Liz Warren plays political games too

[MaggieD]

Just like any politician. She is smart enough to know that ANY trade talks are held close to the vest while being negotiated, yet she apparently wants people to think this is some nefarious action. Meanwhile, liberals, all over the internet pretend that nothing at all is known about the TPP, apparently because that is easier than being informed that there is actually lots of info out about the TPP.

I'm personally opposed to the TPP because I AM informed about the framework of the pact. Not because some politician told me it's secret and therefore nefarious. However, I do take Obama's point that the TPP is going to sail with or without the USA. And I laud him for trying to bend the deal as far in our favor as possible.

I like Warren, but I also realize she is just a politician like every other politician when it comes to playing political games.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/


"The issue of trade is one of the (rare) areas in which I consider myself a moderate Democrat, able to see the merits of both sides of the question, but persuadable in either direction. Like many Democrats, I’ve got a strong sense that in trade deals past, we’ve gotten screwed, and that our leaders have not properly leveraged the value of the American consumer. On the other hand, President Obama makes a compelling case that the trade choo-choo is leaving the station, with us or without us, and so we’re better off having our hand somewhere on the throttle. Either way, I also believe that every leader needs political pressure from the left, because it makes them get us a better deal.

When it comes to Trade Promotion Authority, then, the question really boils down to a matter of trust: do you trust President Obama to get the very best deal possible, and want to give him the flexibility to do that? Just as in the case of the Iran nuclear deal, these are multi-party talks that are very complicated, and nearly impossible to conduct completely in the open.

This is not a new phenomenon, and one which Sen. Warren seems to understand in the context of the P5+1 talks. When she is shocked, SHOCKED that the TPP deal isn’t available for public viewing while it is still being negotiated, she is not telling you the truth. She knows that the reason the deal isn’t available while it’s being negotiated is, right or wrong, because public pressure could, at any point, derail a flawed but fixable agreement. The reason she gives, however, is quite literally unbelievable:

Warren: Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.” Seriously, Sen. Warren? “People” have given it to you? Way to narrow it down, because I was going to go away convinced you’d been advised by hoot owls, who are notorious liars. Why the secrecy, though? If these “people” are so sure TPP is a horrible deal, why can’t we talk to them? Can other people besides you see them?"

[cali]

1. OK

I agree that there's enough info to decide for yourself, and I tend to believe the President is trying to improve it. I think he very much sees it as strategic move to stall China's gaining economic dominance and thus it's a national security issue as well.


I also think Warren is sincere in her opposition

[ananda]

13. Warren is a fine stateswoman when it comes to economic issues.

I am with her on this.

[Aerows]

41. Me too

this crap is coming out of nowhere trying to smash the opinion of a woman that has from so far, been an advocate for the rest of us.

Trying to dredge Elizabeth Warren in the mud is expected from Republicans, but from Democrats? Unconscionable.

[tblue]

88. Really! And to side with Palul Ryan instead of

Elizabeth Warren? Give me a freaking break.

Don't you just love when people on DU marginalize people by calling them "liberals"?

[MaggieD]

20. I agree with everything you wrote

But I also believe Warren is exaggerating for effect. She is smart enough to know that there is nothing more secret about this trade pact than any other trade pact. I think it's wrong of her to imply otherwise (particularly since it is for political advantage).

But I guess politicians do what politicians do.

[Aerows]

43. She has not only pretended to stand up for the people

she has STOOD UP for the people, and it offends me to see you slander her like she is some nobody.

She is a Senator of the United States that has shown more courage than most.

[MaggieD]

66. I don't dislike her at all...

But she's playing politics here as stated in the article. And right now she seems to enjoy the same Demi-God that Obama enjoyed at this site just 7 short years ago. Until you all wised up to the fact that he's just a politician too.

Sorry, but as much as I like her she is FOS when she acts like this is some nefarious plot. It's just your normal crappy trade pact negotiated the same as any other. I don't know why she isn't satisfied just saying why instead her nonsense.

[seabeyond]

124. i am very excited about warren. powerful women with a powerful voice. nt

[Number23]

166. I am too! But I genuinely believe that her supporters will be the thing that smash her like a grape

And the folks who scream about "cult of personalities" while they lap up every single thing she says and does unquestionably as if they saw her descend from Heaven with their own two eyes are doing her no favors.

She is a politician. Nothing more or less. She may be a very good politician and I agree with a lot of her positions on things. But she is still a politician.

[seabeyond]

169. too many are just using her. to disrupt du and bash obama. too many really do not give a fuck

what the issue is or where people actually stand.

to much of it is about tainting all it comes into contact with.

[Number23]

171. I agree. And this idea that she is a sweet, little blonde lamb that is a paragon of truth and virtue

is freaking hilarious. Like I said downthread, she was a freaking Republican who voted for Ronald fucking Reagan and now has the leftier than thous thinking she's their queen.

She's not only a politician, she's a freaking player. And by the looks of it, a damn good one. She deserves a freaking Oscar for her "metamorphosis" from hard core Con to Liberal Lion. I have a hell of a lot of respect for her just because of her ability to pull that off and get away with it... for now.

