The defenders on the TPP: "You don't know that" and "It's just speculation". Bullfuckingshit.

[cali]

We do know and you have to be brain dead not to know how bad these trade deals are for the vast majority of people in the countries involved.

How do we know when the talks have been shrouded in secrecy? I'm happy, thrilled in fact to inform the apologist, er, types:

1) The TPP enshrines investor rights in almost precisely the same manner as NAFTA and other similar recent "trade" agreements. It enables corporations to challenge national, state, provincial or municipal laws that protect citizens from pollution and other threats to their well being. The text was leaked in 2012.

Here is just one example of this shite:

Eli Lilly files $500M NAFTA suit against Canada over drug patents

Eli Lilly is accusing Canada of violating its obligations to foreign investors under the North American Free Trade Agreement by allowing its courts to invalidate patents for two of its drugs.

The company officially filed a complaint this week with NAFTA seeking $500 million US in compensation.

The Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical giant had already notified the federal government in June of its intention to submit a NAFTA complaint, but filed the formal "notice of arbitration" on Thursday after it failed to settle the dispute through negotiation.

<snip>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/eli-lilly-files-500m-nafta-suit-against-canada-over-drug-patents-1.1829854

Let me repeat this for the Zombie Apologists: This isn't debatable. ALL fucking U.S. trade agreements since NAFTA include these vile "investor rights". The case above is just one of many.

More info- not that the Zombie Apologists will ever do any real research.


<snip>

The US’s principal offer to its Latin American neighbours is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which offers Latin American and Asian nations access to the US market on the basis of three conditions: they must deregulate their financial markets, adopt intellectual property provisions that give preference to US firms, and allow private US firms to directly sue governments of countries that sign up to the TPP for violating any of its conditions.

<snip>
http://www.iol.co.za/business/opinion/columnists/us-cannot-take-latin-america-for-granted-1.1530220#.Ujl-in-Bp5V

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

[BelgianMadCow]

1. I noticed that too. Here is a leaked draft of the TPP sister, the transatlantic version

called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. As far as I've been reading the situation, these two pacts are intended to resemble one another closely. The TTIP negotiations have only just begun (spring this year), the TPP is ahead of it.

http://www.humanite.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/2013/huma_internet_2013-05-18_texte_commission1_0.pdf

I plan to keep raising a stink about these deals. Note that this draft comes out of the (unelected) European Commission. It's being pushed hard by Karel De Gucht, a neoliberal if ever there was one, and the EU commissioner for Trade.

There is quite a big part in there about investment protection and investor-state resolution. It has this brilliant bit:

"All sub-central authorities (such as States or municipalities) should effectively comply with the investor protection chapter of this agreement."

I personally think a big part of the solution to many problems is going local. Guess who's not very much in favour of that.

[Democracyinkind]

2. You know the drill, cali - "it's all speculation" until

"it's too late to do anything about it now".

Welcome to the reality based community.

[morningfog]

3. It's speculation until it's "old news."

[grahamhgreen]

5. Or speculation until its "compromise"...

[magical thyme]

132. or it's speculation until "we can fix it later."

[merrily]

18. At that point, discussing it would be nothing but "shit stirring," right?

[cali]

4. Yep. but I'm going to call the Zombie Apologists out on their crap every fucking time

[Democracyinkind]

6. My recs shall be with you!

[cali]

7. hey, thanks!

Nice to get encouragement.

[Divernan]

13. May the recs be with you! Mine always is. Thanks for all you do!

You can't fix stupid/Zombies/paid 3rd way disruptors - but you can call bullshit on them every time. In fact, they really aren't helping their hero &/or corporate employers by providing repeated opportunities to call them out & rub their noses in cold hard facts in front of all the DUers and DU followers. Your callouts increase public awareness/objections to TPP - and those objections are all that can stop Obama by taking away his congressional support. Yeah, he had to tell Larry Summers the votes weren't there so Summers would have to withdraw his name from consideration. But Obama's insolent gesture to all the objectors was to state he would continue to rely on Summers' advice.

[cali]

20. Thank you, Divernan. For everything.

[Nay]

33. Zombie apologists. I like it! It drives me crazy around here, the way RW shit gets passed and we

can't even have a discussion of things without getting called haters, etc. If Dems are gonna be cheerleaders no matter what our guy does, then it's game over. But I appreciate your efforts, Cali!

[Raksha]

67. The Zombie Apologists - glad to finally have a name for them,

seeing as how I've pretty much got their arguments memorized at this point:

"You don't know that; it's all speculation."

"You don't understand how the political process works; it's called compromise."

"Pass it now, fix it later."

"That's old news."

[cali]

74. Maybe we should start a fund to deprogram these poor afflicted folks

[Raksha]

77. Good idea - it isn't hard to identify them.

Just one or two posts and they give themselves away.

[woo me with science]

170. Hear, hear. nt

[merrily]

14. It's all speculation until we figure Congress or Republicans or someone forced him into it.

Either that, or we'll decide it was a good thing, after all.

[obxhead]

36. Pass it now, fix it later.

We never seem to get to the fixing it later part though.

[proverbialwisdom]

38. +1

[Raksha]

68. Thanks - I left that one off my list of zombie lines.

"Pass it now, fix it later."

I don't think it's too late to edit my post, though.

[grahamhgreen]

143. The Toilet Paper Pact - wiping their asses with the American dream.

[Locrian]

8. kick! - n/t

[annabanana]

9. k&r . . .n/t

[another_liberal]

10. If not enough is known . . .

Then that's twice as much reason to have a debate in Congress, so we can see what's in this "hush, hush" deal. They wouldn't be trying to pass it on "Fast Track" authority if it wasn't full of things that stink to high heaven.

[merrily]

15. Did the Framers contemplate Senate confirmation as a rubber stamp, after the fact?

Or was there a real reason the Constitution calls for Senate confirmation?

People keep calling for the Constitution to be amended.

I might be happy if it is enforced as written.

[another_liberal]

17. Agreed.

They had that much foresight, at least.

