General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNow We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From The Public
MORNING MESSAGE
Dave Johnson
Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From The Public
A key section of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has been leaked to the public ... Now we know why the corporations want TPP, a huge “trade” agreement being negotiated in secret between the United States and 11 other countries, kept secret from the public until it’s too late to stop it ... if corporations feel they have been denied “expected” profits by a government regulation, [the agreement] lets them circumvent a country’s courts and go to an international corporate tribunal with their grievance. But if labor organizers are murdered, workers and their families have nowhere to go.
More
http://ourfuture.org/20150327/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp-trade-deal-is-kept-secret-from-the-public?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)Just think what other rough beasts are slouching towards us.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Some douche called the Thom Hartmann program yesterday and claimed we just heard about the bad parts, not the good parts. He tried to gish-gallop his way around the fact the bad parts we heard about are reason enough to reject this. The stand-in hosts wouldn't let him off the hook and he sheepishly admitted he had no problem with the terms released in the leaked info.
Some people are so partisan and doctrinaire they "have to" be for or against something just to be a team player.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Just like Snowden's NSA revelations did.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Some members place blind allegiance above Policy.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
donnasgirl
(656 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"With the direct participation of 600 corporations and shocking levels of secrecy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is rushing to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Branded as a trade agreement (yawn) by its corporate proponents, TPP largely has evaded public and congressional scrutiny since negotiations were launched in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration."
http://www.alternet.org/story/156059/trans-pacific_partnership%3A_under_cover_of_darkness,_a_corporate_coup_is_underway
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Have you heard about the small U.S. government agency engaged in years of closed-door negotiations that could undermine the Obama administration’s declared goals of creating jobs, financial sector and lowering healthcare costs?
If this statement is true why is President Obama helping to push it thru?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"In a policy context, NAFTA represents an economic integration plan that extended the deregulation and free-market agendas of governments in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Administrations under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the United States, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in Canada, and President Carlos Salinas in Mexico initiated national reform agendas where market principles supplanted other institutional goals and organization. Known as neoliberalism —where market forces are believed to be the most efficient and least costly mechanism for allocating all societal goods—this ideological context all but guaranteed a free-market approach to North American integration. In this way, NAFTA emerged as a neoliberal counterpart to Europe’s more social democratic Maastricht Treaty."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement.aspx
It started under reagan, continued under bush 1, clinton, bush 2...
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Continued under Obama a Democrat if it goes thru. People just do not know who to vote for any longer.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)corporate coup' d'états.
Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111
United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121
Then you must call and call often.
gordianot
(15,233 posts)They are high level bagmen but rest assured at some level they are involved. By the way another member of this criminal enterprise is running for President and will underwritten by obscene amounts of money from those who game the system for profit.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)That proves me wrong I still say he is not part of it, not one person who posts here has a stronger dislike than me and my family for the Bush clan, but as of right this moment I simply do not see any concrete evidence.
Rex
(65,616 posts)"...TPP largely has evaded public and congressional scrutiny since negotiations were launched in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration."
So, what exactly more do you need? Did you know that NAFTA was created by George Bush Sr.? Without Dubya starting negotiations, there would be no TPP.
And a so called Democrat had it signed into law ( Bill Clinton ), which in turn started our race to the bottom.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Without George Sr...no NAFTA. Without George Jr...no TPP. What else is there that needs to be proven?
I do not need convincing, what I do know is it is another Democrat ( Obama ) who is trying to push it thru. What part of it seems to me it doesn't matter, Both sides are hell bent on sticking it up our wazoo.
Rex
(65,616 posts)A problem that will be our downfall one day. Trusting your nation to a bunch of investment bankers (that have no loyalty to anything but money), is insanity imo.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)That is exactly how we all feel in this Family.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I mean, I expect to see anonymous usernames on the internet do it all day long. However, in Congress I would expect some form of fiscal responsibility by someone...anyone, that cares about our future.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)While President Obama may want to sign it into law, FWIU, the dealmaking started when pretzeldent W held office.
Trans-Pacific Partnership: Under Cover of Darkness, a Corporate Coup Is Underway
The highly secretive pact, dubbed "NAFTA on steroids," is so invasive it would even limit how governments can spend tax dollars.
By Lori Wallach / AlterNet June 29, 2012
EXCERPT...
With the direct participation of 600 corporations and shocking levels of secrecy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is rushing to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Branded as a trade agreement (yawn) by its corporate proponents, TPP largely has evaded public and congressional scrutiny since negotiations were launched in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration.
But trade is the least of it. Only two of TPP’s 26 chapters actually have to do with trade. The rest is about new enforceable corporate rights and privileges and constraints on government regulation. This includes new extensions of price-raising drug patent monopolies, corporate rights to attack government drug formulary pricing plans, safeguards to facilitate job offshoring and new corporate controls over natural resources.
Also included are severe limits on government regulation of financial services, zoning and land use, product and food safety, energy and other essential services, tobacco, and more. The copyright chapter poses many of the threats to Internet freedom of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was stalled in Congress under intense public pressure.
CONTINUED...
http://www.alternet.org/story/156059/trans-pacific_partnership%3A_under_cover_of_darkness,_a_corporate_coup_is_underway
Global NAFTA on steroids: Ask Larry Summers, history repeats for a reason.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)can still, if the effort is intense enough, have some small effect on DC.
I believe that was in 2013. So now that more is known, let's hope the pressure increases and that anyone in Congress who wants to stay there, learns that their job is in serious jeopardy should they even think of supporting this Corporate 'Rights' bill.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Absolutely, there is hope, sabrina 1! Just make things as they really are plain: TPP is more "Robin Hood in Reverse."
What's harder to get across when Democrats do it is that it's really just basic "steal from the poor to give to the rich" process, Reaganomics.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)SUBSIDIES for the corporations.
People subsidies, that's the ticket.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This issue, American should be: No sovereignty to TTPI! or
Americans Own America not TTPI.
We need to send Obama, and company just say no to TPPI,
TPPI is un American!!!!
djean111
(14,255 posts)Folks in Europe are just as upset, and are demonstrating against the TTIP. For the same reasons.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)TPP= Toilet Paper Party AND Trans Pacific Partnership
cuz we're being TPed!
Buy-Partisan Global Corporate Control
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks for posting!!!!
