The President has to rely almost wholly on repubs to pass the TPA

[cali]

and the TPP.

Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly reject it.

That's right. This is an agreement that republicans love- repukes like McConnell who have made it their mission to oppose the President on virtually everything? Why do you think that is?

So trust the President all you want, but that also means you're putting trust in republicans being on the side of the middle class; of working people and not advocates for the wealthy and corporations.

If you're one of those saying republicans are evil and saying that your rationale for supporting the TPP is your trust in the President, how do you square this?

<snip>

After long relying on Democrats to advance his agenda, Mr. Obama must now depend largely on Republicans to pass a bill that would clear the way for a trade pact with Japan, Canada, Vietnam and other Pacific nations.

The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, a major ambition of the president’s remaining time in office, pits him against many of the same Democratic lawmakers, labor unions, environmentalists and liberal activists who helped elect him.

<snip>

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-tries-tough-sale-of-trade-deal-to-fellow-democrats-14293128

[sabrina 1]

1. Democrats opposed it when Bush tried to do the same thing. And some more intelligent

Republicans, who refused to give up Congress' right to negotiate trade deals to the only a President, joined them.

Fast Track has failed every time it has come up for a vote, except once. And there is a very good reason for that.

But the Globalists will keep on trying. And it appears that every President, Repub, Dem will do this if it fails again.

I find it despicable that people who were OUTRAGED over Bush's Fast Tracking of a similar Trade Agreement are now on board for this one.

However, 75% of the public opposes it.

Even some Repubs oppose it.

People seem to think this is about Obama. They 'trust' him. But if he gets this passed, they are going to have to trust a Paul Ryan to do the same thing, to negotiate trade deals on their behalf, without Congressional input.

[raindaddy]

21. Democrats Hated The Idea of Republican Dick Cheney's Secret Energy Meetings

How can they support Obama's secret trade agreement?

[zeemike]

34. The cult of personality

Where reason takes a back seat to love.

[sabrina 1]

89. And those who are the real power in this country now, KNOW and COUNT on this. Which is why

they use both Right and Left Presidents to keep pushing for these disastrous trade agreements, and will keep doing so until they get what they want.

People need to wake up. This isn't about Bush or Obama, they are merely the channels being used by people who have no allegiences to any partyl. And those who supported it under Bush, because they 'trusted him' were simply being used. Same thing is happening again, tryint it with a Democrat this time, hoping those who 'trust' Obama will help them get the control they so desperately want over the lives of perhaps, billions of human beings.

[zeemike]

97. Yep and they think we are stupid enough to keep falling for it

And some of us are apparently.

[annabanana]

2. kickkickkick!. . .n/t

[cali]

3. this is strong evidence that the "trust the President" and the the "wait

until we know what's in it" argument, are truly atrocious attempts to justify this. They're arguments defending the President and nothing more.

these folks have said repeatedly, they trust the president and the republicans are "evil". But the evil guys are those are supporting this, not the dems.

[840high]

50. Do I trust him? If he was

running for office - he would NOT get my vote this time.

[ananda]

68. I knew Obama would veer rightward from the beginning.

I did not vote for him in the first primary.

But I sure couldn't vote for McCain in the general, so I voted
for Obama then and against Romney.

But I sure wish we could have got a good liberal Dem in office.

Even Howard Dean would've been better, imo.

[hifiguy]

69. I didn't think he would until I saw HRC and Geithner

were his first major appointments. It's largely been downhill since then. Immediately taking single-payer off the table while inviting Big Pharma and Big Insurance to belly up to the bar in the health care "debate" sealed the deal.

[awoke_in_2003]

82. And one of his great picks,

Van Jones, was ousted

[bvar22]

86. The White House dropped Van Jones so fast,

....it gave m whiplash.
Also dropped ACORN faster than Usain Bolt can run in a 100 meter sprint, because Brietbart complained.
We don't want to make the Republicans uncomfortable, do we.

[2banon]

102. I know. Talk about a blatant *and* symbolic act of bait and switch

blatant as in : "in your face" ruse to reign in our support..

symbolic as in, this is just the beginning of the flips to come.

