CUT THE CRAP, Warrenistas: The TPP is NOT secret.

[MannyGoldstein]

Not at all.

There are many, many people who have unfettered access to the TPP, 24/7 from the comfort of their own computers. Not you, of course: like me, you're lower than a whale turd and need protection from all of the big important words. The people with access include:

- the rich Wall Street banker appointed by President Obama to negotiate the TPP on behalf of us little people, and the people working under him. (Only four senators voted against his nomination; a magical bipartisan moment.)

- about 600 high-ranking members of big corporations and lobbyists, who are "advisors" to negotiating the TPP on behalf of us little people.

Congress can get access, too - don't let anyone tell you otherwise. As President Obama said today, they "can walk over today and read the text of the agreement." But only if they've made an appointment first. And only if they go themselves, and go alone, for the most part. In some instances -- only for members of the Senate Finance committee, perhaps there are a few others - they can bring an aide that has proper security clearance.

Security clearance? Yes, the TPP drafts are classified for national security reasons.

And in the rare instances when aides are permitted to read the drafts, their member of Congress must also be present.

And, at all times while reading the draft, a minder working for the the White House's rich banker in charge of TPP must be present to keep an eye on the person(s) reading it. We can trust 600 corporate bigshots and lobbyists, but members of Congress? A scurrilous bunch, gotta be careful.

So we have a document that's hundreds or thousands of pages long, crafted by some of the worlds greatest legal minds who've spent years on this, and members of Congress can only read it themselves (more or less), only by appointment, and only under observation.

Like many of you, I have the pleasure of working with lawyers fairly often. Many of them are decent human beings trying to draft transparent agreements. But more often, their job is to write innocuous-sounding text that totally @#$%s the other party. The idea is for the other party to only find out how completely @#$%ed they are after the thing is signed.

Hundreds or thousands of pages of text, written over years by hundreds of the worlds keenest legal minds trying to @#$% everyone else, and members of Congress can only read it themselves (more or less), by appointment, and under observation. And you can't read it at all, Lumpenprole.

Sucks to be you.

So, see? It's not a secret. Not at all.

A little video you might enjoy, thanks to a wonderful post by DUer KoKo:

And here's Elizabeth Warren at the confirmation hearing of the rich Wall Street banker Obama appointed to help you and me to live better lives through free trade with microwage nations, one of which last year imposed stoning to death as the penalty for homosexual behavior:

One final word: I am so @#$%ing tired of idiots spraying warm pee over anyone who tries to speak the truth on this topic. It is revolting, utterly depraved, to defend further assaults against decent, hard-working Americans who weren't born rich, or otherwise blessed with the smarts, luck, and/or deficit of empathy needed to amass a fortune in contemporary America. Enough! Leave us a little flesh on our bones.

[roguevalley]

148. first of all, 'warrenistas' is crap. We are all dems. Secondly, even if you wade out of the

petty argument in the op, the bill is still shit. Warren is against it, Obama isn't. Warren has my back and I have hers. Please, continue. I am sure there are other irrelevancies that mean something to someone. I am focused on a shit bill.

[sabrina 1]

151. President Obama said Warren is dishonest for saying the bill is secret.

Every word of this OP is the truth. So why did the President lie about Warren? This OP is based on what she has been saying all along.

He has lost so much credibility by slamming someone who DID tell us the truth.

And Manny has done a great job of demonstrating just how wrong the President was to attack a member of his own party like that.

[MrMickeysMom]

161. +1

[erronis]

176. All Obama would need to do is to be open about the reasons for secrecy

All that I've read is just deflection so far.

A simple explanation of the reasons for making this document visible to the corporations/lawyers and for putting it into a "reading room" for the people's representatives - that would go a long way to calming our fears. But make this explanation real, not another example of what a great orator you are, POTUS.

[L0oniX]

195. Clearly Warren poses a threat to Obama's oligarchy pals.

[yuiyoshida]

171. I like a tiny bit of

Powdered Garlic with my buttered popcorn

[liberal_at_heart]

2. can't have any more of those pesky leaks don't ya know.

That would mean the American people would know what is in it and we sure can't have that.

[neverforget]

3. The ones telling the TRUTH are Ryan, Paul, Hatch, McConnell and the US Chamber of Commerce!

And the ones lying are the unions, environmental groups, Warren, Brown and whole bunch of other Democrats.

Talk about bizarro world!

[okaawhatever]

4. Why don't you cut the crap? You CAN read it, as soon as it's finalized. Oh, and tell Ms. Warren to

stop lying.

[elehhhhna]

31. 15000 pages, 60 days, incl.in depth legal and econ analysis.good luck.

[TheKentuckian]

178. and when we are done reading it and it sucks the TeaPubliKlans can shove it on through inimpeded.

This bullshit should be required to go through the formal treaty process.

[gratuitous]

5. So put that in your pipes and smoke it, you hippies!

Plus, there will be a full hour or so for debate before the vote. It may even happen in the Senate.

[emulatorloo]

6. Recommending, because you are clearly starving for attention

And I am starting to feel really really bad for you.

[zappaman]

8. +1

[sheshe2]

47. +2!

[MannyGoldstein]

52. So our President went to war with our Senior Senator today

He'll end up with his butt handed back to him on a platter, flambéed, with a delightful mango-melon reduction, I think.

He'll find out what happens when one messes with a strong woman, you bet!

[A Simple Game]

121. There is another strong woman that needs to understand what is happening here too.

Hillary better understand that if President Obama keeps strong arming the public on TPP he will end up costing the Democrats to lose the Presidency in 2016. She needs to state her position and let everyone know whose side she is on.

