Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)49. LOL!
?zz=1
Lowest I remember purchasing was 25¢, ca. 1973...Humble or whatever it was then.
Lowest I remember purchasing was 25¢, ca. 1973...Humble or whatever it was then.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks [View all]
Teamster Jeff
Jul 2012
OP
There isn't anything secret about the TPP. The negotiation sessions are announced publicly
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#2
Contents of potential agreement are under the radar because they know people will be outraged
Teamster Jeff
Jul 2012
#13
Of course the countries in a trade agreement are subject to an enforcement arm of the pact
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#15
They were secret until a whistle-blower leaked them. That is when we found out about them.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#51
There is no agreement yet. It's negotiations. And there is no reason for them to be public
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#61
Executive privilege. The president and his representatives have to be able to negotiate
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#63
There is every reason why trade agreements should be discussed openly by CONGRESS, NOT by foreign
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#94
No, Senator Levin's demand is outrageous. The congress will vote on the agreement. They do not
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#95
Sen. Levin was absolutely correct to be outraged that foreign etities are busy writing laws for this
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#96
Congress will vote on the final agreement. The president and the executives of the other
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#106
'You people'??? You mean Americans who think that Congress is our legislative body, you know, the
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#107
Congress was barred from knowing anything about this. If it had not been for a whistle-blower
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#109
Did you also agree with the congress when members said the Attorney General had to hand over
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#110
The negotiations aren't finished, once they are what will actually be in the agreement will be
RB TexLa
Jul 2012
#60
LOL. "You say workers in both countries are WORSE off, while corporations are much richer?"
Romulox
Jul 2012
#21
I was poking fun at the poster's (feigned?) incredulity. I agree with your title. nt
Romulox
Jul 2012
#27
Is this a joke? Nobody can educate you on basic economics, here. Nor is your lack of understanding
Romulox
Jul 2012
#69
Nonsense. I'm not going to bother to *disprove* your ill-informed argument; there's no point. nt
Romulox
Jul 2012
#81
I'm still waking up, but this report does not seem to cover jobs created in Mexico
amandabeech
Jul 2012
#92
Reality, treestar: "Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. manufacturing employment has fallen by 5 million"
Romulox
Jul 2012
#70
This information is available to anyone who is even remotely curious. You haven't found it for a
Romulox
Jul 2012
#76
Nope. Won't be derailed by your ignorance. Make an effort to *READ THE LINKS ALREADY POSTED* to
Romulox
Jul 2012
#83
This is a MESSAGE BOARD. The way we communicate is through the written word. If you won't read,
Romulox
Jul 2012
#111
This is a PATHETIC way to try to derail, btw--the "feigned" ignorance as a debating tactic. nt
Romulox
Jul 2012
#112
I mean, there are detailed links *IN THIS VERY THREAD*, and you still pretend your ignorance of the
Romulox
Jul 2012
#79
how would we know, since the public & legislators are denied access that's given to corporations?
HiPointDem
Jul 2012
#33
"by the time it gets to congress"... our government is negotiating terms *now*. why is it secret?
HiPointDem
Jul 2012
#88
This isn't just about 'job-killing'. It is way worse than that. Have you read what was
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#52
Now it cannot. Had it not been for the whistle-blower no one would know about it.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#87
Sorry about your job, but that is not the only issue regarding these 'agreements'. It is way more
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#53
I don't think that foreign corporations, or any corporations, should be planning our future,
amandabeech
Jul 2012
#93
Not dry behind the ears yet. Bought gas at 17 cents a gallon. Then it went to 19. Kids these days!
freshwest
Jul 2012
#103
The WTO Trade court is an arbiter of trade disputes between member countries...
Teamster Jeff
Jul 2012
#17
Many other countries (e.g. Japan, South Korea, China) have active partnerships between gov't and
Romulox
Jul 2012
#23
no, it's not. and there are fewer jobs in the us today than on the day bush took office.
HiPointDem
Jul 2012
#25
'regulated' for the benefit of the biggest boys on the block. also crap. 'regulated' for the
HiPointDem
Jul 2012
#41
Ok, assuming then that Obama is incapable of constructing a good trade agreement
bhikkhu
Jul 2012
#47
i disagree that obama constructed the agreement. i am 4th generation pnw. trade has always
HiPointDem
Jul 2012
#48
Thank you, I've been reading the comments here and it seems to me that a few people defending
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#55
The Rule of Law is always a good place to turn to when corruption rears its ugly head.
sabrina 1
Jul 2012
#59
You seem to see politics as lining up behind Team A or Team B. Many of us want to PLAY for a team.
Romulox
Jul 2012
#32
Of course there is "evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs"
Romulox
Jul 2012
#44
So you will soon be starting a Group here on DU called 2016 Progressive Prez, right?
JoePhilly
Jul 2012
#58
YOU sure as shooting haven't kept your mouth shut these past 4 years. Why should I?
Romulox
Jul 2012
#66
I haven't relented on this issue since before 2008. Don't dictate my priorities to me. nt
Romulox
Jul 2012
#84