[840high]

71. I voted for Clinton in the first

primary.

[Hoyt]

4. Republicans occasionally get it right -- the Medicare Part D drug coverage was a life saver for many

Not sure what got into them with that, but glad it passed so seniors don't have to cut pills in thirds to make them last.

It is interesting that the TPA was modified from usual to require standards that must be met for TPP to pass.

". . . . . .The bill would make any final trade agreement open to public comment for 60 days before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes. If the agreement, negotiated by the United States trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.

“We got assurances that U.S.T.R. and the president will be negotiating within the parameters defined by Congress,” said Representative Dave Reichert, Republican of Washington and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. “And if those parameters are somehow or in some way violated during the negotiations, if we get a product that’s not adhering to the T.P.A. agreement, than we have switches where we can cut it off.”

To further sweeten the deal for Democrats, the package includes expanding trade adjustment assistance — aid to workers whose jobs are displaced by global trade — to service workers, not just manufacturing workers. Mr. Wyden also insisted on a four-year extension of a tax credit to help displaced workers purchase health insurance. . . . . . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legislation-fast-track-authority-trans-pacific-partnership.html

[hifiguy]

8. The details of this abomination won't even be made public for FOUR YEARS.

Anything hidden that deeply for that long is completely unacceptable for that reason alone.

[Hoyt]

9. Can you read? The details will be available when the final draft is complete.

The 4 year lie - people have been spreading - applied to negotiating documents where government officials said what they could give up, what made them cry, etc.

The final document was always going to be released because it had to go to each of the 12 states' governing bodies.

Of course, even the negotiating documents are avaiable, so that seems rather moot.

[hifiguy]

12. I can read perfectly well.

"The TPP Investment Chapter, published today, is dated 20 January 2015. The document is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: "The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies."

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP."

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/

Emphasis added.

[Hoyt]

14. That is the unfinished, negotiating document. The final document always had to be released

or Congress couldn't even vote on it. Think.

[rhett o rick]

10. So let's follow your logic. You say that the Republicons occasionally are right. So?

That alone isn't enough to support this crap. Why is the TPA even necessary?

And a very important point here is that those pushing the TPP are quick to point out that aid will be provided to workers "whose jobs are displaced" by global trade. "Jobs displaced" is code for THEY LOSE THEIR FRACKING JOBS. They are admitting that American workers WILL LOSE THEIR F'IN JOBS. But not to worry, they will receive "aid". Like what aid? Foodstamps? And who will pay their aid? Not the friggin' corporations who expect increases in profits, nooo, not the wealthy, nooooo, the taxpaying 99% will pay for the aid.

[Hoyt]

11. Life goes on, many jobs - including some I had - are no longer needed.

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Are we supposed to prop up buggy whip and abacus makers beyond helping to train them for a new career?

[Fuddnik]

15. OOOh. Buggy whips twice in one day.

You're on a real relevancy role.

[Hoyt]

17. Do you have, or can you make, a meaningful response?

[rhett o rick]

98. Your buggy whips example doesn't apply. When buggy whips went obsolete people could

go to work in auto manufacturing. When corporations move textile business to Viet Nam it isn't because no one uses textiles but because of cheaper labor. And cheaper labor means bigger profits. The Viet Nam workers won't get better pay or working conditions.

[Hoyt]

101. Where I live textile workers prepared for new jobs. Fact is, consumers

just aren't, or can't afford, to pay premium prices for American textiles. If they would, we wouldn't discussing this.

Anyone who thinks they will be in same industry for 30 years nowadays, isn't being realistic. Wish it weren't true.

TPP includes protections for worker wages.

[rhett o rick]

103. "TPP includes protections for worker wages." Where did you get that? Corporations wrote

the TPP and they don't give a crap about workers.

[Hoyt]

106. Nope, US Trade Rep appointed by Obama did.

[rhett o rick]

111. Do you have a link? nm

[Hoyt]

113. I think you can go to ustr.gov.. Sorry on my phone.

There is also a list of advisory committees that include most unions, environmental groups, etc.

I am sure corporations lobbied heavily. Of course, they do most of the international trading.

