of the Day.

[joshcryer]

261. You don't even have to think about it.

It's the reality. Other than food it's highly likely that everything surrounding you at this very moment is made in Asia. You dismiss this paradigm. But it's the reality you won't accept.

The US has moved from manufacturing to service side stuff. That's what's happened. It's the reality.

[cascadiance]

276. And its a CRAPPY reality pushed on to us by the 1% that can and SHOULD be undone!

It is the history of recent trade agreements that is largely responsible for the loss of our middle class here and the collapse in our economy in addition to throwing out Glass-Stiegel that tipped us over the edge.

Saying that we all WANT this crap is really an insult to most of us on this board. We have more faith in the intelligence of Americans than you seem to!

Not only is the notion that everything should be made in China and Asia "because it is today's reality" absurd from us looking to build a decent economy here in this country that isn't unbalance, but it also works heavily against efforts to fight climate change, if we have to have everything shipped to us here (both goods and labor) from other countries that costs us much in fossil fuels and other carbon pollution with the processes needed to ship goods here. Making and buy local where possible is a far better mantra around the world to bring our climate change problems under control too.

I'm all for those people in Asia making a decent living and being able to have jobs to live decent lives too. But I would submit that they should be able to do that for their own economy with proper laws governing how much their own people get paid as labor forces that isn't dependent on having an export market for most of what they make there.

[whathehell]

207. You are kidding, right?

[joshcryer]

260. Do the test.

Reach out for literally anything in your vicinity. Pick something note made in Asia. Good luck.

[whathehell]

266. Still not conclusive evidence regarding your point. n/t

[AzDar]

75. K & R

[Scuba]

89. K&R So interesting to watch the usual suspects come out and criticize this post.

If anyone doubts that TPTB have a horde of bloggers trying to manage public perception then they're simply not paying attention.

[MannyGoldstein]

111. Several seem to be missing

Something's up.

[Autumn]

122. Interesting fact here Manny, if you post in a thread you don't get called for

jury duty on alerts sent in said thread. Or maybe some people are getting the old comm channel open and getting the talking points in line. By this afternoon the same line will be repeated all over DU.

[Dragonfli]

132. They have been disseminated and include (incredibly) that corporate tribunals are there to favor

us rather than the corporations (which are at a disadvantage under the corporate tribunals). Along with the usual, "we can't understand what is written and it is not the final draft anyway", only politicians can parse the language and we are too stupid to understand what is written, and the ever popular, Obama wants fast track so that he can veto it. Among other poorly constructed propaganda.

[Autumn]

134. It boggles the mind doesn't it?

Anyone playing defense on this has a very Herculean task ahead of them. Bless their hearts.

[grasswire]

155. never thought about that part of the strategy

So that is why they hang back. So they can swarm the jury. The alert war is shameful.

[Zorra]

112. ^This^

Well said, Scuba. It is painfully obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

[RiverLover]

124. It is painful.

And obvious.

And tiring.

[Enthusiast]

210. And exhausting. And that is the objective.

[Enthusiast]

209. +1 an entire shit load.

[DeSwiss]

90. K&R

[Octafish]

100. Lipstick, Manny. Lipstick.

Then it's back to business as usual in Wall Street on the Potomac.

Big Finance is too complicated to prosecu--, ah, understand. Ask Phil Gramm and William J. Clinton of UBS. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management for those who can't tell the difference between a billion and a Brazilian:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

Ah...true Buy Partisanship at last.

[djean111]

102. +1,000,000,000. And, I guess a Brazilian wax. Which is what we are getting, really.

[DanTex]

106. Care to explain why?

[marym625]

108. K&R!

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would push for any agreement that affects Americans, to any degree, to be fast tracked and/or agreed upon, that is done in secret. I don't care if it ends up being the best agreement for Americans that the world has ever seen (which is exactly the opposite from the TPP for what we do know.) When it comes to something like this, especially when corporations have access to and are actually writing it in part, to keep it secret from the public and fast track its approval is nothing less than dishonest

[pampango]

109. Obama is out to get us. Where have I heard that before? n/t

[Populist_Prole]

147. Red Herring

Get back on topic

[pampango]

148. How so? "The TPP is yet another awful assault against the 99% by the wealthy and their paid help in

... the White House."