[erronis]

177. Not sure this isn't his game plan...

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

179. Strong women like Elizabeth and Hillary are indeed vital to our future.

[AgingAmerican]

36. Nice rebuttle

Very informative.

[Jackpine Radical]

154. Rebuttle?

I think I missed the original buttle.

[bahrbearian]

82. Snark , That's all you guys ever have,, sad

[sabrina 1]

186. Snark is so early internet. And that was so long ago when I see it now

it reminds me of those old internet forums where every poor soul who in RL were mostly ignored, were free to share their 'brilliance' with the entire world! Lol!

Thank the gods it's a little better now unless you go to the comments on Utube!

[NanceGreggs]

100. What you said.

And that need for attention is not classified as Top Secret - it's actually rather transparent.

[msanthrope]

141. Someone lost their alerting privileges for 24 hours. ....

On Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:01 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

What you said. 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6564309

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. 

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:07 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What the hell? I must be missing something, this alert seems to define "frivolous." Malthaussen
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What an utter load of shite this alert is. Google the OP, and the phrase "personal attack." Then you'll see just how thin-skinned the OP, and his various personas truly are. Honestly, it's just trolling to keep posting flame bait OPs and then whine when you feel someone has made a "personal attack." No, Manny, it's not a personal attack, it's an accurate observation that hit a little too close to the bone for you. 
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. Damnnnnn ...

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What an utter load of shite this alert is. Google the OP, and the phrase "personal attack." Then you'll see just how thin-skinned the OP, and his various personas truly are. Honestly, it's just trolling to keep posting flame bait OPs and then whine when you feel someone has made a "personal attack." No, Manny, it's not a personal attack, it's an accurate observation that hit a little too close to the bone for you.

Nailed it!

[Bobbie Jo]

149. Ouch

Busted again.

[SidDithers]

150. The Protectorate is eager to alert on any slight, real or imagined, directed toward their hero...nt

Sid

[msanthrope]

156. I wonder if the different personas have different protectorates. nt

[NanceGreggs]

200. "No, Manny, it's not a personal attack ...

... it's an accurate observation that hit a little too close to the bone for you."

[msanthrope]

207. That juror #6 certainly felt strongly. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

163. We see what we wish to see….

… The balance of information outside of that fantasy would therefore, be transparent.

[MrMickeysMom]

162. -1

I'll give Manny my attention any day, right along with the real Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

I don't bad for anyone who can't understand this because they don't want to, anyway.

[hifiguy]

170. Damn tootin'!! nt

[emulatorloo]

206. Which Manny Persona do you pay attention to?

There are so many.

By the way, you can be a real Democrat and not be a fan of Manny's rhetorical tactics.

You can admire and respect and support Senator Warren and still get tired of endless click-bait/flame-bait/rec-bait

[MrMickeysMom]

208. Gee…. I can? Thank you!

I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference without that guidance!

[emulatorloo]

209. Gee...Willful misinterpretation is so cute!

But I'll clarify in case you genuinely misunderstood.

Substitute "one can" for "you can":

"By the way, one can be a real Democrat and not be a fan of Manny's rhetorical tactics.

One can admire and respect and support Senator Warren and still get tired of endless click-bait/flame-bait/rec-bait"

[MrMickeysMom]

210. I heard you the first time… and I'm being snarky, not cute...

I sometimes will get that way, so I apologize to you for the way I came off.

BUT, BUT, BUT... what you see as the bait of one's flame, or rhetorical tactics IN MY EYES (cause, who other's are gonna reach my own brain?) is a genuine call to think about what's going on.

When you compare MG's to some other OP's I've read, I don't see anything but a call to reason.

What we have here is a failure for all on DU to communicate, so I appreciate what is said and don't see anything like flame bait. You see it another way, quite your call.

[emulatorloo]

211. fair enough and thanks

I certainly have had my own unpleasant snarky moments. You are right about communication failure here. I genuinely think most of us are on the same page regarding what is important.

[L0oniX]

192. -2

[Number23]

203. Thread Winner and Slayer in one.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Thanks Manny for white-washing .. ah, I mean .. clarifying the TPP

And shame shame on all you paranoid Warrenista scardey-cats for being even a little suspicious of the intentions of 600 global corporate lobbyists and lawyers.

[zeemike]

12. Well if you can't trust 600 global corporate lobbyists who can you trust?

[99th_Monkey]

13. Funny dat

cuz i actually just posted those very words on another TPP string.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=261364

[zeemike]

18. Proof great minds think alike.

Or copy each other.

[99th_Monkey]

27. One of those

[Oilwellian]

15. Were they all given national security clearances?

That would be an interesting question American Pravda could ask.

[zeemike]

19. They don't need no stinking national security clearances

They are the nation.

[L0oniX]

193. +1 LMFAO

[procon]

66. Well, for starters, the religion blogger who made up that list.

She says she found names on "23 different websites, so, when taking a recent intercity bus ride, I downloaded them all into one spreadsheet."

http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/06/29/insider-list


She even notes that the Obama "administration banned registered lobbyists in 2009 that they couldn't serve on the committees", but then goes on to say that "maybe these aren't technically lobbyists", and calls them corporate employees instead. There are no sources named for those 23 websites, but since she put it on the Internet... everyone thinks it must be true.

[erronis]

190. Do we have any idea that this list isn't accurate?

It looks reasonable enough to me. Perhaps a few phone calls to random individuals named to verify yea or nay would suffice.