[rhett o rick]

29. STRAWMAN! No one suggests to "prop up buggy whips". Taxpayers are paying for

corporations to move our jobs overseas. We can't survive w/o jobs.

[Hoyt]

33. We'll survive better not circling the wagons and starving while the world passes us by

long-term.

[rhett o rick]

36. Things are bad now. You are saying that if we let things get worse it will be better than what?

The 99% in the USofA is rapidly losing their wealth and it's not to the workers of the world, it's to the greedy capital oligarchs.

[TheFarseer]

32. no one is talking about buggy whips

We are talking about computers, smart phones, accounting and IT services. Why would you bring buggy whips into this when you know Damn well we are not talking about obsolete products and services?

[Hoyt]

38. You think we can compete producing computers and smartphones here?Services are much better protected

but that takes better education and willingness to change.

I don't think most services are going anywhere.

Yes "buggy whips" are relevant because some folks continue to believe you can barely finish high school, get a job, and you should be set for life. Would be nice I suppose, but it just doesn't work that way.

[TheFarseer]

53. so we shouldn't try to compete?

Services like IT and accounting can be outsourced. Anything can be manufactured cheaper than in the US. So according to you, anyone working at an office or manufacturing anything might as well put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger because they're not needed. That doesn't even mention how some want to replace teachers with a cartoon character on a tablet programmed by someone in Asia. That's one he'll of a lot of people that YOU don't even want to try and fight for.

[Hoyt]

59. Pretty hard to outsource services other than some call centers, and clerical type work.

But the nice thing about what we know about the TPP is that it holds these countries to certain standards, which does in fact help level the playing field.

If there is not as huge a difference in worker pay, more jobs are likely to stay here. Add in factors such as inefficiencies in long distance locations, transportation costs, etc., even more jobs will stay here, maybe even move back.

[TheFarseer]

63. they outsource engineering

And I know they can do your taxes at a remote location. So they can pretty much outsource anything if they can do that. Guess I'll just have to go to barber college. Can't outsource that.

[Hoyt]

66. Exactly, barber college is a good idea.. Of course all us folks going for the shaved head

look puts that in jeopardy. And the Barber Board probably limits the licenses it will issue.

I really am not minimizing this. There have been times when I was literally scared to death about my future. I just don't think isolating ourselves will change that.

[foo_bar]

93. "literally scared to death"?

how'd that work out?

[olegramps]

61. Seems to be working just fine for the people we shipped our jobs to.

Washing Machines, Sewing Machines, Frigs etc. (no buggy whips) are being made my the thousands, only we aren't making them any more so that CEOs can make millions off of cheap foreign labor.

It seems our forefathers didn't know what they were doing when they placed tariffs to spur industry, which by the way was the major source of income for the government, until the introduction of taxes to support the Civil War. What happened was the creation of the most powerful industrial base in the world. It was this base that enabled us to transform it into a Juggernaut during WWII. As was observed by the Admiral that conducted the Pearl Harbor attack, "we have awaken a tiger."

[Hoyt]

72. We need to tax the hell out of corporations, but that's separate from trade laws.

You need to also convince people not to buy cheaper foreign washing machines, etc. Unfortunately, that's going to be tough since people would have to cut back on what they buy. I just don't see that happening, even if it might be good for us.

We lost that one when people found transitor radios and foreign cars were cheaper and often better.

[F4lconF16]

65. My mom lost a damn good electrical engineering job.

And it was because of trade agreements like this. Our family still hasn't reproduced that income.

Fucking abacuses and buggy whips, are you kidding me? And you pretend to know what you're talking about. If you do, that's even worse,because you're minimizing and distracing from a real problem affecting thousands. Disgusting.

[Hoyt]

67. You know, I once took a job at much less than they offered just to make it

harder for them to replace me.

Sorry about your mom, but that stuff was going on long before NAFTA. Heck, I remember the city where I live switching contractors for hundred of new buses to France, not even part of NAFTA.

TPP might even help avoid some of that.

My dad lost his job, everything he had, including his health, 35 years ago because of the oil crisis in the 1970s. I didn't blame Carter or Iran.

