Hey suckers, we put the full text of the #TPP online for you to read.

[kpete]

Full text of the #TPP online for you to read:

http://www.readthetpp.com/

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[deutsey]

2. Excellent!

[annabanana]

3. kick . . .n/t

[turbinetree]

4. That was totally Brillant kpete----------BRILLANT

[Enthusiast]

5. K&R!!!

A whole bunch. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[valerief]

6. Excellent! nt

[Leith]

7. That Was Great

The secrecy around the TPP is very worrisome. They know that people are concerned - so why not show us if it is so innocuous? Even Congress members aren't allowed to take notes and take them with them!

[MissDeeds]

8. Perfect

K&R

[L0oniX]

9. K & R

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. K & R R R R R R R

[Thespian2]

11. K & R!!!!!

"Open, transparent government" brought to you by Global Corporations, Inc., owners of the Universe...


Oh, all you proles, PISS OFF!!!!!

[mountain grammy]

12. That website pretty much says it all. K & R

[Fred Sanders]

13. Fox, Drudge or WND could not have done better in the ongoing anti-Obama TPP propaganda, or the lame name-calling.

I consider this bottom of the barrel scrapping as a good sign for the majority of Democrats who support Obama and the TPP as Obama does.

Obama has read it. Obama's trade and international law experts, advisors and trade specialists have read it and advised Obama. Obama tells me it is OK. I believe him. So, sue me.

The RW propaganda machine can take a break for a while while the left wing does it's work for them.

Disagreement is disagreement, it is not the sky is falling, Obama is a no good liar, name calling....how infantile.

For folks not having fingers in their ears and hands over their eyes the TPP is discussed in detail on the WH.gov site and the dedicated TPP government site ....you know, the ones produced by the Democratic Party President.

[tridim]

15. Yep, it is DU at it's most pathetic. It is nothing short of embarrassing.

[Fred Sanders]

25. "Embarrassing" takes a back seat to getting some Recs. based on name calling.

I prefer facts:

Democrats Support Free Trade More than Republicans Do. So Why the Big Split Over the TPP?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121989/trans-pacific-partnership-divides-left-dems-support-free-trade

[tridim]

38. Because Obama bashing.

It is constant on DU. It is now morphing in to Democrat bashing.

Pathetic.

[rhett o rick]

68. Challenging Obama on his support for the TPP is not bashing but being a good Democrat.

Blindly following and attacking those that don't is was is pathetic. Instead of arguing in favor of the President's stand, just calling those that actually care, bashers is not very liberal. If you support the TPP why don't you guys ever present an argument?

And what about drilling for oil in the Arctic? Are you guys on board with that? Don't bother, rhetorical question.

[sulphurdunn]

86. I see no reason not to bash

the party I vote for when it needs it. The Democratic Party has earned a good bashing.

[LordGlenconner]

94. Your post was alerted on

Here are the jury results:

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Wed Jun 10, 2015, 05:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Because Obama bashing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6810032

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Look, you got a problem with DU and its members, then GTFO. If only there was a rule about putting DU or other members down.....oh wait!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 10, 2015, 05:16 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like the post, but I'm not sure the ToS was violated.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree with tridim, but I see no reason to hide this. Tridim has been a member here since 2001.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a fucking break. This poster is correct.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion, which you may refute if you disagree with it. Since it does not call out or insult individuals, it doesn't warrant hiding.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree. Obama deserves bashing because he is wrong about TPP. This person can defend Obama, even though I disagree with his position.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dumbest alert in a while. Obama has been a fantastic president. Period. Whiners can tell their story walking, like this moronic, child like alerter.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[tridim]

120. Thanks.

As suspected the Democrat bashing here is a mile wide and a millimeter deep.

[cui bono]

99. So we should just let a president do whatever s/he wants as long as they have a D?

Nothing could be worse for democracy. In fact nothing could be further from it.