[HassleCat]

2. Hey, Hey, Hey!

Watch those owl insults, buddy. I hooted for spotted owls, and they were always completely honest with me. Not to mention cute and adorable. Except when they were ripping a mouse into bloody shreds. Anyway, I tend to side with Obama on the TPP deal because I think he's right when he says they'll do it with or without us. It's not like NAFTA, where we could have sunk the whole deal by refusing to participate. Now we have to wait and see what conditions we demanded, and how hard we worked for a responsible deal. Too many people forget we can no longer dictate terms to the rest of the world, as we used to do. We're still the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but the 400 pound gorillas can get together and dilute our influence.

[libdem4life]

101. Good post. And if you haven't been properly welcomed, welcome. If so, another never hurts. n/t

[merrily]

132. She registered in 2001

[11 Bravo]

159. The profile says March of 2015.

[merrily]

160. How very odd. That is not what it said when I looked. Also the OP posted on this

thread that she registered in 2001. Is that gone, too? I'm going to check.

[merrily]

161. Says 2001

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 579

[11 Bravo]

163. I think you're looking at MaggieD's profile. libdem4life, whose ...

post you were responding to, was welcoming HassleCat, who signed up in 2015.

[merrily]

164. Yes, the OP's. Apparently, I did not follow the thread correctly. Sorry!

[LWolf]

3. All politicians play games.

That's what politics is all about: manipulative games.

I'm opposed to the TPP. I'm opposed to fast-tracking anything. My opposition has nothing to do with Warren.

[MaggieD]

108. That's the point

I am against the TPP. I like Warren. She is playing politics. She is not any different than any other politician. She is not a Demi-God. I'm sure I won't agree with her on every issue.

I can hold all those thoughts in my head simultaneously. Amazing, huh?

[Dawgs]

4. Don't you mean Warren and pretty much every other Democratic policitian.

Because she is only one of many Democrats that are against it.

Almost all Republicans are for it.

[MaggieD]

5. The article is about Warren, but...

I've lost patience with ANY politician who pretends that these trade negotiations are any more secret than any other trade or treaty negotiations during the negotiation process. Anyone who buys that nonsense is a political noob in my opinion. And any politician fronting that argument is being disingenuous with their constituents.

[Dawgs]

6. Right, because trade negotiations have worked so well for us in the past.

Maybe people like Warren are concerned that we'll end up with something even worse than something NAFTA, and they are doing everything they can to stop it.

[MaggieD]

12. That may be true, but has nothing to do with my post

[Dawgs]

96. Yes it does.

You're saying Warren is acting like a political noob. I'm saying she doesn't care how it appears because she's fighting to stop something that's wrong for America.

[MaggieD]

104. No, I'm saying she is NOT a political noob

And therefore it's apparent she is playing politics with this issue. She has the knowlwdge and capacity to articulate why the TPP is bad and she should be doing that instead of pretending it's secret.

[Octafish]

7. I like how organized labor, human rights and environmental groups were especially well represented.

Not.

[MaggieD]

15. That's a good reason to be against it

[Aerows]

45. The TPP is the death knell for our country

and several others.

This piss weak attempt to tie Elizabeth Warren into it couldn't support tadpoles, minnows or mud.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Well alright y then...........

Warren and Sanders must be political noobs.

gee what's that called in failure of a logical argument?

[MaggieD]

14. They aren't noobs - that's the point

As I said, Warren is smart enough to know she is playing politics rather than being honest.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Oh she's a liar then

nice................

[MaggieD]

19. She's playing politics

I know everyone here seems to think she is a demigod (just as they viewed Obama in 2007/2008). But the fact is she is just a politician who plays the same games they all do.

[Aerows]

46. Where did you come from?

Why are you so ardently arguing against Elizabeth Warren?

When did you become so passionately against Elizabeth Warren, and so passionately for the TPP?

Who are you?

[merrily]

76. As you once kindly told me, we all can see.

Not your exact words to me, but close enough for government work.

No pun intended.

[Aerows]

92. I hope it wasn't in a harsh context

merrily, because I respect your posts. When people start out confrontational, well, I'm not exactly shy about meeting them on their own terms .

[merrily]

93. No, it was not in a harsh context at all. It was, as I said, kind advice.

I can't recall your ever being harsh to me. And I respect your posts as well.

[MaggieD]

105. Where did I come from?

Why are you so damn rude? You know nothing about me, so save your assumptions. I'm 53 years old, and voted in every election since I was 18. I've never voted for a republican in my life and never will. I helped pass marriage equality and anti-discrimination bills in the state where I lived. And I've been on DU almost from day one. In fact I was HERE in 2004 when it was all the DU rage to blame GLBT people for demanding equality. We were supposedly the reason John Kerry lost. Except no, we weren't.

As I said in the OP I DO NOT dislike Warren. But I do believe it would be helpful if we didn't hold her up as the latest DU Demi-God. We already did that with Obama back in 2007. People need to be more realistic about politicians. It's not effective advocacy to adore them. In fact it's the opposite.

[Aerows]

112. I'm rude?

I didn't get "rude" until you did.

Here is a fact, MaggieD - Paul Ryan loves the TPP. Republicans love the TPP. Many Democrats have stated it is a disaster - many more than just Warren and Sanders.

If Republicans (Paul Ryan - the king of slash, slash, slash and burn economics!?) think it's just dandy, I think Democrats *SHOULD* be highly suspicious of it.

I AM highly suspicious of anything that Republicans love a whole bunch when it comes to the economy because usually it means we the People are about to get screwed.