From the OP~
“It appears that the investor state provision being considered as part of TPP will still amount to a corporate handout at the expense of consumers despite the assurances of our negotiators. We need strong language to prevent multinational corporations – like Big Tobacco – from using trade agreements to challenge health and safety laws.
“It’s telling when Members of Congress and their staff have an easier time accessing national security documents than proposed trade deals, but if I were negotiating this deal I suppose I wouldn’t want people to see it either. Trade agreements should lift American workers and their counterparts abroad, rather than creating a race to the bottom.”
...Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch has this Analysis of Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Text
“The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of ‘trade’ negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.”
See also, “Corporate Courts — A Big Red Flag On “Trade” Agreements.”
randome
(34,845 posts)My view is that a country can make any environmental or safety laws it wants but it cannot impose tariffs or bogus laws that edge into protectionism.
When a dispute occurs on that point, a tribunal decides the matter.
Without the full document to peruse, we don't have a complete picture.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Before or after the vote to ratify? If before, how long before? I think we're all aware of the slipperiness of language. What constitutes a tariff or "bogus" law that edges into protectionism? Is the line drawn beforehand so that law-making bodies have a good idea of drafting legislation that will pass TPP muster, or will any new law or regulation be subject to an endless parade of lawsuits, tribunals, review boards and other proceedings that can't be accurately predicted? Will law-making bodies simply decline to pass any legislation out of fear that it may trespass on someone's or some corporation's heretofore unenumerated rights, leading to very expensive protracted litigation? For example, will a community's right not to be poisoned be superior or inferior to a company's right to make every last dime of "expected" profit uninhibited by nagging environmental concerns?
When will the right time be to raise and address questions? Or will that be apparent only in retrospect: "You should have brought this up a month/a year/a decade ago; now it's too late to do anything. Eat your mercury and like it."
I realize I'm highly suspicious and cynical. But a lot of very wealthy people have worked very hard throughout my lifetime to earn my distrust, and it would be unfair of me to withhold it.
randome
(34,845 posts)But my sense is that he's not out to 'get us' with this treaty and that it likely will be along the lines of what I am -admittedly- theorizing.
Once the treaty goes to Congress, it won't be secret. And they aren't known for being very speedy or efficient so I would think we'll have plenty of time to re-argue these points then.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, maybe you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why? What is it that they can do that a nation's governing body lacks in integrity?
randome
(34,845 posts)They can barely do anything at all these days if it doesn't involve taking health insurance or social security away from people.
Under the TPP, the corporations aren't in charge of resolving trade disputes. A tribunal is, one member of which is to be appointed by the Secretary General of the U.N.
I'm not at all saying it's a perfect, or even a good, process but I don't think it's the worst one, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, maybe you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)As it stands, 27 chapters of secret binding policies we won't be able to know about until the policies are already 4 years into effect.
Would you let that standard fly if that is how Congress worked? Any governing body worked? I KNOW they make trade agreements in secret, however do they pre-date those documents not to be opened for 4 years?
When something stinks part of it is rotten somewhere...you just have to look and how will we do that? Even leaked documents will be held in question for four years.
Nope, doesn't pass my smell test...passes yours and that seems like a barely passing from your own wording.
randome
(34,845 posts)As was pointed out in cali's thread, the only thing that is secret is the negotiations themselves, not the policies. Otherwise, no one would be able to enforce a thing.
Which is sort of what we have now. The TPP provides an enforcement mechanism that straddles the line between a country opening up to greater trade and predatory corporations.
Disputes go to the tribunal, not the corporations. And at least one member of that tribunal is to be appointed by the Secretary General of the U.N.
And no, I'm not gung-ho about the treaty, I just don't see it as that much different from the hundreds of other treaties we've entered into during the past fifty years or so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why? If America never loses a court case, there is really no reason to keep such information secret then. Not for 4 years after the fact either.
So what if one member of the tribunal is appointed if the other 6 are all pro-corporate shrills it won't make any difference. TO me, this deal is very different in that it is kept in secret for 4 years...that way too late to do anything about it.
Disputes go to the tribunal that is always going to be pro-corporation. That is about as unfair as it gets.
IMO.
randome
(34,845 posts)That only applies to the negotiations that led to the treaty. It's a one-time thing. Each decision of the tribunal will be known because either Company A will be allowed to ply their wares in Country D or they won't.
As to a pro-corporate leaning of the tribunal, I agree that is something to be concerned about. I hope it gets addressed before the treaty is submitted for ratification.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)Why keep anything secret? Free trade is all about open markets so why the need for secrecy? I think this is a huge waste of time and money and will lead to more red tape and more broken homes and families.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)One of the intentions of the TPP is to raise safety and environmental standards in these smaller countries to more closely align with our own.
The alternative is to let China's standards rule the Pacific area.
I'd say this is a plus for workers. Not a direct intention, of course, but overall a plus.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)mean? Shipping more jobs over there? Then it would be harmful.
You say that "One of the intentions of the TPP is to raise safety and environmental standards in these smaller countries to more closely align with our own." I don't believe that is one of the intentions of corporations. They want higher profits and that is the opposite of better labor standards. So where did you get the "intentions" idea? From the WH propaganda? Well unless the President says that he won't sign it unless that's in the agreement, the "intentions" are empty rhetoric.
randome
(34,845 posts)What TPP does is establish a mechanism to resolve disputes so protectionism doesn't rule the day. That does not directly benefit workers but does every piece of legislation need to address workers? This is a corporate trade bill so of course it primarily concerns corporations.
That does not mean it will hurt workers.
Obama characterized the TPP as a rewrite of NAFTA. It remains to be seen whether worker protections are explicitly added but it's a little too soon to start complaining when we don't have a treaty to peruse yet, only a leaked draft.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Senator Brown contended that the overall accord, not just the investment provisions, was troubling. “This continues the great American tradition of corporations writing trade agreements, sharing them with almost nobody, so often at the expense of consumers, public health and workers,” he said… "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026422709
randome
(34,845 posts)And knowing that, do you think Obama is going to submit a bill knowing it may not pass?
It's still in the drafting stage. Nothing is set.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You will find you answer there, grasshopper.
randome
(34,845 posts)One of the intentions of the TPP is to help raise safety and environmental standards in these smaller Asian countries to more closely align with our own instead of China's, which is, to say the least, not that concerned with shutting down their sweatshops.
