UPDATE: If the TPP Passes Bernie Sanders Will Be the Next President of the US. And Here's Why:

[sabrina 1]

Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2015, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Congress, in an act of total betrayal of the people who elected them, and of their Constitutional DUTY to represent the people who elected them by using the power invested in them by the US Constitution to legislate on behalf of the people, will ABDICATE that duty and HAND IT OVER to the Executive Branch, tipping the balance of power that is so essential to our form of government, away from the People and into the hands of ONE PERSON.

For six years, the POTUS, who will NOT be Obama for those who say that they 'trust Obama', it will be whoever the next POTUS is, will have the power to negotiate trade deals without any input from the People's Representatives.

The entire Labor Force of the US has warned Congress that IF they pass this abomination they will make sure those who vote for it will lose their seats.


2000 Progressive Orgs who represent the People are just as vehemently opposed to it as the Labor Force. A majority of Americans are opposed to it.

2 Million Signatures were handed to Congress a couple of weeks ago from citizens who are opposed to it.

So if Congress refuses to listen to the people, hands their power to represent them over the Executive Branch, it is very likely that all those Unions and all those thousands of Orgs and the people they represent will have only ONE way to prevent the TPP from going into operation, AGAINST the American workers, in deals made in secret by the POTUS, and that is to elect the ONE Candidate who is NOT CORPORATE FUNDED and who is not likely to use those powers on behalf of the thousands of Corporations whose interests certainly do NOT include the American people.

Global Trade Watch ?@PCGTW Jun 17



The entire US labor movement & 2,000 #progressive organizations all say #NoFastTrack for the #TPP: http://www.StopFastTrackNow.org

That's a lot of people who will be looking for someone who does NOT represent Corporations.

Expose The TPP ?@ExposeTPP Jun 17




#TPP impacts 800 million people & 40% of global GDP! Act now so your Rep votes #NoFastTrack: http://www.StopFastTrackNow.org

So go ahead and betray the people who elected you, and WE will make sure that we no longer tolerate Wall St funded tools who are beholden to those who pay to get them elected.

Only ONE candidate has said NO to Corporate money. And it is clear how NOT being beholden to Wall St frees a candidate to speak for the PEOPLE who elected them.

He is the ONLY Candidate who has taken a firm stand WITH the Unions AGAINST the TPP.

Thank you Bernie Sanders. Thank you Alan Grayson and the other Representatives who will try to stop this. We know what you are all up against!

EDITED TO ADD: I believe Bernie is going to win anyhow! However if this abomination passes, I believe he will in a landslide AND I believe that the Unions will carry out their promise and use the money they normally give to the Dem Party to help oust all those who betrayed them.

UPDATE: Today, the Vermont Teachers Union, membership 12,000 people, endorse Bernie Sanders and will be campaigning for him in NH and Nationally: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128015861

That was fast!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I really do want to see Senator Sanders get elected to the Presidency.

But I'd hate to see it happen because the TPP passed.

If that's what it will take, though.........I'll take it!

[marym625]

13. took the words right out of my mouth

[sabrina 1]

14. I think he will win anyhow, but I'm looking at the sheer numbers of people who are opposed to

this, ALL of the Unions, with whom Bernie has stood in public to oppose this secret deal, and thousands of advocacy groups, environmentalists and a majority of the people who are not part of any of those orgs, and I cannot see them supporting anyone who did not stand with them to oppose this.

It is likely that Bernie will get the Union vote anyhow, and much of those thousands of advocacy groups.

But if this passes I think it is all but guaranteed that there will be a political revolution that will affect not just the Presidency, but as these organizations have already threatened to do, Congress and the Senate also. They have a lot of money they have traditionally used to fund Dem candidates.

Now they will be looking to oust anyone who betrayed them and replace them, using that money now, with real Progressives.

I hope it does not pass, but if it does, Bernie is really the only one who can curb those powers they will be giving to the WH.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

167. Like I have said before.

It is time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Go Bernie!

[Purveyor]

2. Only if he goes on the independent ticket and that is a long shot. The 'clinton machine' have

neatly 'stacked the deck' against any challengers. Doubt there will even be primary debates... Why should she 'bother' her self...

[pnwmom]

4. The primary debates have already been set up. n/t

[Purveyor]

8. Do you have a time, place and participants? I'd love to see the details... eom

[pnwmom]

12. This is all that has been announced so far.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democratic-party-hold-six-presidential-primary-debates-n354016

The Democratic Party will hold six debates for Democratic candidates seeking the party's nomination, the Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday.

Four debates have already been determined to be in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, all of which are early nominating states. The final two locations are still to be determined.

[Purveyor]

16. And then there is this: "In a tweet, Clinton said she is "looking forward to a real conversation"

but did not specify how many debates she intends to attend.

"real conversation"? Doesn't sound like a debate to me...

[JDPriestly]

36. If she does not show, the other candidates including Bernie will debate, and the American

people will enjoy getting to know Bernie. Hillary is losing voters to Bernie. I think he started out at 6% support, moved to 10% and is now at 15%. It's a long way to the primary elections and Bernie is gaining steadily. That's because he is the best candidate. That's the reason.

[sabrina 1]

41. He was at 3% in Jan. So he is definitely gaining votes from the Dem base. However that is not

who he is aiming at primarily.

His real support will come from the now biggest voting bloc in the country, the Independent vote. That is now at a historical 42% while registered Dems have fallen to 32%.

The huge jump in Independent voters reflects the disgust voters have with both major parties. They LEFT the party because of the status quo and are unlikely to register as Dems to vote FOR the status quo. Those votes will all go to Bernie, some to O'Malley possibly.

And then Bernie is definitely after the huge non-voting demographic who will also not be persuaded to register to vote for the status quo since that is why they don't vote in the first place.

He is giving them a reason to vote and I have already persuaded, without much effort btw, a non voter who has not voted in years, to register as a Dem to vote for Bernie. Can't wait to get to meet more non-voters.

This is why HE was the best one to do this. While WE love Warren, skeptical and now disillusioned non voters will not trust anyone who doesn't have a long, long record they can look at as they have done before.

And Bernie has that record. He is the right person at the right time as the country is shifting away from the status quo and desperately looking for something different.

[erronis]

81. And thinking voters should be independents. The party system is just a way to trap voters.

And the two-party nominating process is just a way to make this look like a "party".

Lots of flags and cheering crowds. Lots of campaign-produced drivel spouted on every airwave and on bumpers/front yards. Very little substantive discussion about the issues.

[brooklynite]

56. "Hillary is losing voters to Bernie"...no she isn't

Her support continues to be solid at 60% + (%75 in the latest poll). Bernie's growth, which hasn't exceeded 15% has come from picking up Warren supporters and undecided.

[sabrina 1]

86. That's down from the over 80% polls were consistently posted here so yes, she is losing support.

And to someone who is not accepting Corporate money. HE was at 3% in Jan, that number increasing every month among the Dem base. And the more people get to hear him and to look at his long consistent record on the issues, the more those numbers are growing.

Bernie was at 15% BEFORE Warren's supporters decided, just this past week, to give him their support. So you are wrong about that also. It will be a month or so before we see the results of that support.

Not to mention the poll where he is now, in just one month, only 10 points behind Hillary in a critical state. That wasn't expected even by his most optimistic supporters until at least a few months from now.

It is going to be a long campaign, so people are going to have the chance to get to know who he is and with the literal army of enthusiastic volunteers working to make sure that happens, without the stain of Corporate money, and the incredible record going back decades, the people will get to know him, as they are and when they do, it is clear they like what they see and hear.

Again, you talk about 'strategy' but nothing about the issues your candidate stands for.

[brooklynite]

88. Don't know what polls you're thinking of...

There was one outlier poll at 77%, but she's been pretty solid at 60% for more than a year.

[RoccoR5955]

112. Look at the poll again.

We are still a long way out, and since Bernie has announced his candidacy, which direction consistently have his numbers gone, and which direction have Mrs. Clinton's numbers gone?
A real skill in reading polls is seeing trends in polls, and I see some trends here alright.

[brooklynite]

114. I see Clinton starting at 60% in Jan 2013 and ending at.....60% today.

Nobody disputes that Sanders has picked up votes...but so far not more than 15% are largely by taking in the previous Warren supporters.

In any event, lets see what the polling trend is now that polls are dropping Biden out.

I'll be sleeping soundly.

