Guess which "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty" opposed TPA?

[ucrdem]

Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)

If you guessed Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump, you'd be close, as they've both come out publicly against TPA. But the winner is My Old Kentucky Home-boy Rand Paul: *

May 11, 2015

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has emerged as a top spokesman for a view on trade legislation that could complicate President Barack Obama's push to pass a major Pacific trade pact.

The 2016 presidential candidate says he is a "big believer in free trade" but has qualms about the legislation, known as fast track, designed to help pass major trade deals with limited involvement by the Senate. Some other Republicans are expressing similar misgivings in both the House and Senate.

{snip}

But on Monday, Mr. Paul told WMUR in New Hampshire that he opposed fast track, in part, because of his frustration about the secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"I've told leadership I'm a 'no' vote on trade promotion authority," Mr. Paul told the station, according to an account on WMUR.com. "I'm hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven't seen." He said he might be persuaded in the future to back fast track if he approved of provisions in the TPP.

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/rand-pauls-fast-track-dilemmaupdate-20150511-01586#ixzz3aIvcFiKc

So stand with Rand takes the prize again. Here's the "sovereignty" quote:

GOP Rep. Steve Russell of Oklahoma, who calls himself a "constitutional conservative," says opening up trade is " not a bad thing," but won't vote for fast track. Rep. Walter Jones (R., N.C.), who opposes fast track, called Mr. Paul the "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty."

..................

*note: "My Old Kentucky Home" is the official Kentucky state song.
http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/kentucky/state-quarter-state-song/my-old-kentucky-home

[cali]

1. I can see your rand and raise you by a 1,000

equally creepy rebuke and corporate assholes. Duh.

And I can counter him with at least a thousand liberals. Double duh

[ucrdem]

3. When the going gets tough, Obama gets to push the rock up the hill by himself.

Nothing unusual there.

[cali]

6. what does that have to do with YOU trying to misrepresent who stands

with the President with this and who stands against him? Zip. The fact remains that the pig shit worst stand with him and the best- people and organizations and lawmakers- who actually fight for people and the environment, stand against him.

Are there exceptions? Yes, but the field is so lopsided that your op is a joke.

[Scootaloo]

28. So you don't actually care what the TPA is or is not, only who's promoting it?

[ucrdem]

37. Both. TPA is necessary because the trade deals are inevitable.

And if there's going to be any effort to make the best of them it's going to be by making sure Obama negotiates them. It's like infrastructure expansion: you can either stick your neck out and push through high-speed rail, like Jerry Brown is doing in California, or you can privatize existing right of ways and add massively inegalitarian toll lanes, like Governator did, or you can do nothing and let existing systems antiquate, like the GOP congress is apparently content to do with Amtrack.

That's not a perfect analogy but basically I'm going with Jerry and Barack as I believe they have a vision of a better future and so far haven't been wrong on the macro-economics. On a micro level there's room for disagreement but these trade deals operate at the level of international accord and I support accord over discord any day of the week.

[Joe Turner]

115. Job Killing trade deals are only inevitable

If one assumes are leaders are always right, and we let the billionaire class as represented by republicans run roughshod over our political process. Does it bother you in the least the TPP is fully supported by the republican party? Or that our manufacturing base has been devastated due to to trade deals like TPP?

[ucrdem]

116. TPP was under negotiation before the US got involved.

Trade is a good thing. War is a bad thing. That's the underlying reality. Yes, of course, the labor implications are concerning but the reason Obama is pushing it is to create good jobs. And I don't think we've yet seen a deal like TPP which is why I'm anxious to see the details, not just the bits convenient to Darryl and Jules and their swiftboating puppet masters.

