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

elleng

(130,825 posts)
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 03:40 PM Apr 2015

from Martin O'Malley, re: TPP

Ellen,

Congressional leaders just reached a deal on a "trade promotion authority" bill that would give them the power to immediately vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade. This "fast track" authority would deny Congress the ability to amend yet another bad trade deal.

We must stop entering into bad trade deals that hurt middle class wages and ship middle class jobs overseas. And we certainly shouldn’t be fast tracking failed deals.

Will you join me in calling on Congress to oppose "fast track" authority on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

http://action.martinomalley.com/page/s/no-fast-track-on-tpp?&utm_medium=email&utm_source=omalley&utm_content=2+-+Will+you+join+me+in+calling+on+Congress+&utm_campaign=150416_tpp&source=150416_tpp

Chasing cheaper labor abroad will not help us build a stronger economy here at home.

Thank you,

Martin O'Malley

58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
from Martin O'Malley, re: TPP (Original Post) elleng Apr 2015 OP
He's good with me. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2015 #1
He was FOR Free Trade before he was "agin" it apparently... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #2
Explain, please. elleng Apr 2015 #3
sigh. I'll explain this very simply (again) just for you: cali Apr 2015 #5
No I can speak for myself... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #25
extraordinarliy poorly, Mrs. Rhapsody. This is about the TPP. Duh. cali Apr 2015 #48
I SAID he supported Free Trade...and backed it up...much to your dismay.. VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #49
No dismay. Disgust at your tactics and lack of honesty. This is about the TPP cali Apr 2015 #51
Lack of honesty??? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #52
Yes. Lack of honesty. This is a thread about the TPP. Posting a quote cali Apr 2015 #55
and I replied that he previously supported Free Trade... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #56
When did he ever say he was pro-TPP? FSogol Apr 2015 #9
At least reading the OP here he isn't saying he is pro or con TPP. What he is saying is that this still_one Apr 2015 #53
So? Lunabell Apr 2015 #23
So I have never been a Republican VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #26
Good for you Lunabell Apr 2015 #27
So was I....and I still didn't become Republican... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #28
Again good for you Lunabell Apr 2015 #29
and I am happy too.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #30
Sit well in your smugness my "friend" Lunabell Apr 2015 #31
I sit very well.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #35
Obviously Lunabell Apr 2015 #40
Yes it is... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #50
You said that in every thread about O'Malley and you have been told over and over that sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #34
Not just trade...FREE Trade... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #36
He has been opposed to the TPP all along. Where does Hillary stand on this? sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #39
Is than worse that being for it before she is still for it, like Clinton? nm rhett o rick Apr 2015 #47
Good point...REAL champions realize their mistakes and make corrections. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #57
I realize that the note is brief ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #4
Interesting... Faryn Balyncd Apr 2015 #6
Wow ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #14
Well Faryn Balyncd Apr 2015 #19
Okay. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #21
I remember when we were all against Fast Track back in the old Bush era. sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #38
I don't recall a FT vote in the old bush era. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #42
I do. We opposed it, strenuously, so .... but yeah, we absolutely hated it back then. sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #44
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2015 #45
Same thing, Trade. Dems were furious, he was trying to pull something, etc etc. Which sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #46
Good and Bad Trade Agreements Koinos Apr 2015 #7
"Chasing cheaper labor abroad will not help us build a stronger economy here at home." - O'Malley FSogol Apr 2015 #8
+ 1000 mmonk Apr 2015 #10
Score on TPP: O'Malley 1, Clinton 0 [n/t] Maedhros Apr 2015 #11
K&R. JDPriestly Apr 2015 #12
It will level the middle class Geronimoe Apr 2015 #13
Obama's last "trade deal" didn't work out like he promised. bvar22 Apr 2015 #15
thanks bvar. bbgrunt Apr 2015 #22
he knew damn well he was promising bullshit Skittles Apr 2015 #24
This is an secondvariety Apr 2015 #16
We called both Senators and our Congressman Omaha Steve Apr 2015 #17
O'Malley Thespian2 Apr 2015 #18
They don't know what their voting for. I will never support anyone who VOTES IN THE BLIND. nt Snotcicles Apr 2015 #20
exactly. Why the rush, what are they trying to hide? still_one Apr 2015 #54
This is more than enough to hifiguy Apr 2015 #32
Bernie on TPP Koinos Apr 2015 #33
ANY Democrat that votes for this, should be primaried and replaced. 99Forever Apr 2015 #37
They (multinational corporations) get what they pay for. Koinos Apr 2015 #41
Where is the bill or amendment aspirant Apr 2015 #43
Trickle Out Theory Koinos Apr 2015 #58
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. sigh. I'll explain this very simply (again) just for you:
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 03:52 PM
Apr 2015

It's fine to be for free trade. Everyone is for free trade. Bernie is for free trade. O'Malley is opposed to a specific "trade" deal- which as many experts have explained, is largely not about trade.