[procon]

196. She made it up and offers no actual citation to her back up her claims.

If you ever had to write a paper in college, you know how important it is to name all of your verifiable sources so they can be checked to confirm that your assertions are correct and not fabrications cut from whole cloth. She didn't do that so there's no way to know what websites she used, or what lists of names she copied.

When she admits that her lists aren't really accurate, and adds that "maybe these aren't technically lobbyists", she loses all credibility.

[Enthusiast]

133. Pfffttt!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[whathehell]

153. LOL!

[christx30]

185. Reminds me of the president

and world leaders in the movie "Mars Attacks!". "We can trust them this time! They want peace!" Cue explosion, laser blasts, and the destruction of cities.

[zeemike]

188. I wish it were like that movie.

We could play the Indian love call song and their heads would explode.

[Skittles]

9. I just cringe when I see DUers who just KNOW Obama knows this will be good for us

seriously, they are pathetic and embarrassing

[Autumn]

10. Rand Fucking Paul and his twin, muscle head Paul Fucking Ryan are for it. Who are we to disagree?

[moondust]

41. And don't forget Bro Carnival Cruz!

He's a lover, not a hater! Haters gonna hate!

[Autumn]

140. I wonder if perhaps we should start showing them some proper respect

It seems they have turned over a new leaf, stopped their destructive actions that have for so long harmed the American people and are now doing great things for our country.

[Dragonfli]

145. They are the most progressive Congress in history,

supporting the most progressive Corporate rights agreement in history (Oh! and the Corporate rights agreement even has a small section that may deal with trade!)

[moondust]

174. "Kumbaya, My Lord"

"Kumbaya..."

Just one big, happy (unemployed, choking, sick, hungry) family now.

[RobertEarl]

14. This is not cool

Not cool at all.

[Yallow]

16. Just Say Goodbye

To 20 million more jobs.

[KMOD]

17. Any of you can choose to read the objectives of what the

potential trade agreement is attempting to accomplish here

http://www.finance.senate.gov/download/?id=FEC41212-F7AF-4A6D-BF83-978401999DAF

and the Senate has added a procedure in the bill to strip away the fast track, if necessary.

[Elwood P Dowd]

20. The objectives of NAFTA

Open up markets

Create hundreds of thousands of net new jobs

Reduce our trade deficits


Results of NAFTA

Net loss of 700,000 jobs

Trade deficit exploded


Same with all the others since then including GATT/WTO, Columbia, CAFTA, Korea, and many others.

[KMOD]

24. This is nothing like NAFTA at all.

There are many labor, environmental and US job protections addressed in the potential trade agreement.

A simple reading of even the first few pages reveals that.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. The summary pages giveth

And the detailed legalese taketh away.

[KMOD]

42. And the Senate has the ability to taketh away as well.

unprecedented for trade agreements to my knowledge.

[Fuddnik]

68. No they don't.

They have 2 choices.

1) Take it.

2) Leave it.

I prefer a third option.

3) Kill it now.

[KMOD]

70. You obviously haven't read the fast track agreement.

Congress can take it, Congress can leave it, or Congress can strip the fast track away.

As far as 3). Yes, there seem to be many to are opposed to any trade. I don't agree with you, but I will not argue with you on that.

[eridani]

122. Where do you come by this delusion that TPP has anything to do with trade?

Well, OK, five of 29 chapters do. The others are all about handing corporations the power to veto acts of democratic governments.

[99Forever]

125. Quite clearly...

... you are not an attorney.

[BrotherIvan]

175. Your post is a thing of beauty

[Fuddnik]

67. And you must be a Senior Senator on the Finance Committee who got to read a few pages......

[KMOD]

69. Nope

Thanks for the condensation.

[bahrbearian]

84. ...

[KMOD]

86. .

[bahrbearian]

92. ???

[KMOD]

94. .

I can do this too.



Beat that!

[bluesbassman]

103. Ah yes, condensation...

[KMOD]

115. .

[stillwaiting]

118. Yes, and that's why all of the labor and environmental groups are against it, and

all of the Republicans in Congress are for it.

It's a massive deal that deals with LOTS of things that liberals care about. It's not one issue; it is MANY. And the REPUBLICANS are our heroes!! Surely they must be if they are going to be helping to impose all of these labor, environmental, and US job protections. And, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is going to help us out too! Man, they really are great.

Meanwhile, trusted progressive and liberal Congressional Democrats that have seen drafts are against it.

Maybe we should become Republicans?

[Enthusiast]

134. +1 a whole bunch!

[bvar22]

199. Do tell.

"There are many labor, environmental and US job protections addressed in the potential trade agreement. "

What are the enforcement mechanisms and severe penalties for those who overstep the bounds?
Will American Courts and Juries hear these cases?
NO!!!!

These cases will be decided by the Global Industrialists themselves in their secret tribunals.
WE have no say so what-so-ever.

[truedelphi]

189. Say it loud and say it proud, Elwood P Dowd

These trade agreements are only good for the One Percent.

On account of NAFTA, after California began removing the MTBE from gasoline formulas, the state soon got sued by the MTBE company in Canada that had previously been providing the product. So we had to pay close to a billion bucks to a foreign company to NOT sell us something.

Citation: http://articles.latimes.com/2002/feb/06/business/fi-mtbe6

[zeemike]

22. But not the bill itself.

Just what the ones who want it passed say they want accomplished...yes that tells us a lot.

It's like asking Bush what he wanted to accomplish in Iraq...you know it will be good and sound like freedom.

[KMOD]

33. Of course not.

It is still be negotiated.