[sabrina 1]

134. You mean you missed all the polls on DU where she was consistently in the 80s?

Latest poll I saw today, she is now at 54%, 42% in NH, Bernie 32% in NH. To say he isn't gaining on her is to deny reality, and it has only been a month, with only an army of volunteers and no Corporate Dollars, and a Corporate Media working to try to marginalize him, and yet, he has defied all the 'predictions' and will continue to do so as more and more people get to know him.

With all the money and name recognition Hillary has, among Dems especially, she should be in the 80s, IF she had the record that Bernie has, she would be. I would be supporting her. But she is very vulnerable due to her wrong votes on such important issues.

Again, you do not talk about her positions on the issues. THAT is what voters are interested in, not in polls, and that is the problem with the political class, they are out of touch with the voters and as a result are taken by surprise at Bernie's enormous appeal so far.

[OhZone]

165. Predictwise has her chances going up lately.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Oh well.

[sabrina 1]

179. I see her chances going down. We have two great candidates in the race now though they are not known

yet to a majority of Americans. But there is a year to accomplish that and as we have seen, when people hear a politician actually speaking for them, when they get to know someone who has a long record to back up their campaign promises, things change as in NH eg.

O'Malley and Sanders are going to have cross over appeal. The only polls I've seen so far are of registered Dems.

I saw today where people are going to get some polls of Independents, now the largest voting bloc in living memory for some, demonstrating the distrust people have now of both political parties.

And non voters, many opting out altogether because of the status quo politics that has not done much for them, are beginning to learn that there are candidates who are not part of the system that so turned them off, I have personally persuaded two non voters to register as Dems to vote for Bernie, who they are now very excited about.

Bernie, from the beginning, was focusing on that huge registered Indy vote and I believe he will get that.

No one can win with just part of the base of the party, which is up to 15% for Bernie, up from 3% in Jan.

[zeemike]

187. Just how many people is that really?

Dems are 32% of the population and and 60% of that if it holds will not win a general election.
Polls can mislead you into a false sense of popularity, which it is clear to me HRC has.

When she can hold a rally in the biggest liberal city in the US and not pack them in to overflow something is wrong.

[brooklynite]

191. Rallies are not votes

Last edited Wed Jun 24, 2015, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The average voter doesn't go to political events for any candidate they ultimately vote for. Remember, Howard Dean and Ron Paul could also turn out large rallies, and couldn't translate them into votes.

[zeemike]

193. And so we went with the less enthusiastic one Kerry

And he could not beat a Bush...sounds like history repeating itself.
Rallies are a measure of enthusiasm and enthusiasm is what brings people out to the polls.

[brooklynite]

194. Given the choice of the guy who could win an Election in November...

...and the guy who couldn't win a Caucus or Primary in February, I'll go with the former.

[sabrina 1]

9. We need more than those scripted debates. Sanders has offered a way for the people to

see those who are asking for the job of POTUS in real debates without the controlled farce that we call 'debate' in this country which are designed to PROTECT candidates, rather than to actually engage in a real debate on the issues. I don't know why they are all so afraid to accept his offer.

[RobertEarl]

6. If the party leaders crush democracy like you say

Then, hell yes, Bernie should run as an independent and I'd vote for him.

But I think the party leaders are not that f'n stupid.

[sabrina 1]

30. See my post below. I see no reason why he should not still run as a Democrat. Take that party out of

hands of the Corporate tools, on the Right and the Third Way on our side.

I believe he will win, either way, but if this passes I could see him winning in a landslide.

[99th_Monkey]

80. Totally ... Bernie is not Ralph Nader

The minute Sanders runs as an independent, he would be
vehemently accused of being "another Ralph Nader" that
would 'cost Democrats the election'.

Bernie was smart to run as a Dem. Hell he's just about
the only REAL Democrat left.

[staggerleem]

99. I've been listening to Bernie's weekly phone-in segment ...

... on the Thom Hartmann Program for about 10 years now. He has stated in that venue, time and again, that he WILL NOT run as an Independent. The absolutely LAST thing that Bernie would want is to feel that he is personally responsible for putting a Republican in the White House, at a time when it's highly likely that the next President will get the opportunity to appoint MULTIPLE Supreme Court justices. We absolutely do NOT need any more decisions like FNB/Billotti, Buckley/Vallejo, Citizen's United and McCutcheon, that create people without hearts (corporations), grant Constitutional rights to those artificial persons, and conflate property (money) with speech.

[hopemountain]

141. people will need to be reminded

that in some states one can only vote the ballot under the party they voted for in the primary.

[99th_Monkey]

164. Yep - I live in such a state (Oregon) nt

[staggerleem]

215. And I believe that in many closed-primary states ...

... (i. e., where you must be registered in a given party to vote in their primary) in order to be eligible to vote in one year's primary, you need to have voted in the previous year's election as a registered member of that party.

So anyone who wants to vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary in, say, New York (where I live) and is not yet registered as a Democrat (yes, I confess, this ALSO applies to me - I'm registered as Independent, because it cuts down on junk mail) MUST get registered with the Democratic Party SOON(!), and MUST VOTE in the upcoming off-year elections (for highway supervisor, dog-catcher & the like), or both you AND Bernie will be out of luck!

[hopemountain]

238. whoa! that needs to be changed - what about

first time voters or persons who are newly arrived to the sate or persons who were ill? those are unreasonably stringent rules.

[staggerleem]

241. OK, and we can work on changing it ...

... AFTER we get Bernie Sanders elected!

Until then, get out, get active, get registered and VOTE!

[hopemountain]

242. yes, i am with you on the activism nt

[merrily]

154. No matter what Bernie does or doesn't do, he'll be accused of something.

Reading DU the last couple of months has made that abundantly clear to me.

[rhett o rick]

183. It's not that the Party leaders are f'n stupid, it's that their are arrogant to a fault.

They have the billionaires buying them martini's. And the billionaires don't care if HRC or Jeb wins. Their main objective is to torpedo Sen Sanders.

[sabrina 1]

10. I don't think he'll need to do that. The anger they will face IF this secret Corporate Deal passes

is likely to overwhelm any political machine. He can run as a Democrat and win.

Actually I think he will win anyhow. But if this passes, it is almost guaranteed imo.

[pnwmom]

3. So does that mean you want it to pass?

[sabrina 1]

7. No it does not. I am as opposed to this abomination as Sanders is. BUT if there was any question

about him winning, he will be the only way that millions of people can try to protect themselves for this total betrayal of their trust.

Put it this way, if he was not in the race, there would be no hope whatsoever until six years from now to try to stop the effects of this secret deal on the American people.

[frylock]

83. ooooooooh! almost gotcha!

[sabrina 1]

87. Lol!

[Cleita]

5. Too bad if it has to go this way, but something has to give. eom.

[aspirant]

11. Bernie will win on his own but

if they pass TPP, expect a landslide Bernie Victory

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, exactly. I believe he will win anyhow, but IF they are stupid enough to pass this, I agree, it

will be a landslide.

[aspirant]

15. TPP

Where is this rough and tough fighting champion, HRC?

Why isn't she walking around the Senate with her camera crews challenging the Pro-Trade Dems?

[Purveyor]

19. Because she is for it...lock, stock and barrel as she as indicated some 40+ times... eom

[aspirant]

23. I thought she recently said she was against it?

Evolution must be infinite

[Purveyor]

24. Oh yes...she has 'evolved', indeed! Expect more evolution depending on how the wind blows. eom

[Oh Yes]

47. And she will 'evolve' when the polls shows that TPP is very unpopular....

and the anger will be incredible, and this time, Hillary's "evolution" will be too late.

[sabrina 1]

120. Welcome to DU Oh Yes. I believe you are correct, the anger will be intense. As someone above said,

this could be a 'game changer'. This vote shows how little power the people have anymore over their Reps.

As Bernie said 'Corporations Win Again'.

[appalachiablue]

158. +1 The wrath of the people against injustice has never fared well for oppressors throughout history.

The blowback will be immense since it's always unwise to underestimate the anger and frustration of people.

[azmom]

209. +1

[sabrina 1]

27. No, I believe she said we should 'watch what Nancy Pelosi does'. Not exactly the kind of statement

you would expect from a champion of the people.

[frylock]

84. True leadership

[Flatulo]

50. The wind must have shifted.

[merrily]

155. Candidate Hillary does think the deal SofS Hillary helped negotiate and dubbed the Gold Standard is

good for America?