[Joe Turner]

118. Trade has nothing to do with TPP, Nafta, Cafta

Or any of the other corporate written trade boondoggles. America was the leading exporter and had the largest trade surplus well before these trade deals. Insinuating that this country must give up its wealth generating manufacturing base to avoid war is just flat out ridiculous. Rather, a country that losses its ability to manufacture will also lose its ability to innovate and its ability to defend itself from nations that have the industrial power to assert themselves globally. One does not have to see the details of TPP to know the track record of such deals have left a path of economic destruction throughout our country. Here Obama is no different than country club republicans.

[ucrdem]

119. TPP is definitely about trade.

There are lots of chapters but they're all related to regularizing regulation so to speak of various aspects of international commerce (country of origin labeling for instance) and its effects (labor and environmental concerns notably). The draft chapter that's been floating around the web since 2012 (IP) also is 100% trade related at a rather eye-glazing level of specificity.

USTR fact sheet listing chapter topics: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg

[Joe Turner]

120. TPP is about trade as NAFTA is about trade

The labor and environmental rules will be ignored and the corporate freedom to operate with few restrictions will be followed. As Bob Dylan once said "You don't need a weather to tell you which way the wind is blowing". Maybe this agreement works for your business but it certainly won't for most Americans.

[Scootaloo]

121. it doesn't matter what is done so long as there is doing?

Such brainless sycophantry is best kept to th Cave.

[Major Hogwash]

31. He doesn't need Congress' approval.

He could enter in to this trade agreement without them, and will, if they keep screwing with it.

[ucrdem]

38. I think you're right about the negotiations at least.

Apparently the negotiations have been proceeding without Congressional agreement since 2012 or so by I think he's going to need their consent to get it ratified, and without TPA he'd need 2/3 vote. Haven't looked into it recently though.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. Poor, put-upon Barack Obama.

I feel so sorry for him!

[sabrina 1]

80. Guess who supports Obama on that uphill push? Mitch McConnell, any idea WHY he

is helping him?

[ucrdem]

88. He's the majority leader and it's bipartisan legislation.

He basically doesn't have a choice.

[cali]

2. you asked for it, uc, pal.

Ted Cruz is all in. Marco Rubio is for it. and don't forget Turtle and Bonehead. In fact, the vast majority of the repukes in Congress.

Charles Krauthammer. Scum banksters, chamber of commerce.

bzzzt super fail. embarrassing fail.

Everyone knows that by and large, the best oppose this piece of crap agreement and the worst of the worst in this country support it.

You can try and misrepresent who supports and opposes but everyone can see your transparent little ploy.

[ucrdem]

4. I'm proud to say that I do not stand with Rand.

Others can make their own beds and lie in them. No pun intended.

[cali]

8. YOU stand with Ted Cruz, my dear- and people and organizations even worse.

thousands of them.

[ucrdem]

9. Actually I don't. nt

[cali]

10. yeah, sure do.You're on the same side

Yeah, Rand Paul is on "my side", but as far as who is opposed to this deal, he's one of the few repuke creeps in Congress who are opposed. If you insist that I stand with rand, you sure the fuck stand in the sewer with the worst of the worst- including cruz- and oh so many more.

[Cal Carpenter]

11. You don't get to have it both ways

Your argument is hilarious. Is this 5th grade or something?

[MannyGoldstein]

16. It's a clever way of uncloseting witches

[djean111]

17. No, it is YOU who want it both ways - you, evidently, stand with the GOP. Hmmmmm......

[neverforget]

22. Your cognitive dissonance is extraordinary.

[ucrdem]

24. What dissonance?

I happen to think that the guy I voted for four times is doing all the heavy lifting while the independents and come-lately's are exploiting the issue to make a buck. We're allowed to disagree.

[Scootaloo]

29. Yeah, you do.

They're for the TPA. You're for the TPA. If those of us who oppose it "stand with Rand" as you cast it, well then you're definitly cruisin' with Cruz... and pretty much every other Republican.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Yes, you do. If you can post this OP and make your accusations, it's only fair

...to point out that you're willingly in bed with the Republican Party. I have more self respect than to get in bed with these cretins.