Democracy is about being governed by consent of the people. What are we consenting to if we are not allowed to see it?

And by the way, criticism is not bashing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's something other than what it is, legitimate criticism.

The fact that you are more concerned about legitimate criticism of our govt than you are about the demise of our democracy is a sad, sad state of affairs and should cause you to take a cold hard look inside yourself. Because you are doing nothing but enabling authoritarianism.

[cui bono]

100. What name calling? What bashing?

Did you two rehearse this routine?

[Dragonfli]

17. Ummm, they are promoting this monstrosity as are all the republican establishment in washington.

I think it is great that you finally have a party that promotes a policy you get behind the the three job killing trade deals, but that does not mean you should lash out at the Democrats that nearly all (save the most purchased) are against because our party is pro labor.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Of course we are pro-labor; kindly look at the pro-labor Obama E.O.'s lately, and the newly muscular NLRB.

Not to mention slashing the unemployment rate in half is kind of pro-labor, am I right?

That darn anti-labor Obama, when will the nightmare end!

[Dragonfli]

95. Yes indeed a very large portion of people have now given up trying to find work, I guess that is

one way to cut the unemployment rate - just stop counting a bunch of out of work people! That worked well to mask real unemployment when the Republicans needed the numbers to look good too.

Supporting a Republican wet dream anti-labor trade deal, that labor hates is a great way to be pro labor, I like your style kid, your a rhetorical genius at making the opposite seem true.

Cruz loves and thanks your efforts to pass blindly a labor killing trade deal the he and all the other Republicans need a few Dem traitors to pull off.

There may be enough purchased Dems to just make up for what the Republicans need for their goals. Your efforts are well received by them and The Chamber of Commerce, a few rides on air force one and a few bribes payed as jobs to those reluctant to sell out labor after their terms are up may pick up the couple of Democratic votes needed to screw labor really good for the sake of the better people in our country, the Corporation life forms in desperate need of even more profit at the expense of labor and the environment.

I am glad your Republican goals are within reach, I hate those goals, but at least some really rich white guys will be very happy.

[Romulox]

18. This thing will pass (if at all) on the strength of REPUBLICAN votes. Truth hurts, eh? nt

[gregcrawford]

19. Christ on a crutch, are you SERIOUS?!!?

[marmar]

22. Actually, Fox is a huge TPP cheerleader.......

...... What does that tell you?

[Fred Sanders]

23. I detest Fox as much as the next guy, but you exaggerate the meaning of Fox's position.

Lindsey Graham is also pro climate change is caused by man...what does that tell you....nothing, other than even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[marmar]

26. Come on, look at the President's chief allies on this issue.....

....sometimes it's not worth trying to defend the indefensible.

[Fred Sanders]

28. The Presidents chief allies are other Democrats....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121989/trans-pacific-partnership-divides-left-dems-support-free-trade

"Democratic supporters of the deal argue that the opposition, though vocal, represents a minority view. “There is fairly broad support for what the president is doing among the public and Democrats. There is less support among the activist class of the Democratic Party, which is far more against it,” said Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist who supports the TPP.

Recent polling suggests that ordinary Americans have generally positive feelings about free trade in the abstract, and that Democrats are in fact even more inclined to support trade than Republicans. A Pew poll from May showed that 58 percent of Democrats believe that free trade agreements have been good for the country, along with 53 percent of Republicans. A recent Gallup poll showed similar results, with 61 percent of Democrats viewing foreign trade an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports, rather than a threat from foreign imports; 51 percent of Republicans felt similarly. Overall, the public view of free trade agreements has grown more positive in recent years. And most know very little about the TPP itself.

In a new New York Times/CBS poll, 78 percent of respondents said they knew “not much” or “nothing at all” about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, while only 6 percent said they knew “a lot.” "

[marmar]

30. ...............