[merrily]

21. Foresight or hindsight?

Remember, they had just witnessed farmers and storekeepers defeat the formidable British army over one man rule.

(I use "man" instead of "person" because women had no shot at anything then, except for a Queen Elizabeth I situation.)

According to notes of their secret meetings, they, too, feared "mob rule." Hence, more things were entrusted to the Senate, on the idea that the House would be too responsible to voters. Mind you, at that time, only about 6% of the population was eligible to vote in the first place.

Don't mind me. I think the Framers were way overrated. Still, the document they produced, as amended, is the law of the land and I do believe in the rule of law.

Unless it stops working.

[TheJames]

161. I came across this,

and was a bit amazed. This makes a lot of sense out of the, "They were elites, themselves" meme.

[link:HTTP://truth-out.org/news/item/14489-lifting-the-veil-of-mirage-democracy-in-the-united-states|

[Rain Mcloud]

11. When it finally collapses and leaves corporations destitute.....

then it was the fault of the moonbats on the left and they have been saying it would fail all along but the liberial media covered it up.
It is always an awesome thing when you are never wrong,its a gift from god!

[merrily]

16. You think the TPP will leave corporations destitute?

[BuelahWitch]

90. Pity the poor Corporations!

[JohnyCanuck]

12. The planned TPP is more evidence the corporations call the shots in our society....

and our political representatives, by and large, seem to know and accept that their role is to enlarge and protect the supposed rights, well being and profits of corporate "persons" (i.e. mega-corporations), even if it is to the detriment of mere flesh and blood, human persons.

TPP negotiations: What is our government hiding behind closed doors?
By
Mark Taliano | September 3, 2013

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is yet another corporate empowering deal that is being negotiated behind firmly closed doors, in various countries throughout the world.

Not only is public input not welcome, but even the pretence of public participation has been lifted. Despite the lack of transparency, some documents have been leaked, and the "omissions" revealed speak loudly to the conspiratorial nature of the "partnership."

snip

Equally significant is that 600 industry lobbyists and "advisors," as well as unelected trade representatives, are at the table, while representatives from the public at large and businesses other than huge monopolies, are conspicuously absent.

snip

The list of corporate polities that benefit from these exclusive negotiating partnerships (to the detriment of the public) is long, but among the most important of the negative impacts is the toll exacted on democracy, and on the ability of the government to protect its people. Since corporate empowerment deals give corporations rights that supercede existing laws and regulations, train safety, plane safety, food safety, water safety, the environment-- the safety of the population as a whole -- is further imperilled. Furthermore, the power imbalance that is created, with the metaphorical 1% garnering disproportionate income and power over the 99%, means that the corporate governance model resembles a plutocracy more than it resembles a democracy.

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/09/tpp-negotiations-what-our-government-hiding-behind-closed-doors

[cali]

19. Yep. Here's a look at Obama's choice: Chief Ag Negotiator for the USTR. Sickening

Islam A. Siddiqui is Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Prior to this, he was Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, an agricultural trade association.

<snip>

From 2001 to 2008, Siddiqui was a registered lobbyist with CropLife America, representing biotechnology companies including BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC Corp., Monsanto, Sumitomo, and Syngenta.

<snip>

Siddiqui is a supporter of genetically modified foods (GMO foods) for human consumption, and repudiates their potential health risks. In 1999 he worked against the mandatory labeling of GMO foods in Japan, stating that such labeling "would suggest a health risk where there is none."[4] In 2003, he criticized the European Union's precautionary rejection of the importation of GMO's, stating that the ban was tantamount to "denying food to starving people."[5] In 2009 he called for a "second green revolution" employing biotechnology and genetic engineering.[6]

In 1998, as Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the United States Department of Agriculture, Siddiqui oversaw the release of the National Organic Program's standards for organic food labeling. The standards permitted both irradiated and GMO foods to be labeled as organic.[7] (The standards were subsequently revised in response to public opposition.)

In 2005, speaking on behalf of CropLife America, Siddiqui stated his satisfaction with the defeat of local propositions in California that would have banned GMO crop cultivation.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Siddiqui

[G_j]

39. that IS quite sickening

another from the dark side

and of course, "..worked against the mandatory labeling of GMO foods"

[cali]

43. Isn't it though? And this was someone the President CHOSE

I think that is telling.

[bvar22]

97. Aw, Cali.

Don't you know?
The Republicans made him do that,
and its ALL the Fringe Left's Fault because they didn't clap hard enough!

[tblue]

125. "Hater"

Obama brings out the worst in us and it's for exactly the reason you posted right here. It's not our fault he's so disappointing.

I don't like to call people names but they are annoying as flies at a picnic. And they are impeding progress.

[KG]

22. use to think they were just feigning ignorance. come to realize it is willful.

[cali]

23. by and large, I think it is willful

but it flows from true believers who really do worship the President.

[Jackpine Radical]

37. That's true, I think.

Sheesh--I get the sense--a whisp of air from the bog, you might say--of misguided idealism as they dither on the staircase while waiting for something fresh from the west to put on top of their tree.

However much I might disagree with some of what they say, I think they're sincere, and believe it's wrong to attribute base motives or to speculate that anyone is paid.

[KG]

41. epic

I get a sense you're thinking about turning Pro.

[pscot]

106. You have a link for that?

There must be links.

[Dragonfli]

72. Perhaps some are that unintelligent and easily led, but I assure you I could mimic them and get work

from Cass Sunstein (as soon as an address is available to send a resume).

As an example, an over the top mimic of the type of logic I see employed all the time, in this case my propaganda reply regarding the fact that Sanders pointed out that many of the Presidents right wing preferred appointments and policies have caused much of the base to be unhappy with him and the rightward direction of the party under his leadership:

What these firebaggers like Sanders need to understand is these fake "Democrats" are not his base,

they are really mostly (nearly all in fact) libertarians registered as Democrats that only voted for him to advance a master plan the goal of which is to "bring him down" because ODS.