[arcane1]

76. One thing is certain: the Strawman Industry is booming thanks to the TPP! n/t

[Hoyt]

77. Strawwomen too -- look at Elizabeth Warren.

[nationalize the fed]

94. Which of the following people know more about the secret TPP scam?

DU member Hoyt

or

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Warren is a prominent legal scholar, and is among the most cited in her field. She is an active consumer protection advocate whose scholarship led to the conception and establishment of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Warren has written a number of academic and popular works.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, Warren served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). She later served as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under President Barack Obama.



In 2009, the Boston Globe named her the Bostonian of the Year, and the Women's Bar Association of Massachusetts honored her with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. She was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009, 2010, and 2015. The National Law Journal repeatedly has named Warren as one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Attorneys in America, and in 2010 it honored her as one of the 40 most influential attorneys of the decade. In 2011, Elizabeth Warren was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame. In January 2012, Warren was named a "Top-20 U.S. Progressive" by the New Statesman, a magazine based in the United Kingdom.

In 2009, Warren became the first professor in Harvard's history to win the law school's The Sacks–Freund Teaching Award for a second time. She delivered the commencement address at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark in May 2011, where she was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree and was conferred membership into the Order of the Coif

Have you read any of the TPP?

Senator Warren has

[DefenseLawyer]

84. Buggy whips don't have a goddamn thing to do with it.

It's wages. That's all it is. Wages. It's not buggy whips, and it certainly ain't rocket science. It's 60¢ an hour.

[Hoyt]

85. Japanese, Canadians, Australians, etc., ain't making 60 cents an hour.

[DefenseLawyer]

88. Maybe we should start trading with them then

Since we obviously aren't doing that now. The TPP with fix that right up. I understand completely now.

[arikara]

78. You can bet that any aid meant for workers

Will mysteriously find its way into the same pockets that received the mortgage relief aid. Hint... It wasn't any of the 99%.

[BrotherIvan]

28. THIS IS THE NEW MEME?????????????

Are we now supposed to not only support Republican legislation but Republicans themselves in order to perpetually cheerlead? This must be upside down day because the shit I am reading to justify this thing is pure, unadulterated MADNESS.

[zeemike]

47. We are supposed to stop worrying and love the TPP

Because Obama.
And the GOP just happens to make a mistake on this and supports it...you know, a stopped watch and all of that.
Rationalization is such a wonderful thing.

[senseandsensibility]

80. Yes, it's the new meme

and from the usual sources. Disgusting propaganda.

[fasttense]

35. Oh yeah, just like the bail-out for banksters included relief for homeowners.

"To further sweeten the deal for Democrats, the package includes expanding trade adjustment assistance — aid to workers whose jobs are displaced by global trade — to service workers, not just manufacturing workers."

Well the bail-out for banks included millions for relief for homeowners and the relief was never enacted. The money was never used to help anyone but the uber rich and stupid banks. Seems our government now plays little tricks like this to pass legislation for the rich. They include help for the lowly middle class and then the program is never set up and the funds are never distributed. So, it looks like they care but they just never get around to doing anything for anyone but the uber rich.

[cascadiance]

37. Um... Medicate Part D is Wrong (which is what they liked) to have to use corporations with it...

... where it could have been put together without having to provide government welfare from the Medicare program to insurance companies, and could have been done cheaper without it. At least Obamacare has tried to cut back on some of those costs that Medicare Part D introduced that the wealthy class loving Republicans also loved so much.

[Hoyt]

49. Except it wasn't. Democrats could have passed Part D long ago, but didn't.

I'm not trying to praise Republicans, but at least - in this one isolated case - they got something done that made life better for lots of old sick people who went without meds or cut them into small portions.

But that wasn't my point anyway.

