Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

think

(11,641 posts)
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:10 AM Apr 2015

A reminder to the Fast Track supporters. 151 House Democrats signed a letter opposing it.

So while Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell work hard to get the Fast Track authority remember these folks are on the record as being opposed to it:

DeLauro, Miller Lead 151 House Dems Telling President They Will Not Support Outdated Fast Track For Trans-Pacific Partnership

~Snip~

The full letter is as follows:


Dear President Obama:



We write to express our serious concern with the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a potential agreement of tremendous consequence for our country. Specifically, we remain deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact that deeply implicates Congress’ constitutional and domestic policy authorities.



For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content. While your Administration’s goal was to sign a TPP FTA at the October 2013 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, we believe that to date the process has failed to provide adequate consultation with Congress.



Such opportunity for input from Congress is critical as the TPP FTA will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress.

Beyond traditional tariff issues, these include policies related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, competition, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, e-commerce, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.



In light of the broad scope of today’s trade agreements, it is even more vital that Congress have a fulsome role in shaping these pacts’ terms. Given our concerns, we will oppose “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority or any other mechanism delegating Congress’ constitutional authority over trade policy that continues to exclude us from having a meaningful role in the formative stages of trade agreements and throughout negotiating and approval processes.



Congress, not the Executive Branch, must determine when an agreement meets the objectives Congress sets in the exercise of its Article I-8 exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade. For instance, an agreement that does not specifically meet congressional negotiating objectives must not receive preferential consideration in Congress. A new trade agreement negotiation and approval process that restores a robust role for Congress is essential to achieving U.S. trade agreements that can secure prosperity for the greatest number of Americans, while preserving the vital tenets of American democracy in the era of globalization.



Twentieth Century “Fast Track” is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements and must be replaced. The United States cannot afford another trade agreement that replicates the mistakes of the past. We can and must do better.



We are deeply committed to transforming U.S. trade policy into a tool for creating and retaining family-wage jobs in America, safeguarding the environment, maintaining consumer protection and improving the quality of life throughout the country. We look forward to working with you to ensure that Congress and the Executive Branch are working together to meet that critical goal.



Sincerely,



Rosa L. DeLauro

George Miller

Louise M. Slaughter

Nydia M. Velazquez

Bennie G. Thompson

John Conyers, Jr.

Jim McDermott

Nick J. Rahall, II

Robert A. Brady

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger

Michael H.Michaud

Marcy Kaptur

Linda T. Sanchez

Peter A. DeFazio

Sam Farr

James P McGovern

John F. Tierney

Frederica S. Wilson

Andre Carson

Niki Tsongas

Patrick E. Murphy

Zoe Lofgren

Alcee L. Hastings

Tim Ryan

Michael M. Honda

Betty McCollum

Barbara Lee

Gary C. Peters

Ed Pastor

Henry A. Waxman

Lloyd Doggett

Chellie Pingree

Daniel T. Kildee

Janice D. Schakowsky

Danny K. Davis

Jerrold Nadler

José E. Serrano

Chaka Fattah

Timothy J. Walz

Timothy H. Bishop

John A. Yarmuth

Elijah E. Cummings

Peter Welch

Albio Sires

Steve Israel

Maxine Waters

Loretta Sanchez

Ann McLane Kuster

Yvette D. Clarke

Anna G. Eshoo

Carolyn B. Maloney

Carolyn McCarthy

Cheri Bustos

Bobby L. Rush

Elizabeth H. Esty

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.

Daniel Lipinski

Paul Tonko

Eleanor Holmes Norton

Richard M. Nolan

Brad Sherman

Brian Higgins

Carol Shea-Porter

Corrine Brown

John D. Dingell

Donald M. Payne, Jr.

Gene Green

Lois Capps

Jared Huffman

Julia Brownley

William L. Enyart

Michelle Lujan Grisham

Rush Holt

Alan S. Lowenthal

Daniel B. Maffei

Alan Grayson

David Loebsack

Mark Pocan

Terri A. Sewell

Al Green

Grace Meng

Sean Patrick Maloney

Frank Pallone, Jr.