Their end game after bringing down the best President of all time (past and future) is to finally herald a new administration with a Rand as president (whom they love almost as much as Putin).

They are clever and embedded (many of them operating sleeper cells of so called "Democrats" for 30 or even up to 60 years).

Real Democrats like Obama, Baucus, anyone named Nelson, Rahm Emanuel, Lieberman (before the firebaggers forced him to run as a party of one) and Ed Rendell are under constant attack by racist libertarians that claim to vote for Democrats as a cover and who must be destroyed.

Their ODS inspired plot also includes discrediting great thinkers - true progressive thinkers like Milton Friedman and collaborative progressive thinkers like Will Marshall, Al From and others who were so pragmatic that they got an incredibly smart billionaire set of brothers named Koch to help fund their DLC. If billionaires as brilliant as they backed their progressive plans, all I can say is they were top notch geniuses that had been working since the eighties to bring us a Democratic utopia of REAL liberal policies and we MUST carry their torch onward into the future.

The conspiracy runs so deep, that the only way to be sure of backing true Democrats is to check to make sure they are connected to the third way think tank, the progressive policy institute, are former DLC alumni, or in the case of posters on this site - Boggers in good standing with the group.

We true Democrats must have Obama's back no matter what he says or does!

We are NOT frustrated by revelations about the Obama administration's secret government spying programs or the president's support for military action in Syria and we support visionaries such as Summers and that hero Brennan just as we hope to do more for banks and for free trade. We promote kill lists and indefinite detention without rights because all these things are the true Democratic agenda and are all attempts to further the interests of the common working man and his right to be allowed to lose rights and job security to enable them to patriotically provide the US with the ability to be competitive on the global labor market and to also allow for a nation secure from the many domestic threats of the disgruntled far left and libertarian terrorists before they become organized. We want these things for our lessers because we love them and have their backs and know what's best for them.

If what is best for them is to reduce their earned benefits like SS and Medicare when they are whinny old farts that can't earn money for their betters anymore, we will support such cuts BECAUSE we love them and want to help them find ways not to be the useless takers that they are. The same for the poor that claim that cutting programs like food stamps will hurt them, in the reality based world if they are not hungry and useful to their betters then we have failed to help them find the bliss in working three min wage jobs to help an economy that is wisely designed to funnel cash to the only people with the ability to trickle success down upon them. I mean, how can we help them if we don't help the rich that may decide to help them at some point eventually?

In conclusion, 99.9% of true Democrats support President Obama on everything all the time and those that do not provide such complete and trusting blind support are not really Democrats or "the base", but rather ODS racist libertarians with an agenda going back to the days of that 'bagger FDR and his hatred of those financially secure enough to shower their wealth down upon us with their unfettered ingenuity. We have already paid a great price for the suffocating regulations that held back the prosperity of the nation until Rubin and Summers under the very liberal Bill Clinton removed the regulatory handcuffs that impedede the creation of true and lasting prosperity that only unfettered capitalism can provide.

Obama's true base loves him, support his every decision 100% and always will, do not believe the lies of the firebagging Putin lovers that not only never really loved him but actually hate him and always will because ODS and their worship of Randian libertarianism.

We need to stick together and go on the attack against what so many falsely see as his Democratic base, our numbers are small, but we are right, have the best funding, and will win in the end bringing to fruition our Progressive Koch inspired Democratic agenda that was so well articulated by our founding DLC heroes. We pragmatic few, ARE THE ONLY true base!

Lets rally! Lets Win!
Are you with me!!!!?

I threw in a bit of exaggerated extrapolations of what their arguments truly defend or propose, I just did it to keep my sense of humor in the face of constant nonsensical arguments, but would have to remove very little to make the post a very realistic representation of arguments seen every single day her.

I hope you get my point Cali, even if I couldn't resist being the smart ass that I am.

[KG]

88. OIW - Because Obama!

[beerandjesus]

92. Hilarious!!

[bvar22]

108. You should post that as a stand alone OP without a "sarcasm" tag!

You would get about 45 enthusiastic Recs.

[Vanje]

136. yes.

Do it!!!!!

[Dragonfli]

174. Done, let's see if it gets even one rec

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023699985

[AnotherMcIntosh]

177. 11 at this time.

[Number23]

178. 21 now. And from some really STRONG Obama supporters too!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

179. Just as I suspected. Some Obama supporters are satire impaired. It's something that cannot be cured.

[Number23]

182. It was implied that if that person made that into an OP, it would get recs presumably from

Obama supporters. That wasn't even close to what happened.

But I'd choose satire-impaired over reality-impaired any day of the week. But that's just me.

Edit: And I just checked and it got 42 recs! Pretty close to the 45 that someone else said it would. Although, not quite from the sources they were predicting. Does seem as though most people chose to ignore it completely. Not a bad decision.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

171. Rec

[Dragonfli]

175. Done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023699985

[Dragonfli]

173. I just tried but found I am forbidden to post in GD due to my answer to a nuisance poster

(one must simply take it from one-liner baiters that never post anything but flame bait). To answer them by pointing out they post nothing of substance is verboten here and grounds for censorship.

look at the discussion and tell me if I was as evil as DU appears to think I was due to my answer. So horribly evil I needed to be redacted and forbidden from posting OPs in GD.) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3698180

(one must simply take it if one is not a Bogger.)

If I was allowed, I would fulfill your request, but without op posting privileges there is nothing I can do.

[Dragonfli]

176. Done, finally:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023699985

[KoKo]

114. Well said, Dragonfli! Good Read!

[cali]

120. I have a serious soft spot for smar asses.

this is just beautiful.

love this:

Real Democrats like Obama, Baucus, anyone named Nelson, Rahm Emanuel, Lieberman (before the firebaggers forced him to run as a party of one) and Ed Rendell are under constant attack by racist libertarians that claim to vote for Democrats as a cover and who must be destroyed.

[adirondacker]

162. Excellent post! nt

[rhett o rick]

119. I think that some try to make their lives easier by choosing to believe some things with blind faith

I blame some religious upbringing. To much emphasis on faith in cases where an open-mind is needed. People that are willing to blindly follow are of course easier to lead.