[MaggieD]

115. Be specific on my rudeness, as you call it

I have stated about 12 times in this thread that a) I like Warren in general, and b) I'm against the TPP in its current form.

But for some reason you can't comprehend that. I suspect because Warren has undeserved Demi-God status in your eyes.

Before you insult me again please read my posts in this thread.

[Aerows]

117. This is hilarious

You are telling me not to insult you while you are busy insulting me in a post.

Look - Sanders, Warren, Sherrod Brown, many Democrats have said they don't like the TPP. If Paul Ryan and Republicans are all for it, I'm going to be highly suspicious of it.

Why? Because I'm familiar with the history of things Republicans like to do with the economy and it is rarely good for the economy.

[MaggieD]

120. Oh FFS - really?

No where in this thread or anywhere on the Internet have I ever said I'm in favor of the TPP. IN FACT I've stated that I'm not. Over and over again. Good lord!!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

138. Well, yeah but...

Who are you! Who are you? Who are you?



Funny stuff coming from - not exactly - an old timer.

Thank you for your post. Some of us get where you're coming from here.

[Aerows]

91. Oh boy

Telling people to take off their tin foil hats and now throwing around "noobs".

[G_j]

9. Not to worry, the Captains of Industry know what

they are doing... Good stuff will trickle down..they promise...

[Aerows]

47. It will all trickle down

and folks will be ... where is it again?

Where is it?

This has to be the most obvious attempt at "infiltrating" DU that I have ever seen.

I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

[hedda_foil]

10. See, it's not just Obama's trustworthiness to get a less than halfway decent deal.

The fact is that USA (USA!USA!USA!) is the driving force behind the whole idea of the TPP. And a lot of things we're protesting come very close to being deal breakers for countries from Australia to Ecuador. The U.S. team have been pushing the others very, very hard to keep those noxious elements in the treaty. And our government, of course, knows everything the other "partners" talk, text, email or tweet to their colleagues, spouses, mistresses, etc. in real time. (Because that's what friends are for?) So our trade negotiators have lots and lots and lots and lots of, shall we say ...
[center][font size="5"]
"leverage"[/center][/font]
with other nations? Since we're top dog in that mashup, it's unlikely that those countries demands are forcing the administration to put everybody's laws and sovereignty into the hands of psychopathic global corporations.

So let's agree that the president is being truthful about getting the best deal he can for U.S. Americans. The question then comes down to WHO he's cutting this deal with. Well, let's see. They've had hundreds of secret meetings with so-called "U.S." corporations, which are the beneficiaries (and likely the instigators) of the deal...

As Sherlock says, when everyone else is ruled out, the one that's left is the culprit. And as Deep Throat famously said, "Follow the money."



Helpfully,
Hedda

[MaggieD]

11. That is objectively untrue

The talks started in 2002. The US did not enter them until 2008. So, this statement by you is wrong:

"The fact is that USA (USA!USA!USA!) is the driving force behind the whole idea of the TPP."

That's not a fact at all.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Oh......... it started under Bush and Cheney

I feel better now.

[MaggieD]

18. No, it started without US involvement

Those are the objective facts. And it's going to happen with or without US involvement, just as Obama has stated.

I begin to wonder if any of those posting about the TPP know anything about it at all. SMH.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Oh........ just out of blue then

wow......... i am now educated on hear say.

thanks.

[Aerows]

48. Anything that Republicans are ardently for

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:45 PM - Edit history (2)

is something I am highly suspicious of.

[MaggieD]

59. So you think Obama is lying...

And the TPP was secretly started by Bush, and Obama is just going along? No, sorry. Take off your tinfoil hat.

[Aerows]

89. I trust Elizabeth Warren

Period.

[seabeyond]

29. me, too. but thank you for your information in here. dying for some facts. thank you maggieD. nt

[procon]

51. Maybe it's just a case of, "I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true."

I've seen too many posts quoting opinions as facts, citing anonymous bloggers as trusted sources, and linking to various prophets of doom and tortuously manufactured conjectures, and far too few threads like this that actually discuss the actual, known issues of this deal.

[merrily]

85. You are describing the article that is the basis of this thread.

It's a hit opinion piece from the Daily Banter by one Obama supporter who says flat out Warren is lying. What kind of journalistic standard is that?

Direct quote from the article. "Then shit got real." Anonymous bloggers don't use that. Message board posters and this guy may be the only ones still getting away with that one.

[procon]

100. It's the same info that's on govt and natl press websites.

Warren and Sanders are showboating on this. Their statements are deliberately misleading, but because they are popular figures people grant them more trust than most other politicians when they should be viewed with a critical eye that can see through their celebrity status. I like a lot of the things they say, but I wish they had taken the high road on this one.

[merrily]

130. It's no surprise they support Obama. Nonetheless, the OP article is worthless.

[procon]

139. Under the guise of learning everything I can,

I can't afford to be that close minded, or join any of these current personality cults. Politicians are a rare breed, and all of them should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. I don't fault Warren's fundraising efforts, that's just the reality of the American political system post Citizens United, however I do question the duplicitous manner of it. Regardless of whatever fame and fortune she's accrued for the effort, her easily discredited claim was unnecessarily divisive.