[840high]

175. She evolves with the wind.

[PatrickforO]

17. K&R X 1,000!

The American people are groaning under these corporate-owned politicians, and it is high time that we held them accountable for their betrayals. This means I'm watching YOU, Senator Bennet!

And, I'm certainly for Bernie, because he seems to be the only one who is offering any concrete policy solutions for wealth inequity, global warming, affordable tuition, strengthening Social Security and Medicare for all Americans. He's the only one I know of who has had the guts to actually say he believes health care is a BASIC RIGHT.

Damned right it is!

[marym625]

18. K&R

Senator Durbin is fighting it too.

I really hope this thing fails. But President Sanders would be a great prize if it does. He'll win regardless

[sabrina 1]

37. Sen. Durbin has been great on this, thanks for reminding me. There are a few good ones who

will not cave, but I'm afraid we've seen this before, the games they play. As Grayson says, it's absurd the way they are forcing this to pass, using OUR Congress as if it was a cast of characters in a play being directed by a Machievelli type director.

[marym625]

60. Just spoke to kirk's office

He's not saying. Weird. But maybe that's good.

The guy in Durbin's office said concentrate on the Dems that voted no last time. Vote should be in about 10 minutes

[Baitball Blogger]

20. I agree. The TPP has enough potential to be a game changer.

[sabrina 1]

38. Exactly, Corporate Greed may very well finally have gone too far. And yes, it will be a game changer

[SoapBox]

25. Affecting 800 million people...

800,000,000 people.

That's a stunning number.

We need Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes, stunning isn't it, and not one of them has been allowed to see what is in this monstrosity. It

smells like a Corporate Coup D'etat to a whole lot of people, not just in this country but in several of the other countries who will be affected by this.

[daleanime]

26. K&R.....

[Iwillnevergiveup]

28. Helluva post, Sabrina

It's so hard for me to process the distance between the man I voted for twice and the man I'm gonna vote for. Yes, the times they are a changing...at lightning speed.

[sabrina 1]

31. We are living in strange, and definitely changing times. The old ways have failed millions of people

maybe billions actually. And there is, as someone here said earlier, a 'shift in the force'. I believe Bernie stepped forward perhaps reluctantly, because the time was right for his kind of politics, we've seen the whole system play out now, AND because he is the only one with the long record to show that he is not just talking during a campaign, that he has been consistent on all the most important issues for so long, that alone should bring back some who lost confidence in any politician, over the past number of years.

[madfloridian]

29. Australian trade minister may have scuttled TPP for now.

Australian minister Robb may have scuttled TPP

The US Senate is expected to undertake a crucial vote on fast-track authority for the TPP on Tuesday (Wednesday AEST).

Republican senator Jeff Sessions, from Alabama, wrote an open letter on Monday to senators in his party calling on them to vote against the bill and pointed to remarks made by Mr Robb last week in an interview with Australian broadcaster ABC.

Mr Robb said, 'We are literally one week of negotiation away from completing this extraordinary deal across 12 countries and 40 per cent of the world's GDP.'

The one-week time frame was news to the senator.

'The Australian trade minister has unintentionally debunked the idea that TPP is somehow only in the planning stages,' Senator Sessions wrote.
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/world/2015/06/23/aust-minister-robb-may-have-scuttled-tpp.html#sthash.ykNuqtWG.dpuf

[sabrina 1]

33. Thank you, didn't see that anywhere on the news here. Sky is a Murdoch owned media airc, however

it is generally pretty reliable, unlike Fox.

Good, I hope it is delayed so we have more time to call and pressure those who are looking weak.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. Probably not. NAFTA only made Bill Clinton that much more popular.

[sabrina 1]

35. That was then, now the people KNOW what NAFTA was really all about. I was so naive back then.

But now I am wide awake, like millions of other people who back then were still caught up in the 'red team' V the 'blue team' game that kept us all thinking that we were really fighting for something.

Thankfully the younger generation is suffering from no such naivete and knows full well what these trade deals do the American working class.

[jwirr]

108. That was then and we have seen the results. We are less impressed with TPP.

[Drunken Irishman]

239. I'm pretty sure Clinton is more popular today than in 1993.

[jwirr]

240. To some.

[Drunken Irishman]

243. Maybe so - but overall way more popular.

[rhett o rick]

184. According to Obama and McConnell, NAFTA needs the fix provided by the TPP.

Obama has partnered with McConnell, Bonner and the devil.

[sabrina 1]

188. Who would have ever thought in the sheer joy of the results of the election in 2008

that candidate we were so excited about, who we though, would bring the promised changes, would be aligned against his own party with Mitch McConnell and the Republican party against the people who elected him.

But behind every cloud there is a silver lining. The people are awake to the whole corrupt system bought with Corporate money. And we know what needs to be done about it. I am almost embarrassed to think that back then I really didn't see the threat of all that money, I actually was glad when I read that Obama was receiving donations from former Bush funders. I mistook that to mean the the funders had realized how bad Bush was. That IS embarrassing to think of now.

[rhett o rick]

224. We were easily manipulated because we wanted it to be true. We wanted someone

to undo the damage caused by Bush. Our mistake, at least mine, was not fully recognizing that the damage was done, not by George Bush but by the Oligarchy and they smartly, backed Obama. We thought a Democrat would undo damage done by republicons, like pardon Gov Siegelman, but we were off the mark. This war isn't between Democrats and republicons, it's between progressives and conservatives. If H. Clinton is elected or Jeb, we will continuation of the domination of this country by conservatism.

According to Goldman-Sachs, a Clinton-Bush race would be a win-win for the Oligarchy.

[madokie]

34. I really do believe that Senator Bernie Sanders

will be our next POTUS. People are ready to try something different and this man is that something different

[CreekDog]

40. It's not that simple

It just isn't.

I'm a big fan of Bernie, also a fan of Hillary.

It's not going to be a one issue election with this being the decisive issue.

[sabrina 1]

42. You have no idea how important an issue this is then. Probably THE most important

to millions of people at this point that Congress is currently dealing with. And it will not be forgotten.

The crucial point is that in a move that is very rare for them, Union leaders DID promise to unseat anyone who votes for this. I have never seen the entire labor force be this united on anything.

Bernie has been working WITH them, but then he always has. There will be incredible anger if this passes, I do believe these greedy corporations underestimated the reaction of the people here who will FIGHT to retain the sovereignty of this country. It may actually start a Political Revolution.

As someone above said, this 'could be a real game changer'. Yes it could.

[BeanMusical]

44. +1

[CreekDog]

46. I'm not disagreeing on the importance, I'm disagreeing that it will decisively change the votes

And by the way, don't even try to say that I agree with the TPP decisions just because I comment on the likely political outcomes.

Don't even play that game with me.

[sabrina 1]

74. I responded to what you wrote, sorry if you don't people to respond to your comments. I'm playing NO

GAMES, this entire attempt to undermine the sovereignty of this nations by Multi National Corps WITH THE COMPLICITY of our supposed Reps is NO GAME to me, so don't YOU insinuate that I am 'playing games'.

I and millions of workers, see the OP those organizations represent MILLIONS of Americans, are outraged at the selling out of their interests and their system of checks and balances BEFORE it passes.

You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine. Game playing is not something I do when it comes to issues as serious as this.

If you are saying that Congress won't change its votes because of the opposition, I agree with that, I know they are owned by Corporations.

But if you are saying that those who betray the people will not pay in their next elections, I disagree.

[CreekDog]

113. I agree with you on TPP and also I'm glad you've posted about how horrible Putin is

At least we share that.

When I saw all your posts against Putin, I thought, we'll we have our disagreements, but at least we share the same opposition to Putin and his anti-gay laws and aggression towards the Ukraine.

[sabrina 1]

125. There is an old saying, and I believe it applies here, my advice, meant in all sincerity and in the

spirit of that much maligned though mostly right group of people, known as 'bleeding heart liberals' that you keep your day job.

Never wanting to offend those who work as hard as you do, I simply have to be honest, you are not good at this, seriously. It's for your own sake, trust me.

This thread, btw, is about the TPP and our next POTUS, Bernie Sanders.

You seem to be lost ....

[CreekDog]

140. Ok, then I'll edit and thank you for posting how horrible Putin is

for his anti gay laws and treatment of the Ukraine.



now that I've removed the extraneous wording...we can really just be thankful of what we have in common.

[sabrina 1]

142. No one can say I didn't try to save you from embarrassing yourself, but when someone is bound and

determined to do that, not much anyone can do about it. Thanks for kicking the thread though, there is a silver lining to everything when you look for it, and everything has some purpose.

