Want to know just how fake some pro-TPP people really are?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

Inspired by the poster brentspeak.

How much they are simply the product of astro-turfing efforts such as the “Progressive Coalition for American Jobs" and the usual in-house online propaganda spammings run by the US Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, and the Business Roundtable?

Check out the number of public rallies in support of the TPP:

Zero.
None.
There haven't been any.
There won't be any.

How could there be? There is no actual public support for the TPP.

On the other hand, there have been protests against the TPP (and similar deals such as the TTIP) throughout the USA and throughout the world:

http://www.oregonlive.com/beaverton/index.ssf/2015/05/obama_in_portland_anti-tpp_pro.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/7/immigration-activists-press-clinton-on-trans-pacific-partnership.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/hutt-news/68784921/antitppa-posters-a-sticking-point-with-hutt-council

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/tpp-negotiators-hit-with_b_6295402.html

http://www.dw.de/german-activists-turn-out-in-force-to-protest-ttip-trade-deal/a-18391723

[TheNutcracker]

1. Start with Omar Kahn. Democratic campaign worker from FLA and Crist campaign,

has just got a job at the White House, to communicate to dems, how great TPP is! A true hired shill!

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/a-new-gig-for-charlie-crist-campaign-manager-omar-khan/2216594

and...


http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/02/can-omar-khan-do-for-tpp-what-rahm.html

[truedelphi]

19. Agree w U! Anyone who is labelled as a "Democratic campaign worker" for the state of

Florida might as well be labelled "an award winning crook and liar employed by both parties to dis-enfrachise citizens of having a true choice through the election process."

All the many hurdles that voting activist Andy Stephenson faced back in 2004 come to mind. The outrage of "Democratic" party locals as Stephenson attempted to help the Democratic candidates' vote count.

I hope many here on DU become educated about the sad state of affairs, regarding the "D" Party and political machinations inside the state of Florida. Thank you for making your reply and helping with that eduction.

[HooptieWagon]

60. Yes. The Dem Party in Florida is very dysfunctional.

Extremely DLC Third Way types, headed up by Bill Nelson and DWS. They'll work harder ( to the point of physical threats) keeping progressives and liberals off the primary ballot than they will defeating republicans (described as "friends" by DWS). Absolute scum.

[Hoyt]

2. So, the key to whether something is bad for us is whether there is a public protest?

?itok=lgOmaGIG

[djean111]

3. That's so predictable - marginalize and dilute and conflate the message. Fail.

[PosterChild]

5. No, it's a valid and legitmate point . ..

.. we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy - the only sort of democracy that has any practical viability - so we don't, and shouldn't have to, engage in theatrical street protests to support resonable and well thought out policy positions.

Quite the opposite, sometimes the enthusiasm of an excitable minority speaks against their position.

[Phlem]

32. "we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy"

What a joke. What exceptional bullshit. Yes the TPP is a creation of a "REPRESENTATIVE democracy".

What utter bullshit.

[PosterChild]

47. Sure...

...since things aren't run the way you personally want them to be, they can't possibly be in accordance with the way most people want them to be. Because we all know everybody agrees with you on everything.

[Phlem]

48. ooo, ooo, you got me!

for shame.

Try securing your posts with critical thinking and maybe people might take you seriously.

[PosterChild]

49. LOL, if by "people" you mean...

... you, I'm not worried about it.

[Phlem]

51. wow

still can't follow basic communication. Ok then people means me, really? What a waste if time.



lol indeed

[PosterChild]

54. Then good night (nm)

[Skittles]

57. that is not EVER going to happen, Phlem

you know it and I know it

[Phlem]

58. *sigh* sad but true.

I would rather folks think about what they're saying than giving up completely on everyone. One can dream.

[Skittles]

59. Tiger Beat

that's all it is

[Divernan]

45. Gerry mandering so districts are shaped like Chinese dragons?

No sane person calls that representative. And when it comes to the millions and millions spent on campaigns and the sources of said millions, one finds that Big Money interests, One Percent Interests, Wall Street interests have bought and paid for the lion's share of representation.

[PosterChild]

46. No sane person calls street protests . ..

.... representive.