I agree with you sentence "true believers who really do worship the President." They want so badly for their knight in shining armor or their savior to come along a save them.

[Maedhros]

121. They are unable to discern principled opposition to the President

from partisan obstruction.

They do not see any difference between "The TPP is horrible and the President should not be pushing for it!" and "Obama is a sekrit Kenyan Muslim!!!"

That, and they object to the frequency of our criticism and see no correlation between our criticism and the President's bad decisions.

[rhett o rick]

127. I think they can discern. They use comparison of opposition to something terrible

as a means to bully. "Either think the way I think or I will call you bad things." It's quite childish really.

[dotymed]

32. The sociopaths that have been cultivated

to be CEO's, politicians & good fascists are totally greed and power motivated.
They have also become enforcers (sworn to serve and protect).
Even the ones who are not in the 1% have been chosen for their inability to feel empathy for others/ability to follow orders.
Until the masses unite, we remain powerless.
The 1% have their mercenaries to enable them.

[unhappycamper]

24. Secret negotiations with secret (Corporate) provisions ....

What could possibly go wrong?

[bvar22]

109. Secret negotiations with secret (Corporate) provisions...

and ALL representatives of Organized LABOR, Human Rights, Consumer Rights,
Environmental Protections, Citizens Rights....ALL Locked OUT of the "secret negotiations".


Gee, I wonder why they did that?
They want it to be a surprise?

[Maedhros]

122. From "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945" by Milton Mayer

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

[Divernan]

142. Chillingly on point! Sounds like the Zombie bible!

" . . . being governed by surprise, i.e., all those horrible GOP/J.P.Morgan cabinet appointments;
to receiving decisions deliberated in secret, i.e,. the TPP;

to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, i.e, 11tyseventh dimension chess;

or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security; i.e., he can't tell us for our own good, cause then he'd have to kill us;
And "their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it", i.e., identifying with all O's campaign rhetoric and trusting in him implicitly and absolutely without any reservations.

[Maedhros]

163. Human behavior doesn't change that much over the span of only a few decades.[n/t]

[MuseRider]

129. Sounds a lot like the

Energy policy group Cheney led. We were all pretty upset about that if I recall correctly.

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[laundry_queen]

26. We studied it a bit in school

and had a lively discussion. Not one prof or business student thought this was a good idea (for Canada anyway).

[AzDar]

27. K & R

[djean111]

28. K & R !!!!!!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. K&R

[dotymed]

49. AnotherMcIntosh we do.

Most people do not realize that it was the strength of "3rd parties" like the Socialists, the Unions, the Communist party All of which were "allowed" to exist and wield power due to their expanding "bases" of disenfranchised (99%er) Americans, played a huge part in FDR's decisions.
He realized that the masses would no longer tolerate the (similar to present day) economic conditions created by the robber barons (todays 1%).
The major difference between then and now:
Americans were "allowed" to be active members of these "3rd parties" (they were labeled subversive and terrorist organizations at the time).
This was also during the time-frame that the FBI and other government organizations meant to repress freedoms were still organizing.

The elite (1%) did not have the technology and the infrastructure currently wielded by the police state (ie. NSA, CIA, etc.) to combat the 99% who had been so marginalized by the robber barons.
Therefore "the people" decimated by the monopolies, etc. which created The Great Depression ( which we have been in again for the last 12 years or so) fought back by joining the opposing political parties in an attempt to right the wrongs inflicted by the ruling class.

FDR, encouraged by his aristocratic wife/cousin realized the damage already inflicted by the aristocrats (robber barons) and empathized.
The world was already in chaos due to world war and an impending one. He realized that if America was going to survive as a "superpower" then the people (99%ers) had to be treated fairly.
FDR didn't just talk after this revelation, he acted. IMO, the more he did, the better he felt, until he realized that all people should be invested in the "American Dream", not just the elites.
While he made mistakes, his legacy of empowering all Americans was the turning point in our history. He strove (and fought coup
attempts by the 1%ers).

Possibly his initial attempts to create an actual just society stemmed from lack of ability to control the average person (no technology or established control network) FDR eventually realized that everyone deserved a life free of parasitic state control and a guaranteed
minimum level of stability in each persons life was "the right thing." He spent his remaining years working to establish a world where people were not chattel, they were guaranteed an "anti-fascist" existence.
Unfortunately, since his demise the cancer of the aristocrats, slowly at first, has returned more malevolent than ever.
Fortunately (I pray) many Americans (and a few politicians) remember and agree with FDR's work on the side of humanity,
against greed.
That is why I am an FDR Democrat not a dlc democrat. I hoped that our historic first black President would (as his campaign speeches indicated), throw off the yoke of tyranny that has regained world-wide prominence. I was wrong.
It is going to take a United, relentless effort by the oppressed (99%) to thwart the "security apparatus" of control that now has the technology to monitor all and secure the supremacy of the few.
Humanity is quickly disappearing along with empathy, even among those who do not realize how closely their futures are
intertwined.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. "1%" is, of course, a shorthand expression for the elite rich and the super-rich.

We need another shorthand expression.

The percentage of those in the Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, and Obama class is much smaller than 1%.

[dotymed]

169. I agree.

I did have a problem with this term. However, IMO, while the real PTB are much smaller than 1%, Obama policies have favored the top 10-15%....

[KansDem]

30. I thought investors were suppose to take risks to reap financial rewards...

Now all they want are the financial rewards. Someone else will take the risks...

I hope the TPP doesn't pass!

TPP = "Trans Pacific Phuck-up"

[WilliamPitt]

31. You just hate Obama.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[11 Bravo]

34. When you're right, you're right, and this hits it right on the head. K&R

[Roland99]

35. "Nobody could have anticipated....."

[blackspade]

40. This.

[woo me with science]

42. Good thread, cali.

K&R

[pampango]

44. And none of the trade agreements since NAFTA have had provision on labor rights and the environment.

If this one does that will be a huge plus. Does it have them? I don't know but I know the right has been complaining about the fact that they are being discussed in TPP negotiations and China thinks they are in it and does not like it.