Again, you appear to have lost your way .... but you don't seem to want to correct the situation, so be my quest.

[CreekDog]

143. What was the error in my last message? Did I say something incorrect?

[jwirr]

110. I do not like one issue voting either but the TPP may be one bill but it effects a whole range of

issues. Corporation profits and power not only over our country but also over poorer countries and their workers, the cost of medicines both here and again in the poorer countries. Doctors Without Borders are saying it will end their ability to get the medications they need to help other countries. It allows corporations to take countries including ours to a special court system because a country has laws that impact their profits. And that is just what we know.

[rhett o rick]

185. I think it is a one issue election, and the issue is integrity. HRC and George Bush both

gave speeches telling Americans that Iraq had WMDs. I don't forgive Bush and I don't forgive his good friend H. Clinton. She has proven she has zero integrity.

[delrem]

43. You outdo yourself in this beautiful OP!

And I get the feeling that you've hardly even started. Keep on posting!

[BeanMusical]

45. Great post(s)!

[Oh Yes]

48. I actually believe that the TPP will be the tipping point

and if it passes, Bernie Sanders would have the upper hand, and Clinton would suddenly be extremely unpopular because she chose not to make a stand on it.

[pampango]

49. republicans have more to worry about from voter retribution on fast track than Democrats do.

68% of republicans (74% of 'conservative' republicans, as if there were any other kind) are less likely to vote for a politician who votes in favor of fast track. 17% of Democrats will do the same.

11% are more likely to vote for a pro-fast track politician. It does not break down that 11% figure by party but, even if they are all Democrats, a Democratic politician is running a big political risk by voting for fast track. 17% will hold that vote against him/her while, at best, 11% (and probably less) will support that politician's vote.

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

Favor fast track? Democrats: Yes-63%, No-32%. republicans: No-72%, Yes-27%

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/business/inequality-a-major-issue-for-americans-times-cbs-poll-finds.html

[djean111]

54. Well, I am not going to vote for Debbie Wasserman-DINO, or Bill Nelson or any other

Florida DINO. Come what may. I am tired of this egregious shit. I bet that a lot of Dems in Congress figured out who could vote yes and still keep their cushy jobs, and who could vote no without affecting the outcome.
The TPP/TPA votes will affect my voting from here on out.

And yeah, all that bullshit about how the TPP is still in negotiating stages and is not done - really, no shame at all?

[pampango]

61. The 17% of Democrats who are 'less likely' to vote for a pro-fast track politician is a large number

and includes a lot of DU'ers I suspect.

[sabrina 1]

132. Those are partisan positions. Dems standing up for their team and Repubs viewing this as an Obama

commie plot, simply knee jerk react.

But the vast majority of those who matter in elections, who not only vote but contribute large amounts of money, and who represent millions of American workers, THEY are who matter when it comes to those who betray the trust of the voters. Because they are active participants and leaders in the political arena.

[pampango]

137. I don't agree that the Democratic base consists of mindless partisan cheerleaders.

And of course the republican base hates Obama.

The point of the chart is not to judge the reasons why people will support or oppose a politician who casts a pro-fast track vote but simply to show what percentage of each base would hold such a vote against that politician.

Whether the republican base will oppose a pro-fast track politician simply because they hate Obama or because they don't trust international agreements (UN, WTO, etc.) is not the point of the graph.

The point is that republican politicians have more to worry about in terms of retribution from their base for a pro-fast track vote even if the reason for that retribution is based on irrational hatred or fears.

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. How soon after the TPP passes will Bernie surge to the lead in national polls for the nomination?

[brooklynite]

64. ...bearing in mind, 'nothing' will happen

If TPA passes, the President will go back to the negotiating table. There's no assurance that a TPP treaty will be presented to the Congress any time soon.

[brooklynite]

64. ...bearing in mind, 'nothing' will happen

If TPA passes, the President will go back to the negotiating table. There's no assurance that a TPP treaty will be presented to the Congress any time soon.

[pogglethrope]

52. Unless Bernie Sanders has Silky Sullivan’s blood

running through his veins, he’s not going to be next President of the United States. He’s a very, very, very long shot.

Which states won by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 would he win? I’m not sure just what the electoral votes are for each state since the 2010 census, but it seems to me as if Sanders would have to win at least one of the states Bush won.

If the 2016 election is won by a landslide, the winner most assuredly will not be Bernie Sanders.

Yes, reality bites.

[sabrina 1]

53. In normal times your conventional wisdom might be right, but these are not normal times, so I

disagree. I remember similar statements btw, when Obama was running. I didn't agree then either.

[MohRokTah]

67. If Sanders is the nominee, I guarantee you Illinois goes red.

Illinois elected Rauner last year. This state won't stand for a Socialist, guaranteed.

[greatauntoftriplets]

146. Ever see this scary thing?

http://lincolnreport.com/archives/324674

[MohRokTah]

151. I live outside Cook Country

I live that scary thing.

[greatauntoftriplets]

152. I'm in Cook County in a town that went 80 percent for President Obama in 2012.

My sympathies.

[Maedhros]

135. Defeatist nonsense.

[brooklynite]

55. The average voter doesn't care....

Arguably they should, but they don't.

And if it did, it doesn't give Bernie Sanders any better ability to win his Primary. His speeches on trade may resonate more with his audiences, but he won't have the ability to get to enough audiences to deal with Clinton's massive lead, particularly in large States where retail politics isn't practical.

[pampango]

63. You are largely right. A Pew poll in January reflected this.

For the first time in five years, as many Americans cite defending the U.S. against terrorism (76%) as a top policy priority as say that about strengthening the nation’s economy (75%). Since Barack Obama began his second term in January 2013, the economy has declined 11 points as a top priority, and improving the job situation has fallen 12 points (from 79% to 67%).

The survey finds little change over time in many of the public’s other priorities: 67% rate improving education as a top priority, 66% cite securing Social Security, 64% reducing health care costs and 61% securing Medicare.

However, the budget deficit – which surged in importance between 2009 and 2013 – has lost ground since then. Currently, 64% say reducing the budget deficit is a top priority; that is little changed from last year (63%), but down eight points since 2013.

At the same time, other priorities are now viewed as more important. Increasing percentages say improving the nation’s infrastructure (up 12 points since 2013), dealing with global warming (up 10 points) and dealing with the nation’s moral breakdown (eight points) should be top priorities. Immigration, for which there is no 2013 trend point, has grown as a priority since last year; 52% view it as a top priority, compared with 40% last January.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/15/publics-policy-priorities-reflect-changing-conditions-at-home-and-abroad/

The top Democratic concerns: global warming, the environment, the problems of the poor and needy, education, science, lobbyists and infrastructure. The top republican concerns: strengthening the military, the budget deficit, moral breakdown, immigration, terrorism and the tax system.

The biggest increases in importance were: infrastructure, immigration, stronger military and global warming. The biggest declines in importance: jobs, the economy and the budget deficit.

[sabrina 1]

66. Do you ever talk about the issues your candidate stands for? No offense, but your comments always

seem to be about 'political strategy' which is exactly what the public is so sick and tired of.

If you think that the 'public doesn't care' then all I can say is, this is why Dems are losing registered voters because that demonstrates the out of touch attitude that is so insulting to the average voter.

You forget, it was we average people who won it all for Dems in 2008. And now it will be we, average people who will do it again, this time with a lot more enthusiasm since we have a candidate with a long record of GOOD JUDGEMENT and FORESIGHT to vote the RIGHT WAY on the major issues that concern the American people.

I suggest you stop trying to speak for us average voters because you don't do it very well. WE CARE GREATLY and it is insulting, though not unfamiliar sadly, to say we do not.

The old conventional wisdom which actually demeans voters, is being shattered right now by the fact that VOTERS NOW HAVE A CHOICE, one THEY made, not the Third Way or Wall St.

And the longer the election season, the better it is for someone who is not part of the status quo, who in just one month has set politics on its heels, showing that all the money in the world cannot buy EVERYONE, and the people view all this poisonous money in our electoral system as one of the most important issues in this campaign.

One candidate is not just talking about it, he is refusing to take it. And without that supposed all-important money, he has jumped from an unknown politician with 3% of the vote to getting 32% in a critical state despite the money being spent to make sure nothing upsets the status quo.

[azmom]

207. They don't want an informed electorate because

It would hurt their nominee. How sad and undemocratic is that?