Joyce Beatty

Adam B. Schiff

Judy Chu

Stephen F. Lynch

Keith Ellison

John Lewis

Ben Ray Luján

Emanuel Cleaver

John Garamendi

Peter J. Visclosky

Luis V. Gutiérrez

Michael F. Doyle

David N. Cicilline

Donna F. Edwards

David Scott

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Matthew A. Cartwright

Raúl M. Grijalva

Hakeem S. Jeffries

Marcia L. Fudge

Jackie Speier

Lois Frankel

William R. Keating

Eric Swalwell

James R. Langevin

Robin Kelly

Joseph P. Kennedy

Robert E. Andrews

Steve Cohen

Steven A. Horsford

Gloria Negrete McLeod

Tulsi Gabbard

Ron Barber

Joe Courtney

John P. Sarbanes

Raul Ruiz

Jerry McNerney

Dina Titus

Bill Pascrell, Jr.

James E. Clyburn

Sheila Jackson Lee

Mark Takano

Bruce L. Braley

Ann Kirkpatrick

Karen Bass

Juan Vargas

Janice Hahn

Nita M. Lowey

Eliot L. Engel

Grace F. Napolitano

Gwen Moore

Filemon Vela

Beto O’Rourke

Mike McIntyre

Robert C. "Bobby" Scott

G. K. Butterfield

Theodore E. Deutch

Kyrsten Sinema

William L. Owens

Hank Johnson

Kathy Castor

Collin C. Peterson

Ruben Hinojosa

Allyson Y. Schwartz

Kurt Schrader

Colleen Hanabusa

Scott Peters


http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21
58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A reminder to the Fast Track supporters. 151 House Democrats signed a letter opposing it. (Original Post) think Apr 2015 OP
They must all be wrong too! 99Forever Apr 2015 #1
Now now now. Those 151 House Democrats are dishonest and wrong. They never read it. Autumn Apr 2015 #2
"Outdated" Fast Track. I think that sums it up very well for me. stillwaiting Apr 2015 #3
How old is that? Some of those people are gone. Renew Deal Apr 2015 #4
Fairly desperate, out dated, irrelevant posting...but it brings out a dozen ODS folks to Rec it. Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #10
November 2013 cali Apr 2015 #25
If only all Democrats, including our supposed leaders, were as wise. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #5
This letter expresses concerns with the process and enforcement of regulations. DCBob Apr 2015 #6
That's the problem, yeah? procon Apr 2015 #24
Are you saying these democrats awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #36
Your words, not mine, yeah? procon Apr 2015 #37
No, your words awoke_in_2003 Apr 2015 #38
Jeebus... procon Apr 2015 #41
They are racists who never liked the president Doctor_J Apr 2015 #7
This is from 2013... Triana Apr 2015 #8
Reminder to all DU folk....you voted for Obama twice because you trusted him...why leave now? Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #9
No, I voted the first time because I trusted him n2doc Apr 2015 #11
Obama has done everything he could possibly do and then some and now it is time for the Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #13
Bull. 99Forever Apr 2015 #22
We will just have to differ on your first point. n/t n2doc Apr 2015 #34
X 1000 ctsnowman Apr 2015 #16
Obama was the lesser of 2 evils Larkspur Apr 2015 #19
Most who voted for Obama are not likely to call other voters voting the same "Obama-bots"! Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #21
Yes Democrats and Progressives do do that to those Larkspur Apr 2015 #31
Welcome to Ignore List, Number 32. Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #32
Why? 99Forever Apr 2015 #20
I voted for him based on things he said The first time and because cali Apr 2015 #26
Why is a Brit like yourself so concerned about the TPP?..You have your own TPP-like trade deal whathehell Apr 2015 #29
I only voted for Obama once bigwillq Apr 2015 #35
Not "trust." McCain/Palin and then Mittens were enough to get me running to the polls. SMC22307 Apr 2015 #40
please don't presume to know my intentions ibegurpard Apr 2015 #51
Bump....nt Jesus Malverde Apr 2015 #12
I'm a fast-track supporter... PosterChild Apr 2015 #14
Well, that sure sold me on it... brentspeak Apr 2015 #27
Obama knows what's ... PosterChild Apr 2015 #42
Trade deals have done exactly the opposite of what the supporters claimed Joe Turner Apr 2015 #54
How nice of them to provide Obama with a Traitors List. Jackpine Radical Apr 2015 #15
And if this agreement is fast-tracked, it will be debated and voted upon. Guaranteed. Buzz Clik Apr 2015 #17
Because Democrats are powerless to stop a bad agreement "debated and voted on" mean little TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #28
Trade deals are not possible without , .. PosterChild Apr 2015 #43
Pass a constitutional amendment if prescribed processes don't work. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #44
Why? The fast track law... PosterChild Apr 2015 #45
Simple, the scope of these agreements are exactly why the treaty process was designed TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #46
The treaty process was not "designed" .... PosterChild Apr 2015 #47
If you don't like it then change it, that is the process not whatever is convenient for capital. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #48
Yes, that is . .. PosterChild Apr 2015 #49
The process is set in the Constitution, it is not a mere congressional rule. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #52
And, BTW, this is exactly what is happening . .. PosterChild Apr 2015 #50
If it is a treaty it should be ratified via the enumerated process. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #53
How ironic you said this: Oilwellian Apr 2015 #55
The obstructionists are those who .... PosterChild Apr 2015 #58
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #18
I have deep sense of affection for those House Democrats. Enthusiast Apr 2015 #23
Again... Can't believe people are falling for this shit (esp. DU'ers). AzDar Apr 2015 #30
"only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. ... Republican majority oppose . pampango Apr 2015 #33
88 per cent of those polled thought "fast track" meant faster NASCAR racing. Fred Sanders Apr 2015 #56
My rule is: whenever I disagree with poll results on an issue it just means pampango Apr 2015 #57
President Obaba supports it though. NaturalHigh Apr 2015 #39