The second will be the pursuit of trade agreements that notably do not include China. One of these is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement among a growing list of nations bordering the Pacific. It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high — especially rules regarding labor rights, environmental standards and the behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/

"We do know and you have to be brain dead not to know how bad these trade deals are for the vast majority of people in the countries involved."

There are a lot of 'brain dead' Democrats out there. Republicans, particularly the tea party types, seem to be very much 'brain alive' as it were.
...................
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160748/americans-shift-positive-view-foreign-trade.aspx http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/

[cali]

46. the problem is that even if it does have some protections

they're meaningless if corporations are still granted the rights and means to override those protections. And they are.

[pampango]

48. If "they are", I agree with you.

It would not make any sense to me to put enforceable labor rights and environmental standards in a trade agreement and then make the unenforceable through corporate veto. OTOH, if labor rights and environmental standards are just mentioned as 'pretty words on a piece of paper' and essentially unenforceable, I will join you in opposing this.

I don't know what is in the final draft of the agreement. You do. That may be the difference.

[Divernan]

52. The burden of proof is on Obama to reveal proposals & his position on same NOW!

Why do you think Obama is pushing so relentlessly for fast track approval if not to slip corporate welfare crap through without giving the Senate a chance to debate it? Remember all those campaign promises of transparency? Yeah! Right!

And that same burden of proof is on bots and zombies who support TPP while disclaiming personal knowledge of what's being negotiated. If some 600 corporate representatives have been in on the negotiating, why not Elizabeth Warren, with no restriction on what she makes public?

[pampango]

56. I think it is equally plausible that Obama is keeping provisions that House republicans will hate

from them. He may think (erroneously IMHO) that House republicans will pass 'fast track authority' if they don't know about labor and environmental provisions. The House would not give Clinton fast track in 1998 precisely because he wanted to include labor and environmental provisions.

Obama-wary Tea Partiers and labor-aligned Democrats could block "fast-track" authority for two huge agreements.

It is generally agreed that the Obama will not be able to conclude the TPP and TTIP negotiations unless Congress grants him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) -- commonly known as "fast-track" -- which guarantees that Congress will hold a straight up or down vote on any trade agreement the president negotiates.

When Congress grants TPA to a president, the authorizing legislation always includes negotiating objectives. This is a reminder to the president that he is acting as a delegate from Congress. The negotiating objectives themselves, however, often become the major point of contention. It was a battle over labor and environmental standards, for example, that prevented the House from granting President Clinton fast-track authority in 1998.

In the Senate, Democrat Max Baucus is already leading the charge for the renewal of TPA. He can expect significant Republican support, but may have some trouble corralling members of his own party. Democrat Sherrod Brown, whose power base in Northeast Ohio's Rust Belt remains upset about the 1994 NAFTA, has already expressed reservations. And since fast-track authorization is subject to filibuster, Obama may need all the votes he can get.

The battle in the House might be even more interesting. ... One can easily see an odd alliance in the House between progressive Democrats, who reflect the concerns of organized labor, and Tea Party Republicans, who don't want to give power away to the president. Even Rep. Darrell Issa, usually a free-trade advocate, might oppose it because of suspicions about the secretive nature of the TPP negotiations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-odd-bipartisan-coalition-that-could-sink-obamas-free-trade-legacy/276938/

I really don't think 'fast track authority' has a chance to get through the House. The tea party republicans have Boehner wrapped around their little fingers and they will oppose anything Obama brings to them. (Heck they even opposed the good ol' bombing of another country - something they would normally support enthusiastically - when Obama was the source, even though the MIC was pushing for it.) Consequently my opinion is the TPP will never be passed.

FDR: The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity - or it will move apart.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind130498.html

BTW, if this is like every other trade agreement, it has to pass the House, not just the Senate.

[Divernan]

65. I think a simple majority of both chambers is unconstitutional.

You're correct, if the Fast Track Authority (which has expired) is extended, Obama can push this horrendous treaty through with a simple majority of both chambers. I want to point out that it has been strongly argued that an international trade agreement by any other name is a foreign treaty, and under the Constitution, we're talking a 2/3 majority Senate vote of approval on any foreign treaty.

If the President transmits a trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the

Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote

.

The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

"Treaty" has a much more restricted meaning under the constitutional law of the United States. It is an international agreement that has received the "advice and consent" (in practice, just the consent) of two-thirds of the Senate and that has been ratified by the President. The Senate does not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument. Through the course of U. S. history, several instruments that have received the Senate's consent have nonetheless remained unratified. Those instruments are not in force for the United States, despite the Senate's consent to them.

http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

[pampango]

76. That may be but it is the procedure used for all trade treaties.

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.

In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism. At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties. If an international commercial accord contains binding "treaty" commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

The United States Constitution enables only Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations; international trade agreements can be negotiated by the executive branch only with Congressional oversight, and are generally considered "congressional-executive agreements" (CEAs), which must be approved by a simple majority in both chambers of Congress. Other international agreements, such as treaties not relating to tariffs and trade quotas, can be negotiated solely by the executive branch, but such treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate in order to take effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)

It sounds like international agreements dealing with tariffs and trade quotas have a different ratification process than those dealing with other issues.

If there is any leeway in this, I wonder if Obama and his advisers are giving any thought to going with just seeking a 2/3 vote in the Senate and avoiding the House altogether. Obviously the vote has to be 2/3 instead of a majority and there is the possibility of a filibuster, but it don't see Obama holding out much hope of getting anything through the House.

[Kermitt Gribble]

135. The flaw in your theory

is the fact that that no labor or environmental groups have been invited to the negotiations.

[dreamnightwind]

164. Yes, he's posted this same stuff elsewhere

Interesting, but I don't believe it for a minute.