[sabrina 1]

210. They talk about politics as if it was a football game or a horse race. No interest in ordinary

people, and a certain kind of arrogance when they do, not addressing the needs of the people, but viewing them as chips in a poker game, 'how many can we get to throw in their chips for us'.

And that is why Bernie has so much appeal. Because he is the antithesis of this callous form of politics.

[azmom]

211. They do, and it's offensive.

[CreekDog]

213. who is they?

you're talking about who will win an election if TPP is passed.

[sabrina 1]

197. WHY won't he 'have the ability to get to enough audiences to deal with Clinton's massive lead'?

[brooklynite]

202. Let's use Texas an an example...

...we don't associate it as in play in the GE, but it's actually fairly significant in the Primary. For Sanders to win, he'll need about 1.5 MILLION Democratic votes (Clinton got 1.46 M in 2008). And those votes are spread across a state that takes 10-11 hours to drive across. Sanders won't be enough money for significant ad buys, so he'll have to rely on his speeches/rallies. How many speeches can he give, and how many people will he be able to reach? Add to which, the same period he'd be competing in Texas, there will be nine other States holding Primaries. Clinton will have add buys, paid staff and surrogates in each of the Super Tuesday states. Sanders will certainly have volunteers, but if he's not paying people work full time for the week, his coverage is going to be limited.

Additionally, back in Texas, a significant share of the Primary electorate will be Hispanic. Will they be thinking of Bernie's position on foreign trade, or Clinton's position on immigration reform?

This week's Texas poll: Clinton 53/Sanders 15.,

[sabrina 1]

203. And you support a system that locks out, because of MONEY, the people's right to learn about

all candidates who are running for political office? You have just described what is a major problem in this country and is going to be THE most important issue in this election. Corporate control of our elections.

Why don't Sanders and O'Malley and Chafee have the same access to voters as the one chosen by Corporations?

What you're saying is that REASON for Hillary's lead ISN'T because she is the best candidate, it is because she has the most Corporate funding. And you see no problem with this?

But back to the difficulty facing non corporate funded candidates like Bernie.

He doesn't need to drive across the state anymore. Those days are gone. He can access voters in every corner of the state through the new media AND with the help of the growing army of volunteers he is gathering, now in the hundreds of thousands.

The corporate media of course will pushing the corporate candidates, but young voters, eg, do not listen to the Corporate media for news, they get their news from the New Media.

Bernie, even without the advantage of Corporate money and without setting foot in Texas has already garnered 15% of the Dem BASE vote, without even trying yet. In Jan he was a complete unknown there and his poll numbers were close to zero. So how did they go up to 15% before he has even campaigned there?

And that of course doesn't count the most important vote in this election, the Independent vote. And non voters who are now signing up to vote for him.

The Dem base vote is very small, only 32% of registered voters and Bernie has already captured 15% of the vote.

How is Hillary going to convince Independents to vote for her? She epitomizes the reason why nearly 10% of the Dem base has left the party since 2008, with at least half of that number now registering as Independents. Money in politics will be a huge hurdle for her. How does she explain to voters how 2.5 billion dollars from Corporations, WON'T influence her decisions after the election?

WE will make sure that voters know about Bernie, and O'Malley and Chafee. Because we are not represented by this government and you have explained why that is.

Does it bother you at all that there are so many non-voters and Indys who are thoroughly disgusted with the system you just described in this country? It is a 'vote of no confidence' for a country to have so many disillusioned people that they don't even vote anymore.

[Autumn]

57. I stand with the Unions and Bernie

for the American people.

[Enthusiast]

92. Me too.

[Romulox]

58. The Clinton fix is obviously in. Remember the "Super Delegates"? They will install Hillary. nt

[whatthehey]

68. How, precisely, since they are <20% of the delegate count?

Why didn't they do this last time, when they went overwhelmingly for her upstart challenger?

[L0oniX]

173. Ok ...so they don't need our votes. Great ...cause I wasn't really wanting to vote for Hillary.

[Sancho]

59. You know what's really humorous about TPP, TPA, fast track, etc...

even though political junkies are all up in arms about it, many voters who really don't follow politics don't have a clue what the TPP is, nor do they care.

That's one reason the polls don't reflect any traction or outrage beyond the people at rallies, who have already decided before they come to the rally, which is why they are there. It's like watching the FIFA Women's Soccer World Cup. Anyone in the stands already likes soccer, likes women's soccer, has on the colors of their countries team, and yell their heads off. Most of the rest of the world who doesn't fit into that little slice of pie really doesn't care.

MOST people vote for a candidate because 1.) they identify with a group; political party, union, religion, profession, ethnic affiliation or 2.) because they really care about a single issue; women's rights, path to citizenship, child care/education, etc. or 3.) they like the personality of the candidate; mostly people they identify with as similar.

On the list of "issue" (#2), the TPP is way, way down on the list of the average voter who is not following politics like DU. Also, even among those who follow, almost half are in favor of the TPP (fast track authority, etc.).

To think that everyone will all of a sudden understand and rise up over the TPP is pretty unlikely. Church shootings and flags get attention. Trade agreements don't. You may see bits and pieces on the Daily Show. People didn't "rise up" about Citizen's United, Gun Control, gerrymandering, or even the Iraq war (which cost trillions). There's not much chance that one person with a limited budget will have any effect.

Also, even though the AFLCIO may be against the TPP effect on jobs, unions don't necessarily go for Bernie. I'm a union officer and on a collective bargaining team. My group is AGAINST Bernie's plan to tax retirement savings - because our hard won public employee and member's retirement funds would suffer. The TPP is not an issue that Bernie alone owns. Some of the TPP is bad, but some parts may not be so bad. We all oppose the bad parts.

[whatthehey]

69. Stop being sensible. It upsets people.

[chev52]

79. I agree.

A few people I know who get their news from t.v., never heard about the TPP till I told them. They are now interested, but without a computer, still not much about TPP on t.v.

[Sancho]

104. My neighbors (retired and they vote) have never heard of it.

I asked a bunch of college students. A few have heard of it, but most don't have a clue what it's about.

We have 25% in Florida born out of the US. Virtually none of that group have heard about the TPP, except those who have small businesses are aware there are trade agreements sometimes. The also don't know how TPP's are negotiated.

Political junkies are aware of TPP. Most Floridians are more much more interested in the state legislative session than Washington.

[jwirr]

111. Try asking your neighbors about NAFTA and then tell them the TPP is another NAFTA. Or how

they feel about corporate power and imports from China. I think you will get more of a rise out of them that way.

[Sancho]

115. I'll ask at the mailbox this afternoon...the old engineer is pretty sharp.

They may have heard of NAFTA, but I doubt it. I grew up in SC where we used to talk about NAFTA - textile mills closed and were replaced by international businesses like Michelin and BMW and Benateau Yachts. I worked in a textile mill in the 70's! Some liked it and other didn't depending on how it affected each person. I never hear anyone mention NAFTA in Florida.

My guess is that my neighbors get news from the front page of the newspaper, 6 o'clock news (local), and AARP.

I have one Cuban immigrant friend who runs an import business (stone and marble) from Italy and Brazil who is in favor of TPP, but he says it won't affect his company. In general small businesses here are GOP/Chamber of Commerce types.
That's the only person in the last few weeks I know who has heard about it. Alan Grayson has been sending out emails about it, if you are on his list.

The Tampa Times has two articles on TPP in June, but both were on the Buzz (their political outlet). If you weren't interested in politics, you likely would not have seen anything.

[jwirr]

116. Yes, I see what you are saying. Here in MN many of us get newsletters from the unions so we are

up on the worker issues.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

163. Tell them no more country of origin labeling.

When people understand the ramifications of only that - it strikes fear and outrage in most people.

[jwirr]

166. Good point - we are going to eat that stuff.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

170. We won't even buy our dogs treats made in China.

And soon we could be eating Chinese "meat". That's what it will be labeled as too: MEAT - origin unknown (to you)!!

[sabrina 1]

82. You just provided the old 'conventional wisdom' that has no application at all to today's

politics. Back in 2008 it might had had some relevance, but today, after the Wall St collapse, the bailing out of the thieves who destroyed the world's economies, the disappointment of so many who thought that electing Dems would change things, the young people, the most informed demographic, who are the victims of the neo-liberal policies that have so destroyed their future hopes, your comment really sounds like it belongs in an old thread from a decade ago. No offense, but facts are facts.

Unions have traditionally supported Bernie because he has stood up for them consistently throughout his political career.