Of course it remains to be seen whether that occurs or not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Go ahead.
Tour the Mexican Border Towns from the Mexican Side.
Ask THEM about the benefits of the "Free Trade" they were sold.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Because Congress and the President have Seen-The-Light THIS time, and wouldn't fuck over their friends in LABOR again.
...and I have some coastline property in Louisiana you will be interested in.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)4 years after it is passed, but I'm not going to do so.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth, randome. It has never been more clear and obvious as it has been at this juncture.
I don't mean to be rude, but are you even a US Citizen?
randome
(34,845 posts)The only thing that truly matters is what treaty is submitted for ratification. We don't need to know that Corporation F really tried hard to have its CEO appointed to the tribunal for life or whatever the hell they want.
And yes, I am a citizen. St. Louis, Mo. Come by for a visit sometime.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You folks up there have enough problems with reining in your PD.
I'd hate to work at the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis, combined with the problems with your police departments and racial tensions.
randome
(34,845 posts)"St. Louis, MO: Gateway to the...oh, fuck, what's going on in Ferguson now?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But I've seen some very bad laws go flying through Congress because of some artificial deadline that someone dreamed up. NAFTA had to be passed and implemented back in the 1990s because the Japanese or the Chinese or the European Union were poised to eat our lunch. Yes, yes, we all have concerns about environmental protections and labor issues, and we'll get to those side agreements. But right now, we have to get this free trade agreement in place! Twenty years later, there's been exactly zero movement on the part of any governmental agency to get to those side agreements on labor and the environment.
Another example was the unseemly haste to put the USA PATRIOT Act in place. Those terrorists were going to be poisoning us in our beds if it wasn't enacted, and that right quickly. You voters just trust Congress and the President to do the right thing, now hurry out and buy visqueen and duct tape so you can seal off your homes! Thirteen years down the line, citizens still can't be quite sure what the government is doing about homeland security, whether their rights are being respected and protected, and if any of the visible security measures are providing any true security enhancement or are being carried out just for show.
I can easily see the same thing happening with TPP: "All these other countries have adopted it! If the U.S. doesn't act NOW, we'll be left behind*! We're losing our competitive edge. We can't handcuff our financial wizards and job creators by delaying this for even a week. Oh, don't worry about those minutiae lurking deep in the verbiage; those sections don't really mean what you think they mean. Besides, we'll fix any problems later. We have to get this agreement in place right now so that our fearless captains of industry can proceed with the highest degree of certainty. Every day lost arguing about these penny-ante concerns means billions of dollars in lost revenues." All of that getting wall-to-wall coverage on Fox, CNBC, CNN and other platforms will be plenty enough to stampede the TPP, warts and all, through Congress and to the President's desk.
I've just seen it happen too often when bad public policy meets the desires of big money interests to have much confidence that there will be "plenty of time" to iron out any kinks.
*And yes, I can see that exact phrase being used to appeal to fundamentalist end-timers.
randome
(34,845 posts)We'll never truly understand all the machinations of our politicians nor the geopolitical calculations that go into things like this.
But Obama characterized the TPP as a rewrite of NAFTA, one that addresses safety and environmental concerns that NAFTA did not.
It's not a direct intention of the TPP but the effect will be, I think, to raise these smaller countries' standards to be closer to our own.
The fewer sweatshops in the world, the better.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Can our legal system resolve disputes?
Rex
(65,616 posts)And if nations take you to court, you can keep it in 3rd party arbitration until the SOL expires. Microsoft wrote the business model on how to get away with a virtual monopoly in any given country.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)TPP= Toilet Paper Party AND Trans Pacific Partnership
good for the global 1%, but we're being TPed!
Rex
(65,616 posts)NO country is going to allow a body of corporate-shrills (and one token UN member) override their own laws! China will make out like bandits if the TPP is passed and ratified.
Corporations are going on the assumption that government is so bought and paid for, that they will have control of the marketplace, at all times. Guess again! As soon as one nation sees they are getting taken advantage, they will go back on the policy in a heartbeat.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)just pointed out the obvious. Since the MSM has a TPP blackout (except MSNBC Ed S.) if Obama comments about the WikiLeaks then the subject is public. Half of this country or more is clueless from the RW media & don't even realize it; so many would be very upset if they knew the truth.
randome
(34,845 posts)But I think the purpose of a tribunal is to keep it as impartial as possible. Otherwise, Country A would always rule in favor of Country A, Country B would always rule in favor of Country B, and so on.
The result would be no increased trade. And I can understand if that would be the preferred outcome but I think in general it's a good thing for countries to have more interactions with one another. A more tightly interwoven economic system makes the prospect of war less likely.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Rex
(65,616 posts)I say it will be just the opposite and give new meaning to 'trade wars.' It will create more wars, not less imo.
randome
(34,845 posts)That will be the result of the TPP. Or at least the intended result.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and Obama speaks generically on TPP, how do you know the intended results?
randome
(34,845 posts)But read Ezra Klein's article I linked to elsewhere in this thread. It addresses -all with suppositions, of course- concerns about safety and environmental standards.
Maybe it's not enough and maybe the final treaty will not contain what we'd like but it sounds like there is an acknowledgement of those issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)leak these suppositions to Ezra Klein or is he a International Trade legal expert who deciphered them on his own?
randome
(34,845 posts)All we can do without a final version is make educated guesses.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)when I can make my own? Has the government leaked info to him that I don't have?
Rex
(65,616 posts)The UN? NATO? I know countries try and honor treaties, but some like China will always find a way around it. So is the UN prepared to invade China if they make bogus policies (like they have done in the past) and then just thumb their nose (like they have done in the past) at the rest of the world?
IOW, at the heart of this I don't see how or WHO is going to enforce these policies and guildlines if negotiations break down. Are corporations going to form their own corporate army?
The idea of overriding a nations laws seems silly and unenforceable and bound to cause more conflict not less imo.
Can our judicial system resolve things?
"impartial as possible" Does that mean labor, environmentalists and ordinary citizens picked for tribunal jury duty can participate?