[Divernan]

50. 1000%! Protections/regulations are worth shit when:

(1) they have no BITE to them, i.e., truly severe and punitive financial and operational penalties (cause then the corporations just factor in occasional small fines as part of the cost of doing business);
(2) they are not mandatory, regardless of how many presidents, governors, federal or state legislators have been beneficiaries of a corporate violator's bribes/gifts/campaign donations/post elected office job offers;
(3) protections/regulations are self-enforced/self-regulated by corporations, like Obama's USDA plans to fire 1/2 their inspectors and turn inspection over to meat-processing industry;
(4) government inspection agencies are not sufficiently funded to hire, train & field the necessary number of inspectors;
(5) political appointees at the top levels of federal or state inspection agencies block, stall, delay and usurp authority from the agencies' field inspectors to report violations.

The latter 2 examples are outrageously the case in Pennsylvania re GOP Governer Corbett and the state Department of Environmental Protection re inspecting fracking drilling operations. First he had his politically appointed Secretary/cabinet member slash the number of inspectors from what it was BEFORE the fracking had started; then the department's regulations were changed such that all field reports had to be approved by the top (political appointees) level of the dept. Pennsylvania is Frackers' Paradise.

[KoKo]

113. Good Points, "Divernan"!

[brentspeak]

147. You apparently enjoy a) lying and b) propaganda

For the 2340th time on DU, you have shamelessly trotted out a chart from a 2011 Pew Research study in a sad attempt to impugn Democrats who are against job-killing (and misleadingly named) "free trade" agreements by comparing them to Tea Party Republicans who are also against the same US-Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street-dictated free trade agreements.

Fellow DU'ers who want to know about Pampango and his Business Roundtable talking points cheerleading for "free trade" agreements, read these two older posts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3218994

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=653430

[dreamnightwind]

165. Thank you for this post

I've heard that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[Sunlei]

45. once something is law it's hard to change. price gouge drug prices have to be stopped

It is crazy to be charged $100 for a 10 cent pill.

[raouldukelives]

47. At least TPP supporters are easy to spot. Anyone with a Wall St portfolio.

As if bolstering & profiting from 3rd world slave labor, climate change, denied medical claims and the MIC weren't bad enough. They get the added bonus of knowing they are a valued contributor to the war effort against what remains of our democracy as well as the tragic ends of so many fledgling movements around the world.
I used to hope Orwell was a bit off with a "boot stamping on a human face forever." Now I know who is paying the cobbler.

[Chan790]

64. Not everybody with a stock portfolio is in favor of the damned shitty trade deal.

I for one strongly oppose TPP and think we should pull the plug on other FTAs that do more to protect investors and corporations than protect workers, the public and the environment.

I also have a stock portfolio which is actively managed on both profitability and social-responsibility. Absent pensions and decent bank-interest rates, there's very few places to put one's nest-egg or accumulated wealth (Which is modest. <$0.5M) and earn a decent rate of growth that at-least outpaces inflation other than property, mutual funds or stocks.

You know what is going to hurt Democrats though? This belief by some that if you're not in poverty or have less than $1000 in the bank, that you're the enemy...regardless of ideological position.

[raouldukelives]

81. They may not be, but every dollar in the markets is a vote of confidence for more of the same.

As always, money speaks far louder than words. Most people let that money speak for them 24/7 365 in the most heinous ways imaginable. Even as they somehow still cling to delusions of championing a moral and ethical ideology that is in direct opposition to their works.

[Chan790]

82. There is no other place to put money short of RE speculation.

Trust me, Real Estate speculators are doing a lot more damage. Cant afford to live within 90 minutes of your job in the city? Speculators. Working two jobs and living on the NYC Subway? Speculators. 40 and living with your parents because you can't even afford a 1BR condo? Do you really need me to tell you?

Where do you propose one put a $267,000 IRA? Mind you, it has to outpace inflation and giving it away in the name of your anti-capital ethics is not happening, nor will any argument that one doesn't need to save for rainy days or retirement be considered valid. People need to retire on the proceeds.

Your stridency is part of the problem which means it cannot be part of any solution.

[raouldukelives]

172. Well, I seriously beg to differ that RE specualtion is worse than Halliburton.

Or the support of transnational corporations as a whole. In fact one could argue derivatives, speculation and funds derived from thievery in the markets drives up the prices of those RE markets.
We live in interesting times. I, for one, believe we are responsible for our actions on this planet. I had always imagined myself living a life that made the world better, or at least not worse, and supporting Wall St, increasing the monetary weight pressing for more deregulation and exploitation, would toss that ideal out the window more surely than any political vote ever could.
Who knows what the answer is. I only know the question. Do we bear any responsibility for those that live after us?
Some people, myself included, think less people in Wall St, less oligarchs, until such time that markets could be stabilized, rationalized and regulated would make the US as well as the world dramatically more open to honest democracy. Others feel the answer is more people in the markets, more concentrated wealth, leading by example. I wish I knew the answer.

[Autumn]

51. And the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Good post cali

[Divernan]

55. HAH! Take that, Zombie alerter!

Or to paraphrase the great Schnozzola (Jimmy Durante), Good night, Mrs. (or Ms or Mr.) Zombie, whomever you are!

[cali]

58. Lol. I knew "Zombie Apologist" was likely to get some people in a lather

but hey, want to call me names like hater, you're going to get it back- with interest.

[Autumn]

60. It certainly did get someone in a lather.

[Marr]

62. Wow. They tried to get this deleted, huh?

Fucking pathetic.

[L0oniX]

70. The censorship system defeated ...need this to happen more often.

[Raksha]

75. Hah...someone alerted and got voted down.

That means Zombie Apologist is an accurate description.

[rhett o rick]

128. They have no argument. Ridicule and the rofl emoticon is all they have. They must

resort to alerting.

[TBF]

53. Excellent post cali - TPP needs to die. nt

[Oilwellian]

57. Great post, Cali

When Third Way supporters ask what is next, one would think it was obvious. I guess we have to drag them kicking and screaming into reality, just as we've had to do with the right wing like, forever. TPP and chained CPI are at the top of their list. Their crowning jewels, so to speak.