Your group seems to have gotten something wrong. Bernie wants to tax the wealthy, and unless your membership is part of the top 1% they have nothing to fear from a Sanders Presidency.

What is your group btw? I have seen no Union rep or member mischaracterize his plans for taxing the wealthy the way you say your group has.

[Sancho]

96. Repeat...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html

Why Free College is Really Expensive

Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would propose a tax on Wall Street. But spending that money on college tuition is a cynical handout to the upper-middle class.

Even Sanders himself, however, lists the Robin Hood tax as an afterthought; after all, if you raise a Robin Hood tax you can do a long list of things with the money you get from it (including cutting other taxes, or spending on other initiatives). The emphasis from Sanders’ statements is where the money will go: paying for tuition for public colleges.

The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.

Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.

Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist. His appeal was not policy wonkery; as a protest candidate, Sanders (we hoped) would at least identify the right issues, even if his solutions were unworkable. In this case, Sanders has pointed out the wrong problem.

------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/

[–]DeadMonkey321 50 points 12 days ago*

Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.

Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.

Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388484/-Bernie-Sanders-big-idea-has-a-math-problem#

--------------------------

Bernie Sanders' big idea has a math problem

The tax Bernie Sanders is talking about is pretty much like a sales tax on certain financial market transactions. I don't know the exact rate Bernie included in his bill, but the Robin Hood Tax group calls for a rate of 0.5%, or one-tenth the average state sales tax. Given that the total value of transactions in the stock, commodity and various other financial markets numbers in the trillions of dollars annually, the idea that this tax could generate enough to pay for sending young Americans to college would seem reasonable.

For example, such a tax on the $550+ billion spent on stock buybacks by the S&P 500 in 2014 would yield $2.75 billion in taxes. That's just shy of 2% of the total needed and stock buybacks are about the least productive use of corporate funds: American companies are substituting these buybacks for investments in their companies that might produce real growth instead of an illusion. Of course, they do increase the value of executive bonuses and stock options...

But wait! That's a huge chunk of change being taxed to yield only a tiny percentage of the amount Bernie Sanders thinks the market would generate.

The truth is that in order for a financial transaction tax to generate $300 billion at a 0.5% rate, the total amount of taxable financial transactions would have to be $60 trillion. Even at the average sales tax rate of 5%, the amount of taxable transactions has to be $6 trillion annually.

Just to generate enough to pay for public college tuition, the taxable amount has to be at least $29.2 trillion. And that's if nobody comes up with schemes to legally (or not) avoid the tax.

[sabrina 1]

121. Well it looks like it isn't Bernie who has the math problem, as was pointed out in the DK thread

which rightfully received only 4 recs.

It helps when you 'do the math' that you actually know what was in the proposal.

I'll start with the fact that Bernie's plan was for 'qualifying students'.

But clearly you need to go down the thread and read the excellent comments correcting the math of the author of that diary.

As for the reddit link, the author admits to just 'ball parking' HIS/HER math due to not having all the details of the proposal.

I know the investor class is up in arms over having to pay a small tax on their gambling money, but that was to be expected.

Otherwise I'm afraid your links do not back up your claims.

[Sancho]

124. It really doesn't matter how much the tax is or how much it generates...

our retirement funds are under attack. We have been to court to fight our horrible governor from increasing our contribution while lowering the payout.

We know that ANY increase - even small ones - will simply be passed on to the workers as more contribution or less retirement.

We also know, that once the door is open to tax transactions, there is no one to stop a crazy state legislature or Congress from raising the fee rate at any time.

We know that qualifying students does not alter the fact that colleges can charge higher tuition knowing that the new fund will pay their tuition. For example Bernie's state (Vermont) does NOT have tuition equity for undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children - NY and Maryland and Florida do allow in state tuition. Which way would Bernie go - like his home state (out of state costs) or like the more progressive states? Is someone brought to the US as a child "qualified"? Not in Vermont!

We know that lawmakers can get funds based on paying for education, but then switch off to using the money for other things (like they have done with lotteries).

As long as employee contributions are housed in various funds, we will oppose taxing those funds. If any of our members are millionaires after they get their hard-earned money out, then feel free to tax their capital gains and unearned income at that point.

There will be plenty of links on this in the future (if it actually was proposed in a bill), but I'm sure unions would oppose Bernie's plan unless it had no impact on retirement funds or retirement.

Likewise, AAPR groups are already suspicious of any taxes on transactions. The idea of taking money from millionaires is fine, and so is paying for college. The idea of taxing transactions is not a good idea.

[sabrina 1]

128. Where are you getting this from? Your retirement funds are NOT going to be taxed. I don't think

you understand Bernie's transference tax at all. This is like something from Fox, no offense, but if someone is telling you this, they are simply wrong. As for Vt's policies on immigrant tuition, that is not Bernie's doing. So why are you implying that he is responsible for it when everyone knows his position on immigrants which has not changed in decades.

I suggested you go back and read the comments in that awful DK thread where the transference tax on GAMBLING ON WALL ST is explained. This is not a new idea, it is being done in Europe eg and very successfully. Without touching anyone's pension funds, which is something, if you knew him at all and his record, is the LAST THING he would do.

I can't copy and paste for some reason right now, but read at least one post in that thread which has links to an explanation of what he is proposing and obliterates the diarist's claims with FACTS.

The posts are not numbered there, but the title of the post is: 'You Calculate Like a Republican' and there will find much more accurate information on what Bernie's proposal is about.

[Sancho]

138. Our retirement fund would be taxed...according to our analysis.

Our fund is invested by various state contractors - like my wife's DROP fund is controlled by Bencor. This money is transferred and manipulated exactly like a millionaire would do - it's not in our personal control. It's managed by professional Wall Street investors who DO speculate. The fund invested in AIG, Enron, Global Crossing, and hedge funds in the past!!! Yes, we have complained and argued that the state should not play games with retirement money, but good luck with that!! Jeb and friends LOVE to invest in their buddies companies and wild schemes. The also get contributions from those companies to their election campaigns. Likely, there are similar large funds - both public and private all across the country.

If they don't make "enough" for the defined benefits expected to be needed by retiring employees, then the state goes back to the employees for more contributions from their paychecks. They did that a couple years ago by reducing the "contribution" for state employees from 6% to 3%. That's a hit of 3% a year for the entire career left for some employees.

Unless you can change the way many of these funds are actually managed, the transaction tax would in fact affect us. I haven't seen anything Bernie's tax can do to distinguish between Romney investing in a hedge fund or AIG vs. the Florida Retirement contractors investing in the same funds. To the Wall Street seller, our fund managers look just like another few hundred million being invested by professional buyers.

[Sancho]

139. This is one example....183 Billion in Florida invested...most in retirement

http://www.sbafla.com/fsb/

The State Board of Administration (SBA) was created by the Florida Constitution and is governed by a three-member Board of Trustees (Trustees), comprised of the Governor as Chair, the Chief Financial Officer and the Attorney General.

The Trustees, in concert with legislative directives, have ultimate oversight. They delegate authority to the Executive Director/Chief Investment Officer to carry out the strategic direction in the day-to-day financial investments and operations of the agency. The Executive Director/CIO manages approximately 190 professional investment and administrative support staff.

The SBA is required to invest assets and discharge its duties in accordance with Florida law and in compliance with fiduciary standards of care. Under state law, the SBA and its staff are obliged to:

Make sound investment management decisions that are solely in the interest of investment clients.
Make investment decisions from the perspective of subject-matter experts acting under the highest standards of professionalism and care, not merely as well-intentioned persons acting in good faith.

[Sancho]

169. If you look at most state retirement funds, they are invested in Wall Street

I just looked at NY, AZ, WI, CA, etc..these funds are often public employees represented by unions. This money is hard-fought. It's collected and invested for decades by whatever office each state sets up - in Florida it's almost 200 billion invested by a staff of 200 who are constantly buying, selling, and trading. Also, some funds are in the hands of large private investment companies. They clearly complete transactions everyday, which include stocks, bonds, real estate, derivatives, commodities. Most of the time, no type of investment is out of bounds unless the state or controlling board specifically limit them. Those investments would be TAXED by Bernie's transaction tax. That retirement money is earned by public employees, often union members: teachers, professors, police, firemen, city employees, social workers, park rangers, etc. Every penny that fund doesn't contain, is a penny that labor has to fight over.