Electoral reform is a good idea but I don't think those of us who support trade authoity for President Obama are not legitimate because we don't have to hold mass protests in support of it.

Obama's support among Democrats is above 80% right now, and those who go to the occasional street protest or rally aren't even a small percentage of the 20% who don't approve. This whole idea that only street protesters have a legitimate stance and that they might be a good representation of the Democratic consensus, let alone the American people doesn't hold up.

[DirkGently]

70. Well, no. "Street protests" have heralded every social advance of the past 100 years.

From women's suffrage to civil rights and segregation to the end of the Vietnam War to gay rights and on and on and on.

Around the world, "street protests" have upended regimes, expelled empires. Ended segregation and slavery and religious persecution.

NONE of that happened through the magic of an inert "representative democracy." That is a plutocrat's argument, and it is demonstrably false.

And of course the point of the OP is a narrower, even easier to prove proposition. The supposed passionate support for TPP is a sham; a lie expressly designed to mimic grassroots movements, precisely because they are so respected and so effective.

No one is in the streets for TPP because it is a money and power grab by a handful of elites. They don't like wearing out their shoes or getting their hands dirty. They excuse their anti-democratic conduct with weasel words about what a "Republic" America is supposed to be.

They are, largely and not coincidentally, mostly called "Republicans."

"Sane people" not only recognize the value of "street protests," but know enough to ape and manufacture them for unpopular causes, which is precisely why the tiny fraction of monied interests are doing exactly that with the astro-turfing of TPP.

The fact they aren't real enough to take to the streets proves the OP's point rather perfectly.

[ronnie624]

73. Very well said. n/t

[PosterChild]

75. Sometimes, sometimes ...

...not... however,

The point of the original post is that the fact that there aren't street protests in support of the TPP means that TPP supporters are fakes and that their opinions are not legitimate and are not worth considering.

Sorry, not true.

I am not maintaining that street protesters are fakes or that their opinions are not legitimate and are not worth considering.

That would be equally untrue.

[TiberiusB]

85. No sane person calls street protests representive.

Your exact words. But you aren't maintaining that street protestors are fakes or that their opinions are not legitimate and not worth considering?

Can you argue in some coherent way for the TPP? Not for Obama, for the the TPP. So far, in most of these threads, I have seen almost all the support revolve around blind trust in the President.

Here, I'll give you some of my reasons for adamantly opposing the TPP...

-Secrecy. Nobody outside of corporate lawyers and lobbyists really knows what's in it. Sure, a Senator might get some limited time with the text, text that's hundreds of pages long and smothered in legalese that even teams of professional lawyers would have to spend months to untangle. And they can't take notes. And they can't bring along any staff or help. But sure, give it a read.

-A legal system completely separate and above any member state's courts, with rulings that are completely binding and cannot be disputed. Yeah. Literally any regulation or law could be gutted if determined to have a negative impact on a corporation's profits. Counting on those cheap generic drugs to help poor people in Africa? Forget it, big Pharma can sue. Want to break up the big banks? No way. Just the opposite, in fact. Keeping them from getting more powerful is stealing future imaginary profits that they are 100% entitled to, because, well, they are better than you. Duh. If a new legal system is needed for the corporations involved in the TPP, why don't we all get access to it? What sort of legal system precludes any chance for appeal once a ruling is reached?

-Longer and more draconian copyright laws are being proposed that eviscerate the entire concept of fair use and protect corporate profits over the public good for entire lifetimes. Forget patent reform, that's for sure.

-Greater trade deficits and a race to the bottom for labor. As with every agreement since NAFTA, this will certainly result in greater exploitation of workers across the globe. NAFTA did it. CAFTA did it. the U.S.-Korea FTA did it. Drag workers down while driving trade deficits through the roof.

Or maybe I'm just misreading the purpose of a super secret trade deal made with some of the worst countries in the world with regards to labor and the environment, that has been shielded from scrutiny for years and now, and, for some reason, must be fast tracked into law or...something bad...I guess. If only we had previous examples of times when we were pressured to cede authority to a select few R-I-G-H-T N-O-W or something bad might happen. Oh well. Given how dependable our government is and how there have been no studies done on how the U.S. is effectively an oligarchy, not a democracy, representative or otherwise, we can just roll over on the TPP.