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
2. Now now now. Those 151 House Democrats are dishonest and wrong. They never read it.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:17 AM
Apr 2015

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have joined our President and are working hard with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to get this passed for the good of the American people.
Haters all of them along with a bunch of Democrats from the Senate. And their staffer all suck too cause none of them can read.

Did I get it all?






Wow is the world fucked or what.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
3. "Outdated" Fast Track. I think that sums it up very well for me.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:18 AM
Apr 2015

Our government is in the grip of multinational corporate interests to such a large extent today that for all intents and purposes we live in a plutocracy (Princeton Study).

Since I do believe that's the case, these "trade agreements" that are so massive in scope simply can not be conducted amidst such secrecy any longer when so much is at stake and they would be so difficult to amend or exit.

It is clear that TPTB are putting in all kinds of corporate goodies that they most likely couldn't pass through regular legislative efforts so it's time to shut down this Fast Track process. And, I don't care if Bernie Sanders becomes President. I'd be against it for him too.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
25. November 2013
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:28 PM
Apr 2015

The overwhelming majority of house dems oppose it. This has nothing to do with the bullshit claim of gods or racism or whatever disgusting false charges you habitually toss out.

You want to unquestioningly trust the President on everything as you've boasted you do? Fine, but accusing those who don't support him on this or other issues of being motivated by deranged hatred or racism? That is behavior that is shameful.

Shame, shame, shame on you, fred

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
6. This letter expresses concerns with the process and enforcement of regulations.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:28 AM
Apr 2015

They don't say they oppose it completely. Amendments to the TPA may satisfy many of them.

procon

(15,805 posts)
24. That's the problem, yeah?
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:16 PM
Apr 2015

They all want to tuck in their own bits... a new defense contract for the workers back home, another hit job on gays, women, immigrants... and they can't, so its all doom and gloom rhetoric that "the sky is falling". When its release for public review, I suspect these same politicians will be talking out of the other side of their mouth.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
36. Are you saying these democrats
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:08 PM
Apr 2015

oppose it because they want to tuck in some anti-lgbt, anti-woman, and anti-immigrant legislation?

procon

(15,805 posts)
37. Your words, not mine, yeah?
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:27 PM
Apr 2015

Democrats are politicians, no less than Republicans. Given the opportunity, I have no doubt they'd find a few projects they love to see added too. So its a good thing none of 'em will be able to that.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
38. No, your words
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:30 PM
Apr 2015

That is a list of democratic lawmakers, and you claim they are upset because they want to "tuck in" anti-gay, woman, etc, legislation

"They all want to tuck in their own bits... a new defense contract for the workers back home, another hit job on gays, women, immigrants... and they can't, so its all doom and gloom rhetoric that "the sky is falling". When its release for public review, I suspect these same politicians will be talking out of the other side of their mouth."