[ucrdem]

54. TMI. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. I'm not the one in bed. That'd be you, sport-o.

[pampango]

14. On TPA you stand with the Democratic base, particularly its liberal wing.

They are pretty much the only group that supports TPA. The republican base, particularly the tea party wing, hates it with a passion.

But there are 'strange bedfellows' on all sides of this one.

[ucrdem]

18. Thanks pampango . . .

That doesn't seem so hard to fathom but the issue has been demagogued up one side and down the other and by now it's completely unrecognizable. I skimmed the purloined IP chapter and once you get past Julian's ominous introduction it's basically a lot of rules giving record companies and the like a little cover from getting their wares illicitly peddled in various media. Well, good luck with that. The drug business I didn't see. Possibly it's in another section. But the IP chapter is about as far from Black Helicopters as Ask Jeeves is from Brave New World. No connection basically.

[cali]

26. this just isn't true. the polls may not have caught up

with the dem base, but do some digging. I just posted a story about the flack that Joaquin Castro is getting for not having come out in opposition.

You want to believe this but you're going to be sorely disappointed. You have posted this at least 2 dozen times. Sorry, it's bullshit. How do we know? Look at dem congress critters. I can guarantee you that they fear backlash over a YES vote on this, not a no vote.

[pampango]

33. I am waiting for the polls to 'catch up'. I expect they will but have not as of yet.

You want to believe this but you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I don't "want to believe" anything and won't be "sorely disappointed" if the polls 'catch up'. I don't accept or reject polls on the basis of whether they conform to what I believe.

Look at dem congress critters. I can guarantee you that they fear backlash over a YES vote on this, not a no vote.

Undoubtedly some of them do. Again the polls indicate that republican politicians have much, much more cause for concern over a voter backlash for a YES vote than do Democratic ones. I think politicians often fear a 'backlash' from party activists in both parties particularly in primary season.



http://fasttrackpoll.info/

68% of republicans (74% of the tea party wing) will hold a YES vote against their candidates while only 17% of Democrats will do so. Now those 17% of Democrats are still a lot of people and may include most Democratic activists who strongly oppose this. In addition 11% of voters will hold a NO vote against a politician. That was not broken down by partisan group but given the overall sentiment in the poll it is likely that most of those are Democrats.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Well, I'll be damned!

. . . stand with the Democratic base, particularly its liberal wing.

They are pretty much the only group that supports TPA.

I dinnit know I was a liberal, liberal, liberal!!

[Bjorn Against]

56. Actually you do stand with Rand

Rand Paul voted in favor of the TPA, as did nearly every other Republican Senator. Most Democrats opposed it, but you have decided to ally yourself with the Senate Republicans.

[ucrdem]

57. Flipper flipped but dolphins don't stand. So no. nt

[Bjorn Against]

62. Congratulations on winning Rand Paul to your side

You already had Ted Cruz on your side and now Rand Paul has joined you, congratulations on getting every Republican Senator to support your position.

Every Senator that voted for my position is a Democrat.

[ucrdem]

64. Let's see, the Democratic president I voted for four times supports it.

As for the Democratic delegation, they have constitutents to consider and have to cover their asses so I'm not going to criticize a no vote though I happen to think demagoguing up a $46 million kitty is really running it out. That's a euphemism.

[Bjorn Against]

69. Yes, and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz also support TPA

You attempted to accuse opponents of TPA of standing with Rand when in fact Rand Paul voted with your side as did every other Republican Senator. You have allied yourself with the Republicans on this issue and Obama has as well.

[ucrdem]

70. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason. nt

[Bjorn Against]

74. So you think that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are doing the right thing?

[ucrdem]

77. I think the vote on TPA should have been unanimous, yes. nt

[Bjorn Against]

81. So you believe the majority of Senate Democrats are wrong and all Senate Republicans are correct?

[ucrdem]

83. I believe the vote should have been unanimous, yes. Feel free to ask again though. nt

[Bjorn Against]

87. No need to ask again, thanks for admitting that you stand with Rand and Ted Cruz on this

[ucrdem]

90. Don't know where you'd get that but glad I was able to help. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. That settles it

I must be a Libertarian.