Sounds like the OP believes the White House (Obama being its most relevant occupant) is out to get us. You disagree?

[cascadiance]

116. Those who support the TPP in effect support global fascism!

Because that literally what it is when it puts in place courts composed of oligarch servants that can overturn just about any country's sovereignty with its rulings the way this POS's wording!

[randome]

125. Your subject line itself is a straw man.

The TPP is a treaty regulating corporations. Why would such a treaty abruptly align with 'working Americans'? That's like questioning why the defense budget doesn't promote better school nutrition.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

273. It's also a treaty regulating governments and what they may do

It's interesting that the US government seems to be very resistant to submitting to the judgement of the International Criminal Court in the Hague but is all hot to trot about submitting to corporate courts in Allah knows where.

[Dragonfli]

126. I find it absolutely amazing that there are those that, when faced with information regarding

A multinational deal that will elevate corporations above free states, with language specifically designed to override safety, labor and environmental laws via the threat of law suits to recover "imagined" profits that might have been gained were such laws not in place would react with defensive redirection, obfuscation and advised complacency rather than concern or outrage.

I suppose I simply do not understand individuals that place the profits (not even their own, but the profits of billionaires) so far above the needs and well being of the human population that they would act so contrary to what I once thought was a biological imperative to seek shelter, warmth and survival for not only oneself, but each other (as we are a social species that has learned to adapt to survive via communal reactions and self protections).

I understand sociopathy, and realize sociopaths lack the ability to care for or about others, but this goes far beyond that, it is some form of group sociopathy wherein a group rather than an individual lacks the ability to care regarding the fate of others. It is very disturbing to me, it's as if we share this globe with another completely different intelligent hominid species, a predatory and ruthless species that would care not at all if multiple villages of other human like entities died of starvation so that a very small number of their tribe were to have an extra unneeded handful of berries or nuts do consume as a snack after having already procured a dinner so lavish that the added berries may cause them to vomit.

What is even harder to understand is that many among this species appear completely oblivious to the obvious fact that their chieftains have placed them on the menu as well, perhaps they do realize and for some insane reason feel it is a honor to be consumed by the very chieftains they work so hard to enable regarding the destruction of others.,


Sorry for my trademark run on sentences and meandering thoughts, yours is a good OP and I hope I have not distracted from it.

[randome]

128. So what is there about the 'environmental override' in the TPP?

What I've seen so far is that the treaty doesn't go far enough to satisfy some groups' concerns. Which in itself is a good point but I don't see anything about 'overriding environmental laws'.

There is probably a provision in place -and I'm only guessing since no one has offered up any specifics so far- that environmental regulation cannot be used as a means to discriminate against a company.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Dragonfli]

130. You are wasting your efforts with me, I can read so I will not be convinced to ignore

what is evident, nor will I help you sweep this feces under the rug so that the already wealthy can profit at the expense of nearly everybody else.

I am sure there are others that will be susceptible to your work on behalf of the corporations, it would be a better use of your time to focus on one of them.

[smokey nj]

137. Well said, Dragonfli.

[Enthusiast]

211. +1 You nailed it.

[Zorra]

218. Thank you.

[treestar]

152. I'd be against your first paragraph alone

But where does the TPP provide for this? People need to be able to point to that language when it finally comes out. Reminds me of asking righties to find the death panels in the ACA, and they never could point to the part of the statute that actually provided for them. At best they came up with a section where it said people should get counseling on living wills and the like.

[Dragonfli]

153. Reading would help you with that.

I am not referring to my post either, I am referring to the leaked documents, my post is pretty clear I think to anyone that has actually read what was posted regarding the proposed agreement, so I can only conclude that you dislike reading, or you would rather not know what is in what you are attempting to discuss.