On edit-did a cut and paste from your post

procon

(15,805 posts)
41. Jeebus...
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:57 PM
Apr 2015

"They" being inclusive, is not limited to one group or the other. Find a better argument before jumping on that high horse.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
9. Reminder to all DU folk....you voted for Obama twice because you trusted him...why leave now?
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:23 AM
Apr 2015

And there is a thing called "time" and a word called "topical".

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
11. No, I voted the first time because I trusted him
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:34 AM
Apr 2015

The second time I voted for him because the alternative was far worse. But he betrayed my trust in the first term enough to consign him to the "just another pol" camp. Nothing he has done since then has changed that opinion.

If HRC is the nominee I suspect I will feel the same way as I did in 2012.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
13. Obama has done everything he could possibly do and then some and now it is time for the
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:47 AM
Apr 2015

Dynamic Duo to occupy the WH again and finish the job Obama began.

American liberal peace revolutionaries are maybe just too impatient, bless them, but don't revolutions without violence take time also to shake out?

Obama is transitional, not revolutionary. It took 70 years for the French Revolution to shake out, remember? Despite the TV and movie versions.

America needs maybe another 10 to 20.

 

Larkspur

(12,804 posts)
19. Obama was the lesser of 2 evils
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 11:34 AM
Apr 2015

Obama, who wants to model himself after our B rated president, Ronnie Reagan, did not earn my trust.
Most who voted for him were not Obama-bots.

 

Larkspur

(12,804 posts)
31. Yes Democrats and Progressives do do that to those
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 02:02 PM
Apr 2015

who blindly agree with Obama on everything and are thinned skinned when Obama is attacked by Democrats and Progressives.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
20. Why?
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 11:38 AM
Apr 2015

That's the most disingenuous thing I've read in months.

You must really think we are idiots, don't you?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
26. I voted for him based on things he said The first time and because
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:31 PM
Apr 2015

I didn't want Romney to win, the second.

On some issues he hasn't earned my trust

whathehell

(28,969 posts)
29. Why is a Brit like yourself so concerned about the TPP?..You have your own TPP-like trade deal
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:52 PM
Apr 2015

coming to Europe...Why are you so worried about this one?

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
35. I only voted for Obama once
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 06:14 PM
Apr 2015

in 2008. Did not vote for him in 2012.

And I should add: I've never trusted Obama. But, to be fair to Obama, I don't trust any politician.

edited

SMC22307

(8,088 posts)
40. Not "trust." McCain/Palin and then Mittens were enough to get me running to the polls.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 07:37 PM
Apr 2015

Plus 8 years of Dubya. I voted for Obama because of the "D" behind his name. Don't try to make it into any more than that.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
51. please don't presume to know my intentions
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 08:58 PM
Apr 2015

The first time I voted for him because I trusted him. The second time I voted for him because the alternative was completely unacceptable.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
14. I'm a fast-track supporter...
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:53 AM
Apr 2015

...it's basically the only way a trade deal can get done and trade is VERY important to the American economy and ALL of the American people.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
42. Obama knows what's ...
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:50 PM
Apr 2015

.... what's good for our country, Brent. As he said, if we aren't engaged and leading the process, we will be left behind and left out by those who do. Globalization is the next stage in human history and the United States should and will lead the way. We are, truly, a trans-national "nation" - we are the future.

 

Joe Turner

(930 posts)
54. Trade deals have done exactly the opposite of what the supporters claimed
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 10:00 PM
Apr 2015

Free trade supporters including Obama have zero credibility on the issue of trade. World trade is essential. One-way trade deals written by corporate lobbyists are not. The latter has decimated this country's manufacturing base and lowered our standard of living. There is no hiding from that.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
15. How nice of them to provide Obama with a Traitors List.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:53 AM
Apr 2015

Although there are a few surprises on the list. Collin Peterson not voting with the Republicans is maybe the main one.

I see my own "beloved" Ron Kind didn't make the list.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
17. And if this agreement is fast-tracked, it will be debated and voted upon. Guaranteed.
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 11:21 AM
Apr 2015

What the hell is the problem?

In the year and a half since that letter was written, Congress has not had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the President? REALLY?

TheKentuckian

(24,949 posts)
28. Because Democrats are powerless to stop a bad agreement "debated and voted on" mean little
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:45 PM
Apr 2015

when the crooks have the numbers.