[ucrdem]

7. Sometimes it's best to make a clean breast of it. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. The truth is that sovereignty IS an issue.

Spain, Greece, Italy gave theirs away when they unelected technocrats to run their countries and force austerity on them so that IMF could get their money.
Global corporations want these trade laws to pass so THEY do not have to answer to a counties laws about anything, in fact, so they can dictate TO us what we have to do for them.

Just because Rand Paul makes sense on a couple of things does not mean Dems are traitors for agreeing with him on those points.
In fact, as long as our Congress remains so severely divided, it gives bad laws like TPP a better chance of passing.
I would prefer to see both sides vote down the bill..

[pampango]

13. The far-right has been all over the 'national sovereignty vs one-world-government' for decades.

For them anything that impacts national sovereignty in the slightest - in their view the UN, the WTO, the Arms Trade Treaty, the Disability Rights Treaty, any international climate change agreement, as well as any kind of arbitration in trade agreements - is the coming of the New World Order.

[ucrdem]

19. Exactly.

Surely this isn't so hard to figure out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. If the opposite of globalism is nationalism...

If the opposites of globalism is nationalism wouldn't a liberal be on the side of globalism and a conservative be on the side of nationalism?

[Mnpaul]

47. Liberals favor liberty

and not trade agreements that surrender our liberty to a bunch of trade lawyers. Our country was founded on this liberty.

[ucrdem]

48. You're thinking of libertarianism.

Liberals favor liberalization which means increasing, not inhibiting, international commerce.

[Mnpaul]

49. Nope

Liberal is derived from the the same term as liberty. You are confusing trade liberalization and liberals. The two are not the same. Liberals believe in fair trade not the phony free trade policies designed to benefit a few at the expense of everyone else. This "free trade" agreement is a RW authoritarian bill.

[ucrdem]

50. Yes they both derive from latin "liber," adj., free, with a long i

not to be confused with liber, n., book, with a short i. In any event, internationalism is without doubt liberal, because the word in that instance descends from the late medieval promotion of liberal studies, originally foreign languages, meaning Greek, as the rest of the curriculum was in Latin. Anyway to make a long story short here's what I understand liberalism to mean in the 20th century:

In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism

TPP is not about "free trade" as in laissez faire capitalism, which libertarians would favor, or protectionist tarrifs either; it's about regulated trade. That's why it's called a partnership, not an FTA.

[Mnpaul]

51. The TPP isn't laissez faire capitalism?

Putting trade lawyers in charge of enforcement sounds like laissez faire capitalism to me. Congress surrendering their trade authority to an unelected body is in no way "liberal".

[ucrdem]

52. 29 chapters of regulations are not laissez-faire, no.

Laissez-faire means "let it happen," i.e., no government restriction. That's the libertarian point of view.

[Mnpaul]

58. 29 chapters written by the capitalists

to benefit the capitalists, allowing them to over rule laws written by the public sounds like laissez-faire to me.

Liberals believe in equal rights for all not just a select few.

[cali]

105. how do YOU know there are 29 chapters of regulations?

and how do you know the enforcement provisions are strong enough to enforce what regulations there are?

As for laissez-faire capitalism, this is a deal pushed by the major corporations in a major way and with a shitload of input from those same corporations. You have to be incredibly naive and blindly trusting to think that these folks hampered their future activities with tough, enforceable regulations.

[ucrdem]

108. If your point is that drawing conclusions prematurely is dumb, I agree.

It's dumb, so let's make sure it gets published ASAP. That means passing TPA in the House.

[cali]

109. bzzzt. not my point. that would be loco.