Now is you could demonstrate that he was for the TPP before he was against it, you might have the germ of an argument, but since Hillary has been for (or against) so many things before she was against (or for) them, you don't have a proverbially leg to stand on. Want and example: Last year she said marriage equality was a state issue. Yesterday she said it should be a constitutional right.

your post is embarrassingly, though predictably, uninformed, Ms. Rhapsody.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
25. No I can speak for myself...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:17 PM
Apr 2015

O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Write New Rules for the Global Economy
The rise of global markets has undermined the ability of national governments to control their own economies. The answer is neither global laissez faire nor protectionism but a Third Way: New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection. U.S. leadership is crucial in building a rules-based global trading system as well as international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade. For example, instead of restricting trade, we should negotiate specific multilateral accords to deal with specific environmental threats.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
49. I SAID he supported Free Trade...and backed it up...much to your dismay..
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 08:59 AM
Apr 2015

as he so obviously does from that statement.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
51. No dismay. Disgust at your tactics and lack of honesty. This is about the TPP
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:02 AM
Apr 2015

You never seem to have a clue as to the issues you address.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
52. Lack of honesty???
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:03 AM
Apr 2015

when I just supported my contention with an actual quote??? Riooooght!!! Speaking of lack of honesty....you might want to read the thread before you respond!




 

cali

(114,904 posts)
55. Yes. Lack of honesty. This is a thread about the TPP. Posting a quote
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:16 AM
Apr 2015

about free trade in general is, at best, inane and at worst dishonest and reeking of an agenda.

I'd be embarrassed to post as you do here, but then I suspect we're very different- not only clearly in terms of knowledge and ability (sorry to toot my own horn here) but in sensibility.

And for this thread, Madame Rhap, I'm done with you.

Have a loverly day- as E. Doolittle said before her tutorials.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
56. and I replied that he previously supported Free Trade...
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:17 AM
Apr 2015

and was asked to back that up....and I did!!!


So....your problem with my honesty is??? Frankly, I don't think its my honesty that is in question now...

still_one

(92,109 posts)
53. At least reading the OP here he isn't saying he is pro or con TPP. What he is saying is that this
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:09 AM
Apr 2015

should not be fast-tracked, and slipped through without giving time for Congress to analyze it, perhaps amend it to protect American workers, and understand its implications.

Lunabell

(6,068 posts)
23. So?
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:15 PM
Apr 2015

People can change you know. I used to be a rethuglican! That was 35 years ago, but still People can change.

Lunabell

(6,068 posts)
27. Good for you
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:23 PM
Apr 2015

I was a stupid 18 year old raised by born again "Christians" who pounded the right wing think tank into my head. I'm lucky I escaped.

Lunabell

(6,068 posts)
29. Again good for you
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:28 PM
Apr 2015

Smugness is really annoying. Good for you. I am so very very happy for you that you are soooooo much better than I am. Good for you.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
34. You said that in every thread about O'Malley and you have been told over and over that
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:57 PM
Apr 2015

he has opposed the TPP publicly and vehemently.

Everyone is for trade, just not this abomination and this makes him a likely great candidate for the WH. Where does Hillary stand on the TPP btw?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
47. Is than worse that being for it before she is still for it, like Clinton? nm
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:35 AM
Apr 2015

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
4. I realize that the note is brief ...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 03:48 PM
Apr 2015

But I dislike how it mis-represents what "fast track" is/does.

Yes, it denies congress the ability to amend the trade deal; but, it does not give the power to an immediate vote, but more importantly, it ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
6. Interesting...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:25 PM
Apr 2015


Your statement that the Fast Track bill "ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down." seems to imply that Congress would not have the constitutional authority to vote on "trade agreements" if not for this bill (that is, your statement seems to imply that such an agreement could be done by executive authority without Congressional action).

If that is what is indeed what is contended, there are several problems with this:

(1.) From what we know about the negotiations, this involves issues of overriding numerous areas of law (including but not limited to labor law, environmental law, intellectual property law, safety regulation) regulated by federal, state, and local governmental entities, and removing the ability of federal, state, and municipal courts from enforcing their constitutionally passed laws, subjecting federal, state, and local governmental entities to being sued in an "Investor State Dispute Resolution" tribunal which is exempt from judicial appeal. Are you suggesting that presidential executive authority includes the authority to override federal and state labor, environmental, intellectual property, safety, and other laws by making a "trade" agreement based on executive authority?

(2.) If it is to be argued that Congress does not constitutionally possess the authority to be "allowed" to vote on a "trade agreement", then this bill would not change that, as (if that were true) Congress would not have the ability to grant itself the authority to ""allow Congress to vote it up, or down." (Since. if Congress had no such authority constitutionally, it would require a constitutional amendment to "allow Congress to vote it up or down.&quot














 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
14. Wow ...
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:01 PM
Apr 2015
Your statement that the Fast Track bill "ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down." seems to imply that Congress would not have the constitutional authority to vote on "trade agreements" if not for this bill (that is, your statement seems to imply that such an agreement could be done by executive authority without Congressional action).