I'm kidding, there totally is one:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

Except for those that suffer from OIS, Obama Infatuation Syndrome, there's no coherent reason I can see for supporting fast track or the TPP.

[tennstar]

80. Representive

Those that support TPP and its kin are 1% or their paid staff.
Show me any pole that has Barry at 80% that is put out by anyone legit.
If it is so good do something other than distract from posts

[Buzz Clik]

28. The message is garbled gobbledygook. Just another shovel of bullshit on an already tall pile.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. No. Why do you ask?

[L0oniX]

16. The Vietnam protests drew puplic interests because the war was wrong. Too young to remember?

[Hoyt]

42. Didn't say some protests weren't justified. I bet I'm twice as old as you, or close to it.

[Buzz Clik]

29. +1

[Phlem]

30. OMG. Really?

[valerief]

37. Public protest PLUS no media coverage. Remember all the antiwar protests on teevee?

No, I didn't think so. You had to go to web to see them. If you could find them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. The office of a US Congressman was occupied last week

don't worry, CNN could not be bothered. For that matter the local major news or the local paper.

So if you did not hear of this, well I cannot blame you.

[DirkGently]

72. It's a measure of public support for an idea, is the point.

Odd choice of counter-examples you've picked there. Someone clearly MOCKING the Tea Party with a facetious sign? Pro-segregationists who are best known for being defeated by the much larger, nationwide protest movement to end it?

C'mon.

The point of the OP is simply impossible to argue. The TPP is immensely unpopular, for good reason. There is an ongoing, maliciously dishonest attempt, on behalf of the handful of monied interests that support it, to create a false impression of "grass roots" support. We are supposed to believe there is an invisible army of "regular folks" in support of it, based on websites and advertising.

It's not like the OP is making some esoteric or hard-to-follow point. The practice is called "astro-turfing," and it's a well-known phenomenon deployed increasingly by well-heeled, but minority interests, to capture the strength of real grass-roots movements with fakery.

It's a lie; simple as that. TPP has no grass-roots support, precisely because it doesn't serve the public good. It's a power-grab for multi-national business interests, and putting it forward is a straightforward assault on the common good and the way democracy is supposed to work.

[cheapdate]

82. Public polling by the Pew Research Center polling doesn't support your assertion

that the TPP is "immensely" unpopular. It's certainly immensely unpopular in some circles, but the wider public has a less fixed outlook on the matter.

The poll is from January.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/08/americans-agree-on-trade-good-for-the-country-but-not-great-for-jobs/

[DirkGently]

91. A 6-month old mixed bag. And the "grass roots support" remains FAKE.

Nice pivot, but even that older polls suggested at best small plurality in favor back in January, and overwhelming disapproval for the impact of large trade agreements on jobs.

All before the fast-track fight.

The OP's point remains. Grass-roots opposition to TPP is strong. "Grass roots" support for TPP is corporate-funded fakery.

[PosterChild]

6. Since we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy ...

Since we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy - the only sort of democracy that has any practical viability - we don't, and shouldn't have to, engage in theatrical street protests to support resonable and well thought out policy positions.

Quite the opposite, sometimes the enthusiasm of an excitable minority speaks against the position they hold since they aren't able to make their point in a more thoughtful way.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. Then start showing me a reasonable and well thought out policy position.

Cause all I'm seeing is TPP, and that damn sure doesn't qualify as reasonable and well thought out.

Also, you don't appear to realize that you're advocating for people not exercising their First Amendment rights. When a person takes that position, that person would do well to step back and examine where they took a wrong turn.

[PosterChild]

11. As a card carrying member of the ACLU..

...I resent the assertion that I said anything against folks exercising their first amendment rights. I did not.

Just as I resent being told that I am a "fake" because my policy position doesn't require street protests to be convincing.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Then maybe you shouldn't write posts that suggest people don't need to exercise their rights.

All up to you.

[PosterChild]

14. LOL- Maybe I didn't, and ,..

and maybe you shouldn't be so presumptive.