"interwoven economic system" War is a business, peace is a principle.
randome
(34,845 posts)There is, however, this: Hoyt first brought this Ezra Klein article to our attention: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership
5. Here's how the White House sees it: there will either be a trade deal with America at the core of it that forces countries like Vietnam and Malaysia to live up to labor and environmental standards the Obama administration finds acceptable, or there will be a trade deal with China at the core of it that forces countries like Vietnam and Malaysia to live up to labor and environmental standards China finds acceptable. Which would you prefer?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)of the negotiations and why is he leaking them? Is this illegal?
Why doesn't a Free Market solve everything so we don't have to force anyone?
randome
(34,845 posts)Unfortunately, our chosen gatekeepers -Congress- are even sneakier.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)is a "sneaky bastard" and if so why should we pay any attention to his suppositions?
randome
(34,845 posts)You're just funnin' me now, aren't you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
aspirant
(3,533 posts)is full of bastards and sneaky characters? Would you steal an apple from your local neighborhood grocer?
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Will side with Corporate Lawyer A so when the lawyers that make up Tribunal A have their cases heard in front of Tribunal B which consists of other Corporate Lawyers including Corporate Lawyer A, Tribunal B will rule in their favor. Nice and neat.
randome
(34,845 posts)We don't know if this leaked draft is an early draft or a later one or even one that never saw the light of day until someone stole it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)and accurately discern with some certainty what these NEW ones will bring us.
Past IS Prologue.
randome
(34,845 posts)If anyone could do a better job at that than before, it's him, IMO. But we'll see.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)He also said he would "immediately re-negotiate NAFTA giving priority to American Jobs and the Environment",
....and that he would "Make EFCA the Law of the Land".
Those didn't "work out" either.
In fact, it appears he has forgotten all about those promises.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to corporations.
The fascist beat goes on and on and on.
Fuck everyone who had anything to do with negotiating this monstrosity.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . let's not forget to add US trade negotiators. Selling out American sovereignty to oligarchs sound like treason to me.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Greg Palast
Vice Magazine, August 22, 2013
EXCERPT...
The Memo confirmed every conspiracy freak's fantasy: that in the late 1990s, the top US Treasury officials secretly conspired with a small cabal of banker big-shots to rip apart financial regulation across the planet. When you see 26.3% unemployment in Spain, desperation and hunger in Greece, riots in Indonesia and Detroit in bankruptcy, go back to this End Game memo, the genesis of the blood and tears.
SNIP...
The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.
Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: "derivatives trading." JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as "assets."
Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.
But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?
The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet – in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous.
CONTINUED...
http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo/
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)years ago (if not sooner), and likely by every trade agreement since, including those by other countries like the European Union.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"ST%U" is what I'd do after realizing you are over-reacting.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Just look at some of the responses here. The excuses are pathetic.hifiguy
(33,688 posts)whose clients' interests are being directly affected. What could possibly go wrong with THAT? 
AzDar
(14,023 posts) cali
(114,904 posts)critics of the TPP
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)corporate coup' d'états.
Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111
United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121
n2doc
(47,953 posts)
Have seen this sort of argument on DU. Of course, the leaked text also stipulates that it be kept secret for 4 years after ratification…..
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)violation of international trade laws. The perps would be arrested in that country and tried in their courts.
I get people might be concerned about the 3000 trade agreements worldwide that have included these tribunals for years. But let's don't sound like tbaggers with absurd exaggerations.
I guess when the agreement is finalized, Obama is going to have to talk very slowly to help people understand it. And that's assuming Obama sees the "final" agreement worth submitting to Congress for possible ratification.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)continue selling their products in Germany w/o the coco nuts for the famous Cola drink.
They should have called it FASCISTA
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Maybe the only silver lining is it may open enough eyes to give Bernie Sanders the support to win.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that those that charge the hardest for this ... aren't citizens of the US. Instead, they tend to hale from Ireland, Canada, India, UK and other places.
Why on earth is that? It has been noted more than once that those who wish to meddle in US politics aren't actually citizens that can vote in our country.
It's the same apologia for other things that affect the US, being pushed by those who are not citizens. If it is too sensitive to point this out, then we aren't really having honest dialogue.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Who sits at the table and who approves the product. Without actors to question you are left with a draft document with no fingerprints.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)will have to approve any final document if they want to be part of the trade agreement. This assumes they can come to terms.
Somehow I can not image all 12 country's governments are trying to sell their people down the river, as people seem to believe ours is.
Each of the other countries appoint trade reps.
There are also advisory committees, that do not negotiate directly. Folks like to point out the corporations have advisers to our Trade Rep. That's true.
But there is also a Labor Advisory Committee with the following members:
Clayola Brown National President, A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
Thomas Buffenbarger International President, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM)
Jim Clark President, International Union of Electronic, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE)
Leo Gerard International President, United Steelworkers (USW)
Raymond Hair
President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), AFL-CIO/CLC
Joseph T. Hansen President, United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Mary Kay Henry International President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Ed Hill International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
James P. Hoffa General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
Ken Howard President, Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Gregory Junemann International President, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
Richard Kline President,Union Label & Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Lee Moak President, International Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), AFL-CIO
Jorge Ramirez President, Chicago Federation of Labor
Cecil E. Roberts, Jr. President, United Mineworkers of America (UMWA)
Arturo Rodriguez President, United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
Sarah Nelson International President, Association of Flight Atendants, AFL-CIO (CWA)
Lee Saunders President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Richard Trumka President, American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Baldemar Velasquez President, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Dennis Williams President, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Forthcoming President, Transportation and Trades Department, AFL-CIO
And there is an Environmental Advisory Committee:
Joseph G. Block Retired Partner, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti
Kitty Block Vice President, Humane Society of the United States
Jake Colvin Vice President of Global Trade Issues, National Foreign Trade Council
Vanessa Dick Deputy Director, US Government Relations, World Wildlife Fund
Jennifer Haverkamp Consultant
Trevor Houser Partner, Rhodium Group
Rhoda Karpatkin President Emeritus, Consumer's Union
Chris Lischewski Chief Executive Officer, Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC
Amanda Mayhew Senior Advisor, World Animal Protection
Glenn Prickett Chief External Affairs Officer, The Nature Conservancy
Peter Robinson President, U.S. Council for International Business
Lowell Rothschild Senior Counsel, Bracewell & Giuliani
James Salzman Professsor of Law, Duke University
Jeffrey J. Schott Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics
Andrew F. Sharpless Chief Executive Officer, Oceana
Adam Siegel Vice President of Sustainability and Retail Operations
John Smirnow Vice President of Trade, Solar Energy Industries Association
Frances Smith Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
William J. Snape, III Board Member, Endangered Species Coalition
Cindy Squires Executive Director, International Wood Products Association
Alexander von Bismarck Executive Director, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
Thomas Weirich Vice President Corporate Relations, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Other Advisory Committees include:
From https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees
Advisory Committees
The advisory committee system, established by the U.S. Congress in 1974, was created to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiating objectives adequately reflect U.S. public and private sector interests. The advisory committee system consists of 28 advisory committees, with a total membership of approximately 700 citizen advisors.