[Raksha]

59. I didn't realize there were any defenders of the TPP.

But then I've been away from DU for a couple of days, so I guess I'm out of the loop.

[MuseRider]

61. Good post cali!

Thankfully I have not been in a thread where anyone was supporting TPP but I had already guessed that there would be the usual suspects suspending all values and brains to uphold something that Obama seems to want more than anything else.

If this does not seal the deal with those who were struggling with, "Is he a liberal or not" then we are truly looking at what I would call ODS. Who is deranged here? Really?

ANYONE who votes for this is not for the people or even truly for the country or the planet.

We should be creating GOOD jobs, jobs that would support families. We should be ensuring good, clean and healthy food for everyone, health care that is not administered by an insurance companies and fixing our infrastructure. How about bringing back manufacturing?

[Cryptoad]

63. Seems that

Speculation and conjecture is held in high esteem with Obama Haters! Some even consider it better than the Truth!

[cali]

66. seems like you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, honey.

I've posted dozens of ops on this with extensive links to the leaked text portions and much much more.

There is plenty of information about both the process and partial drafts as well as a wee bit of knowledge about NAFTA and other trade agreements, to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion.

YOU and others with ODDS, refuse to look at reality because you are so afraid it might reflect badly on a President that you worship beyond any fucking reason.

ODDS.

[L0oniX]

69. LMFAO perfect. n/t

[Cryptoad]

71. Sorry

but speculative OP's by whining Obama Haters are not Fact or Proof of anything,,,,,,,,

[cali]

73. sorry, but it's not merely speculative

leaks about investor rights make that obvious to anyone not suffering from an extreme case of ODDS.

[Autumn]

79. But cali. It is speculative. Until it's done

Then it was a great chess move.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

Substitute Obama for Christ and supporters for Christians and I think that's just about right. They can't understand there are those of us who like Obama personally but disagree with some of his policies. Therefore in their mind we are haters and they can't see past that.

I will clarify this by saying there are very good supporters of Obama here. But some, and they are easy to spot are nothing more than people who use their "support" to stir shit . IMO they are not supporters of Obama. They are supporters of division, that is their goal

[Cryptoad]

83. YOu can not be against something before it exist

You can only be against what you speculate something will be before it exist.

But I understand how the "whining Obama Haters" can not grasp the concept that their is a difference between Fact and Speculation.....

if and when they ever do , it will make they arguments mo worthy!

[Autumn]

85. You can keep your head in the sand Crypttoad.

Some of us are aware of how the game is played.

[Vanje]

141. I'll just wait until AFTER the Keystone Pipeline is in place....

....before I oppose it.

[Cryptoad]

148. Yall will be far more convincing

if you would learn the difference between speculation and fact.

[Autumn]

153. You couldn't convince me the sky was blue if it was a fucking sunny day.

there's your speculation and fact. You don't discuss issues, you discuss a persons loyalty. To a man who will be gone in what? Three years.

[Cryptoad]

154. I wish I was as smart as you,,,,,,,

[Autumn]

155. You might get there.

Or not.

[Cryptoad]

157. geeez,,,,,,

[cali]

104. that's ridiculous and none too swift.

I understand that you ODDS and OADS sufferers will go to any lengths to defend your adored one, but this is as fucking absurd as your speculation that you were being threatened.

You wouldn't know worthy argument if it kicked you- and no that isn't a threat, dear.

[Cryptoad]

149. Do you feel better if you personally attack other posters.?

[neverforget]

151. Says the person who calls others "Obama haters" in this very thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3689419

Seems that Speculation and conjecture is held in high esteem with Obama Haters! Some even consider it better than the Truth!

[Cryptoad]

158. you dont believe there are people who hate Obama......?

[neverforget]

159. you accused others of doing what you have done all the while complaining

about it

[Cryptoad]

168. another red herring

the question was : do you believe there are not people who Hate Obama?

[cui bono]

112. Let me ask you this, did you support ACA before it "existed"?

How did you do that? If you can't be against something before it "exists", then you can't be for it either. Were you against Romney being president before the election took place? I suspect you were. How did you do that?

If you really believe that one can't express their disagreement over something that is being discussed then you don't understand at all how democracy works. Or how it is supposed to work. Of course you can be against something before it is an actual law, which I presume to be what you meant. The ideas and plans exist, therefore that is what we are against. So yes, we can be against TPP very easily as it is a bad and dangerous idea.

Not to mention the fact that if it exists as law or as a treaty then it is too late to protest it.

Or are you saying that you don't believe we should ever let our elected officials know how we feel about something? We should just abdicate all our responsibilities to those "who know best"?

How exactly do you think a representative democracy works?

[Celefin]

123. Beautiful takedown :)

[Cryptoad]

145. No it would be impossible....

I did support it after it was written but before Congress passed it.

You can support many things and communicate them to your representatives but you can not condemn something before it exist!

geez

[Vanje]

139. ....and you can't criticize a Fed nominee, before he's been nominated.....

....except that you CAN!
And it works!

Once the TPP becomes law, it will be too late.

[Cryptoad]

146. but nobody has be nominated..... Sure you can criticize people you dont want to nominated

but you can not criticize Obama for nominating somebody when he has not nominated anybody.

[Vanje]

152. You're working very hard.

You are a very plucky fellow.

[Cryptoad]

156. Thank you

[beerandjesus]

94. Please help, I'm confused.

Do I think TPP is a bad idea because I hate Obama?

I thought it was because I love Assad!

[Dragonfli]

103. Actually it's because you are a libertarian isolationist Rand Paul worshiper -

AND DON'T THINK FOR ONE MOMENT YOUR RATFUCKING FOR PAUL HAS GONE UNNOTICED!

You are on our list of subversives and our private message tree is discussion the appropriate methods of getting enough of your posts hidden that we can get you purged from what is supposed to be a site that promotes and protects Obama (it's called Democratic Underground not libertarian underground)

We must ALL support the TPP because Obama and because Democratic Underground.