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

[Dawgs]

32. JC. Supporting free trade is not the same as supporting the TPA/TPP. Quit making shit up. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

34. Please direct all "making shit up" arguments to The New Republic.

[Dawgs]

42. Why? You did it here.

[Jakes Progress]

87. When the truth is inconvenient, all they have is making shit up.

They cannot tell you why a trade deal the is favored by international corporate whores is a good thing, so they just try this lame dodge - over and over and over.

It's easier than thinking or self-examination. If they did either, they would have to admit they are - gasp - wrong. Nope. Better to just back the personality and ignore facts and reality. It's easier to back a right-wing trade bill because their guy (the one I voted for also) is backing it. No thinking. No facts. Just say that any liberal who disagrees with them is bad. No reason. No reasoning.

[G_j]

29. Republicans were 52 to 0 in favor, with 2 abstentions; and Democrats were 13 to 31 against

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tpp-and-the-ttip-how-congressional-republicans-lie-to-approve-obamas-trade-deals/5450662

Whereas Democrats in Congress tend to be opposed to “Fast Track,” Republicans in Congress have always supported it with near-unanimity. However, some Republicans face such strong resistance from their voters back home, that they lie and say they oppose “Fast Track.” When that congressperson subsequently votes in the Senate or House to pass “Fast Track,” only few of their voters back home even notice. And this increases even more the congressperson’s contempt for his or her voters, that they’re just fools or “suckers.” And this, in turn, reinforces that congressperson’s belief that only his or her rich benefactors should even be of concern at all.

Here are some headlines that feature Republicans speaking out against Obama’s trade deals:

“Sen. Jeff Sessions Blasts Obamatrade”

“Eagle Forum: No Fast Track for Obamatrade”

“TheTeaParty.net: No Fast Track for Obamatrade”

“American Family Association: No Fast Track for Obamatrade”

“Obamatrade: A gift for Sharia regimes”

“Conservatives hate Obamatrade even more than Democrats do”

Then, there’s this:

“Chris Christie comes out against fast track, joins 6 other GOP presidential aspirants”

That last one is dated 18 May 2015, and it says:

“With Chris Christie now coming out against fast track, joining presidential aspirants Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee, it is clear that Republican voters are dead set opposed to granting trade authority to President Obama. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are risking seats in 2016 in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to get the legislation passed, jeopardizing any majority in the Senate a new Republican president might enjoy, and making it harder to win the states he or she will need in order to even get to the White House.”

But this was already four days after the key vote in the Senate, in which 52 Republicans voted “Yea,” 2 Republicans failed to vote at all, and no Republican voted “Nay” on “Fast Track — in other words, they actually voted to pass into law all of Obama’s international-trade deals. This included Rand Paul, and Lindsay Graham, who are the only two U.S. Senators on that lying list of alleged opponents of “Fast Track.” Voting along with them for “Fast Track” were 13 Democrats. But of the 33 “Nay” votes (the votes against “Fast Track”), 31 were Democrats, and 2 were Independents. None were Republicans.

So: Republicans were 52 to 0 in favor, with 2 abstentions; and Democrats were 13 to 31 against. Obama had virtually 100% of the Republicans with him, and he had 70% of the Democrats against him. This is normal for cheating the public. Whereas all Republicans are usually bad, only around 30% of Democrats are. It’s easier being a Republican in Congress — you just do what the people who invested in you invested in you to do. For Democrats, it’s not that easy.

[HERVEPA]

52. Bah! Who needs facts?

[G_j]

24. exactly!!!

[Erose999]

33. Do you trust Obama's judgement? Because I sure as hell don't. Nor do I trust the judgement of

so-called "trade and international law experts" who are working for the Obama administration for hire while their seats on the boards of corporations are being warmed. The "advisers and trade specialists" you refer to include lobbyists acting on behalf of multinational corporations and foreign governments.

It is "infantile" of you to equate valid criticisms of Obama's policies coming from those who generally support him to the right-wing propaganda of media outlets such as Drudge and WND.