[cascadiance]

57. And has also inflated costs of Medicare to government and the tax payers to help corporations..

... and to help them rationalize that medicare later should be "privatized" to bring costs "under control". Costs that THEY introduced by the medicare part D legislation that they pushed through to reward their corporate buddies with the extra dollars, and even having things like limiting bulk purchase discounts being offered for government purchases of drugs through this program, that other countries are able to negotiate, and which has so many seniors going over to Canada and Mexico to pick up prescriptions to avoid these costs.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/?_r=0

Saying that the Republicans 'did a good thing with Medicare Part D' is like saying they did a good thing for post office workers when they pushed that unreasonable pension plan that no company or other governmental industry would ever vote for themselves to keep their debts from exploding. Their design in that case was also not to work for workers' pensions, but to try and push the postal office debt so high that they'd have rationalization to privatize it later. THAT is what they want for medicare too! Make no mistake about it. If you don't recognize it, you're not paying attention or you're working for their interests too!

[olegramps]

64. Right On!!!

[bvar22]

87. The same thing is WRONG with Obamacare.

*

[bowens43]

43. and the President almost never gets it right. This is an example of that.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. Part D prohibits

negotiating for lower drug prices. Real great for the pharmaceutical companies

[Hoyt]

92. Actually the drug plans can, and do, negotiate drug prices.. The government cannot

negotiate directly. I think that's kind of stupid, but at least the drug plans can.

Medicaid and VA continue to negotiate.. Obama's 2016 includes direct Medicare negotiations on drugs.

But none of that changes fact seniors were in a world of hurt affording prescription drugs before 2006.

[MFrohike]

96. NYT? Really?

Call me crazy, but I think that quoting the same paper that employs Thomas Friedman on "trade" issues is naive at best.

[DCBob]

5. I suspect many D's are for this but know it would not be popular with their constituents.

So they will vote no to give them some cover knowing their votes are not needed to pass.

If you don't understand this you don't understand politics.

[cali]

6. sure, that's part of it. Like HRC pretending to be undecided on the TPP

when we know that she supports it and pretending to be a populist when we know she is not because she is trying to appeal to the party base.

but the fact remains that republicans are enormously supportive of it, and a good many of their constituents don't like it either.

We don't know how many dems are voting against it because it wouldn't be popular with their constituents. What we do know is that Congressional repubs support it. Do you think that's because they have the welfare of the middle class and working people as a priority?

[marym625]

18. As far as I am concerned

She doesn't say, "I am against it," or minimally, "I am against the fast track, " then she is for both

[Plucketeer]

20. Right you are!

After the last bait and switch we voted into office, I ain't trustin' NOBODY but maybe Bernie Sanders!

[marym625]

22. Same here!

I have not seen inconsistencies from O'Malley yet but I don't really know enough about him. And, although we obviously need someone strong on foreign policy, strong in the right way, domestic issues are more important at the moment.

[hifiguy]

7. This is a gigantic scam to start a race to the bottom.

And this is what is so infuriating about Obama - he follows two legacy-making diplomatic coups in Iran and Cuba with an effort to jam this atrocity down the throats of the American people.

Anything the tenth-percenters want this badly should be avoided like a shipful of plague rats. That a Democratic president is so forcefully pushing this abomination makes me ill. "Sell out" is the least obscene thing I can say about this, but I suppose he saw the rewards the Clintons have reaped for the services they have rendered to the plutocrats and wants to get in on that action himself in his post-presidency years.

Read this for just why this is SO bad: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0

[Plucketeer]

23. Bill Clinton is

Obama's father figure. I'm beginning to surmise that these folks have a grand plan in mind that ultimately puts every working sort on earth in the same opportunity basket. The nations that refuse to "play along" will suffer (by comparison) by not reaping the "benefit(s).
While I'm in the twilight of my years, my kids and grandkids are gonna be the ones to "benefit" this BS if the PTB manage to pull it off. A global community of serfdom is something I hope I don't live to see.

[hifiguy]

24. A return to a modern form of feudalism,

absent the obligation of the lords to the peasantry, has been the long game of TPTB for about forty years, now.

And I see nothing that can stop it.

[Plucketeer]

25. I think it could be stopped

that is, if it weren't for apathy and ignorance.

[hifiguy]

27. That's why control of the media was one of the first objectives.

Keep the masses dumber than dirt and pacified with pablum. Eliminate real news and substitute 24/7 corporate propaganda. And it has worked like a charm.