My point is you made a claim that isn't based in anything. You're right that's dumb. However, we can draw some conclusions by reading the 3 leaked chapters, analysis of those chapters and leaked process documents, as well as understanding the history of past trade agreements vis a vis ISDS, job loss, trade deficits, etc. We can know something about it by reading analysis of the TPA which isn't locked in a basement and which governs aspects of all future trade agreements and the

And if you want to read it right now, I suggest you contact your hero President and ask him to release it. He doesn't need Congress to pass shit to do that.

Huge fail on claiming that reading it means Congress has to pass it.

[ucrdem]

110. What I've read does not support Warren and Sanders' claims. NOTHING

I've read contradicts the goals laid out in the outlines or the statements made by the President and SOS. So I'm inclined to wonder about the motives of the propandists. They seem to be very well funded however. In any case the devil is in the details and we won't know with certainty which side is right until we see the finished treaty and we won't see that until the house passes TPA. So I hope they pass it and soon.

[cali]

111. what have you read. Be specific and provide links. I'd like to read what you're

characterizing. And sorry ucrdem, but Sanders funding is hardly anything that any sane, unbiased person could possible believe had anything to do with his position. And what funding are you talking about? What indicates that Sanders and Warren and the many others speaking out needs any funding? Your propensity to just make shit up on the fly, is quite telling.

The details in the tpa, which damn well is public aren't encouraging, and that certainly goes for details in the leaked chapters. But I suppose YOU support "evergreening" of drug patents so as to make generics harder to produce and distribute. And we know that's in the IP chapter.

As I said your adored President whose word on everything you trust 100% , is free to release the document anytime he pleases.

[ucrdem]

112. Links to my TPP threads are easily found in my journal but never mind, here they are:

Wed May 13, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670009

Fri Jan 30, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076

Fri Jan 2, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112

If you have any questions after reading through these just let me know.

[Midwestern Democrat]

91. I'll come out and say it - I do care more about the welfare of this country and her citizens than I

do about any other country, and if that makes me a nationalist or a jingo or whatever pejorative the globalist, free trader crowd wants to throw at me, then so be it - I'll wear any insult from that crowd like a badge of honor.

[Marr]

15. If you want to play guilt by association, you lose.

How many Republicans agree with you on the TPP? Almost all of them.

[ucrdem]

20. Not the teabaggers. Not Randy. Not the ones in the article.

Maybe you know some personally?

[99Forever]

21. Personally? Sure.

How about every fucking Republican Senator?

Get the hint yet, buddy?

[ucrdem]

23. The OP concerns Reps, not Senators. Thanks tho. nt

[GeorgeGist]

25. Wrong, again ...

Rand Paul is a Senator not a Rep.

[cali]

27. bwahahahahahaha.. you sure do like to play- poorly. Representative Rand Paul?

Fail. at least you're consistent with that.

[Marr]

59. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? /nt

[ucrdem]

61. Correction, the article names 5 GOP reps & senators including Randy. nt

[99Forever]

73. Rand Paul IS a Senator, smart guy.

[ucrdem]

78. Didn't say he wasn't but that's a very flattering emoticon.

[99Forever]

103. You jumped MY ass saying it was ABOUT THE HOUSE.

Backpeddlle some more, smart guy.

[ucrdem]

104. Right. nt

[99Forever]

107. Cognitive disonance isn't just for Teabaggers anymore.

The post is still there, smart guy. Better hurry up and delete it, eh?

[nationalize the fed]

30. Mr. Flip Flop ended up voting for Obama's Fast Track

Back in November last year it was:

Rand Paul to Obama: Finish TPP Trade Deal
“Instead of just talking about a so-called ‘pivot to Asia,’ the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the” TPP.

Then a few days ago it was:

Paul opposes granting Obama fast-track trade authority
http://www.wmur.com/politics/paul-opposes-granting-obama-fasttrack-trade-authority/32951864

How did Rand vote Thursday?



Rand Paul Flip Flops?