Obama is not the president of the Democratic party. He is the President of the United States. The chairperson of the Democratic National Committee is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (herself another TurdWay corporatist). The Democratic National Committee is just the organization that oversees promotion and campaigning for Democratic candidates for public office, and organizes the Democratic National Convention. There is no such office of "Democratic Party President." Neither Obama himself, nor Rep. Schultz herself are solely responsible for party-wide policy platforms.

[Fred Sanders]

36. Yes, I do trust Obama's judgment...on this also because his judgment has been generally most excellent.

I trust Obama, so sue me and the majority of Democrats who also do.

[tridim]

39. The fact that you even asked that question is so telling.

Anyone with a brain trusts the President, BECAUSE HE HAS EARNED IT.

Go bash Democrats somewhere else.

[G_j]

43. so the person you responded to

Doesn't even have a half a brain? mmmm..

[Jakes Progress]

88. Why don't you go bash Democrats somewhere else?

You've got a whole board of committed progressive Democrats that you ignore and bash just to make your life simple. Don't think. Just fawn.

[Fred Sanders]

102. The good old dull and boring "blind follower" blind generality accusation. I trust Obama because he earned my trust. Period.

An improvement on the "Hey, suckers" insult in the OP, I guess.

Begin any opinion with "hey, suckers".... and I end the discussion.

Nothing to discuss.

P.S.: seems some folks need reminding....twice elected President Obama was twice elected as...gasp....a Democrat!

[Jakes Progress]

123. Old, dull, boring. Maybe true.

But it may be old because it seems to be so true.

If a Democrat does a bad thing, then he/she is a Democrat who does a bad thing. The inability to see that possibility makes any statement coming from that blindness pointless.

But go ahead. Sorry I tried to make you think and see. Sorry I interrupted your beautiful dream.

Sleep in peace.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. The contents of the TPP now equals anti-TPP propaganda. Thank you for

That little redefinition. Huge help. Appreciate it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Did you go to the website? ...

I didn't think so.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. I did not. Caught me.

I still don't see how asking for it to be public is a bad thing.

I fought against the right wing anti-agenda 21 contingent, because they were stupid and didn't understand the point/purpose of it for export use. Being able to view the contents was invaluable in defending it.

A trade partnership agreement is no different. We should be able to see drafts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Asking for the TPP to be made public is NOT a bad thing ...

opposing the TPP because it, like (just about) every trade agreement penned in the past 50+ years, won't be made public until it is presented to Congress (i.e., there is an agreement) is a bad thing because it leaves one open to being influenced by anonymous parties, whose agenda is not certain.

I fought against the right wing anti-agenda 21 contingent, because they were stupid and didn't understand the point/purpose of it for export use. Being able to view the contents was invaluable in defending it.

We are in absolute agreement, here. And the final document WILL be made public.

A trade partnership agreement is no different. We should be able to see drafts.

Did you see the drafts of "Agenda 21"? My point is, and the difference being, the right read the final Agenda 21 "agreement", and spun it around in their conspiratorial heads, and came out with the crazy; whereas, with the TPP, the Left has read anonymously leaked drafts (and some email without context), and are spinning it around in our conspiratorial heads to come up with pre-emptive outrage ... that is what has me so troubled with those opposing the TPP.

Being suspicious of something is not the same thing as opposing that thing. The more prudent position would be to be suspicious, but wait to form an informed opinion as to one's support or opposition. No?

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Well, we did see drafts of A21 but

Europe is not the U.S., so that wasn't the best comparison I made. I'm at a loss to pick a suitable substitute.

My problem with waiting until a final draft is submitted, is that it gives the 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' contingent room to maneuver, and get terrible details passed under cover of getting it done at all as a whole.

I can think of no downside to the proceeding having public transparency at this stage. I can't spot the potential for undue influence.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. I get that ...

How about this ... are you, or have you ever been, a member of a union? Those contracts/agreements are not subject to transparency, either.