Without the fast track bill, (which includes a provision to remove fast track authority), negotiations end.

And perhaps that is what some want anyway.

But the reluctance that President Obama is receiving on his attempt to enact a trade pact, is unprecedented. If you actually read the proposals, it is in fact the most progressive trade deal ever proposed. It actually rights the wrongs of NAFTA. It offers labor and environmental protections that have never been proposed. This is really turning into an embarrassment. Any final deal can of course, be voted down. And the fast track bill give congress an unprecedented opportunity to remove the fast track before a final deal is made.

[zeemike]

53. Heard that same thing about NAFTA too.

But you seem to know all the good things it will do, so I would have to assume you have read it then.
Or are you just buy it because you read a proposal that those who wanted it told you it was about.
No wonder so many were fooled into a war in Iraq...it was about freedom said the Bush administration, and they would never tell any thing but the truth.

Frankly I think people have been suckered too many times to fall for this one again, but by all means give it your best shot...if you can fool them again then they deserve what they get.

[KMOD]

57. Nobody knows. There is no negotiation yet.

Your post is extremely insulting to me.

What bothers me is that new requirements are being applied to this President. People have made up their minds that they don't trust this President, without even giving him an opportunity to attempt a trade agreement. This is unprecedented. It's wrong and it's disturbing.

This President is attempting to correct the wrongs of NAFTA. This President is trying to form the most progressive trade deal ever. This President is agreeing to give congress an out.

But that is simply not good enough for some. They will not even give him the opportunity to broker a deal. They want to trash this before the details are finalized.

I'm disgusted at this point.

[zeemike]

65. Well I share your disgust, but not for the same reasons I am sure.

They have been working on these details for years now, and they still need more time to work it out?...then we don't need fast track then...wait until they have it worked out and release it and give us plenty of time to read it...that seems fair to me.

But I think the colloquial term is buying a pig in a polk for what is being done...and I did that already with Bill Clinton and it did not turn out well at all...took years before I found it out after it passed.

[KMOD]

73. Congress has been briefed 1700 times.

They are free to look at the drafts.

The Fast Track Bill gives them an opt out on fast track.

The Fast Track Bill gives the public a chance to see it.

This trade agreement proposes to fix the NAFTA wrongs.

[zeemike]

79. Well I have not seen anything in it that would fix NAFTA

So I guess that is the part that is secret.

[KMOD]

80. Did you read the proposals in the fast track bill?

[zeemike]

81. Well that's the polk

I want to see the pig.

[KMOD]

85. Me, too!

And we will.

And if it's that horrible, the Senate can strip the fast track and add amendments.

[SusanCalvin]

143. Exactly

I always get suspicious when I'm being rushed. This case is no exception.

[brett_jv]

72. Practically all you can get in the stores in USA are goods from Asia (esp. China) & the S. Pacific

So tell me why it is again ... we need a secret and brand-new trade agreement with that part of the world? Are we having TROUBLE with the current laws, whereby these countries are finding it difficult to 'trade' with the USA?

[KMOD]

74. First, it's not secret.

And yes, there are troubles with the current laws.

This potential trade agreement attempts to fix this.

[bahrbearian]

87. ...

[KMOD]

91. Who had the avatar first?

Seriously, WTF?

I'm glad that you are happy! Laughter is good, except when you look crazy.

[bahrbearian]

98. Your buddy Sid

[CANDO]

144. Just loving the plain vanilla language you're using!

No specifics, just vanilla. Oh it "proposes" labor and enviro protections! Well, in the real world there would be specific enforcement mechanisms such as tariffs to level most labor costs so corporations aren't only really looking at new "labor markets", which in reality this is all about. That, and tearing down democratic governance.

[bahrbearian]

83. ...

[KMOD]

88. ???

[bahrbearian]

90. something you might understand

[KMOD]

93. okey dokey then.

enjoy yourself.

[bahrbearian]

95. ???

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. Fuck OBJECTIVES. Give me what I'm entitled to... the TEXT of the entire thing.

Ya know, when I was young (not even a teenager yet), people were demonstrating in Chicago in '68... about guess what? Um, the government. I saw them (the protesters) brutalized on TV. It made me sure that when I was old enough to vote I'd vote for Democrats. THEN, in about 1971 after three of my Uncles went to Vietnam, where two of them lost their souls and one of them lost his life (the one who was my Mother's Brother, and my HERO), I learned that The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a TOTAL fabrication, and by a DEMOCRATIC administration.

NASA is working on a trip to PLUTO, and to get there they're (the US Government) going to need 4 BILLION human bodies to fuel the spacecraft. Did you know that? The OBJECTIVE is noble though.

FUCK fake objectives. FUCK fake transparency. FUCK the kind of authoritarianism that people cling to when they don't know their own way and invest their emotions in a POLITICIAN.

[KMOD]

102. There is no text of the entire thing,

It hasn't happened yet.

The argument is about whether or not to allow it to happen.

Peace!

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. I want to see what's on paper and being debated in secret. So does about 80% of the voting public.

I don't think ANY President, from EITHER party, or even a THIRD party, should be able to negotiate in secret an agreement that will affect EVERY American Citizen. That's the kind of authoritarianism I thought was reserved for the republicans.

QUESTION AUTHORITY. I thought that was the reason lots of us were Democrats. Nowadays The Cult of Personality rules, to the detriment of the ordinary American Citizen.

[KMOD]

107. No offense, but you are buying into a script that isn't accurate.

Nothing is being debated in secret. It is true that you and I don't know the details, but our congress persons do. That is nothing unusual.