Why are you defending something you refuse to even educate yourself about? It makes no sense to me, it would make more sense if you did read it and decided that suing a sovereign nation using a corporate tribunal system held above local law because a corporation believes some labor or environmental law may cause them to lose profit is a good idea. I believe Josh feels that way, finding the tribunals to be far more just than the laws of the nations they are designed to override, he at least is honest and bothered to read before discussing.

Read what is available before posting again only to prove you know nothing about what is being discussed, such behavior is embarrassing to say the least.

[treestar]

189. You're not quoting any part of it

I see unsupported conclusions.

I am in the process of education about it (we all are) and am not the one who makes conclusions on it. "suing a sovereign nation using a corporate tribunal system held above local law" is not something you've proved it does. For that you would need language from it. You can't expect to convince me with "it's there, you just have to find it" (hahaha that will take you hours because there's a ton of material). If you knew it said that, you'd know where, and it would be natural to quote it or point me to it to prove your point.

[bvar22]

238. NAFTA has that authority, and uses it.

"suing a sovereign nation using a corporate tribunal system held above local law"

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) includes an array of new corporate investment rights and protections that are unprecedented in scope and power. NAFTA allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights.

If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill. This extraordinary attack on governments' ability to regulate in the public interest is a key element of recent and proposed NAFTA expansions like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and agreements with Peru, Panama and Colombia.

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=1218

Every other so called "Free Trade" deal has the same provision.
What makes you believe this will NOT be in the TPP?

The above clause is one of the main reasons for "Free Trade".


Think about this for a minute:
"If a corporation wins, the taxpayers of the "losing" NAFTA nation must foot the bill."

This is a secret Corporate tribunal that exists outside of and above the US Government with the power to FINE (Tax) the citizens of the USA, and we may never fully know why beyond we interfered with the Global Right of Corporations to Make Profit.

There are several cases you can study if you have some Valium or good liqueur.
This provision of NAFTA is Chapter 11,
and should scare your pants off.

(It is also in CAFTA, the Colombia/Panama Free Trade Agreement, and the most recent Korean Free Trade Agreement that has already cost over 60,000 American jobs.

[treestar]

267. that's not from NAFTA, it's from Public Citizen

and it's their conclusion. Funny how they never quote NAFTA itself.

Just like the death panels. Can't find it. Maybe you can find some actual NAFTA language that you can twist into such an interpretation.

[DeSwiss]

249. Here's how it's done, you get a bunch of sheep together.....

[Man from Pickens]

127. now you're just rec whoring

so +1 rec from me

[uponit7771]

157. The OP statement is false on its face

[Dragonfli]

162. It appears rather axiomatic to me, care to explain how you reach such an odd conclusion? /nt

[uponit7771]

163. I don't believe the OP speaks for working people at all, not one bit

[Dragonfli]

166. It will affect working people as he suggests, so, does it matter if he is some sort of

"official spokesperson"? (not that he ever claimed to be) I am a working poor person, have been all my life and I agree with him.

I take it you are the type that takes a shower before work, rather than after, one perhaps with more than one vehicle?
People that are financially comfortable often feel as you do, that what is good for multinationals is good for everybody. I can assure you, off shoring jobs to the lowest paid workers in the world and allowing corps to run roughshod over local governments is not good for blue collar America, no matter how rosy the idea may appear to one of the investor class.

You will have to forgive me if the needs of the wealthiest among us does not concern me overmuch.

[uponit7771]

168. True, it will affect working people ... My point is I don't think the OP speaks for working people

.... not one bit.

Not only that, the OFFICIAL tpp is not out yet... so HOW it will affect working people is not 100% clear or even 10% clear seeing the past claims about Obama hating Americas middle class and the like.

Sounds like the last 14hp1n2235 times someone posted that Obama was going to bring down the Western Hemisphere with his policies and it didn't happen.

There's no need to give value to the claims seeing these claims didn't 20% pan out to be true in the past

[Dragonfli]

170. I can only speak for myself, but I assure you it is this sort of corporate trade deal that is an

enemy to the working class and it's toxicity has nothing to do with Obama. I would oppose it whether he hated it, was luke warm on the subject or as it appears, loves the idea.