USTR's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs & Engagement (IAPE) manages the advisory committee, in cooperation with other agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency. IAPE is also designated as the state coordinator for the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, and provides outreach to official state points of contact, governors, legislatures, and associations on all trade issues of interest to states.
IAPE frequently speaks with outside groups in order to build support for a robust trade agenda and creates materials for public distribution.
Advisory Committees
Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN)
Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)
Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade (ATAC)
Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITAC)
Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC)
Labor Advisory Committee (LAC)
Trade Advisory Committee on Africa (TACA)
Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC)
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)NAFTA has the same sort of board described for TPP. The NAFTA version hasn't been secret. There has even been a PBS program on the subject. The results have not been good for the public, certainly.
What I don't understand is how people who purport to be journalists don't bother to inform themselves about these NAFTA boards that seem to be the template for the TPP version. Is the point to inform the pubic so they know how this sort of extra-judicial system works? Or is it to make a lot of noise about secrecy while offering little information?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)BainsBane
(53,012 posts)If I had meant to say that, I would have said so directly. I have no problem expressing my views. What I am fully on board with is accurate information so the public is informed, which I said in my post. You apparently find that objectionable. Know less, emote more. If I thought you actually gave a shit, I would search for the PBS program on the NAFTA boards. They are hardly citizen friendly. But you clearly see the pursuit of information as an authoritarian conspiracy. Education is so "third way." 
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... have always known why this agreement is being negotiated "in secret". It's because ALL such trade agreement negotiations are ALWAYS conducted in the same way this one is.
It's amusing to watch people attempting to come up with reasons why this particular deal is being handled in a particular way - when the obvious answer is that it's being done this way because it's ALWAYS done this way.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)why has it always been done this way?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The point is that there is nothing about the conduct of the TPP negotiations that is different from all the other agreements of its type.
So claiming "now we know WHY it's being negotiated in secret" and attaching some nefarious intent to that idea simply ignores the obvious - being that this is the way it's always done.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Who or what established the CONDUCT for international negotiations?
Is it just tradition or does law dictate it?
If we attach "some nefarious intent" would it change or remain the same?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... in the origins of this practice, I'm sure you are capable of researching it yourself.
The fact remains that this IS how it's always been done. So attaching some particular meaning to the TPP being negotiated in this way is rather ridiculous, given that it is not unique nor unprecedented in any way.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"always been done" As the years go by, is change a good thing?
Does the way the People's employees negotiate have a real meaning in how "We The People" view ourselves?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... why haven't you spoken up before now?
If you believe the process should be changed, raise your concerns with the appropriate people.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Doesn't it start at the Grass Roots and bubble up?
How do you know that I haven't spoken up anytime in my life?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I have no problem with the process as it is now conducted. Whether mandated by law or simply a long-established practice, I understand why such negotiations are best done behind closed doors.
The point of the discussion in this particular thread is the same: the obvious reason people are attaching some nefarious intent to the fact that the TPP is being negotiated this way is because they didn't know that ALL such treaties follow exactly the same process.
If they DID know that this is the process always followed, they wouldn't be characterizing THIS one as something unique, unprecedented, or in any way out of the norm.
The self-declared international trade agreement experts on DU simply don't want to acknowledge that they were ignorant of that very basic fact.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Why are negotiations held behind closed doors," share your understanding. Is it just tradition or can you go to prison for negotiating in public?
Are you accusing others of "nefarious intent" when they stand on the Democratic Principle of Transparency?
This deal is uniquely called TPP and has unique contents and deserves unique negotiations.
Are you an International Trade Agreement expert that we on DU have been waiting for?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I am simply aware of what is the established practice.
"This deal is uniquely called TPP and has unique contents and deserves unique negotiations."
Every int'l trade treaty the US is a signatory to has had unique contents.
"Are you accusing others of "nefarious intent" when they stand on the Democratic Principle of Transparency?"
No, I am pointing out that no "nefarious intent" can be attributed to the FACT that the TPP is being negotiated in exactly the same way as every other treaty. Several such treaties have been negotiated since DU's inception. Where was the outrage then?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Secret negotiations are JUST an "established practice" nothing more, nothing less. It is time that "We The People" determine the established practices and not our EMPLOYEES.
Unique deals deserve unique negotiations thereby establishing unique practices.
It is time to live in the present and leave the old ways behind.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Now is the time for you to express your concerns to those who can actually change what it is you object to.
I am not that person. And posting your objections on a message board will not accomplish anything.
Organize, gather supporters who agree with your concerns and desire a change, and go from there.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)comes one person at a time so everyone is appropriate.
Are you not open to change, just happy living life the same way day in and day out?
If a message board accomplishes nothing, why are you posting here?
"organize, gather supporters...." Is this educating or challenging or both?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... more for amusement than anything else. I don't pretend that posting here actually accomplishes anything.
"Organize, gather supporters" is simply a way of reiterating what I've just said: Posting here doesn't accomplish anything.
"Change" should have a purpose, an end goal. Change just for the sake of saying "it used to be this way, and now it's another way" is meaningless.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"Amusement" Are you laughing at yourself or just chuckling at others at their expense? If the latter in the case, that is way beyond educating.
Was it AMUSEMENT for you when you posted and asked to be welcomed into the HRC group? Do they know you only post for fun and giggles?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... by self-proclaimed "experts" on int'l trade agreement negotiations - who, despite their "expertise" on the topic, had no idea that the TPP is being negotiated in the same way as every other trade agreement.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)by posters who knew about the secret negotiations and objected on the principle of transparency?
When you posted and asked to be welcomed into the HRC group, did you tell them that posting here accomplishes nothing (post #128) and you only do it for amusement, fun and giggles?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... have nothing to do with the TPP negotiations, nor the drivel that passes for "discussion" in GD.