[merrily]

141. I've never been in any personality cult. No one has proven she lied or was duplicitous. No one can.

[procon]

143. Here's to hoping they find a cure for those lyin' eyes. nt.

[merrily]

144. Your claim is that Warren KNOWS America will like the TPP, but is saying America won't?

[procon]

149. Those are your words, yeah?

Not mine. I've never said any remoting resembling your remarks, and neither have I read anything here from anyone else who made a wisecrack like that.

Warren states, “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

That not true. As many others have already explained to you, we can't see it because it isn't even public yet. Unless she's claiming psychic abilities, Warren has no way to know how it will turn out. Many of your earlier fears have been addressed in the new Wyden-Hatch-Ryan deal which predates Warren's remark, but she opted to go there anyway. That bit of shallow deceit is very troubling to me.



"The fast track bill - formally known as Trade Promotion Authority - calls for an up-or-down vote in Congress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other future trade deals. Both sides agree that this fast-track authority, which prohibits attempts to amend a trade pact, is crucial to determining whether Asian trade deal comes to fruition.

The Wyden-Hatch-Ryan deal includes these provisions:

--The final wording of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has to be made public at least 60 days before Obama signs any agreement. Congressional action likely would take another two months, which Wyden said gives the public and lawmakers plenty of time to understand and debate the provisions in the trade pact, which is still under final negotiations."

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/04/ron_wyden_reaches_deal_on_fast.html

[merrily]

150. I think you misquoted Warren. You also left out the part where Obama called her out

on MSNBC before Maddow had her on.

[procon]

153. I quoted straight from Warren's own words on her website.

You can't read this
April 22, 2015 | By Elizabeth Warren

“We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it."


http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/you-cant-read-this



Two days after she posted those remarks, on April 24, Obama rightly called her out.

[merrily]

154. No, you did not quote Warren's words. You took words attributed to other people out of context.

Most likely, you haven’t – and don’t bother trying to Google it. The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret.

Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

No one puts quotation marks around their own words.

So, what you're actually claiming is that no one said that to Warren. You have no proof of that and neither does the OP.

[procon]

155. When she leaves out a corroborating source, they are her words.

She says it's the "real answer", but offers no proof. She never says who these unnamed people are when she repeats that untruth. There is no proof without a source, there is only her words to go by. Did she make it up? By deceitfully implying the public won't have an opportunity to review it, how can anyone be certain that she's being truthful now?

She's no different than any other politician; when they aren't lying, they're figuring out how to steal our candy. If it isn't just a cult of personality that protects her from any scrutiny, then hold her feet to the fire just half as much zeal as you do Obama.

[merrily]

157. NO, they are not.

You misrepresented what her website said. When called out for that, you pulled some bs "rules" for quotes out of your ear. Yet, you accuse Warren of lying. That's a laugh.

Bottom line: You cannot prove she lied. Neither can the OP. Neither can the joke of a writer who wrote the article featured in the OP.

[procon]

162. Whose words are they, merrily?

Until you can answer that with a definitive source, you don't really know that she's not making it up. Use the same standard you apply to Obama, that fair, right?

[merrily]

165. Why repeat comments I just addressed? See Reply157.

[procon]

170. That was a strange dodge.

If you like her that much and want to give her a pass, just say so, its OK. I can't do it because I'm only seeing her as another politician on a fundraising spree. I think she'll profit quite well off her latest kerfluffle with Obama, I just wish she'd been more forthcoming in the methods she's used to capitalise on her celebrity appeal.

[merrily]

172. Dodge? I am not obligated to repeat myself every time you repeat yourself. Again, see Replies 154

and 157.

You have a nerve to be implying and claiming everyone but you is being deceptive. or in a cult of personality. You flat out misrepresented Warren's website for Obama's benefit.

[Aerows]

110. If Paul Ryan

and Republicans are all for it, I am HIGHLY suspicious of it. We have Democrats against it (many more than just Sanders and Warren).

That doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?

[procon]

122. I don't make snap decisions based on third party opinions.

I'm more alarmed by Democrats who are capitalizing on their celebrity fame and popularity to fundraise off of the TPP. When the agreement is publicly released, then I'll decide on the facts, not someone else's speculation.

[Aerows]

123. You will be waiting

for 4 years after it has gone into effect to see it.

[procon]

127. My crystal ball was repossessed when I was 17;

for lack of payment. I'm a pragmatist, not a prophet, because a long time ago I learned the folly of succumbing to popular rumor and conjecture. When it comes to politics, nothing but regret is ever gained by letting the passions of deep emotions overtake cold reason and logic.

[hedda_foil]

22. Let's look at the facts.

The TPP didn't begin in 2002. You are referring to a separate and ratified agreement among 4 of the parties. It's likely that when two more AsiaPac countries joined the original four, the U.S. government got justifiably nervous about China's potentially wooing those nations into their orbit. Here's a very good explanation from Wikipedia.

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership AgreementEdit
During the 2002 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos began negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP). Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in April 2005 before the fifth, and final round of talks.[30] Subsequently, the agreement was renamed to TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement or Pacific-4). Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) were concluded by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore on 3 June 2005,[2] and entered into force on 28 May 2006 for New Zealand and Singapore, 12 July 2006 for Brunei, and 8 November 2006 for Chile.[31]

The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[30][32] It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for reduction by 90 percent of all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.[33]

Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP (and the TPP it grew into) are not APEC initiatives. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.