^ Actual item for sale at the Rand Paul Store. Stand and Flip with Rand

[ucrdem]

41. Okay thanks. nt

[Marr]

60. "Okay, thanks"? You've just been skewered on your own point.

This is the part where adults admit error and apologize-- just fyi.

[ucrdem]

67. There are errors in the OP? Please proceed, governor.

[Bjorn Against]

72. You claimed that Rand Paul "opposes" the TPA, that is present tense

In reality Rand Paul currently supports the TPA and just voted in favor of it.

Your headline is completely false, Rand Paul is on your side of this issue.

[ucrdem]

75. Evidently there's little connection between his positions and his votes. nt

[Bjorn Against]

79. Evidently there is little connection between your headline and reality

Sorry you may be desperate to make us believe that your headline is based in reality, but it is pretty difficult to claim that someone who voted for TPA actually opposes it.

[ucrdem]

82. I updated it to reflect his vote. nt

[Bjorn Against]

84. You may also want to update it to mention that he now supports TPA

[ucrdem]

85. He's made a statement to that effect? Please give a link,

Thanks.

[Bjorn Against]

92. He made a vote to that effect, you have already been provided a link upthread.

[ucrdem]

93. So you don't have a link to support your claim. Thanks. nt

[Bjorn Against]

95. If you really need me to link to this very thread then here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6683475

[ucrdem]

97. OP: "I've told leadership I'm a 'no' vote on trade promotion authority," Mr. Paul told the station.

If he's made a subsequent statement, I haven't seen it and you haven't linked to it.

[Bjorn Against]

98. But he was not a no vote, he was a yes vote

Are you actually trying to claim his yes vote is not a statement?

[ucrdem]

100. A vote is not a statement, no. Congratulations. nt

[Bjorn Against]

101. A vote is a whole lot more meaningful than a statement

Are you trying to tell me that the fact that a claim that he is going to vote no should be taken more seriously than his actual record which shows he voted yes?

[ucrdem]

102. A vote is not a statement, no. How hard is that to understand?

Silly point but keep trying.

[Bjorn Against]

106. What is silly is your attempt to ignore his actual vote

You seem to want us to believe that what Rand Paul says is more important than what he actually does.

Rand Paul may have given lip service to my side, but it was your side that he stood with when it came time to vote.

[pa28]

86. Looks like the OP stands with RAND!

[n2doc]

34. Anybody who thinks Paul is opposed to fast track is an idiot

He voted FOR cloture BOTH times last week. He knows there are more than enough votes to give his ass cover should he eventually decide to vote no on the final vote. But on the most important vote, the only one requiring 60 to proceed, he fell in with his fellow corporate party members.

What Rand says means nothing. Everyone should understand that.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00180

[woo me with science]

35. It's the "CALL TO STUPID."

Yes, this is the level of propaganda we are fed now. Not *just* guilt by association, but brazenly stupid and illogical guilt by association, since the line of Republicans supporting this predatory sack of shit is longer than the Nile.

But who cares? Throw the idiotic arguments out there. The more insulting, idiotic and absurd the better:

The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

Their purpose is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

This is the sewer of corporate propaganda we marinate in now. What a low and disreputable occupation, distributing manipulative rhetoric for corporate predators.

[Marr]

63. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. stopped clocks. nt

[ucrdem]

40. Quondam Snowden attorney Bruce Fein also opposes TPA, and most Paul supporters oppose free trade:

Bruce Fein, a Paul adviser who opposes fast track. . . .

. . . many of Mr. Paul's grass-roots supporters are trade skeptics--and outright hostile to fast track. In a late April Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Paul supporters by a 41% to 36% margin said free trade had hurt the U.S.

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/rand-pauls-fast-track-dilemmaupdate-20150511-01586#ixzz3aOwbPDm6

[cali]

42. lol

it's just... loco to keep digging the way you are.

the facts remain: Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the TPP and Repukes overwhelmingly support it. And a 5 point difference just ain't that much.