Not everything is about Obama, this most certainly is not. I do wonder why on earth he would support such a thing after what NAFTA did to us, and I also question why he thinks Larry Summers is a good man to listen to, but as far as his likes, dislikes and favorite colors, those are very minor issues to me. What concerns me is my own personal fate as well as the fate of the bulk of Americans.

I wish you would step back for just one minute and consider this issue separately from any tangential attachment to some politician. If signed, this agreement will outlive several presidents and I am getting rather sick and tired of how issues that will deeply affect me are only thought of in connection to what a single politician might think.

He is not that important, none of them are, get over your obsession with a single man and start worrying about the people rather than some temporary administrator that holds a job from 4 to 8 years.

PLEASE!!!

[uponit7771]

269. Weren't the other predictions regarding Obama and deals non eventful too!? I mean like the

... last 123408j that have been posted here on DU in regards to everything from the ACA to social security...

Wolf has been called on DU, regarding Obama and deals, too much IMHO

[Dragonfli]

272. Get beyond Obama, this trade deal is separate from him

For the record, the chained CPI was in the budget he proposed, the only reason he didn't get his way on that was Republican obstructionism. I might also add that the TTP is very real and IS being negotiated, he is on record not only saying he supports it, but wants it fast tracked. This is a very real threat and Republicans support the deal (every single one), so even if they obstruct this as well (unlikely) it will be continued by the next POTUS, like I said, this is beyond him at this point and will remain a problem unless/until we can raise enough hell to kill it. Hillary supports it as well, as do all R presidential candidates, so wishing it away, or pretending it will end with his presidency is foolish, it will outlast him and by all accounts it is a shitty deal for everyone but multinational corporations (that are the real authors and proponents of this deal, Obama having merely inherited the negotiations as the current administration).

Wake up, this thing is very real and has legs that are not Obama's

[uponit7771]

277. OK, beyond Obama the issue is still the same... too many calls of Wolf on here for

... a person to have to hold on to just one.

Not trying to minimize effects of any deals, I'd jus rather wait till they come out.... in the past when they come out...

The people making the dire predictions RARELY come back and say they were wrong

[bvar22]

215. You have failed to prove that "the OP is 100% False".

If you have any evidence beyond your own blather,
please present it here.


We'll wait.

[uponit7771]

270. This post is false also, I've already posted my reasons it's false.

[sadoldgirl]

161. Seems to me that some people

prefer corporations to rule, period.

We still have nation states and their laws should be in
control of the corporations,not the other way around..

I am furious as hell already that a few towns in my state
are not allowed to stop fracking in their area, even though
the people voted against it. And that is a small item
in comparison to what the TTP planers have in mind.

[GoneFishin]

165. TPP will turn the keys to the country and the 50 states over to multinationals with no

way to ever get them back. To me this is so devastatingly bad for American workers that it makes me suspicious that any puny bones that were thrown to center and center left Democrats by Obama were just to get our guard down while they sneak through this putrid nation rotting bag of turds.

[FiveGoodMen]

194. I agree completely.

We should have had a primary in 2012.

[Enthusiast]

198. The TPP will only further enrich the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

[Enthusiast]

199. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[mother earth]

202. Our system is thoroughly broken & owned by an unfettered oligarchy bent on ruling the world.

K & R, manny! Keep bringing it.

[ibewlu606]

225. Kicked

TPP is bad for workers, wrong for America, and I will not vote for the Democratic nominee (Hillary) who supports it.

[Scrabbleddie]

235. There's untold millions in speaker fees, (payola) awaiting.

This is an excellent opportunity for the president to get fabulously wealthy.

[realFedUp]

237. President Obama

Alert. Watcha going to do?

[Flatpicker]

241. Any regulation

That is written in part by the industry it intended to regulate is wrong.

Basic conflict of interest issues arise.


Remember the Dingo in the Hen house analogy.

[cheapdate]

243. It isn't complicated. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and many more Democrats

believe in capitalism and believe in free trade. The arguments in favor of such are the same as they've always been.