Presidents, historically have been given the authority to make trade agreements. The current President has actually gone above and beyond in the negotiations. The Senate, unprecedently is making a huge issue on this to the point that they have drafted a bill to take back the fast track.

The message is clearly that, "We don't trust this President".

It's disgusting and sad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

108. SHOW ME THE MONEY, and earn my trust. Nothing disgusting OR sad about that.

[KMOD]

109. Yes, let's hold this President to different standards.

WTF?

[cherokeeprogressive]

111. Different standards than what?

[KMOD]

112. The standards being heralded towards this Presidents trade agreement

are unprecedented.

This President has gone above and beyond in making sure that not only the deal is the most progressive trade deal in history, but that it is also the most transparent, and the Senate has made sure that they can take away his authority, should they choose to. Unprecedented. The bitching about it, unprecedented. The crying about it, unprecedented.

It's pathetic and I'm ashamed.

[cherokeeprogressive]

113. Go hide your face then if you're ashamed. "...the most transparent," is fucking bullshit.

And that's all I have to say.

[KMOD]

114. No. I will not hide my face.

And that's all I have to say.

[Enthusiast]

136. I am happy to hear that that is all you have to say.

[myrna minx]

120. Many people (I was one) were horrified by NAFTA when it was proposed and passed.

Many of us predicted the aftermath of the passage of NAFTA and we were attacked with the same excuses that we're hearing today.

[Enthusiast]

137. Exactly. And our worst fears were realized.

I remember when we were told to STFU then too.

[Enthusiast]

135. Great post, cherokeeprogressive! I share your sentiments.

[MrMickeysMom]

169. No question on questioning authority!

Right on

[IronLionZion]

139. As Frank Underwood would say

You are entitled to NOTHING!

[sendero]

128. You do realize that in the world of business..

... the "stated objective" often has nothing whatsofuckingever with the actual objective. The "stated objective" in this case is worth a bucket of warm shit.

Compare the "stated objective" of NAFTA with its actual result. Compare the "stated objective" of the repeal of Glass Stegall with its actual result. I could go on for hours but some people just fucking never learn.

[StoneCarver]

43. You are correct my friend!

This is a great post. Read it wisely and carefully. We are having the wool pulled over...

I am so disappointed in BO. He had so much potential. I don't understand why republicans hate him so much, he's one of them. He even pushed through the Heritage Foundation/Romney health care legislation as Obamacare. -and we swallowed it. Bill Clinton and BO are the biggest bunch of liars the democrats have ever elected. I can't wait for Hillary... We are such fools!
Stonecarver

[joshcryer]

23. The annexes will be boilerplate.

Which is what make the text so large. You exaggerate how much of it can be read. The important bits are in the various objectives, not in the annexes where all sorts of stupid exceptions and clauses will be.

It should be within the capacity of any congressperson to read the main objectives of the trade agreement and say whether or not they agree with the outline provided by the USTR.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Until they're not.

Little ticking time bombs, like the change in a word that has SCOTUS reconsidering the ACA.

[joshcryer]

29. Do you have a source for the "hundreds of thousands of pages" comment, btw?

You could read NAFTA in one sitting if you were stupid enough to do it, that includes the annexes. My guess is you could read the main gut of NAFTA in about an hour or two.

The annexes for TPP are going to be enormous, but I bet the gut can be read in an hour or two, as well. The draft texts of it that have come out are not even 20 minutes of reading.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. You just proved my point, thanks.

You read it wrong. Go back and check.

You think people won't miss buried antipersonnel mines in the text while reading that stuff in a secure reading room?

[davidthegnome]

45. I read it wrong too.

After just mentioning in a previous post that I had pretty decent reading comprehension. Heh. I think that might be the first time I've used self delete.

So, I guess I also inadvertently helped prove your point.

I haven't felt this stupid since that morning I spilled coffee on the floor, slipped in it - then banged my head on the table leg... then banged my head on the chair trying to get back up. (Then I got up, said screw the coffee, and went back to bed)

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Are you available for a Three Stooges remake?

I would have made the same mistake in reading in. I scan quickly but am prone to making bad assumptions.

I sometimes write for publication, and would edit out stuff that could cause confusion, like that. But since I'm not getting paid for this... $&@# it.

[davidthegnome]

54. Can I be Mo?

That was pretty much what I did. I'm going to have to be more careful reading your posts in the future! I've always enjoyed reading them though - you're a pretty darn good writer, Manny. This TPP business... I don't think I'm a stupid person, but I'm no where near having even a vague understanding of what the hell is going on. I'm glad there are people like you out there working to enlighten.

[MannyGoldstein]

63. .

Thank you.

Enjoy it while it lasts - they may not let me be here much longer.

[joshcryer]

59. Oops, yeah, I did misread.

I think you're exaggerating how incompetent they are. Warren told us about ISDS, she read up to that point at least.

But it doesn't matter to me because we'll have 60 days to digest it and it'll probably be done in a day or two. Hell, the media will be scouring for those antipersonnel mines, too, you know.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. But then it's too late.

"There were some things in there that I really, really didn't like... but the important thing is that it creates jobs and increases wages for Americans, and we couldn't make any changes, so I voted for it."

Plausable deniability. That's what TPA is about.

[joshcryer]

62. 60 days is enough time for a SOPA/net neutrality style outpouring.

[MannyGoldstein]

64. In this case, I suspect that you're right

But since we can't be sure...

[joshcryer]

71. My guess is it doesn't happen.

I hope I'm wrong.