Trans-Pacific PartnershipEdit
In January 2008, the US agreed to enter into talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding trade liberalisation in financial services.[34] On 22 September 2008, under president George W Bush, US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab announced that the US would be the first country to begin negotiations with the P4 countries to join the TPP, with the first round of talks in early 2009.[35][36]

In November 2008, Australia, Vietnam, and Peru announced that they would join the P4 trade bloc.[37][38] In October 2010, Malaysia announced that it had also joined the TPP negotiations.[39][40][41]

After the inauguration of Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, president Obama reaffirmed the US's commitment to the TPP, and on 14 December 2009, new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that President Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".[42]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#History

[MaggieD]

58. Oh brother, did you even read...

What you copied and pasted. You're quoting from an article about the TPP that directly proves you wrong. Gotta love the Internet.

[merrily]

78. What she copied and pasted does not support your statement.

[MaggieD]

106. Of course it does

The TPP is merely an expansion of previous trade agreements and it was assuredly NOT originated or driven by the United States. The United States joined the talks, they in no way originated them.

[merrily]

133. Wow. That is NOT what your post 11 conveyed at all. Talk about moving a goalpost.

Your post 11 states the TPP talks began in 2002. A poster showed you an entirely different agreement resulted from the 2002 talks. You berated that poster. And now you are not talking about TPP talks starting in 2002, but different agreements, exactly as the material posted stated.

That's beyond moving goalposts.

[MaggieD]

146. It did start in 2002

Without us. My god, this is not rocket science.

[merrily]

148. The talks for the TPP did not start in 2002, as your post 11 said. That was a different

Agreement, as your post 106 said. Stop changing your story.

My god, this is not rocket science.

No, it isn't. Good thing, too because you're no rocket scientist, though you seem to think you are, and neither is the semi-literate author of the article your OP featured.

[MaggieD]

173. If you don't know this is just an extension....

Of the previous trade agreement then you do not know enough about this issue to debate the subject.

[Jefferson23]

23. Is that really the question? Perhaps I am confused on that point, but I wonder if

when you look at what China did, they chose infrastructure building as only one significant investment and
with much success, the US chose derivatives trade, and that left us where in competition with China? Removal
of sovereign control over capital accounts is the TPP's strength as I understand it ( good for banks, not people)
and another reason it should be opposed. Thinking about TPP's ability by design to have arbitration disputes take place
beyond the sovereignty of said nation is also fucking nuts.

Bejing must be laughing their ass off at us as we try and contain them...this is all very sad
and depressing.

[Cha]

24. She sure as shite does.

"I do take Obama's point that the TPP is going to sail with or without the USA. And I laud him for trying to bend the deal as far in our favor as possible."

Thank you, MaggieD

[Cha]

25. KICK

[rurallib]

26. Seems to be a real outbreak of anti-Warren Obama is right fever on the board tonight

I have followed Bernie Sanders for years and Bernie speaks truth.

Just so strange how all of a sudden there is this outbreak of TPP is good. Almost seems as if it is directed.

Having seen trade deal after trade deal fuck over the US I think extreme caution should be the strategy.

Who wouldn't want to go back 22 years and tell Clinton they were lying to him.

Attack expected.

[ucrdem]

28. Fine, caution abounds, but that isn't what Warren said.

She said in her interview with Rachel Madow that the agreement was being kept secret and that if the American people knew what was in it, they'd oppose it. When Maddow asked her what exactly she was talking about, she said she couldn't say, because it's secret. Video:

And that is simply dishonest, and well below the threshold of acceptable political discourse, particularly from a Senator of the same party. JMHO, YMMV.

[winter is coming]

49. Oh? So Warren *could* have told Rachel exactly what she'd read without facing some

sort of consequences.

I don't think so.

[merrily]

54. It's in a locked room. People have to have a security clearance to read it AND have

a member of Congress with them. But Warren is dishonest when she says she can't give info on national TV?

Please.

[merrily]

134. You are at least the third or fouth poster who has pointed out the sudden influx.

And, yes, I noticed as well.

[Logical]

27. Well, she has read it ans still does not like it. Are you saying she is making it up? nt

[ucrdem]

30. Yes, she's making it up. There is no deal. It's still being negotiated.

And Warren said: “We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

That's dishonest. Here's the video so you can see for yourself:

[Logical]

31. Wait, so you think the American people will like it?? She is lying about it? nt

[ucrdem]

32. Not what I said. nt

[Cha]

33. Mahalo ucr! Shame on her disingenuous grandstanding like that.

[ucrdem]

34. The last Massachusetts pol to go mano-a-mano with PBO was Mitt Romney

and we know how that turned out. If she'd asked me, I would have advised her not to try it, but she didn't ask me.

[Cha]

42. Yeah, she's not telling the truth about everything.. and I don't give a shite what her supporters

have to say about .. she's the one pushing "Bullshit!".

Thanks again!

[Logical]

38. Bullshit! nt

[Logical]

35. LOL, she READ SOMETHING so she is saying what she said the people will not like......

how can she make a guess on the final deal when she does not know what it is?

Wow, why is this hard for you to understand?

Let me make this simple for you.....

What she read (that Obama said she could read) she did not like! I trust her.

[ucrdem]

36. She said it was being kept secret. "It" doesn't exist.

You're welcome.

