Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:11 PM

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): are you in favor or against?

8 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	I'm in favor.
	0 (0%)
	I'm against it.
	8 (100%)
	I don't know, because it's being kept secret, possibly until after it's voted on.
	0 (0%)
	This is an unfair poll (please explain).
	0 (0%)
	Manny, it's very telling that this post doesn't address the specific concerns of [group x].
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

32 replies, 1599 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

32 replies	Author	Time	Post
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): are you in favor or against? (Original post)	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	OP
The thing is - i'm against it because we don't know what's in it.	el_bryanto	Jun 2014	#1
However the president feels	whatchamacallit	Jun 2014	#2
The President is highly in favor	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#3
So is HRC, helped draft it	OhioChick	Jun 2014	#4
Joking of course	whatchamacallit	Jun 2014	#6
Got it.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#9
Against. Most "free trade" agreements are bad...	HooptieWagon	Jun 2014	#5
"Free Trade" is dog-whistle for "Screw the Workers and the Environment."	Maedhros	Jun 2014	#19
"Fair Trade not Free Trade". I think Kucinich used that phrase in a debate.	KittyWampus	Jun 2014	#22
were you unable to do this without snarking on people who care about other issues?	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#7
Sorry, perhaps you haven't noticed.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#8
so "he started it" works for you, LOL? Okay then.	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#11
No. I didn't do the same thing back.	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#13
it looks like childish tit for tat to me.	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#15
Where did I write that I'm	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#18
what were these racist accusations about then? very eagerly awaiting your response!	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#23
As I already linked to in a response to you in this very thread:	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#24
no one called you are racist. they said it appears racial matters do not concern you.	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#27
LOL. You're still upset about my post from a week ago?	Cali_Democrat	Jun 2014	#25
Manny must have misread your post- he claimed you called him a racist! Not true at all.	bettyellen	Jun 2014	#31
Is there a draft bill yet?	JoePhilly	Jun 2014	#10
Perhaps Ed Snowden can make a visit and let the people know what its gov't is doing.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jun 2014	#12
When would our President want that draft bill to be available to the public?	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#14
Fast track is used to prevent senators from trying to derail legislation with	JoePhilly	Jun 2014	#16
Thanks, but you didn't answer my simple question. nt	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#20
Nor did you answer mine. Funny how that works.	JoePhilly	Jun 2014	#21
I think I did, but to make it clearer	MannyGoldstein	Jun 2014	#26
Works pretty good at stifling push back from all comers	TheKentuckian	Jun 2014	#30
Except Republican Senators are the ones pushing for fast track passage.	pa28	Jun 2014	#32
Against it because it does not do what needs to be done.	pampango	Jun 2014	#17
I'm against it, but I recognize that's a knee-jerk reaction to secrecy....	mike_c	Jun 2014	#28
Whatever it is, I'm against it!	KamaAina	Jun 2014	#29

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:12 PM

el_bryanto (11,804 posts)

1. The thing is - i'm against it because we don't know what's in it.

I am not opposed to all trade agreements, but I am opposed to ones done in secret that we don't know the contours of.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:15 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

2. However the president feels

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:19 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

3. The President is highly in favor

So you are as well?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:22 PM

OhioChick (23,168 posts)

4. So is HRC, helped draft it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:28 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

6. Joking of course

Just illustrating - for people who will post tons of links to shilly op-eds - how much easier and more efficient it is to simply cut to the chase.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:38 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

9. Got it.

Sorry!

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:27 PM

HooptieWagon (17,064 posts)

5. Against. Most "free trade" agreements are bad...

... because they give unrestricted mobility to capital, that doesn't exist for labor. Therefore, labor in all countries signed on to the agreement end up getting the shaft.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:58 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

19. "Free Trade" is dog-whistle for "Screw the Workers and the Environment."

I'm against the TPP for multiple reasons.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:02 PM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

22. "Fair Trade not Free Trade". I think Kucinich used that phrase in a debate.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:30 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

7. were you unable to do this without snarking on people who care about other issues?

and you wonder why people stay out of those threads, LOL. haven't figured it out yet....