But that babysitting thing is bullshit and they need to get a cell phone video of it happening (I don't care about rules of whether you can have cell phones, there was actually a hearing recently where a rep's cell phone went off, they can have them). It would help bolster the campaign against it. Cause a big ass ruckass about elected officials being baby sat.

Utterly ludicrous as I said when you first said that happened. The Obama administration should be ashamed that their USTR head is doing that (even if he feels there are good reasons for it). Copying classified (not secret or top secret) government materials should be sacrosanct for those with clearance in congress. I have to wonder if it's breaking some "interfering with legislative actions" rule or something or if one exists.

[progree]

56. "Little ticking time bombs, like the change in a word that has SCOTUS reconsidering the ACA."

Exactly what I'm thinking. But most of the people arguing with you, and who are trying to tell you there is no problem, have no idea what you are referring to in your quote in my title line. Oh well.

Another thread said the TPP is 15,000 pages long. And if a properly-cleared aide reads it, the congressperson has to be there the entire time. The below from another thread

"Oh and nobody can take notes or bring any materials into the room when they read it. Oh and a staff member from the Trade Commission also has to babysit to make sure nobody does any marking or tagging. "

I wrote and read many contracts in my job, and I can assure one and all that nobody can understand what the fuck is in there just by reading it once through, no underlining/highlighting/note-taking, even if one is a subject matter expert. And no congressperson (or aide) is the subject matter expert in every aspect of public policy or even every bit of some narrowly focused field.

In reading comprehension tests, I scored in the top 95 to 99+ percentile, but I can at most read 30-40 pages an hour of non-complex material (and comprehend more than most, given my scores, but still only remember a relatively small percent of the details - and the details are vital in a contract or agreement). 15,000 / 40 pages/hour = 375 hours = 9.4 40-hour weeks just to read one bill (and remember the congressperson has to be there the entire time). Once through. Without thinking about anything in it for more than a split second or two, just reading it and trying to stay awake and my mind on task.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Until people have lived with this stuff, they have no idea

It's so easy to have a total disaster when things become adversarial... and in trade stuff, adversarial is certain.

[progree]

60. Yeah, they think it's like reading some steamy sex novel, and all they have to keep track of

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

who is fucking who.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. To paraphrase my Senior Senator...

If you read an agreement and can't tell who's getting @#$%ed... you're it!

[progree]

89. LOL, yeah, I figured I was setting myself up with that analogy. Figuring out who is getting fucked

and how, and how badly, is the whole key to understanding any legislation.

[L0oniX]

194. ^^^this^^^

[Autumn]

158. Many of us know who is fucking who. They are the one's doing the fucking,

the Republicans, a few democrats and the President we elected twice. We little people are the "fuckies*"


* I liked the word fuckies, even though I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night and I do not play a "lawyer" on TV or elsewhere I liked the sound of it ,it just sounded so legalish.

[progree]

97. And I forgot. It's not just one draft one reads and one is done -- but reading draft after draft

after draft.

I presume with each draft, they indicate what has changed from the prior draft, but then to follow, one has to read every draft's changes. One can't read, say, the 3rd draft and then the 12th draft and that's it, since I doubt that there is a document that spells out the difference between the 3rd and 12th draft.

And of course the parts that are undergoing the changes are almost always the most important and controversial parts.

[amandabeech]

164. I've read and drafted many contracts and SEC filings in my life,

have similar reading skills, and agree with everything you say 100%.

The only people who really understand this are the ones who are drafting it, and then, they may only understand their section.

[Hoyt]

26. Manny, did you or someone else purge folks like Unions, Brookings, Consumer Unions, Universities,

Humane Society, Audubon Society, state governments, etc., who were included in the original list of 600 you link above.

The following were also included in that list where you got your 600 from. Did you take these out, or do you have a link showing who did purged Unions, farm bureaus, etc., out of the list.

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
Africa-America Institute
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
American Butter Institute
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)
American Sheep Industry Association, Inc.
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Audubon Naturalist Society
Boston University
Brookings Institution
Business Software Alliance
Commissioner, Miami Dade County
Consumers Union
Council of Great Lakes Governors
Council of State Governments
Dept. of Economic Dev. & Commerce
Duke University
Florida Farm Bureau Federation
Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commission for Peanuts
Institute for International Economics
Land O’ Lakes, Inc.
Maine House of Representatives
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Maryland Port Administration
Mayor/ Orlando, Florida
Mayor/City of Doral, Florida
Mississippi Development Authority
National Association of Attorneys General
National Center for State Courts
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Governors Association
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
North Carolina Farm Bureau
Office of Governor of State of Washington
Office of Governor/New Jersey
Princeton Healthcare, Inc.
South Carolina Farm Bureau
South Carolina State Ports Authority
State of Arizona
State of Nevanda Global Trade & Investment
Supreme Court Chief Justice/Wisconsin
Texas A&M University
Texas Department of Agriculture
Texas Farm Bureau
Texas House of Representatives
The Humane Society of the United States
Treasurer, State of Nevada
United Auto Workers
United Farmers USA, Inc.
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW)
Washington State Potato Commission

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/

Here's a link to another person who tried to portray that list as just corporations. It gives you instructions where to find the stuff above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6544428


Manny, now I understand why you find E Warren so appealing. Both of you have no shame in misleading people.

[neverforget]

32. Have you paid any attention to what has happened to unions in this country? Have you not

seen the amount of money that corporations throw at politicians? Who has more money and power? Those groups you highlighted in bold or corporations and their lobbying groups?

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Many of those are lobbying groups, I believe

And some are corporations.

But not all.

Mea culpa.