[Logical]

37. Bullshit......

It does exist. Thus Obama said people can read it. Jesus, are you that clueless?

Obama said:
“Every single one of the critics who I hear saying, ‘this is a secret deal,’ can walk over today and read the text of the agreement. There’s nothing secret about it."

So you said it does not exist but Obama is saying they can read it.

You are flat out lying.

[ucrdem]

40. Those are negotiating drafts. There is no final draft that can be made public.

And to claim that there is but it's being deliberately kept secret from the American people, as Senator Warren did on national TV last night, well, let's just say she wasn't telling the truth.

[Logical]

44. Then HOW CAN OBAMA BE SUPPORTING IT????? If she does not have enough information....

to say it is bad how can obama be supporting it?

You are really cracking me up!

[merrily]

55. Stop pulling stuff out of your ear.

[MaggieD]

60. I agree with the linked article in the OP

That's why I quoted it. You should read it. It's good.

[Aerows]

39. Under the Bus

because she isn't on the TPP bus.

[Aerows]

50. Who are you?

You have a handful of posts, rant about P5+1, and everyone is supposed to believe you are genuine in your "concern" about the "Democrat Party"?



I live in the South, and I've eaten a lot of things but I do not

eat dirt.

[procon]

52. How many posts do we need?

If it's only the volume of posts that makes someone credible (vs what... A "concern" troll if your numbers are lower?) what is the quantity of posts needed to get into that elite club to be considered "believable"?

[Aerows]

53. Not many, apparently

to recognize that (not you) someone isn't genuine.

I'm no elite, I just post here.

[merrily]

79. Member since 2001. Under 600 posts. Says she reads here every day.

Apparently, not much motivates her to post. Yet, this motivated her to post, tell people to put on their tin foil hats, etc. It's an unusual combination.

Wondering about something like that is not calling the OP a concern troll.

[Aerows]

90. Yep - I was told to take off my tin foil hat.

I mean, really?

[merrily]

94. I saw.

[procon]

98. This place isn't a friendly or welcoming environment.

Its very clanish and remarkably hostile towards newcomers. I took me a longtime to post something here because of the prevailing animosty towards anyone who isn't in the clique. I don't wonder that there are so many lookyloos who are reluctant to post because of the prevailing attacks, suspicions and intimation that awaits to greet them.

[MerryBlooms]

156. Exactly.

[MaggieD]

62. It's that all you've got?

Been here since day one. Long before most of you in fact. New user name in DU3.

[treestar]

125. Pure ad hominem

You are making this about the OP not the TPP

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Maybe. But if so, she's doing it right.

Economic populism.
Economic populism.
Economic populism.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Meow.

[MaggieD]

61. Wow, that's mature

Don't you have to upload that and then link to it? IMHO the time would have been better spent on an adult level response.

[AtomicKitten]

63. Elizabeth knows whereof she speaks.

The TPP is NAFTA on steroids and that ain't good. Don't believe the Third Way lies.

[MaggieD]

64. Yes, she knows she is being untruthful....

Which is exactly the point of the article linked in the OP.

[AtomicKitten]

65. She's telling the truth. You choose to believe Third Way lies.

[MaggieD]

72. She's not, sorry

The article nails it. You should try reading it.

[merrily]

81. You found an opinion hit piece in the Daily Banter that supports the position you wanted to take

in the first instance and that makes both the article and your position gospel?

[procon]

99. The same info is available on govt and natl press websites. Google works. nt

[merrily]

135. Government websites support Obama? Is that your proof Warren is lying?

[Cha]

67. Yes, Elizabeth Warren is being untruthful and of course nobody wants to see that. So they attack

you.

[AtomicKitten]

68. really sorry to see you turn to the dark side

[Cha]

69. You call it the "dark side".. that's doesn't mean it's dark. I have enough respect not to

personally attack.

[AtomicKitten]

71. Nor did I. The OP gratuitously attacked Elizabeth

.... based on a Facebook opinion post, hardly the pinnacle of serious and informed thought.

If you liked NAFTA and the jobs it decimated in the US, you're going to love the TPP. Clinton sold that pile of shit at the time and one would think a teensy bit of insight could be gleaned from that.

[MaggieD]

73. A Facebook opinion post???

The Daily Banter is a webzine / blog very similar to Salon or Slate. And the author of the article is a long term respected liberal.

Why would you misrepresent the source like that?

[merrily]

82. Who can possibly argue with an opinion hit piece in a webzine that flat out claims Warren is lying?

And heaven knows, any writer that supports Obama and calls Warren a liar must have been written by a liberal (as if being written by a liberal has anything to do with truth or journalistic standards anyway). BTW, your own OP quotes him as "moderate" on trade and "moderate" is typically code for Third Way.

This thread just gets funnier. Can't wait to read the next post.

[MaggieD]

70. I will state again...

I agree with the article I linked in the OP. That's because I'm an informed citizen. And that's also why I'm not keen on the TPP.

I think Warren would be much more effective if she spent her time discussing specific reasons why she is against it instead of the nonsense she is floating which she must know is BS.

BUT she's the current Demi-God here, so like Obama in 2007 most here will drool over her no matter what. Ugh.

[Cha]

75. Again, thank you.. I agree with what Tommy Christopher said in his article, too. He explains

it thoroughly.