I've not seen any posts from DUers on the idea that the TPP negotiations are less transparent than the negotiations on other such agreements - because they didn't KNOW that this is the way it's always done, and all of the other such treaties have been negotiated in the same way.
There have been a number of trade agreements negotiated since DU's inception. Can you point me to the posts that objected to the "lack of transparency" with regard to those treaties?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)the HRC group have vast accomplishments and GD is just fun and giggles plus the drivel which includes your posts.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... you seem incapable of carrying on a discussion about the topic at hand - which is about WHY the TPP negotiations are being carried out in exactly the same way every negotiation of every other such agreement have been carried out.
When someone is intent on changing the subject, it seems obvious that they have nothing of substance to say on the topic being discussed.
Thanks for making the obvious so - uh, OBVIOUS.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)when Obama and HRC are in disagreement or have you completely waived goodbye to Obama?
It's not an established practice to take both sides in a disagreement.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I would reply.
But I don't, so I won't.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)A true educator would seek, you give up. Why are you jumping ship from Obama, a TPP supporter?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... as POTUS in 2016 now equates to "jumping ship" from Obama - who, in case you are unaware, is NOT running in 2016.
Uh, okay, alrighty then - I had no idea that once one supports a candidate in one election they are precluded from supporting a different candidate in a completely different election.
The things you learn on DU - like the TPP being negotiated in a completely different way than every other treaty of its kind.
The mind boggles.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and HRC hasn't even declared and your jumping ship. Do you understand the term, LOYALTY as being more than just a fly by nighter.
Have you thrown away Obama's "Hope and CHANGE" too?
It's time for change, no more ancient negotiating techniques. You don't have to be stuck in the past, just relax and take it easy and slowly get rid of your land lines.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Supporting a candidate in the 2016 election is "jumping ship" on the current POTUS who is not eligible for running in 2016.
Do you actually think about what you post before you post it? It would seem blatantly obvious that you don't.
If Obama were eligible to run in 2016, I would support him. But he's not, so I can't.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last time I looked the BOG was up and running, full speed ahead. The only problem was you jumped ship and the others have to paddle harder to keep afloat.
What a team player you are, abandoning BOG in the last hours when your support is still needed
You know HRC isn't going to be an Obama clone thruout the primary and you will be forced to pick sides. Good luck
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that choosing to support HRC in 2016 has anything to do with "jumping ship" on Obama - who is not eligible to run in 2016 - speaks for itself, and your, uh, "knowledge" of how the political system works.
Do you have a link to where I expressed my "abandonment" of the BOG? Is the measurement of my continued support of Obama based on how many times I posted in the BOG? How many times qualifies me? Ten? Twenty? A thousand? Oh, do tell, arbiter of all things, exactly how many posts in The BOG translate into sincere Obama support?
"You know HRC isn't going to be an Obama clone thruout the primary and you will be forced to pick sides."
Pick SIDES? Between the (D) and the (D)?
I'm going with the (D).
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Pick between Obama (President) and HRC (candidate), no wobbling.
Were your BOG posts amusement too
Why are you changing the topic to how the political system works? It's obvious, so obvious that when you have nothing left, you fly off.
This archaic, ancient negotiating secret tactics are anti-people and must be discarded. We have evolved from the Stagecoach, the Pony Express, the telegraph etc and now must adjust to the 21st century. Come join us as we leave the old ways behind.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... "Obama (President) and HRC (candidate)" are not running against each other, there is no need to choose.
As for the rest of your post, if I knew what you were on about, I'd reply.
But I don't, so I won't.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)you need to choose or you're lost in yesterday. Secret trade negotiations are yesterday's news and practices.
"what you are on about" Could you translate this slang for me.
Were your BOG posts fun and giggles too?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... "Secret trade negotiations are yesterday's news and practices", you've had years to make that known to the parties who can actually DO something to change those practices.
And, quite frankly, my dear, my BOG posts are irrelevant to this entire discussion thread.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)you post for amusement, wasn't my creation.
So, do you post on HRC and BOG for fun and giggles too?
Which parties actually do something? Should I start with the party of Blue Dogs and can you give me some of your personal contacts?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I lost interest in you hours ago, and should have ended it at that?
I fully admit my own poor judgment in responding to you in the first place. Were I on my toes, I would have recognized the futility in doing so from the outset.
It's a mistake I hope not to repeat in future.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)but remember as you say, GD is for fun. As time went by, I watched you interact with another poster and I didn't read fun, I read nastiness. I wish you well !
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm trying to make sure I get a good sense of the shape of this thing.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Since you love to "Teach" you might enjoy being taught.too. See how your logic is illogical. Because Aspirant did not speak up before she must remain quiet. Huh?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... to where I "fervently fought for the TPP" and where I "expressed apathy towards unions".
LINK or SLINK.
Either back up your claims, or back off them - or remain silent and, by your silence, admit that you're a liar who attributes comments to a DUer who never made those comments.
Put up or shut up. The ball is in your court.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)The twisted logic involved is shocking. Because you did not speak up before you are sentenced to never speak again. What the heck is that?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)ok, whatever you say.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... making every god-damned thing under the sun open to the public.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Which happens to be the biggest complaint about the TPP, the trade agreement you so fervently fight for. I do recall you are not so interested in union issues, though.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I have not ever "fervently fought for the TPP" - and you are invited to link to where I have.
All I have opined on re the TPP is that it is not yet finalized, that leaked "drafts" are just that, drafts - which may or may not be reflective of the final version - and that self-proclaimed "experts" on int'l trade agreements posting on a message board usually aren't.
"I do recall you are not so interested in union issues, though."
The only way you would know my stance on unions, or a "lack of interest" thereof, would be if you have fully vetted every post I have ever made on DU over the past ten years. Are you claiming that that's what you've done?
So again, I invite you to post links to where I have "fervently fought for the TPP". YOU made the claim - now link or slink.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)for secret negotiations and an expert educator too?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... in order to educate someone on their own personally-held opinions - or to challenge someone who is deliberately lying about them.
If you have a link to me "fervently fighting" for secret negotiations, feel free to post them.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)How can you educate someone unless you understand the art of education. When you educate someone do you consider yourself a poor educator, an average educator or an expert educator?
Do you think I'm "deliberately lying" about my opinions? Is their a major difference between challenging and/or educating one about their opinions?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... devolve into bullshit word games, I have no interest in continuing the conversation.