For example, you can see in AZ the following allocation:

Equity/Stocks: 58%
U.S. Equity: 26%
Non-US Equity: 24%
Private Equity: 8%
Fixed Income: 25%
U.S. Fixed Income: 15%
Private Debt: 10%
Inflation Linked Assets: 12%
Real Estate: 10%
Commodities: 2%

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/asset-allocation
https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/overview.htm
http://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview

[sabrina 1]

177. So Corps are risking your pension by gambling with it on Wall St. Like Enron. And you are not

worried about that? This practice needs to stop. Many people lost their entire pensions because of this neo-liberal practice of using people's hard earned money to gamble with on Wall St.

I still do not see how Bernie's transference tax affects those pensions, his plan is similar to the very successful plan they have in Europe eg. And no one's pension funds are losing money.

[Sancho]

178. Yes, most of us have fought battles with GOP Governor's on how to invest the funds (or not)!!

Florida did lose money on Enron, invested a few weeks before it failed. The Governor and his buddies control the investments. We watch them, sue them, embarrass them, look for illegal investments, etc....

In some cases, we've gotten them to restrict foreign investments, commodities, and real estate speculation, but it's a battle.

Some states are better off, others in trouble:
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/state-pension-systems-funded-ratios-financial-health.html

Regardless, many state employees are required by law to participate in the retirement system. Many large corporations have similar funds.

Taxes on large funds and transactions are a tax on public employee and many union members' retirements. I looked carefully at Bernie's website, and there is no "exception" for union retirement funds that I could find. It may start as half a percent, but what's to stop the Congress from making it 1% or 2%? Even at .5%, it could be worth a lot of $'s with many transactions on lots of dollars over 30 years of work and retirement contributions.

I don't know how European funds work, but I'll eventually find out.

[Sancho]

117. My wife and I both teach...

and I've been a union member of several unions, a officer, and on the bargaining teams.

In Florida, all state employees have a retirement fund (since 1974) that the state manages - mostly big Wall Street investments. Our optional plans like 403b and 401's are also various "approved" payroll deductions. Even our defined benefit plans depend on the big funds. If there isn't enough money for the actuaries, they raise our contribution or lower the states match, so any Robin Hood tax would be like negotiating less money for our employees.

Even though everyone want affordable college, paying for it with a tax on "millionaires" with a transaction tax would affect retirement funds as much as the rich. As far as I can tell, we'd rather pay for higher education by getting money from the rich the old fashion way - capital gains, closing loopholes, getting rid of offshore havens, and raising the rates on income for the wealthy.

[Enthusiast]

93. Show me Bernie's plan to tax retirement savings.

I believe you're full of shit.

[Sancho]

95. Here's some "full of shit" for you...I'll accept your apology anytime...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/31/why-free-college-is-really-expensive.html

Why Free College is Really Expensive

Everyone knew Bernie Sanders would propose a tax on Wall Street. But spending that money on college tuition is a cynical handout to the upper-middle class.

Even Sanders himself, however, lists the Robin Hood tax as an afterthought; after all, if you raise a Robin Hood tax you can do a long list of things with the money you get from it (including cutting other taxes, or spending on other initiatives). The emphasis from Sanders’ statements is where the money will go: paying for tuition for public colleges.

The first problem with Sanders’ proposal is that a national tuition subsidy will be counterproductive even on its own terms. The proposal will cut the economic legs out from underneath innovations such as open online courses, which may be on the cusp of delivering low-cost, high-quality college education for all. Organizations trying to deliver radical new models will now have to compete against a $70 billion subsidy for the old system.

Additionally, directing that much guaranteed money into a system is a sure-fire way to accelerate cost inflation. The state may pick up the tab for tuition, but students will still have to pay for ancillary services (such as room, board, textbooks, etc.), and those services will go up in price. These costs are not trivial; for instance, although Sweden has abolished college tuition, students graduate with more debt than students in the United Kingdom, and only slightly less than students in the US. Through economic incompetence, Sanders’ proposal might hit the jackpot of reducing college quality while also increasing cost.

Economically bad policy design from Sanders is not surprising. After all, the man is a self-declared Socialist. His appeal was not policy wonkery; as a protest candidate, Sanders (we hoped) would at least identify the right issues, even if his solutions were unworkable. In this case, Sanders has pointed out the wrong problem.

------------------------

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/36vmm8/what_are_some_legitimate_arguments_against_bernie/

[–]DeadMonkey321 50 points 12 days ago*

Apparently (according to a tax lawyer who was running around one of the earlier threads), there was no exception for 401k's, meaning that every time the mutual funds in your retirement fund rebalance, which should be a few times a year, you're paying a tax and losing money from your retirement.

Edit: just used the calculator found here to calculate the costs of 0.5% over 40 years assuming you were investing just $5500/year (the max allowable to an IRA). Using these assumptions, this tax would cost you, the average investor, $157,000 over the 40 years you're investing. This is money that I'm sure you'd prefer going towards your retirement.

Note: this isn't 100% accurate as I'm treating this as an addition to the expense ratio which isn't totally correct, but it's a ballpark figure to give the tax some context



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388484/-Bernie-Sanders-big-idea-has-a-math-problem#

--------------------------

Bernie Sanders' big idea has a math problem

The tax Bernie Sanders is talking about is pretty much like a sales tax on certain financial market transactions. I don't know the exact rate Bernie included in his bill, but the Robin Hood Tax group calls for a rate of 0.5%, or one-tenth the average state sales tax. Given that the total value of transactions in the stock, commodity and various other financial markets numbers in the trillions of dollars annually, the idea that this tax could generate enough to pay for sending young Americans to college would seem reasonable.

For example, such a tax on the $550+ billion spent on stock buybacks by the S&P 500 in 2014 would yield $2.75 billion in taxes. That's just shy of 2% of the total needed and stock buybacks are about the least productive use of corporate funds: American companies are substituting these buybacks for investments in their companies that might produce real growth instead of an illusion. Of course, they do increase the value of executive bonuses and stock options...

But wait! That's a huge chunk of change being taxed to yield only a tiny percentage of the amount Bernie Sanders thinks the market would generate.

The truth is that in order for a financial transaction tax to generate $300 billion at a 0.5% rate, the total amount of taxable financial transactions would have to be $60 trillion. Even at the average sales tax rate of 5%, the amount of taxable transactions has to be $6 trillion annually.

Just to generate enough to pay for public college tuition, the taxable amount has to be at least $29.2 trillion. And that's if nobody comes up with schemes to legally (or not) avoid the tax.

[sabrina 1]

100. How about you just post BERNIE'S own plan? Rather than the disgruntled 'investor' types who don't

want their gambling money touched to help this country in any way, interpretation of his plan?

[Sancho]

107. Those aren't disgruntled investors...

Bernie doesn't have a serious Robin Hood plan, just a wild idea.

I've heard a GOP operative here joking at a political meeting that they can't wait to use Bernie's Robin Hood tax against him. He was talking to a room of local politicians, and said it "was not much different to have a Bernie Sanders or a Bernie Maddow, both would steal your money".

States set public university tuition, so an tax that paid tuition would simply be an opportunity to raise tuition to get more money from the feds. Also, union negotiated and public employees fight for every retirement dollar, so over a career of savings, Bernie's tax would add up big time. Bernie needs to propose a different source of funds for tuition than our retirements. Capital gains, closing loopholes, etc. No one will support taxing retirements.

You also have to realize, that once implemented, that transaction tax would grow as soon as politicians saw a new source of money. And no one will keep them from funding other things besides education with the tax. In other words, it's simply a bad idea.

Everyone wants greater access to higher education, but taxing retirement will not be supported by very many working folks.

[Enthusiast]

102. There will certainly be no apology.

I seriously doubt the numbers quoted in the articles. It wouldn't be the first time the numbers turned out to be funny numbers generated to support a Wall Street driven position.

[Sancho]

105. Bernie has not real numbers...just a wild idea...

You can see what happens when experts actually analysis the numbers. I just sent you the tip of the iceberg.

You can be content to be wrong. It's fine with me.

Good luck.

[sabrina 1]

130. I have responded, but you are correct. I have read the links and it is not Bernie who has the

math problem. See the Daily Kos link, eg. The author's 'math' was literally torn to shreds in the comment section and FACTS were presented which I have advised Sancho to read.

The reddit link was even worse, if possible, with an admission up front that the author was just 'ball parking' it as s/he didn't really know all the 'facts'. They could say that again.

There will not be any apology, in fact I believe I am owed an apology frankly, but don't expect or need it.