[AtomicKitten]

77. It's probably just a coincidence the rec's are all from Clinton supporters.

Talk about playing politics ....

wink wink nudge nudge

[MaggieD]

80. I support whichever Democrat

...has the best chance of beating a republican candidate. Period.

[merrily]

84. And also just a coincidence that most of the strongest Obama supporters are also the

strongest Clinton supporters.

And that Reply 80 has such a familiar ring t it.

It's just one big random world on DU, isn't it?

[JustAnotherGen]

95. I rec'd it - and I'm not a Clinton supporter

O'Malley is my top pick. He's a long term Democratic Party member with Executive experience. As a donor to his PAC - I'm asking him to clarify why he has made the statements he has made. He's not an elected official at this point in time . . . I want to know what he knows and why he knows it.

[merrily]

136. In this case, Obama supporter would be more relevant.

[merrily]

83. I'll see your ugh and raise you two yuckies and a nana nana boo boo.

News Flash: Finding an opinion hit piece that supports the position you wanted to take does not make you an informed citizen.

(I just knew this post was going to be funnier than the one before and I was not disappointed.)

[MaggieD]

107. Where did I say...

I formed my opinion based on the article? No, I said I agreed with it BECAUSE I've informed myself about the TPP.

READ for comprehension.

[merrily]

129. YOU read for comprehension. I said you found an article that supported the position you wanted to

take in the first place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026560570#post81

[merrily]

87. Pot. Kettle.

[MaggieD]

109. Uh no

You won't catch me posting silly pictures to insult anyone in place of a cogent argument. Ever. Not my style. I'd either respond with reasons why I disagree or skip it. Not my nature to do otherwise.

[merrily]

137. Uh, yes. Point was, your response was no more "adult level" than the poster you

were addressing, nor did your post take less time than hers. Whether it was a pic or words is irrelevant.

[merrily]

86. This thread proves one thing. Some of us tend to think anyone who agrees with the position we want

to take anyway is a teller of truths, an owner of facts and an unimpeachable source.

[MaggieD]

113. I disagree

The whole point of the thread is that I am against the TPP (just like Warren, apparently) but not in favor of her using BS reasons instead of articulating very specific reasons to be against it in its current form.

Obama is right - the ship is going to sail with or without us. Obama should be leveraging that for funds for worker retraining and education due to the clear implication the TPP will have on the low skilled worker market.

If Warren were holding his feet to the fire with that argument she could do some good. But instead she is pretending it's a secret. BS.

[merrily]

128. No surprise. However, you haven't proven she used bs. Your OP article is ridiculous.

The writing is below that of good posters here on a bad day. And almost half of it is about an offense to Obama that the author either imagined or made up. It's lame. It meets no journalistic standard whatever.

[eridani]

97. "ANY trade talks" of the past 20 years have been strictly devoted to--

--fucking over the 99%.

[mulsh]

102. A tenured professor at Harvard adept at playing political games? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

That is one of the many reason I admire her and if she were running in CA I would vote for her in a nanosecond.

[notadmblnd]

103. If Democrats treated republicans like they are treating Ms. Warren, they'd win more elections

[merrily]

147. Maybe. And maybe they'd only come off as squabblers.

I think this thing with Obama and Warren is unseemly. If they whole party were doing it

However, if Democrats treated us the way Warren says she wants us to be treated, then, we're talking elections.

[fadedrose]

111. Politicians might be "convinced"

to vote against the bill, or for it, because of the persuasion and threats of their constituents, who may not reelect them. That's what worries the President.

They have to be convinced that it's in the best interest of the country, not their own best interest. And if their constituents want the bill passed for selfish reasons, the politician must vote against it if it's that's in the country's best interest.

It's best all of us don't know until it goes to the House for full disclosure and debate. Those lawsuits against us from other countries has people spooked and needs to be explained..

[Aerows]

114. Republicans LOVE the TPP

Paul Ryan loves it. Many Democrats do not support it.

Uh, yeah, I'm suspicious that what is in it is going to be horrible - particularly the whole "terms won't be made public until it is in effect for 4 years".

I'm REALLY suspicious.

[MaggieD]

118. Agreed

But how is pretending it's secret to gain political points going to help? THAT is what this thread is about.

It's going to happen with or without the USA involved. She would be better off leveraging that to advocate for more funds for worker training, STEM training, free community college, etc. this BS criticism of Obama is not going to do shit for workers or the party agenda.

[Aerows]

121. It is secret

The only thing the public has seen is what has been leaked, and what has been leaked is horrible.

There is a clause in it that the full details can't be made public until it has been in effect for 4 years.

Have you personally seen what they are reviewing right now, because I haven't. Like I said - I've seen the leaked preliminary version. Nobody except a handful of folks in Congress have seen what is in it currently, and the people who like it are people I wouldn't trust to run a grade school bake sale.

[MaggieD]

126. The framework is public

If you dont know what it is it's because you havent informed yourself. Beyond that there is no final agreement to review because it has not been finalized.

Anyone who does not know that treaties and trade pacts are negotiated outside of public view doesn't understand the normal process of negotiations. Warren is not stupid. Therefore she is playing political games.

She could be more effective engaging in an actual discussion about the pact. And what the US should be doing in regard to it.

[merrily]

142. PROVE she is being deceptive when she says America will not like it.

You have not done that and neither did the crap article you quoted in the OP.