And I would add, for present context, any leaks of the terms being negotiated is done so by manipulative design.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. No, I've not been in a union.

I'm not really sure why union negotiations should be confidential either. Seems like one side seeking to gain advantage where public knowledge/input might otherwise alter the outcome. Generally I would assume it gives the workers an advantage, possibly. I couldn't tell you it is certain it doesn't provide advantages to the corporation as well. I am certain it doesn't benefit the consumers/people using the service for it to be secret.

With at least set public checkpoints where drafts are shared in their entirety, you could avoid selective manipulation of the leak for the purpose of unfair advantage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Well ...

Over the course of my employment career, I have sat on negotiating teams (for labor and management) ... I think human nature requires the confidentiality, if there is an agreement to be reached.

On, both sides, the contract terms are batted back and forth in various combinations ... "We need a 5% pay increase and a 2% reduction in, both, the employee share on health insurance and retirement" ... "We need a hold steady on wages and a change in the grievance language" ... "Okay. We'll give you the language change; but absolutely must have 4.5 on the wages" ...

Now, imagine the difficulty in reaching any agreement if that were transparent (before any agreement at the table) ... the management side would balk because their management bosses have said "hold steady on wages", even though they are getting the language change. On the other side, Labor would balk because their membership would flip at not getting the 5% bump in wages, even if they get the 2% reduction on insurance and pension contribution.

All agreements between parties are a mix of wins and give-backs ... with transparency before negotiated agreement, the (public's) focus becomes the give-backs and because of that, the parties can never be seen as doing the give-back ... so no agreement will ever be reached.

With at least set public checkpoints where drafts are shared in their entirety, you could avoid selective manipulation of the leak for the purpose of unfair advantage.

That still would be unworkable, for the above reason. Besides, the public checks would be meaningless, as each give-back comes with a win; and, each win, comes with a give-back ... so whatever in contained at the first check is unlikely to look the same at the second or 15th.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. Interesting.

I don't have any direct experience on that side of the business. I have had some in the public bid side for contractual work, and if you don't want to get lit on fire at some point, the watchword is 'transparency'. But I don' think there's much correlation between the two processes.

If I were bidding with a group of people collectively for something, I still think my personal preference would be total transparency, but I think I can imagine some scenarios where that gets unworkable, even because of the diversity of preferences in my own 'side'.

Thank you for pointing that out.

(and thank you for keeping me honest about the op article)

[druidity33]

105. I am a Union Steward

and i served on our shop's last contract committee. I would have LOVED a more transparent process. We had a very amenable relationship With Mgmt, but non-disclosure sucked. If i could have talked more to my bargaining unit , during contract negotiations, i could have gauged support for articles and known better where to give and where to take.

I should add we used IBB (Interest Based Bargaining), a non adversarial bargaining process. I hope to address these disclosure issues in our next negotiations (i will be on the contract committee this term as well) and quite frankly i don't see why anyone would object to seeing any draft to any document unless they were trying to hide something. That applies to the amount of Holiday pay i try to negotiate as well as the amount of import tax Australia wants to pay.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. I can appreciate this. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Let's see

Obama has read it and he says it's OK. Obama's trade experts say its OK. And Fred Sanders believes them.

The TPP is written by corporate lobbyists and Obama says it's OK. No free trade deal to date has done anything good for most Americans and every free trade deal, starting with NAFTA, has done plenty to harm them. Yet this one is supposed to be different.

Perhaps Obama has never lied to us. But James Clapper lied to Congress during confirmation hearings, and Obama did not pull his nomination to be Director of National Intelligence. So, while Obama didn't lie, he's OK with his subordinates lying publicly.

Obama, running to succeed the war criminal and national security state president (by the grace of the Supreme Shysters) George W. Bush, promised a transparent administration. The national security state is still in place and secret courts are still in operation. There's nothing transparent about that. Is Obama a liar? I'll let you draw the conclusion. It pains me to call a man I voted for twice a liar, so let's just say that I think it's naive to take anything he says at face value.