This garbage should go through the formal treaty process considering the scope, I believe fast track is is nothing but an invention to end around constitutional muster so the people who profit from them can slide them through with minimal fuss and make it neigh on unto impossible for the people getting screwed to stop the efforts.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
43. Trade deals are not possible without , ..
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:01 PM
Apr 2015

... without the fast track. It's an end run around around a disfunctional and archaic process that never worked very well from the get-go. Sort of like declarations of war vs. the general war authorization bill and the usefulness of a standing army vs state militias.

That's why it was put in place. And that's why it's going to be around long -term.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
45. Why? The fast track law...
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:04 PM
Apr 2015

.... is perfectly constitutional and can be tailored and updated as is necessary to the times and for the circumstances. What good would a constitutional amendment do?

My impression of those who advocate constitutional amendments every time some policy choice they oppose is on the table is that they are simply obstructionists who are attempting to get their way without having to argue the merits.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
47. The treaty process was not "designed" ....
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:42 PM
Apr 2015

... in any reasonablee sense of the word. It was specified speculatively and a priori back in 1787. They didn't exactly get it right at the time and, considering that was the 18th century and we are now in the 2st, it certainly is no better now.

We aren't going to ammend the Constitution. We are, however, going to continue to negotiate and enter into broad trade agreements. You might as well get used to it. It's not only the future of America, it's the future of humanity.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
49. Yes, that is . ..
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 08:42 PM
Apr 2015

.... what the fast track legislation does. It changes it. It's a law passed by the legislature that defines the parameters and process for ratification of a treaty. The constitution gives the legislature the power to define its rules and procedures (look it up) so this is perfectly constitutional.

If you don't like it, too bad. The world isn't going to stop moving forward simply because you have a gripe.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
50. And, BTW, this is exactly what is happening . ..
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 08:55 PM
Apr 2015

... with the Iranian nuclear negotiations. We don't hear a lot of constitutional blah blah blah about it though, because DUers generally support it, while it's the Republicans who are being the obstructionists.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
55. How ironic you said this:
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 10:35 PM
Apr 2015
My impression of those who advocate constitutional amendments every time some policy choice they oppose is on the table is that they are simply obstructionists who are attempting to get their way without having to argue the merits.


Fast Track Authority prevents Congress from arguing the merits of a trade deal and offering amendments to change policies they don't agree with. Who are the real obstructionists here?

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
58. The obstructionists are those who ....
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:18 PM
Apr 2015

...would rather blah blah blah about the Constitution rather than argue the merits. The merits will be argued and the deal will be subject to an up or down vote, rather than be fillbustered in typical obstructionist fashon. Constitutional blather is a way of avoiding discussion of the merits. A process that enables meaningful negotiations and then subjects the results to majority vote is reasonable and practical.

A limitation on amendments is necessary to negotiating a complex, wide ranging trade deal. The president can't negotiate in good faith if he can't make reasonable trade offs and promises that will hold up. If the deal is amended, then it's off, as far as the other countries are concerned. The president can't negotiate it over and over again each time congress decides to cherry pick provisions. That is unreasonable and too much to expect of others. We would never be taken seriously by the rest of the world, and we would lose or ability to lead and influence other nations and peoples. We would also losing the material advantages that global trade brings to us.

Those off us, like Obama and Clinton, who are progressive and want America to maintain and advance our standing in the world, to move the world forward and to advance the cause of liberal democracy, aren't going to roll over and play dead.

Response to think (Original post)

 

AzDar

(14,023 posts)
30. Again... Can't believe people are falling for this shit (esp. DU'ers).
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:59 PM
Apr 2015

The Obama Cult of Personality is hella strong, I guess...

pampango

(24,692 posts)
33. "only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. ... Republican majority oppose .
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 04:13 PM
Apr 2015

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
56. 88 per cent of those polled thought "fast track" meant faster NASCAR racing.
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:20 AM
Apr 2015

Who thinks polling the American public on TPP means anything?

This is the general American public, remember.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
57. My rule is: whenever I disagree with poll results on an issue it just means
Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:17 AM
Apr 2015

that the general American public does not understand the issue as well as I do. Politicians should ignore the public and listen to me and the smaller fraction of the population who is well-informed on that issue.

When I agree with poll results it means that the general American public is wise and informed and politicians should listen to the American public and me. The common thread is: politicians should listen to me. I agree with you on that.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A reminder to the Fast Tr...