So maybe... 500+ of the 600 are corporations and lobbyists?

[Hoyt]

77. E Warren's campaign organization is likely a corporation too.

Somebody purposely left those off.

[MrMickeysMom]

173. Yeah, here's the guy that left that one off...

[LondonReign2]

44. You seriously highlighted the Tx Dept of Ag, Tx Farm Bureau and Tx House of Reps?

Please look into who compromises those august bodies.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. But the NJ's Governor's office is a benificent entity

And Land O’ Lakes, Inc...

[zeemike]

48. So is this statement true or false?

they have shared texts with 700 or so “cleared advisers,” all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders’ industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights

So are those you listed not in that catagory?

[The Second Stone]

28. Does anyone have a link to the text of the latest draft?

Because if the public were to have a copy of the latest draft, I'd agree that it isn't secret. This is a trade agreement, not military secrets. It is bullshit for Congress to have secret draft proposals of laws unless they involve national security. It's either available to the public or not. I don't have access to it.

On the plus side, Obama is finally fired up about something and ready to fight and call names. I wish he had not done that, because whatever else his detractors have said about him, he has always been a class act.

I oppose the secret provisions of The Patriot Act, and I sure as hell oppose keeping secret a draft of an agreement the President is calling people dishonest over. Let the people judge for ourselves.

[Red Oak]

35. Manny - great post

You really hit it out of the park. Very good job.

[americannightmare]

38. Who do you trust???

A president who has continually hired Wall Street cocksuckers for virtually all important matters financial, or senators who are continually fighting for the average American....

[GoneFishin]

39. These weasels have had 6 years to analyze and fine tune every phrase of every paragraph to

support their future claims for free U.S. taxpayer dollars. What a rare luxury. To have years to contemplate and study every legal angle, turning the legal arguments over and over in your mind, until you arrive at exactly the right phraseology to sharply flatten any possible defense against your intended future assertions. All the while, the opposition never gets to see the document, or sees it too late to change it or make use of it.

What a crooked, dishonest farce.

[midnight]

40. kick

[davidthegnome]

50. A question...

Do you - or does anyone know if even the President has a full understanding of the TPP drafts? I mean, he's out there fighting for it... does even he know what the hell it actually is?

[tblue]

116. If he doesn't know what's in it

then he is driving blindfolded toward a hurricane, and hollering at us for not getting in the car.

No thanks. I'd rather walk.

[progree]

51. Oops, I'm back. I forgot the REC

[mike_c]

55. "trade agreements" are not meant to benefit workers...

...and that means the vast majority of Americans. Trade agreements are meant to ease burdens on corporations, and I don't mean mom-and-pop business. They're meant to increase corporate and investor profits, and profits aren't conjured out of thin air-- they're taken from the pockets of workers. We are the resource being fleeced, not the beneficiaries of the fleecing.

Obama is disappointed that some folks understand this.

[Enthusiast]

138. Truth.

[AzDar]

75. K & R

[bbgrunt]

76. K and R. Excellent!

[jalan48]

96. So Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz is wrong about the secrecy too?

Must be a vast left wing, Progressive conspiracy to harm America.

[certainot]

99. TPP actually stands for transplanetary partnership and

that's why it's secret- some people can't handle the truth

[romanic]

105. What's a Warrenista?

???

[cherokeeprogressive]

110. It's a poorly constructed insult aimed at those not emotionally invested in a politician.

And as such; any argument it's used in should be immediately dismissed.

[Jackpine Radical]

155. I think your sarcasm detector could use a little fine-tuning. (nt)

[jalan48]

147. My question too. It seems to be an attempt to smear those who do not agree with him on this.

[PatrickforO]

106. Sure lucky we have wikileaks.

The environmental provisions don't sound all that good. Basically if one of the Parties screws up and fouls the environment of another Party, then they embark on a legal morass where nothing really gets done.

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/

In the meantime, those victimized by the environmental problem caused by the first Party just have to suck it up and wait.

I'm thinking this isn't a very good agreement for us to be involved with.

[blkmusclmachine]

117. http://www.trainingforwarriors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Power-of-One-e1347564153152.jpg

[KG]

119. anybody that claims that workers on either side of t Pacific are anything other than an afterthought

are delusional or liars or both

[pampango]

123. FDR to republicans: my trade negotiations are secret until they are finished. Then

I send them to congress. You get to see them, debate them and vote on them - but not change them.

[MrMickeysMom]

165. Here's the bottom line on that piece of logic...

Federal budgets come from every citizen of the United States (and other nations, but I'm talking about the US now)…

Therefore, outside truly negotiated acts relevant to national security, any information to regulate trade SHALL be transparent to every citizen.

Fuck that other noise.

[pampango]

181. I think Woodrow Wilson said the same thing though FDR apparently did not agree.

Unfortunately international diplomacy has not followed his (or your or my) lead but has gone down the "FDR" path of secret negotiations in trade and other matters.

I agree with you and Woodrow. The tough question is: Do we stop negotiating with others if they refuse to transparent negotiations? And if the answer is YES, how do we deal with international problems if negotiations are off the table?

[MrMickeysMom]

184. So, you think the lack of negotiation transparency is somehow outside of anyone's country, do you?

I suppose you equate corporations with "others if they refuse to transparent negotiations?"

Just who do you think is insisting on the lack of transparency here? (Clue: It isn't the Woodrow Wilson or FDR, but may fall under and industrial complex.)

[Buzz Clik]

126. Obsess much?

[Enthusiast]

127. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Well done, Manny!