The twelve Pacific Rim countries participating in the negotiations are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

I hardly think there's going to a substantial alteration of the job market in the US because we formalized certain trade practices with Canada, Japan, and the rest. Nor am I certain that it will "create more despair, hunger, and homelessness" than would otherwise exist without it.

The GATT already exists and is the main vehicle for globalization. I'm not certain that the TPP makes the situation any worse than the GATT alone. For all I know, the TPP might represent a modest improvement on a regrettably unsustainable and destructive situation.

With or without the TPP, there is practically unrestricted free trade in much of the world. Multinational corporations are already among the most powerful enterprises on the planet.

I'm opposed to trade that takes resources from poorer countries and sends them to richer ones. I'm opposed to degrading local environments for the enrichment of absentee owners in foreign lands. I'm opposed to legal and economic systems that separate people from the land, disrupt traditional ways of living, and force them into wage slavery.

But whatever the future impact might be, my point is that some Democrats don't share my ethics. That doesn't make them my enemy, necessarily. If we still believe in things like equality and functioning civil institutions, then we still have something in common. I'll vote Democratic. Doing so in no way stops me from working for change in any way I want.

If what you're doing helps to make people's lives better, then good. But if what you're doing helps put Republicans in power, then you need to "think about what you're doing to our country".

[bvar22]

245. Are you familiar with the recent Korean "Free Trade" Treaty?

Our leadership promised us that it would bring thousands of jobs to the US,
and help fix the Balance of Trade.

They were WRONG.
Korean "Free Trade" Treaty immediately cost the US Working Class 60,000 jobs (and more next month) and made the Balance of Trade even worse.

[cheapdate]

278. That's a bold claim.

On the two-year anniversary of the Korean agreement, PublicCitizen.org reported that exports of goods to Korea declined by 5% in the first two years, which they equated to a loss of American 50,000 jobs using a factored estimate. The Economic Policy Institute came up with slightly different numbers, a 7.5% decline in exports and 60,000 lost jobs.

I don't have a problem with opposing free trade agreements. "Free trade" agreements are essentially nothing more than a "civilized" form of violence and occupation. Multinational corporations should be attacked where they live and their leaders brought to answer for their crimes.

I have a problem with attacking Democrats. I have ethical disagreements with some Democrats and I dispute their political and economic ideas. But I don't attack them or do things to weaken the party.

[Rex]

281. Free trade is a libertarians wet dream. So no I don't think so.

I HOPE they support 'fair trade' since 'free trade' is what republicans and libertarians want so badly. Free trade creates vast amounts of wealth inequality.

Probably right about the job market...already been gutted and outsourced decades ago.

[WDIM]

247. I cannot reconcile how democrats support free trade.

The whole free trade idea was a republican corporatist idea. Democrats fell right in line. Why do democrats in power always fall right in line with republicans on issues like trade, war, wall street, banksters, all the big money issues that could truly change our world for the better. When it comes to big business big money both parties are in bed.

[Scrabbleddie]

250. "Citizen's United" was an anti-democratic paradigm shift.

Multinational corporations, banks and other special interests now write the rules.
They will have their way with us whether this goes through or not.

TPP is ALEC on steroids yet, like the boiling frog anecdote, we will stand only so much so fast.
The question is only how much and how fast the oligarchs/corporations screw us.
Austerity and privatization will continue-- we have no say in the matter.

[woo me with science]

274. K&R for the hideous truth.

[woo me with science]

285. No shit. "TPP contains a provision for bailing out derivative losses."

Way to work for the people!

TPP contains a provision for bailing out derivative losses. Is this what re-negotiating NAFTA means?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026430716

[Old and In the Way]

287. ok, All of the real progressives have convinced me...I am voting Republican for the 1st time since72

Cool, because I know they are looking out for my best interests! Fuck Republican lites, I want the real Republican elected SCOTUS IN 2016! It took a dozen years to convince me, but a strong Republican will be much better than a Clinton. Fuck SCOTUS, we can always deal with that in 2028....assuming the Republican President doesn't elect judicial frat. alumini (2020) from UVA.