The RW propaganda machine can take a break for a while while the left wing does it's work for them.

I resent that. There is a big difference between claiming that Obama was born in Kenya or Darrell Issa holding congressional hearings based on conspiracy theories about Benghazi and skepticism about a trade deal when there is good reason, both historically concerning similar trade deals and the present trade deals which have been shrouded in secrecy to be skeptical.

[arcane1]

45. Funny how they imply anti-TPP is a republican-like position, isn't it? It's opposite day!

[Jack Rabbit]

54. That brings up another point, although irrelevant as to whether or not we should trust Obama

Obama has made himself the Joe Lieberman of 2015. If he gets this thing, it will be with Republican votes, just as Lieberman won re-election in 2006 running as an independent after Democratic voters rejected him in the primary; Lieberman won with Republican money and Republican votes.

In this, Obama has no one to blame but himself.

[certainot]

115. i heard michael savage crapping on the TPP. don't

know about the others, but if one or two major talk radio gods with him, for whatever anti obama rationalization, it could get millions into a more confused and angry state and carry a lot of weight with republican reps.it might also indicate an anti corporate sentiment in the republican talk radio faithful.

that may be why the republicans are in rare disarray.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Don't you get it ...

The republican leadership (but not its base) have read it and support it; therefore, Democrats must oppose it.

A bunch of left (and left-leaning) organizations oppose it, not because they have read it; but, based on anonymous leaks of draft proposals, and anonymously leaked emails (without context) ... therefore, we must oppose it.

Several Democratic Legislators oppose it, after having read it, based on provisions which have been a part of every trade agreement, penned in the last 30+ years ... none of which have resulted in the horrific, "this COULD happen" scenario, upon which they base their opposition ... therefore, we must oppose it.

And of those, Democratic Legislators that have read it, we have heard nothing of their balance analysis of the agreement.

[nolabels]

53. Other than someone taking a shit

.........You can be sure anytime someone has to be hiding what they are doing it's not going to be for your benefit

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Are you a part of a labor union? ...

Those contracts are negotiated in secrecy, too. And, I doubt anyone would voice that charge.

[Go Vols]

67. But the members get to vote on a new contract

not just the elected Union officials.

[neverforget]

80. I'm part of a union SMART-TD formerly UTU. Last year, our union heads negotiated in SECRET

a contract that would've caused job losses among our members (major railroads) and gone to 1 person crews (engineer only). There were other things in there that were bad and a few good things. We were really pissed off because they negotiated in secret when our contract was not up for renegotiation. Based on that, our union voted it down by a large margin: 90% against it.

http://labornotes.org/2014/09/rail-workers-vote-down-single-person-crews

We are currently in contract negotiations now and we regularly get updates on what's going on.

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Just like the TPP can be voted down. Right?

We are currently in contract negotiations now and we regularly get updates on what's going on.

Granted ... I am 15+ years removed from the bargaining table ... but, that does not seem to be the common practice.

[neverforget]

90. Our contract was not up for renegotiation when they did this. They did this without telling the

members they were doing it 2 years early. In other words, in secret. What they negotiated was bullshit. We voted it down because ALL OF US had a vote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. I understand that ...

What your leadership did, i.e, bargaining out of session, , was wrong, and possibly, unlawful, as I'm pretty certain your union's rules, if not the NLRB, establishes bargaining protocol.

[nolabels]

116. Teamsters Local #495

When our contract comes up to be negotiated we all get together get some guidelines to our reps and it is worked out as best as it could be. Pretty much nothing too secret about it, next question

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Yep ... that's exactly how the TPP is being negotiated ...

The equivalence to your union's "Guidelines" can be found here: https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

Was ANYONE outside of the negotiating committee allowed to see drafts of the agreement before agreement? I think in my years of doing that work, I recall once when drafts were sent to the membership before agreement (at the demand of the membership) and that became a negotiation term that cost Labor.