[Vanje]

140. Depends

Do you have boxes in your garage?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

78. "whining Obama Haters"

Please, come up with new material.

[rhett o rick]

86. Are you saying the author of the linked post is an "Obama Hater"?

The OP is pure speculation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023688668

[Cryptoad]

87. Did I say that? Did you threaten me ?

[bvar22]

101. derp,,,,,,

,,,,invented fantasy,,,
,,,flamebait,,,,,
I'm a victim here,,,
derp,,,,,belch,,,,
,,,non-sequitur,,,,,
,,,irrational absurdity,,,,,
help,,,,,my comma key is stuck,,,,,,
,,,derp,,,

[KG]

107. could it possibly be performance art?

[rhett o rick]

116. If only. I think it's a bad attempt to start a fight. I dont have anyone on my ignore list but

I might make an exception. This poster looks like trouble waiting to happen.

[smokey nj]

115. I love you for this, bvar22!

[cali]

118. lol. damned near a perfect summation.

[Cryptoad]

150. The question was not directed at you.....

[rhett o rick]

80. Just because someone points a gun at your head doesnt mean they will shoot. Be patient and

wait and see.

[Cryptoad]

84. Is that a threat?

[cali]

91. it's called a metaphor. yikes.

[Autumn]

96. I think that's a little hard for some to make the connection.

But yes, that post fits quite well. It's just a matter of time. We have seen this all before, done by other Presidents.

[rhett o rick]

100. It's hard because "blind faith" is the easy way out. No thinking required. nm

[MisterP]

89. and if the "hair-on-fire" crew every gets something blocked by massive, embarrassing outcry

why, then the Fearless Defenders say we didn't have to raise a fuss at all--it was just a secret plan, and public outcry did absolutely nothing to the Teflon President's decisions

[joshcryer]

93. How is "you don't know that" and "it's speculation" a defense?

[ProSense]

95. When it allows one to say "Bullfuckingshit."

It's bullshit self-righteous rationalization.

[cali]

98. lol. you seem put out. what a shame.

lots of

[ProSense]

99. I've already

made my point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023684238#post39
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023684238#post44

Laughing doesn't make pointing out opinion and speculation a "defense."

[cali]

102. uh, no. you really didn't and virtually no one is buying what YOU peddle.

there's been abundant information posted about the TPP over the months, pro. It is not speculation only and then you have people like this that your adored President appointed. Hardly encouraging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Siddiqui


and even this from the horrible WaPo:

<snip>

Alas, the United States softened its position at a public meeting of TPP negotiators last month. The new proposal simply specifies that tobacco is included in an existing exemption for policies necessary to protect human life or health, and requires governments to consult before challenging each other’s tobacco rules.

While better than the status quo, in that it might constrain governments from going to bat for domestic tobacco producers, this suggestion would leave tobacco companies free to mount legal challenges to various nations’ policies.

The office of U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman explained the new stance reflected “consultations with Congress and with a wide range of American stakeholders” — a polite reference to pushback from farm-state legislators, farm lobbies and other interest groups that feared a tobacco exception would expand to a health-related excuse for protectionism against many other products.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/snuffing-out-a-tobacco-exemption-in-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/2013/09/17/4ed26176-1bf7-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

ODDS has you in its grip.

[ProSense]

105. Oh, some people are buying what "YOU peddle"

I don't need validation to have an opinion.

[livingwagenow]

126. Prosense, have you ever been forclosed upon due to joblessness?

Ever been made homeless?

Ever lost everything?

Ever been poor?

ever been evicted?

Ever had your world come crashing down financially because of lost employment due to outsourcing?

[ProSense]

130. Who are you, and what do your questions have to do with my point?

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Nothing. So spare me the disingenuous familiarity.

[livingwagenow]

110. TPP is poison. Thanks for raising awareness. knr nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

111. Leo Gerard was just talking about this on the Ed show - Unions say "NO" to TPP!

Leo and Ed were both wondering how Obama could possibly support this.

[KoKo]

117. Recommend!

[blkmusclmachine]

124. .

.

[Phlem]

131. K&R!

Spot on cali.

-p

[MrMickeysMom]

133. Recommended thread, cali...

Can't recommend this enough.

Hey, DU... The idea is that fascism is BAD and we are not supposed to blindly form lines behind our teams because all but a few of them no longer are leading the American people on the path to strengthen the middle class.

It's bad news to think otherwise!!!

[djean111]

134. The good news is - all the scorn and scathing put-downs by those who believe everything Obama does

must be praised - all irrelevant. Not gonna gain or stifle support for any of his disliked policies, for sure.
The worst that can happen is you might not be asked to contribute to a presidential library or something like that.
I am puzzled by the ferocity towards complaining progressives - what on earth is to be gained by piling on and wagging fingers or whatever? Do they think scolding or telling us to shut up and sit down will work for them on any level?
Puzzling indeed.
In any event, the scorn is futile and irrelevant. And yeah, they can riposte with a snappy "So's yer whining!" - but then, why get all framboozledy and such over criticism, if it means nothing? Just ignore it! Move on! would be my advice.
I can't be bothered with that "hater" thing - why hate or love a politician? Doesn't make sense. Kind of Bieber-ish.
Maybe it is because I see the Clintons a bit more clearly now, I had not thought in terms of corporate Dems or whatever before.

[Vincardog]

137. Don't tell me; tell your Congress critter. No TTP, NO fast track authority.

[silvershadow]

138. Amen. nt

[grahamhgreen]

144. The Toilet Paper Pact - wiping their asses with the American dream.

[nikto]

160. The CORPS...

Sure do like to SUE, don't they?





But ofcourse we all know,
consumer Torte cases are baaaaad.

[JDPriestly]

166. K&R. Thanks for posting this.

[juajen]

167. Well, Hell. What is he thinking?

Is he a democrat, or just a rat? I didn't want him as President, but I did think he was a democrat. What is he?

[woo me with science]

180. kick

[woo me with science]

181. 197 Recs.