[RedCappedBandit]

129. Oh but clearly the uber wealthy have only ever had our interests at heart! nt

[deutsey]

130. K&R

[marble falls]

131. One of your best OPs ever. Thanks, Manny.

[RiverLover]

132. Third Way Dems: Deny. Deflect. Demean.

They've made it a CRIME for the American public to know what's in the TPP & TTIP.

That's a clue.

We only know what's in it from what has been leaked. How sad is that? What's even sadder, is we know from the leaked chapters that it hurts workers and environmental protections.

Profits over People & the Planet. Supersized.

This deal is for corporate rule over local govts. And it is backed by republicans. Its opposed by unions.

I'm horrified that another Democrat is leading on another destructive "trade" deal to take more of our jobs overseas & further weaken local govts & businesses in favor of multinational corporate rule & stockholder profits.

It's even more horrifying that he's trying to demean his own party, who are only trying to stand up for US.

[ctsnowman]

142. .

[Zorra]

152. Love your parodies of Third Way 'splainin, Manny. They are so spot on. nt

[ann---]

157. First of all

I agree with Warren but am not a "Warrenista." That is a condescending
insult to those of us who agree with her.

Obama is totally wrong on this and we will see from the consequences
that Warren was right.

[marym625]

159. K&R! Big time!

Despicable behavior by the President

[MrMickeysMom]

160. This transparency on TPP is outrageous, yet the NSA can spy on us… brilliant, America….

Can you say, "Fascistmotherfuckers"?

Good…. I knew you could…

[DirkGently]

166. I've never seen Obama like this.

Terse, opaque; ANGRY, in the same way I've seen small-time politicos enraged when a few curious members of the public dare to appear at a Zoning Board meeting or other important "business deal" that really does not concern them, in that it absolutely concerns them.

There's a smell to that attitude -- it penetrates even through a television screen. It's the smell of contempt for people so arrogant as to believe the government they fund and elect, which has sworn to uphold their interests, should be accountable to them.

It was pouring into the living room when Obama told Warren and Brown and all the rest of us to sit down and be quiet while the rich men decide how to divide up the world amongst them.

[amandabeech]

167. I've always thought that something like this was behind the "Mr. Cool" attitude.

My guess is that this is how he is when he's not in front of the public or the press. It explains a lot.

[Cosmocat]

180. What I get from it

The man is peevish about democrats leaving him out in the wind for 6 years and frustrated that they are going after him on something he sees value in.

Republican rallied around Bush II, the biggest disaster in the white house in modern history. You couldn't say shit about him until after his reelection because HE IS KEEPING US SAFE, YOU ARE HARBORING TERRORISTS IF YOU QUESTION THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF DURING A TIME OF WAR!

For his entire time in the white house republicans have gone after him RELENTLESSLY, TIRELESSLY, VICIOUSLY.

And, his party ... MIA.

They half heartedly got behind ACA, finance reform and then went and hid in a corner.

I like Warren, I like Sanders ...

But the rest of this lot are mostly finger to the wind pols like any other pols.

For all the shit this man has taken, for his strength and resilience, for his thoughtful and reasoned manner, I tend to side with him on this.

The rest of the party, frankly, have mostly been rat fucking wastes during his term.

[DirkGently]

182. Warren & Whitehouse are "rat fucking wastes?"

Because that's who he's yelling at now. The best and the brightest of the real Dems.

He's not after the corrupt blue dogs who cower in the corner when progressive issues need support. They're standing with him and the Republicans, as usual.

[hifiguy]

168. You are a treasure, Manny!

[NYC_SKP]

172. Kick

[BeanMusical]

183. Kick and R.

[sabrina 1]

187. Froman is an idiot. He made a fool of himself in that hearing, desperately trying

avoid answering Sen. Brown, speaking for the majority of the American people, when he asked why he, a US SENATOR had been IGNORED for a full YEAR by the Administration.

But Jaimie Dimon? I wonder if he ever had to wait a year when called?

Disgusting what we are learning.

[L0oniX]

191. "classified for national security reasons" = classified for corporate security reasons

[hughee99]

197. Manny, if you can't trust Wall Street bankers,

Some of the same people who sold their own bad investments to their own paying clients just to get them off the company's books, to look out for the best interests of the average American, then who can you trust?

[questionseverything]

198. this is more to the point than you might of realized when you wrote it

Enough! Leave us a little flesh on our bones.

////////////////////

literally what do you think we will export?

there are only a handful of big manufacturers left...

catapillar,harley davidson,schwinn,ford, gm and maybe john deere

no trade agreement is going to produce a huge demand for these brands around the world but what there is a huge demand for is

OUR FOOD SUPPLY

hamburger is already 4 bucks a pound because our hay and grain is sold to japan and other asian countries (and because beef is listed as a commodity but that is a different fight)

open foreign markets translates to bidding for our own food supply

[NaturalHigh]

201. What can I say Manny? K and R!

[stonecutter357]

202. Clickbait.

[George II]

204. Of course it's not secret - seems everyone on DU knows everything there is to know about it!

[Progressive dog]

205. How can so many people compalin about what's in the TPP

if it is really secret? That would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
We already have free trade with low wage nations. We have a huge trade deficit with one. The multilateral trade agreements are meant to protect our intellectual property, to reduce trade barriers against our products, to create a more level playing field.

[LanternWaste]

212. Good luck during the primaries!!!

No doubt, many think we should continue dividing the Democratic electorate by use of petulant names for those who hold other opinions... yet dare not call that warm pee, rather call it a melodramatic editorial instead for better branding and colorful victimization.

Good luck during the primaries!!!