[brentspeak]

9. And yet, the Bundy freaks are more legitimate than the online pro-TPP astroturf shills

At least the Bundy gun-toters aren't unseen people with fake names hurling paid corporate talking points propaganda online. We can actually see the Bundy supporters; whatever they are, they aren't some fake, made-up group.

[PETRUS]

40. Historical pattens suggest otherwise.

Women's suffrage, the New Deal, and civil rights legislation all came about after disruptive mass movements, for example.

[chev52]

76. I tried more thougtful ways.

I tried the traditional way. Called my Democratic Senator to not give into voting for TPP. After meeting with Obama, she changed her mind, said there were good things in it. Haven' t been able to find out yet what those good things are.

[PosterChild]

79. To be clear..

.... I don't think there is anything wrong with protests, rallies, and other lawful public expression of opinion. If that works for you, great.

However, I resent being told that my views are "fake" because I they don't require a street protest to gain traction.

[Populist_Prole]

7. The way they tap-dance

They'll quickly abandon talking points that they once touted in argument in its favor, in some cases, outright contradict.

They pull a lot of "trust me, trust me" and switch to "fuck you" or "join us or we will bury you anyway".

Then there's the usual throw everything at the wall and see what ( they think ) might stick, in regards to others's various reasons for rebuttal.

[OnyxCollie]

10. Integration propaganda

Jacques Ellul (1973) calls the type of propaganda designed to incite revolution or to undermine existing regimes the "propaganda of agitation." Ellul also describes another type which he believes to be much more important than agitation propaganda for people living in developed nations. Every modern social system uses what Ellul calls the "propaganda of integration" to promote acceptance and support among its citizens for that system.

Integration propaganda is important because no modern society can function for long without at least the implicit support of most of its citizens. Integration propaganda is promulgated not in pamphlets put out by small groups of subversives or in broadcasts made by foreign powers, but in the main channels of communication - newspapers, television, movies, textbooks, political speeches etc.-produced by some of the most influential, powerful, and respected people in a society. It is therefore difficult to recognize despite (or perhaps because of) its omnipresence, particularly because it is based upon ideals and biases that are accepted by most members of the society.

It is important here to point out an assumption that may be disputed by some psychologists that underlies all propaganda analysis: That beliefs, attitudes, and cognitions play a crucial role in the determination of political opinions and behavior. Propaganda researchers should participate in determining the exact role played by ideas in politics, but few scholars would become actively involved in propaganda analysis if they did not believe that what people read, hear, see, and think is an important determinant of their political actions.

Silverstein, B. (1987). Toward a science of propaganda. Political Psychology (8)1. 49-59.

[carolinayellowdog]

23. the overtly disdainful communication style of authoritarians perplexes me

It always makes me wonder "how can being the snarkiest guy in the room convince anyone of your position, when to me it undermines your message?" But as woo me with science has explained, persuasion is not what they are after. Rather, the goal seems to be demoralizing those who question authority, and strengthening the esprit de corps of those who are already on board. The weekly Snowden/Greenwald two minute hatefests, for example.

[Marr]

69. That is exactly how it seems.

It never seems to be about the issue for them-- just a sort of group camaraderie. It's always the same small group and the same sort of snarky, consistency-be-damned attacks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Let me add one

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/05/21/scott-peters-office-occupied-by-activists-over-tpp/

Nope, do not go and look for this on CNN. Trust me, they were NOT there.

[L0oniX]

15. Fuck the TPP !

[pampango]

17. "There is no actual public support for the TPP." That's not what the polls show.

It is fair to say that opponents are more energized to protest than are supporters but not that there is no public support.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Exactly. It's not 0%. It's 1%

[pampango]

22. The last polls I've seen show Democratic support in the 50% to 60% range with

republican support much lower and tea party support almost nonexistent.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. That's because there are Dems saying, "Love Obama = Love TPP".

[pampango]

50. Either that or Democrats view international negotiations and agreements as the way to deal

with international issues. Starting with at least FDR Democrats have been more open to working out global issues cooperatively with other countries, while republicans view the US as 'exceptional' and prefer to solve problems through unilateral American action or build 'walls' to keep the rest of the world out. Polls consistently show this.