It is simply a distraction from an honest debate on the issue being discussed.
I am perfectly able to "educate" someone on my own posting history, and what I have said and not said. As are you. As is anyone here.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Are you still calling me a liar and now a dishonest debater?
"bullshit word games" Is this challenging or educating?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)On unions: If you look outside and it is raining, it is safe to say, "It has rained in the last month." there is no need to check the record for the last thirty days. You have expressed apathy for unions. There is no need to check every post over the past ten years.
You are such a staunch defender of the president, that you think he can do no wrong. On working class issues he has failed (TPP falls squarely in this weakness). On many other issues he has been flawless, extremely admirable. The fact is wages have stagnated under his leadership. This is a simple fact. It is one of the reasons the Federal Reserve is holding back on raising interest rates. Wage growth has been lagging. It is the outlier in an otherwise good economy.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... you've got nothin' to back up your claims. Not ONE single post of mine you can point to - not one.
I knew that all along - how embarrassing for you that you couldn't just admit that up front.
"You have expressed apathy for unions."
Again, LINK or SLINK. Post a link to where I have "expressed apathy for unions" - or simply admit that you are a liar, attempting to call out a fellow DUer by attributing comments to them that simply don't exist.
Oh, and by the way, in case you don't get it - saying "nearly every post you have ever made says such-and-such" makes it apparent that you don't have an iota of evidence to back up your assertions. Because if you did, you would have no problem linking to at least ONE post of mine that proves your point.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Do you remember writing a big old "yawn" about a certain union article from a while back? I doubt it. I cannot see you admitting to that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Either link to the comments you have accused me of making - or admit that you're a LIAR.
Your words require no "interpretation". You have claimed that I made certain comments here on DU - so let's see them.
Where are the links to my "fervently fighting for the TPP"?
Where are the links to my "apathy towards unions"?
YOU made the claims - YOU back them up.
Or, in the alternative, you can simply admit that you have absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your assertions.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Do you really want the see the "yawn" comment. If I send the link will you apologize?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)YOU have stated that I "fought fervently for the TPP" - WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO WHERE I DID SO?
YOU have stated that I "expressed apathy towards unions" - WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO WHERE I DID SO?
Again - LINK OR SLINK.
Produce the links that prove your assertions, or admit that you're a liar accusing me of saying things I never said.
It's down to one or the other, dude - either you prove what you're saying, or your inability to do so serves as an admission that you're a fuckin' liar.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... go ahead, EXPOSE IT!!!!!
GET IT ALL OUT THERE!!!
Post ALL of the links to my "fervently fighting for the TPP", my posts "expressing apathy for unions" - AND (ta da! BIG FINISH!!!) all the posts that made me "somewhat famous for my pretentious 'yawn'.
DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #121)
NanceGreggs This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to WillTwain (Reply #118)
Post removed
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)You can look at every post regarding the TPP for evidence. When you defend the sad process that president Obama is pursuing, you are defending the potential result - the TPP itself. This is fundamental reasoning.
By the way, what do you think of Cheney's secret energy policy he drafted in 2000? When did this become acceptable? When Barack does it, right?
Do you know that fast tracking is a process started by Tricky Dick Nixon? Do you feel good that your guy is using Nixonian filth?
Good Night
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Post the LINKS.
Do it.
G'head.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)This is a direct cut and paste from a Nancegreggs comment not a re-type. Surely a superior mind would have perfect recall and this comment and the surrounding paragraph is recountable. I bet you did not think that I could find your "yawn" to union boss Trumka. I did.
Response to WillTwain (Reply #204)
Post removed
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)It is plain as day. He will not support Hill if she has Obama's economic team.
The headline is exactly that a headline. It was not a quote. It did not say Richard Trumka said.
Headlines are not quotes. Check out most newspapers. Headlines are eye-catching summaries.
Nance is setting up a straw man argument.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)You can run but you cannot hide. She wanted the "yawn" comment, I gave it to her.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)#123 in that same thread has some intriguing info about you. Intriguing though not surprising.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)The proof is posted.
Response to WillTwain (Reply #156)
Post removed
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)No, actually you are a fuckin' liar.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6429642
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
In reading this argument line-by-line, this is the point where it left the tracks and went directly to an unambiguous personal attack ("actually you are a fuckin' liar)
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Mar 28, 2015, 08:08 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attacks make DU suck. Better to disengage before it gets to that point.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have decided to leave this one alone. My prerogative.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope. Link or slink, don't alert.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Both for them could use a time out, judging by the back-and-forth, but I'm only judging this post. Time to take a breath and take a break. A definite hide. Pace yourselves, it's not even primary season yet, folks. You're going to burn out and hit the graveyard before June.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't want to add a damn explanation . On the other hand I do...If someone suggested I was a anti-union shill I would KTPFO.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Now that's shrill. Way over the top. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What a vile, nasty personal attack. Hide this crap.
Thank you.
Cannot reply to automated messages
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Tacky
Mission accomplished. Looks like your work here is done.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Is this the first time you've seen jury results posted? In that case, welcome to Democratic Underground.
840high
(17,196 posts) Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
Well give yourself a big ole pat on the back.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I alerted.
The post was locked.
I posted the results.
You responded.
I verified your suspicion the instant I saw it posted.
You're still going on about something.
What is it that you want?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)What part of that do you not get?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)WillTwain
(1,489 posts)She got me a 90 day suspension in December, then her cohorts danced on me for days knowing that I could not defend myself. I am not kidding. They had a high five party for days.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Nance and company were really unfair to me. I have not been treated so rudely in my life. I suggest you look at the victory dance they did over me. I feel that I have conducted myself quite well considering the poor treatment that I had.
My goal at DU is to broaden the conversation. I have my passions and it is the plight of the middle-class. Actually, I really like president Obama as a person. Because I am deeply dissappointed with him on middle-class issues, should not put me in the racist category.
Believe me, anything that I wrote was in response to waves of abuse.
Respectfully,
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Makes life simple.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)I am not who I am being portrayed as.
Thanks
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I don't even know who the hell you are, but I've seen enough of your behind in this thread to know I would have been among the dancers.
Alert that, you're on a roll apparently.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Living up to expectations.