[ucrdem]

43. Lori Wallach of Public Citizen in HuffPo, March 2015: Recent polling shows majority support

Wallach writes that Americans continue to support free trade, per "this year's Gallup 'trade' poll findings":

Fifty-eight percent continue to view foreign trade as "an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports," while 33 percent view it as "a threat to the economy from foreign imports."

That's 58% for, 33% against.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/polls-show-americans-oppo_b_6847006.html

Re. TPP, TPA, etc: "The Gallup poll does not inquire about people's views on the current trade policy agenda."

[mountain grammy]

45. Agree with Rand today... he'll change his mind tomorrow.

[ucrdem]

46. Well in the event, today's he's for it.

Didn't realize when I posted but he voted for TPA. So yeah he's quite the flipper.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Does that make all the Republicans who support it "Loyal Democrats"?

[99Forever]

66. Hooray for the Stopped Clock syndrome.

So just what the fuck is your point?

[demmiblue]

68. ...

[ucrdem]

71. Lovely.

[demmiblue]

76. Oops! I thought I posted this in the Lounge for teh funnies!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. I see you recommended your own post, bringing the total to 3.

They can't accuse you of not doing your job.

[ucrdem]

94. Likewise. nt

[BainsBane]

96. Don't give the Paulbots more material, please

[cali]

99. Just for you: Some more of your allies:

anuary 24, 2014

The president won’t be able to look to organized labor. Unions are overwhelmingly opposed to a deal that Communications Workers of America posters refer to as “NAFTA on Steroids.”

The president won’t be able to look to major environmental organizations. The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and other green groups are outspoken in their opposition.

The president won’t be able to look to progressive farm groups. The National Farmers Union is explicitly opposed to using a fast-track approach that would allow trade agreements to move through Congress with limited debate and without amendments.

<snip>


That group is the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC, the corporate-funded organization that stirred considerable controversy several years ago with its advocacy on behalf of so-called Stand Your Ground gun laws and restrictive Voter ID rules, produces so-called “model legislation” for introduction by conservative state legislators. Last fall, the ALEC board of directors approved and circulated a “Model Policy” that celebrates the TPP and declares that it “will be an impetus for further bilateral and multilateral trade agreements…”

<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178072/who-backs-tpp-and-nafta-steroids-alec

Who else? Why the sterling corporations and organizations at the U.S. Business Coalition For The TPP. Here's just a small sampling of the guardians of America's middle class and protectors of jobs:

3M Company
Advanced Medical Technology Association
Aflac International
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Council of life insurers
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry
Association American Forest & Paper Association
American Insurance Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Meat Institute
American Soybean Association
amway
apple
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Boeing
Business Roundtable
BSA – The software Alliance
Cargill
Caterpillar
Chevron
Chubb Corp.
Citigroup Inc
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motion Picture Association of America
The Dow Chemical Company
Viacom
visa
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

http://tppcoalition.org/about/

And here's detailed piece about the Environmental Org world being misrepresented by the WH- and having to take down cherry-picked, out of context quotes. Support for the tpp from Environmental groupswent from being "wait and see" to active opposition after they read and analyzed the leaked Environment chapter which was released in 2014.
https://www.popularresistance.org/white-house-reveals-desperate-lack-of-support-for-tpp/

So can we please cut the crap about who supports the tpp- the crap about democrats being divided and about how Rand Paul and other tea partiers support it. It's just an attempt to muddy the waters and make it look like President Obama has democratic and liberal support. He doesn't. Support for it comes from corporate America and Repukes.

[whatchamacallit]

113. Is this one of those 'I'm in too deep to turn back now' kind of things?

Why you haven't self-deleted this pathetic pantload is a mystery...

[pa28]

114. This thread is hilarious.

[cherokeeprogressive]

117. I heard republicans (some of them) wipe their asses after they take a dump.

Time to stop wiping yours?