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:37 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

8. Sorry, perhaps you haven't noticed.

I'm regularly attacked for my posts because I don't mention X.

E.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5119911
And of course, you did see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5152183

How would you propose we end that kind of stuff?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:41 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

11. so "he started it" works for you, LOL? Okay then.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:44 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

13. No. I didn't do the same thing back.

Simply a bit of pre-emption.

It sucks to be called racist, misogynist, and so forth, even for nonsensical reasons.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:51 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

15. it looks like childish tit for tat to me.

and you're still hurt about being called out for making fun of african americans dislike of watermelon jokes?
i guess that means your apology was bullshit.
but taken all together, it appears you are deliberately alienating people here, which is interesting.

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:57 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

18. Where did I write that I'm

"still hurt about being called out for making fun of african americans [sic] dislike of watermelon jokes"?

I eagerly await your response, thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:07 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

23. what were these racist accusations about then? very eagerly awaiting your response!

Reply to this post

Response to bettyellen (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:36 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

24. As I already linked to in a response to you in this very thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5119911

At this point, it seems like you're pushing an agenda against me rather than trying to have a discussion.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:45 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

27. no one called you are racist. they said it appears racial matters do not concern you.

that is a very different thing. was the watermelon joke the only pile of shit you stepped in?
that was kind of big, and gives this discussion- and the questions those Duers asked you, a whole lot of missing context.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:43 PM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

25. LOL. You're still upset about my post from a week ago?

Where did I call you a racist in my post?

Reply to this post

Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:34 PM

bettyellen (47,209 posts)

31. Manny must have misread your post- he claimed you called him a racist! Not true at all.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:39 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

10. Is there a draft bill yet?

Anywhere?

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:43 PM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

12. Perhaps Ed Snowden can make a visit and let the people know what its gov't is doing.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:45 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

14. When would our President want that draft bill to be available to the public?

Actually, since our President wants fast-track authority, the agreement would essentially be the bill, no?

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:56 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

16. Fast track is used to prevent senators from trying to derail legislation with

extraneous riders. Its not like the GOP hasn't used approaches like that to obstruct legislation before, right?

And as I'm sure you are aware, legislation is introduced by a member of Congress, not the President.

Its tough for me to freak out about a piece of potential legislation that, as far as I am aware, has not been drafted bu anyone.

This topic is starting to look a lot like the "OMG, the President is about to gut/slash/kill social security" threads.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:58 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

20. Thanks, but you didn't answer my simple question. nt

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:00 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

21. Nor did you answer mine. Funny how that works.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:44 PM

MannyGoldstein (34,589 posts)

26. I think I did, but to make it clearer

There is not an explicit draft bill but there is effectively a draft bill, which is the draft of the TPP.

Now, your turn.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:56 PM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

30. Works pretty good at stifling push back from all comers

As far as introduction of legislation, let's not blow too much smoke, the thing will get hammered out by the negotiators and some patsy will introduce it. I ask so what?

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:11 PM

pa28 (6,145 posts)

32. Except Republican Senators are the ones pushing for fast track passage.

Democrats like Harry Reid are trying to obstruct. Opposition to fast track is the Democratic position.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:57 PM

pampango (24,691 posts)

17. Against it because it does not do what needs to be done.

There need to be labor and environmental standards in any trade agreement. If TPP does not have them, and it sure seems like it doesn't, then sticking with WTO trading rules (which do not have labor nor environmental standards) is better than missing the opportunity that TPP could have represented.

To improve labor and environmental standards globally we will have to negotiate enforceable agreements with the rest of the world. Given what we know about TPP it looks like we will have to wait a long time for that.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:49 PM

mike_c (35,308 posts)

28. I'm against it, but I recognize that's a knee-jerk reaction to secrecy....

In truth, I don't have much information about the details of the TPP so it is difficult to make an informed argument against it. However, the secrecy surrounding it generates distrust and unease.

Reply to this post

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:52 PM

KamaAina (78,249 posts)

29. Whatever it is, I'm against it!

&list=RD29E6GbYdB1c

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)