[Logical]

57. LOL, nice try, make believe is fun! nt

[lark]

75. Propaganda

Obama has claimed everything besides unicorns and rainbows for TPP, including a disappearing pot of gold. Read Wiki-Leaks, Robert Reich for their takes. Every single negotiator was from a large corporation or corporate lobbyist. No labor or environmentalist were allowed to give input or review the language. Big corporations have been given drafts to review. there is zero enforcement mechanisms for labor or environmental issues, big sections on the legal rights of corporations to over-turn laws that eat into their expected profits. This treat totally invalidates all Buy American or Made in America clauses.

Sorry, even though we may not like what Obama is doing, there is no denying what he's doing, other than sticking your head in the sand. If this was so good, and it would increase American jobs, why is the companion piece (TAA) retraining for all the American jobs displaced by this treaty? Doesn't make sense, does it.

[wysi]

101. We're not republicans

We're allowed to disagree with the President even if he is a member of our own party. And on TPP the President is absolutely wrong.

[tridim]

14. Dupe.

And you already know why you can't read it. "It" doesn't exist.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Right here in this thread is the claim that Obama has read it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. President Obama has read the LASTEST DRAFT ...

which is far different from saying President Obama has read the final agreed upon agreement.

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. Yeah, that's not the claim that was made now was it?

"Obama has read it. Obama's trade and international law experts, advisors and trade specialists have read it and advised Obama. Obama tells me it is OK. I believe him. So, sue me."

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Okay ...

perhaps, the Poster should go back and edit his/her comment to include the words, "most recent draft."

Would that make it better for you?

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Personally, I'd find that to be implausible as well.

You're saying President Obama has read the full draft. I don't believe you are able to make that claim.

How long is it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Okay ...

Do you believe President Obama has been extensively brief on the current state of the TPP, including the language contained in therror individual provisions ... and, doubly so, on those being contested by the left?

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. This goalpost needs its own high-speed rail system.

One defender says Obama's read "it". Another says "it" doesn't exist. Along you come to claim he's read THE LATEST DRAFT, and in the next breath say he's been extensively briefed.

I've chased this goalpost as far as I'm going to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. It's not about "goal post moving"; but, rather, ...

a literal reading of convenience.

[tridim]

92. There is no final agreed upon deal. Nobody has read it.

It does not exist.

The OP and the childish website are implying that the TPP exists and can't be read. It's textbook FUD, for the "suckers" eh kpete?

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. See post #13, paragraph 2.

It was Fred Sanders who made the claim that President Obama and many others had read it, not kpete.

[ctsnowman]

16. .

[Baitball Blogger]

20. What an important moment.

This should convince leaders that they are dealing with the welfare of real live people who will not yield to abusive finagling from co-conspirators. Because, that's what the TPP is if the information is not available to the public. It is a co-conspiracy.

[Lifelong Protester]

27. If it weren't true, it'd be too funny!

Thanks for posting!

[olddots]

31. K&R × seven billion

[joeybee12]

35. I love it! knr

[Segami]

41. KKKKKK&&&&RRRRRR!

[Duval]

44. kpete, you are

a genius!!

[kpete]

59. not-a-genius

for those of you who think i am a genius, I can't even attribute this cut & paste
---i was taking care of the grandbabies 15 months & 3 1/2 years - when i found it and pasted it before Angus (the little one) stole my mouse. I have been searching my history w/o luck - anyone else know where it originated?

[Octafish]

51. Got to hand it to you, kpete...

...if I could. Awe. Some!

[BeanMusical]

60. Lol!

[840high]

62. Hahaa i fell for it

[LiberalLovinLug]

64. Brilliant!

K & R

[libodem]

65. Done

And they will help you call congress, Right Now!