[cascadiance]

41. And Clinton helped that happen when he signed the Telecomm bill in to law...

... that allowed this corporatization of the media to accelerate to the point it is at now. He should have vetoed it as Patrick Leahy suggested he do, not only for the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act being put in it that was later overturned by the courts, but also because of the whole bill doing what it has done to our "free press" since that time.

[hifiguy]

55. Damn tootin!

[fasttense]

39. "Free" trade and trickle down economics without democracy is what it's all about

The uber rich want capitalism without democracy. It seems if the TPP passes, there will be "free" trade without democracy just like Milton Friedman and Pinochet had in Chile.

[BrotherIvan]

30. ^^Winner

IGMFU is very real.

[whereisjustice]

13. When Wasserman Shultz pushed hard right before midterms, it was almost as if she wanted

Democrats to lose so she could get right-wing policies like TPP passed for her friends and associates on Wall Street.

The consequences of leadership giving a big fuck you to those smart enough to comprehend the negative impact of these agreements is understood by these hacks.

I swear DNC wants us to stay home. We just get in the way of their personal ambitions and fortunes.

[Fuddnik]

19. She pushed hard right long before the mid-terms.

As someone "formerly" active in Florida politics, I've seen her antics, and abuse of progressives for at least 10 years. Not to mention her outright support of right-wing politicians, who were "her friends".

If someone really wanted to sink the Democratic Party, they would appoint someone like her as DNC Chair.

Oh.

[cascadiance]

42. And she was leading the effort among turncoat Democrats to stop impeachment of any kind of Bush...

[Plucketeer]

26. That woman is a curse

to those of us who still cling (frustratingly) to a (D).

[zeemike]

58. I think you are right on that

Large numbers of people voting is unpredictable...better to piss as many off as possible and show them it don't matter if you vote because the game is rigged.
And look for it again next election.

[marym625]

16. K&R

[CanonRay]

31. That should tell him something

but apparently it doesn't.

[ND-Dem]

40. Props to any Democrat who rejects it.

[jalan48]

44. A whole lot of 'Hope and Change' on this one.

[Autumn]

45. That really blew my mind. I can in no way see any rational for

believing the republicans are evil and yet Obama must be trusted on this. I can't wrap my mind around that kind of trust in a person that you don't personally know or have a personal relationship with. I voted for Obama twice, I don't trust him on this. From what I have seen his track record just isn't that impressive as far as I am concerned.

[bowens43]

46. When did they buy Obama and how much did they pay?

[840high]

51. When? On election day.

[Marr]

62. I'm sure he was screened and groomed long before he ever made that 'breakout debut' at

the 2004 primaries.

I remember watching that at the time; the whole political establishment hailing this previously unknown Senate candidate as the 'future of the Democratic Party', for a very boilerplate speech. It was pretty clear then he was the establishment's next product even then.

[hifiguy]

70. Indeed.

A truly insurgent candidacy is no longer possible, but I will go down fighting with Bernie.

[Dragonfli]

81. Penny Pritzer was his recruiting "handler"

When they brought him on as a political asset for their agenda. I am sure he really was thoroughly vetted and groomed by her and a few other agents of the .01% before deciding he would be acceptable to be allowed to run in the big leagues and backed accordingly.

[woo me with science]

108. +1000000

They plan ahead.

We react.

[IDemo]

48. The new buggy whip:

[MisterP]

52. The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who

The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided

[hifiguy]

73. The differences exist ONLY on social issues, which are actually human rights issues

On everything else there is complete oligarchic agreement on the plutocrats' agenda:

Thanks to DUer woo me with science for this damning list of agreements between the "two parties"

The List – compiled by woo me with science of DU.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.

Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.

Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.

Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.

Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.

Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.

Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.

Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.

Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.

Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.

TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.

Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.

Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.

Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.

GMO's? Both parties support it.

Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.

Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.

"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.

Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.

Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.

Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.

Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.

Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.

Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.

Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.

Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.

New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.

Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.

___________________

The facts are what they are.

[bvar22]

91. Excellent compilation,

and the reason the Obama/Romney debates were so boring.
They BOTH agree on the major issues, and moderators & networks have been warned NOT to bring u controversial Issues.