The republican base seems to hate almost every international negotiation, agreement and organization from trade agreements to the UN to the WTO to the Arms Trade Treaty to the Disability Rights Treaty to the Cuban diplomatic agreement, I could go on.

The Democratic preference for international cooperation vs. the republican preference for unilateral, 'exceptionalist' action goes back in the polls to long before Obama was the president.

[Romulox]

55. TPA passed out of the Senate on the strength of the REPUBLICAN vote.

So your talking points are in stark contradiction to reality.

As if you care.

[pampango]

61. The reality is that there is a huge disconnect between the republican establishment and base.

That disconnect is apparent when you compare polls of the attitudes of their base with votes of their politicians in congress. I suppose it is little surprise to see that republicans in congress are corrupt and out of touch with their base.

The post you responded to dealt with the opinions of the Democratic base vs that of the republican base. I did not make reference to Democratic senators vs republican senators. You are right in terms of the vote in the senate. I am right in terms of the attitudes of the people in the respective bases as reflected in polls.

The republican base seems to hate almost every international negotiation, agreement and organization from trade agreements to the UN to the WTO to the Arms Trade Treaty to the Disability Rights Treaty to the Cuban diplomatic agreement, I could go on.

Their base wants as little to do with the rest of the world as possible, opposing everything from climate change treaties to immigration reform to all the other international agreements and organizations I listed earlier and more.

[Romulox]

66. So you stand with the Republican Establishment (this time? lol), against the DEMOCRATIC base. nt

[pampango]

68. I understand that the Democratic base supports it according to the polls. It is the republican base

that opposes it, particularly the tea party wing of their party, as they do almost every international treaty and agreement.

[TiberiusB]

86. And yet...

...it is the Republicans, Third Way Democrats, the Chamber of Commerce (come on, is there a bigger red flag?) and corporate interests that are the most adamant backers of President Obama on the TPP. The republican base might suspect anything and everyone foreign, but their representatives have no qualms about selling them out, and do so, repeatedly. Obama is free to negotiate any treaty he wants, but it shouldn't be done in secret with the details withheld from the public until it's too late to fight back.

Remember the fight over the ACA? Can you imagine the GOP trying to push for passage of that bill by handing Obama "Fast Track" type authority? Consider the polls showing the public against the ACA, but hugely in favor of many of the elements in it. It's easy to leverage ignorance to your advantage.

As for polls and support for Obama, democrats like him and that's pretty much where the analysis can begin and stop. I guarantee that virtually none of the people asked actually have any idea what's in the TPP. How could they? The poll, like a great many polls revolving around Obama and policy "X" are measures of his popularity, not the policy in question. Much like these threads, which inevitably revolve around establishing how people are wrong because "Obama is awesome and popular, see poll numbers don't lie!"

Debate policy and not personality, it should be a rule.

[MisterP]

18. don't give 'em any ideas, they have the dough to hire like a million people to march on the Mall

http://grist.org/politics/tea-party-hires-actors-to-feign-indignation-over-plan-to-save-everglades/

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. Good (but sad) point.

.

[totodeinhere]

24. And then there are those who are only for it because Barack Obama is for it. And

I strongly suspect that if Barack Obama were against this very same thing then they would also be against it. It almost smacks of a cult of personality to me. No politician including Obama is right 100% of the time.

[BillZBubb]

34. That is a big component here, I'm afraid.

[Enthusiast]

63. +1 an entire shit load.

[DirkGently]

74. Who doesn't get that leaders answer to US;

not the other way around?

This discussion always gets weird around elections. People who either literally, or in their mind's eye, are dedicated solely to the victory of a particular person or group are suddenly willing to cast every other consideration to the side. Including the truth and even self-interest, apparently.

Public pressure and public dissent are the way any kind of large democratic regime works. It's really the way any leadership scheme works. A quick perusal of American history proves this to be the case. We've never prospered letting existing power structures or elected leaders cruise along without input or complaint or fear of public outcry.

Aren't WE the people who recognize that power ultimately derives from the consent of the governed? Aren't we the ones who have noticed that even though authoritarians can clamp down and silence dissent for a while, even monarchies crumble when the people are sufficiently displeased?