That's reading a lot into what I wrote.

Faryn Balyncd

(5,125 posts)
19. Well
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:02 PM
Apr 2015


I suppose the capital letters "it ALLOWS Congress to vote it up, or down" seemed to suggest that you felt that TPP skeptics were getting something in return for surrendering the right to amend (as well as the right to filibuster or even to remove from the Fast Track process whatever "trade" agreement is proposed by whoever happens to be president in the next 6 years without a supermajority).











sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
46. Same thing, Trade. Dems were furious, he was trying to pull something, etc etc. Which
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:15 PM
Apr 2015

was true of course.

It's interesting, airc, that was in his second to last year in office, 2007. Obama is in his second to last year in office.

I wonder if they have to make a deal with the corps to get Trade legislation through before the leave, but not in their first four years so they won't risk losing a second term.

I'm getting deja vu, except that now some Dems are defending the same thing they bitterly opposed back then.

Koinos

(2,792 posts)
7. Good and Bad Trade Agreements
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:34 PM
Apr 2015

O'Malley made it pretty clear in his Harvard speech yesterday that he is not opposed to all trade deals, but that he is opposed to this particular trade deal -- TPP -- because it is a BAD trade deal. He did not elaborate about the power this deal would give corporations to trump governments and government regulations and a whole lot of other things. He did emphasize the effect it would have on US workers and the US economy.

I personally dislike most "free trade" agreements (including NAFTA), since they reduce the power of a nation to protect its workers' livelihoods, upon which the national interest ultimately depends. But the TPP is especially toxic and noxious and should have been smothered long before it came to a vote. It makes governments subordinate to corporations. To what or who do members of Congress swear loyalty?

TPP is, therefore, a good test of any politician's genuine democratic credentials. Democrats traditionally have not sided with corporations over workers, but I suppose that times have changed. Bernie Sanders is right to insist that democratic candidates make undeniably clear where they stand on this. O'Malley had made himself abundantly clear about TPP.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
12. K&R.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:47 PM
Apr 2015

Obama promises that this time, this trade agreement, will increase American exports.

Our existing trade agreements have cost us jobs, the loss of currency, of tax revenue. They are impoverishing us.

I'm all for lifting other nations with our trade. But let's do it one deal at a time. These mega-agreements hurt us. We need trade. We should not be more on the buying end than we are on the selling end.

I oppose the TPP.

And Obama should too.

The TPP, all the secrecy, all the rush, smells of corruption. What's the secret? What's the hurry?

No to the TPP.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
15. Obama's last "trade deal" didn't work out like he promised.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 05:20 PM
Apr 2015

The Korean Free Trade Deal, which in many ways is the prototype for the TPP,
and contains much of the same language.

Obama promised it would bring over 70,000 new jobs to the US,
and even out the balance of trade with Korea.

GUess WHAT?????

The US lost 60,000 jobs withing a few months to Korea, and the trade deficit with Korea BALLOONED.


http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3595



 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
32. This is more than enough to
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 06:45 PM
Apr 2015

Make me an O'Malley fan. If Bernie gets in he'd be my first choice but I could definitely support O'Malley.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
37. ANY Democrat that votes for this, should be primaried and replaced.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:11 PM
Apr 2015

ANY Presidential candidate that won't come out against this, doesn't deserve to be a Democratic Party candidate.

Make it clear to these corporate shills, we will NOT stand for it.

Koinos

(2,792 posts)
41. They (multinational corporations) get what they pay for.
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:39 PM
Apr 2015

This is how buying elections pays off for multinational corporations. Invest a a paltry few million (or even a billion) for campaigns, and then reap trillions. We can't get 1% on our savings accounts, but they get infinite returns on their "investments."

Most of our representatives don't represent us. The problem isn't the size of government, but who the government serves.

TPP is just another nail in the crucifixion of the US middle class worker.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
43. Where is the bill or amendment
Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:54 PM
Apr 2015

that says if this deal doesn't create 1 million jobs in 2 years it is automatically repealed.

Koinos

(2,792 posts)
58. Trickle Out Theory
Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:37 AM
Apr 2015

When it comes to American jobs, I suppose you could call this the "trickle out theory." Creating more jobs abroad will boost our middle class. Jobs trickle out, and then Americans prosper! Wonderful corporate magic!

If we boost wages of foreign workers, they can buy things we don't make any more! Of course, many of our exports are weapons; so we need to start wars everywhere to boost our weapons production and sales!

The sinking of our nation will allow the lifting of financial boats everywhere else! That will level the global playing field!

Why should our workers make more than Malaysians? The great international plantation owners (job creators) know best!

Repeal minimum wage laws! Repeal child labor laws! The top 1% and the one hundred largest corporations are the only "true American persons" and citizens! Patriotism requires eliminating the useless old, the chronically ill, and the unproductive unemployed!

After all, this nation and its "serfs" are just another resource in the international corporate profit machine!

I think I am becoming ill. Too much sarcasm affects the brain.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»from Martin O'Malley, re:...