God, I know you.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You can go on back to obscurity now, I've seen enough.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)How does your approach move the world forward. Your anger is palpable. What a waste. You think you are putting up a protective barrier but is is a impenetrable wall of angry bricks.
The chip on your shoulder makes you no better than the worst of your adversaries.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)The way you talk to people is pitiful. Why are you so pissed off and needy?
If you cannot debate on the merits of your reasoning, believe me name calling and pseudo, self-proclaimed greatness is not an effective plan B.
Bring persuasive arguments, grounded in logic and humility to the discussion and then you will prove yourself. One thing uglier than arrogance is unearned arrogance.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Is less transparency better or just more or less better?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)Millions of jobs lost and wages hammered.
For the defenders out there, fast-track was first used by Tricky Dick Nixon - great roots.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is still a matter of what should be made accessible by the public, and what shouldn't be.
Do you think that every meeting, every topic of discussion, every conversation Obama has with anyone should be made public? (I use that as just one example.)
The idea of "transparency" is not a black-and-white issue. It must be weighed in each circumstance, and assessed in terms of what is in the public interest to know, and what is simply a disclosure of things that encroach on someone's right to privacy.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)So you support "Right To Privacy" and condemn NSA spying, that's a good thing.
In your assessment, why wouldn't the TPP be "in the public interest"? Whose Privacy would it invade to let "The People" know what is being negotiated in their name?
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)
Cha
(296,846 posts)few months it was some kind of big effing different deal from the "hope and change President". Trying to get their ignorant cheap pot shots in like it meant something.
Mahalo Nance
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)This was at the core of his campaign.
Cha
(296,846 posts)the United States.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is to call their comments, "ignorant cheap shots"? Apparently you support the Fast Tracking of the TPP?
Have you seen this, "This is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this”…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026422709
Maybe you think Sen Schumer is making ignorant cheap shots.
840high
(17,196 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/11/06/a-brief-history-of-secretive-trade-negotiations/
But most are & if they were FAIR Trade negotiations rather than Free Trade, they wouldn't have to be.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It doesn't mean to rush things through without reading the details. It means an up-or-down vote without amendments, which precludes the chance of the GOP attaching abortion or anti-gay riders on every single element.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Now as efficient as that sounds, it isn't very democratic. You seem to think this will preclude the Republicons from trying to kill it with amendments. You must be assuming the Republcons don't like it. I doubt that they will struggle very hard and try to take credit for it once it's passed.
Which economists favor this agreement? Which progressives favor this agreement?
randome
(34,845 posts)Let's hope those concerns are addressed. That's sort of how Democracy works, isn't it? The TPP is still in a draft stage. Nothing is for certain yet. We don't even know how old the leaked pages of the Wikileaks publication are. Was it the first draft of 17? Third draft of 49? We don't know.
All I do know is that it's too early to cry 'Foul!' when we don't have a treaty to examine.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Still in a draft stage is naive. It will be in a draft stage until it's signed. What we've seen is the direction it's going and it's not going in the correct direction. And it's never too early in a democracy to yell about your concerns.
randome
(34,845 posts)I will never say to trust anyone blindly but he is not someone who wants to give the finger to the average American worker, which is pretty much what the hyperbolic nonsense about the TPP boils down to right now.
From what I recall, Krugman wasn't much concerned with the treaty. That's a lukewarm endorsement at best, admittedly. Those who haven't spoken up to endorse the treaty probably aren't that concerned with it, which is another round-about, perhaps rationalizing, way of saying they don't think it's the danger some want to see it as.
And no, the treaty isn't final until signed, especially with Fast Track authority. It's final once it's submitted. Congress will still give their usual careful examination (really, do I need the sarcasm icon?) before ratifying, as will all the other signatories.
It's a process that will probably take months, during which we can press for all the changes we want.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)give the finger to the average American worker, which is pretty much what the hyperbolic nonsense about the TPP boils down to right now." That is blind trust. I don't think the Pres Obama wants to give the finger to American workers but then did W. Clinton want to frack up our economy with his signing the repeal of Glass, Steigle? But there are other possibilities. Often politicians support what they think is good for the people only to have it blow up in our faces.
In a functioning democracy it is our obligation, not to blindly trust, but to keep our representatives feet to the fire.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Once it is done you CAN'T press for changes. Congress can vote yes or no, that's it. They can't fix it, amend it, send it back with instructions, nothing. No trade deal has ever been defeated under fast track and likewise none has been "fixed." Because you can't That's what Fast Track means!
And it won't take months. Congress must vote in 90 days or less. No bottling it up in committee, no filibuster, nothing. Remember when MOCs were supposed to "read the bill" before they voted on it? Well, ain't gonna happen. Just a big giant love fest to neoliberal economics.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Sad but possibly true.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)making the 0.1% even more fabulously wealthy.
People should fear it and many do. I question the motives of anybody who does not.
840high
(17,196 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Free trade is demonstrably improving the global wealth produced. Pie gets bigger.
It's then up to individual countries to best make sure no one is left out from the bigger pie.
The risk of large corporations getting fat by opposing legislations is pie in the sky.
Conspiracy theories.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)But I do it when I mean it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you'd been paying attention, the 99% have been losing ground, or in pie language, their slice is getting smaller and the size of the 1% pie has been getting larger for 40 years. That's a fact and not a CT.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)The evidence is there and all over the web, in the mainstream paers and magazines, in the blogs, in the academics journals. Try teh googles. You might learn something.
Philip Morris v. Uruguay (tobacco control policies):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-drake/aflcio-uruguayan-workers-_b_5775474.html
Bilcon v. Canada (environmental policies):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/nafta-ruling-against-canada-sparks-fears-over-future-dispute-settlements/article23603613/
Vattenfall v. Germany (nuclear energy):
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/swedish-energy-giant-vattenfall-nets-billions-for-nuclear-phaseout
Glamis Gold v. US:
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/oa3/files/OA-Glamis_Gold_English.pdf
An indictment of the whole system as a way to undermine regulatory laws:
http://www.thenation.com/article/right-and-us-trade-law-invalidating-20th-century#
http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2012/11/profiting-injustice
Or do you not believe in the Federalist Society and ALEC? Because that is all this system is - another way to undermine the New Deal and eny regulatory restraints on corporate behavior.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)
wordpix
(18,652 posts)So many I've lost track. Yes I know he's better than the R alternative by a long shot