We're supposed to be the ones who understand that the difference comes in how brutal and ugly public dissent needs to be before something changes. Suggesting that anyone shut up and support someone or something based on identity or loyalty or religion, or any other authoritarian value is primary is exactly the opposite of what democrats / Democrats are supposed to be about.

[treestar]

92. No worse than being against it just because he is for it

[totodeinhere]

100. And there are plenty of Republicans who have that attitude. But I think that

by and large most DU posters voted for him and supported him and wanted him to succeed. I know I did. But then comes the disappointment factor over TPP and some other issues.

[Cryptoad]

25. Hard to protest for or against something that don't exist yet!

[Buzz Clik]

27. The anti-folks are rallying hard:

Here's my favorite of their chants:

"What it's in the agreement?"
'WE DON'T KNOW!!!"
"Do we like it?"
"HELL NO!"

[Marr]

87. You know very well there have been leaked details, and that's what people object to.

Why continue pushing that bullshit line?

[Buzz Clik]

89. Has the part about legalizing slavery been leaked?

I had a list of jackwagons totally up my ass yesterday telling me that it was an outrage -- AN OUTRAGE -- for the first black president to support an agreement allowing the slave trade.

And what about the U.S. giving up its sovereignty? Has that part been leaked, too? It was a totally different set of numb skulls busting my chops about that.

So, you think I'm spewing bullshit because I want to see the whole thing before soiling myself? My only comment to you is to think carefully about the company you keep.

[Marr]

97. You don't know what's been leaked?

My only comment to you would be read some of the criticisms of info that has been leaked before telling everyone their concerns are baseless.

[Buzz Clik]

98. Hm. What fraction do you suppose has leaked?

[Marr]

99. It's not a novel, it's a legal document.

A passage is either problematic or it is not. We're not going to get a closing chapter that puts the whole thing in perspective as we learn it was the butler all along.

[treestar]

93. That and happening to find every "leak" to be an outrage

Because they already decided it was before they knew about it.

[Buzz Clik]

26. I suppose it's possible that pro-TPP people are waiting for:

1. Firsthand knowledge of what's in the agreement.
2. Some sort of feeling that they might lose.

[George II]

31. A stretch if you ask me - I haven't seen any public rallies in favor of air recently, either!

[Phlem]

33. A big yep!

*sigh*

[BillZBubb]

36. There are, however, protests about dirty air almost daily somewhere in the US.

Are those protesters wrong? Are you on their side?

[treestar]

35. Ad hominem alone

Take up and issue and defend it with argument rather than talking about those who oppose you in the argument.

You'd think everyone would be in agreement in the world at all times and all disagreement is paid for somehow. You think everyone who disagrees with you is being paid.

And all business owners are bad people apparently.

[MaggieD]

38. Lots of actual people support it

They are business owners and they are business executives. They just don't have to stand on the street corner to have their voice heard.

The sad truth is the general public doesn't even know or care about it. 50 protesters at Nike isn't impressive to me.

[840high]

56. Rah-Rah -Rah - Obama.

[pampango]

62. Democrats are mindless Obama cheerleaders. Right-wing talk radio needs to expose this right away!

Of course, RW talking heads will conveniently ignore the occasions when Democrats opposed the bombing of Syria and other Obama proposed actions.

Our base is only 'mindless cheerleaders' when we disagree with them.

[Octafish]

67. Lots of actual people -- like the ones who own corporations.

[MaggieD]

77. Yes.

That's my point. Not saying it's good. Just that it's true.

[nationalize the fed]

90. Rodham-Clinton comments on Wal Mart in 1990

“As a shareholder and director of our company, I’m always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,” current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said in a speech in 1990, when she was first lady of Arkansas.

The largest grocery retailer in the U.S. and the biggest company in the world by revenue, Wal-Mart has long been criticized for paying its workers poverty wages. Because those workers often require financial assistance from the U.S. government, Wal-Mart effectively receives a subsidy on labor.

—Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_hillary_clinton_in_1990_im_proud_of_walmart_20150525

[Octafish]

96. Jackson Stephens, BCCI and Walton Mart

From 2004, when I thought the leadership of the Democratic Party would bring it up in public and back our candidate, John Kerry, who helped break the story and resultant investigations:

Of Jackson Stephens, Jimmy Carter, BCCI & the Bushes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=977792&mesg_id=985500

Part of This Old Thread:

BCCI class action begins January 13th, London, UK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x977792

Loads o' links to help explain how money came to trump peace and a whole lot more.

Also shows how important DU is for recording history that, for some reason, Corporate McPravda and Crapademia also work diligently to miss.

[raouldukelives]

83. Yep. So many stand with the corporations and then claim to stand with the exploited.

So many are shareholders, so few are progressive. Funding and financing the distorted visions of think tanks and ivy league acid trips into reality and unto oblivion.
Judge not by the company one keeps, judge by the companies one owns.

[Marr]

88. Holy shit-- well, at least you're being honest here. CEO's = important, workers = not

[ConservativeDemocrat]

39. All it proves is how intelligent they are

Rallies don't do jack shit.

Really.

Don't believe me? You know, anti-Abortion activists hold rallies all the time. How convincing do you think they are?

Parading around, with the same group of die-hard believers, in front of abortion clinics, making noise in the streets, ignored by everyone else - certainly ignored by the media. Who cares?

What changes things is door to door organizing, lobbying, or a combination. No, it's not all money. Politicians listen a lot more to organizations that promise 100,000 phone calls by true believers than ones that promise millions of dollars.

Yes, you can do both. But just remember - every hour that someone spends in what amounts to a big party for the people who already are convinced, is one hour less spent trying to talk to people who aren't.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[ucrdem]

41. Supporting TPP is written into the latest (2012) Democratic Party Platform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026694048

So an equally relevant question might be, how fake are the Dems posting meta threads accusing DUers who support TPP of astro-turfing?

[nationalize the fed]

44. Also in the 2012 Republican Party Platform- so you could say it's Buy-Partisan

Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority

International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.

We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012



"Can you believe they still buy this crap?"

[ucrdem]

53. If you're looking forward to a "Reagan Economic Zone," keep knocking TPP. nt

[Enthusiast]

64. Sockpuppet fest.

Think about it. How could anyone display such great passion for a trade deal?

What could motivate such love for a trade deal?

What would inspire people to fight for a trade deal when it is pretty clear it will not benefit the American people in the least.

It. Is. Faked. Up.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Exactly.

[woo me with science]

95. +10000 Standard MO of our corrupt government now

and our corrupt political machines.

Imagine if we could see the black budget for propaganda these days.

Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796

Editor of major German newspaper says he planted stories for CIA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026163872

Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/

The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111

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

The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

[Enthusiast]

102. The black budgets for propaganda and surveillance would blow some minds!

They are analyzing my every keystroke right this moment. They wish they could use a drone on my house.

[ucrdem]

71. HuffPo: Rush Limbaugh Attacks Obama's Trade Agenda

Conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh slammed President Barack Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal on Friday, telling listeners, "The odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts."

Limbaugh argued Republicans shouldn't do Obama any favors . . . .

"Republicans are providing the necessary push to get it passed, which kind of bothers me," Limbaugh said. "Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are it isn't good. Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts, as we have on so much of the Obama agenda, both domestic and foreign policy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/rush-limbaugh-tpp_n_7428034.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[L0oniX]

78. Some people still trust our government ...even after Vietnam and Iraq. Blind trust is easy for some.

[Hoyt]

101. I trust our government more than I do folks like this --

?itok=lgOmaGIG








As to the last two, I get the sentiments and agree to a significant degree. But I don't think those folks would make good leaders. Sorry.

[cheapdate]

84. If anything is "fake"...

It's the idea that:
1) It's a simple matter for the average person to sort out which side of the issue he or she is on.
2) The fate of the nation and the tide of globalization depend on this 12-nation agreement.
3) All persons who have a neutral or supportive position on the agreement are deranged and unethical.
4) The public is "overwhelmingly" against it.

I'm against it. Globalization has gone too far. Corporatism has gone too far. The abrogation of local control has gone too far.

[woo me with science]

94. Huge K&R. IMO that's a major issue of this election.

Honest representation, versus lies and manipulation.

People are really, really, really, really sick of being lied to and treated with contempt.