The last Presidential "Debate" I witnessed was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, but they stopped in the 80s:

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:


"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

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

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."



If you wanted to see a REAL debate, you should have tuned in to the 3rd Party Debates.
They actually discussed controversial ISSUES.

[ctsnowman]

112. .

[hughee99]

54. An issue where blind loyalty to the president

And blind opposition to the republicans have to battle it out.

[Marr]

56. There's a reason this is a *second term* priority.

The public hates it. His own party hates it. The only people who want it are corporate America and Wall Street.

[senseandsensibility]

79. bingo

[orpupilofnature57]

60. I'm a dreamer , but I would have never dreamed this, this

needs to be the only thing we talk about until it's Exposed for what it is . And we need to trace back the presidential history of Barrack Obama and the Esoteric Agenda he's worked hardest for .

[GoneFishin]

74. Still not buying the pro-TPP pro-Fast Track propaganda being peddled. NAFTA was pitched

based on fictional benefits to workers, and we all know how that turned out.

Bullshit. TPP and Fast Track are both unethical abominations that need to be quashed completely, with no compromising.

[red dog 1]

75. K&R...Thanks for posting, Cali

"Using hokey numbers and neon lies to sell TPP".......by Jim Hightower
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251402356

[pampango]

90. True but the republican base opposes TPA while the Democratic base supports it.

It is interesting how politicians and their bases can be on such different pages.

[nationalize the fed]

95. It was specifically mentioned in the 2012 Democratic Party Platform

"Double our exports by 2015 with new trade agreements
Over the last four years, we have made historic progress toward the goal of doubling our exports by 2015. We have taken steps to open new markets to American products, while ensuring that other countries play by the same rules. President Obama signed into law new trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not before he strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses.

We remain committed to finding more markets for American-made goods--including using the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dynamic regions in the world--while ensuring that workers' rights and environmental standards are upheld, and fighting against unfair trade practices. We expanded and reformed assistance for trade-affected workers, and we demanded renewal of that help alongside new trade agreements."
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

How many of the people here have actually read even some of the party platform?

Perhaps some of the D opposition is faking, as well. If they do another 60 vote hoodwink it will keep the false division alive.

[Doctor_J]

99. he's much more comfortable with republicans. The continuation of Reagan presidency

Though Ronnie would not have gotten this piece of shit passed, and would not have proposed cutting social security.

[ucrdem]

100. Does he have a choice?

Per the Constitution article II, section 2 he needs a 2/3 majority to pass a treaty:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . .

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

I don't think it's the reality he would have chosen but that's the reality he has to work with.

[Enthusiast]

104. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Way to go Mr. Obama.....................

[BlueStreak]

105. The powers-that-be can't use a Repub for this job

Just like with NAFTA, they must use a Democratic President for this job. If they tried to pull this with a GOP President, the opposition would be overwhelming. But by doing it with a Dem, that takes the legs out from under the opposition. This is all very deliberate stuff.

And why would Obama go along with this? Because that Wall Street money is the only thing that is keeping Dems in the race at the national level. Wall Street doesn't ask too many things. They ask that none of their posse ever gets prosecuted. They ask that the Fed be left alone to dispense the largesse to all of the Wall Street players. They ask that their people be put in charge of all the economic posts in the administration. And from time to time, they ask the Dem President to hand them sweet deals like TPP.

Come to think of it, they do ask a lot.

[sulphurdunn]

107. If the TPP passes

neither the president nor any member of his family will ever need worry about membership in the best country clubs or who pays the dues.

[INdemo]

109. There are probably enough Republican Lite Democrats that

will cross the line and vote for this bill that will give the President his wish..but not before a battle with the unions that oppose this.
After the statement President Obama made about"Unions have always been against trade" the battle lines have been draw and the largest union in the country (the UAW) is firmly against this trade deal.
The Unions reply was Unions are for"fair trade"

If President Obama gets this trade deal done than it will confirm with many Democrats belief that both parties are owned by Wall St and the corporate mafia.

[kacekwl]

110. I hope they

don't fold in their opposition to this like too many time in the past.