[MaggieD]

145. I didn't say that

I said she was being deceptive in saying its a secret. So your comment is a strawman.

[MaggieD]

174. I didn't say she was being deceptive about that....

reading for comprehension is fundamental to any debate. Try again.

[hollowdweller]

116. I think Warren and the Dems should hold the TPP hostage just like the GOP does all the time.

30 years of trade agreements what have we got??

Some consumer goods are a little cheaper to buy because the people who took our jobs work for less, so we are able to buy them on our declining salaries.

However some people have got really rich but not the US middle class.

Meanwhile mandatory overtime, getting fired for stuff you say on the internet, moms HAVING to work and pay for childcare, less and less people with weekends off. No defined pensions. Massive part time.

I think until we see some stuff like sick leave, increased min wage, vacation, we don't let them have anything else. What other bargaining chip do we have??

Bravo Warren for playing politics with it on behalf of the middle class. Shame most dems won't go along. She's obviously learned how the game is played now. Unfortunately the GOP plays it more than the dems do.

[Aerows]

119. I agree

30 years of trade agreements and the middle class has tanked.

It's not just Warren, either. SEVERAL Democrats - Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, many others - have stated it is toxic. Based on what has been leaked, it certainly looks toxic to me.

And what about the clause that the full details won't be made public until 4 years after it goes into effect? Uh, that doesn't make me feel very good either.

[merrily]

140. Yep. Grayson, Lee, Sanders, Brown and others. Not only Warren.

But that's not the point. The OP is claiming Warren lied and provided zero evidence for that claim, other than an abysmal article.

[freshwest]

131. Appreciate your courage here and elsewhere. n/t

[great white snark]

152. Hear hear. Efforts are much appreciated MaggieD.

[madfloridian]

151. Well, since this administration sold public education to the highest bidder....

I would say my trust lies more with Elizabeth Warren.

[Cha]

158. Yeah, and she's playing another one now.. with her latest..

"put up or shut up" to the President.. according to someone poster.

EW knows it will be revealed before a vote. She's playing games.

meta ‎@metaquest
But Congress will have all the details of TPP and the public will have online access BEFORE a vote.
6:49 AM - 25 Apr 2015

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/04/25/rise-and-shine-1048/

[Number23]

167. Some people sure have taken an interest in your OP. Consider it a (revolting and unwanted) complimen

I'm recing merely because of your contention that Warren is a politician and plays games just like ALL of the rest of them do.

Some people want to act like she doesn't and is somehow "above" all of that. They are naïve and/or stupid. The woman voted for Ronald freaking Reagan and now has the liberalist of the liberalies thinking she's one of them. She is a player and by the likes of it, a DAMN good one.

[MaggieD]

175. Precisely

That's my point. It is silly that we elevate any politician to demi-god status. I saw people at DU do that with Obama, and then they were SHOCKED! to discover he is just a politician like every other politician.

[merrily]

176. Actually, Number 23, you don't know whether Warren ever voted for Reagan or not.

No one who keeps repeating that talking point knows. Warren has been asked if she voted for Reagan while she was a Republican and did not say. She's never said. She could have stayed home or voted for someone else.

I've been a Democrat almost since I said my first word. It was in the air my family breathed. However, that statement doesn't tell you that I have voted for in every single election or that I have voted Democratic in every single election. Though it's none of anyone's damned business, I downright love voting and have never voted for anyone but a Democrat, even some name at the bottom of the ticket I don't know. But, unless I specify that, you don't know. And Warren has never specified.

Defending Warren against a poorly written claim by Tommy Christopher, a writer for the Daily Banter,, that she lied is not an indicium of stupidity. To the contrary.

Warren seems to be the only Democrat on this board that (a) no Hillary supporter wants to see run in the primary and (b)no Hillary supporter even wants to see defended against an attack by an webzine writer who writes worse than a semi-interesting DU poster. Half the article is a slight he imagined that, of all people, Rachel Maddow made to Obama, simply because Maddow introduced Warren the same way she had introduced every legislator on her show since she started in broadcasting.

What do you suppose accounts for (a) and (b) that is? Hasn't it ever, even once, occurred to a poster like you, who considers himself or herself to be smarter than other DUers, to wonder about that, even a little?

[Number23]

177. Now that she's the liberal queen, she was asked point blank if she voted for Reagan and "declined"

to answer. Pretty sure any smart person knows that means.

As for the rest of your post, it is long winded and tortured and I have absolutely no idea why you directed it to me but it is obvious that you are EXTREMELY invested in this judging by the extensive number of responses from you in this thread.

I have not seen Hillary supporters act nearly as feral here as Warren ones have and the evidence that she lied is pretty significant.

[merrily]

178. Zero evidence on either issue, but you'll believe what you want.

As far as feral, long winded, tortured etc. there was not one insult to you in my post, so feral that.

[Number23]

179. And you're as touchy as you are invested.

Those were comments on your post, not you. But if you want to take them as insults, be my guest. Makes no difference at all to me.

As for the "evidence of the issues" I wasn't aware that you had even addressed any issues in that long post of yours beyond tossing out alot of accusations and word salad. If you think that Elizabeth Warren voting for Regan is an "issue" then I guess it is. Again, your many posts don't make much sense to me.

[sadoldgirl]

168. unrec! n/t