[FlyByNight]

66. Very (sadly) funny

[Helen Borg]

69. Something appears to be wrong with my mouse :)

[Angry Dragon]

71. kick

[Egnever]

74. I would be willing to bet when it is put it online, and it will be.

90% of the people complaining that they can't read it still wont.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

77. That is just fucking hilarious!

Who's the Wise Guy who thought up that little prank?

[Michigan-Arizona]

78. K&R! Perfect! n/t

[spooky3]

84. No RickRoll? Darn.

[Arugula Latte]

85. But seriously, wouldn't it be great if Anonymous could do this?

[AzDar]

89. K & R

[Jackpine Radical]

91. I just stuck it on Facebook.

Be free, little meme, be free!

[countryjake]

97. Driving the point home, perfectly. The defenders of the 1% will have a fit!

As our corporate-ruled government bulldozes on thru with this sellout "pact", keeping the actual ramifications and repercussions of it a secret from the public is mandatory.

You can't even have a discussion with its spielers on the subject without being told that NAFTA wasn't really so bad, after all, or being accused of being an isolationist, or being asked why you hate Obama so much.

Thank you, kpete, for sharing a brilliant device in the defense of Working People, the world over.

[Skittles]

98. read up, TPP pimps

and while you're at it, go f*** yourselves

[marble falls]

103. Resistance to TPP could be a springboard to progressive success in the elections 2016.

[WoodyM90]

104. An email I recently sent.

To all of those who email asking for contributions for political causes.

I am a Democrat. I grew up in the Great Depression. For many of my younger years there was a president who was a Democrat, a true Democrat. His name was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then after him, there was Harry S. Truman, and then there was Lyndon B. Johnson. All of these were true Democrats.

As many others in the south, I earned a degree in Textile Engineering and went to work in the Textile Industry. Not long after starting to work, I set a goal that for at least five to ten years before I retired I would be a plant manager. I was well on my way, as I had reached the position of Overseer of Weaving, a major position in a textile operation. At most, two steps away from my goal.

Then Bill Clinton, a so-called democrat, sided with the republicans and began passing “free trade” legislation and the textile industry began to migrate overseas. As a result, I lost three positions in the textile industry due to closing of the plant and with each new position I managed to acquire was a down step. The last one did not last long enough for me to reach an age old enough to draw Social Security.

Social Security, the very bedrock of Democrat policy, has been placed on the bargaining table by a so-called democrat president, Barrack Obama. Minority Leader of the house Nancy Pelosi, a so-called democrat, is willing to accept a chained CPI for future cost of living for Social Security.

How do you think I must feel when I get a request for a donation to help cover the President’s back when he is willing to put my SS income on the table? Moreover, when the House Minority leader will accept a lowering of cost of living increases by a CPI rate?

I am a Democrat and will vote for Democrats, as I fear this nation is headed for an Oligarchy. Moreover, I cannot, in any way be helpful to those who want this to become reality.

I see very few Democrats in the party now. However, there is one in Elizabeth Warren and we need many more like her. In addition, there is one who is not a democrat, but caucuses with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders is more of a true democrat than many who claim that designation.

If you have read this far, I express my thanks and appreciation to you.

Old Artillery Man

[Art_from_Ark]

117. Hey, Woody

I read your entire post and must say that you've hit the nail on the head.

I was not around for Roosevelt or Truman, but I do remember the Great Society, and I really hope that we can head back in that direction, rather than continue on this crazy joy ride to the precipice.

[niyad]

122. would you consider posting this as its own op so we can rec it?

[DrBulldog]

107. Luv it!

[niyad]

108. that is funny. scary true, but funny. I realized that, whenever I see tpp, I read "toilet paper"

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Heh heh

[midnight]

110. I really thought I was going to actually read this doc.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. Triple REC!!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[C Moon]

112. Brilliant! I'm usually not one to fall for this kind of "prank" but that was great! Thanks! :D

[mikehiggins]

113. Worthy of the Daily Show at least.

[cantbeserious]

114. Chuckles

eom

[CRH]

119. Had me goin' there for a second, … n/t