[Enthusiast]

131. Thank you, sabrina 1. I appreciate your work on our behalf.

I really appreciate you.

[sabrina 1]

133. The feeling is mutual Enthusiast!

[WillyT]

62. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[taught_me_patience]

70. most voters don't care about tpp

Many are actually in favor of it. Tpp won't move the needle at all in this election.

[sabrina 1]

72. Could you post some links to back up your opinion on this? Because following it from several years

ago when members of Congress first tried to warn the people about what their government was up to in league with multi national corporations, I have not found a single poll showing support for this assault on the sovereignty of this country.

I look forward to your polls, so long as they are not Republican polls, we KNOW they support anything they are told to support by Fox and the Murdoch owned Wall St Journal.

[taught_me_patience]

73. Here are some quick ones:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/04/americans-warming-to-free-trade-wsjnbc-poll/

Views on trade:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-usa-trade-idUSKBN0OC2WW20150527

Those against free trade and the TPP are extremely vocal, but a minority.

[sabrina 1]

75. I did ask you not to give me a Murdoch owned WSJ poll. That demographic is Wall St so naturally

they support any Corporate Friendly Trade agreement. That is a minority in this country. But thanks anyhow, I didn't think there were any actual polls of the working class that backed up your claim.

As for reuters, are you familiar with the ownership of THAT organization?

See the OP for the actual working class response to this monstrosity. I am not interested in Wall St's opinion, but thanks anyhow.

[taught_me_patience]

76. Is Pew good enough for you?

http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/27/free-trade-agreements-seen-as-good-for-u-s-but-concerns-persist/

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that 58% say free trade agreements with other countries have been a good thing for the U.S., while 33% say they have been a bad thing.

Majorities across income categories say free trade agreements have been a positive thing for the U.S., but there are much wider income differences in opinions about the personal impact of free trade agreements.

------
This is completely inline with the other surveys I've provided.

[raouldukelives]

71. K&R

Democracy should be for people, not for corporations. The harder one works for the latter, the more one denies the former.

[zentrum]

77. One question.

Though he should be President——I'm not sure the effects of the TPP will be felt yet.

I think it will (may?) take a few years for the true devastation to reveal itself to vast range of the electorate. Labor alone is not a big enough force anymore. Sadly.

[sabrina 1]

78. Good point, they will not be felt for a while. But this is post Nafta where we know the effects of

these corporate trade deals now, unlike back then when people did ignore the warnings they received due to their support for Clinton.

True, labor isn't a big enough force anymore, but that alone is a major issue. They still carry a lot of weight in elections and have money to spend which generally went to the Dem Party but if they keep their promise re those who they view as betrayers, they will be spending it to help get real Progressive, pro-Labor candidates elected.

If the Unions endorse Bernie it will certainly boost his support, and take away from Hillary's support.

Times are different now than they were just eight years ago. Anything can happen, and the anger of the people about the bailing out of Wall St while Main St was left to fend for themselves, is real.

I believe someone like Bernie, who could not have won in 2008, is the perfect candidate for the mood of the country right now, and a boost from Unions and all those advocacy groups would certainly help him win imo.

[zentrum]

123. Good points.

Hope it comes to pass.

[MineralMan]

85. I remain unconvinced. Sorry.

[sabrina 1]

97. I remember the unconvinced in 2007. They were wrong, as it turned out.

[CreekDog]

122. Obama didn't win the primary based on the trade issue

When the trade issues were most discussed, around the time of the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, Obama took the position against the trade pacts and Hillary was seen as the more pro-free trade candidate.

She ended up winning almost all the primaries in those states.

Your hypothesis is wrong and your knowledge of history is backwards.

Hillary= Gold Obama=Purple

[nationalize the fed]

180. Thanks to Youtube, everyone can see exactly what was said

Hillary was seen as the more pro-free trade candidate.

Here's a bunch of Democrats pandering to the AFL-CIO in 2007

Skip to 18:18

Rodham-Clinton: "NAFTA was a MISTAKE"

[sabrina 1]

198. Thank the gods for the internets! They are an instant cure for the amnesia that appears to

strike when the facts are too unpleasant to remember.

[n2doc]

89. Well if passing TPP gets us President Sanders, it is worth it

I don't have a high enough opinion of the average voter to believe that they will care enough to do so, however.

[Utopian Leftist]

90. I like the way you think, Sabrina

I hope for all of our sake that you are correct.

[sabrina 1]

127. Thank you, UL, however I hope this does not pass, but I have no illusions about Corporate power

over our Government. As Bernie said today after the latest vote: The Corporations won again', and with the help of 13 by my count, Democrats.

I guess all I'm saying is that IF it passes, we have no way to stop the next POTUS from using the powers Obama and the Republicans and that small group of Corporate Dems are fighting so hard to get, to benefit his/her real bosses.

Our ONLY hope, and I expect a lot of people will see that, is to make sure no corporate backed candidate wins in 2016. The passage of this secret deal makes it even more urgent that we make the right choice in 2016, and we are lucky to have a choice at this point. Bernie is our only hope to try to at least lessen the potential damage that will result from its passage.

[staggerleem]

91. A question that I haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer to.

The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill gives the President effective sovereignty over US Trade (which, Constitutionally, is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, but hey, who wants THOSE tools in charge of ANYTHING, right?), for a period of 6 years, or through the end of the NEXT President's first term. Are you with me so far?

What I'd LOVE to know is if PRESIDENT SANDERS (heck, that phrase just looks too good for anything but all caps) could use the Trade Promotion Authority that this Congress THINKS it's giving to Jeb! (the exclamation point is part of his name now, right? ... seems to me it's a surrogate for that inconvenient surname) or Walker or some other blinkin' idiot, to REPEAL the TPP?

Anybody got an answer for me?

[sabrina 1]

103. That's a good question, I do not know the answer. I doubt it, as it involves 11 other countries

unless the US has the option to opt out, which I doubt he would be able to do without the full cooperation of the US Congress.

However, he would be the one with the power to negotiate any deals that come up, and I would think he would inform the people rather than do it in secret, as this president has done.

[AzDar]

94. BERNIE!!!

[Bubzer]

98. The big red flag I see in all this is...

the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as part of the deal. The TAA is supposed to protect people in instances where the trade agreement causes lost jobs. I don't see the TAA as being a bad thing... however, that its needed as part of the bill in the first place... makes me not trust the TPP.

For anyone unfamiliar with the TAA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is a federal program of the United States government to act as a way to reduce the damaging impact of imports felt by certain sectors of the U.S. economy. The current structure features four components of Trade Adjustment Assistance: for Workers, Firms, Farmers, and Communities. Each Cabinet level Department was tasked with a different sector of the overall Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The program for workers is the largest, and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program for Farmers is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Firms and Communities programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

[pogglethrope]

101. Libertarians kept thinking Ron Paul would become President of the United States, too.

He didn't.

[sabrina 1]

129. Liberals kept thinking Obama would become President of the United States also. He did.

Now those same Liberals who helped make what was called 'impossible, he's Black, no one will vote for an AA' etc, POSSIBLE, we are now going to repeat that success with Bernie. WE were the ones who got out the vote, won it all, in 2008. Do not forget that.

Btw, what does 'Paul' and 'Libertarians' have to do with anything closely related to this topic? Especially since they were WRONG and we who now believe AGAIN that our candidate can win, were RIGHT?

Very bad analogy. You'd have to be comparing those Paul supporters with the LOSERS back then. WE were the winners.

[CreekDog]

147. Obama didn't get the nomination due to his position on the trade issue

in those states where trade hurt our workers the most, Hillary won those states mostly by wide margins.

your hypothesis that one's trade position in a primary will decide the winner, and upend the front runner is not based on history or facts.

i'm not taking you to task for hoping for something, i'm taking you to task that it's a foregone conclusion.

you're making it up when you say that.

[Babel_17]

106. That was a good take on an interesting angle to this, thanks for posting it (nt)

[chapdrum]

109. I hope you're right

but the MSM's track record is strong when it comes to favoring Wall St. and the one percent.
The odds are not good for the rest of us if we take to the streets when/if this assault on democracy occurs.
Now, many Dems are showing their statelessness (an art perfected by the Repugs): their utter lack of loyalty to the
American people and their country's system of democratic governance.

[sabrina 1]

189. I do too, but Bernie will need overwhelming support even if he wins, they won't give up

their decades long plans to control this country's wealth and assets.

He will also need a strong, Progressive Congress. And we can start by working to throw out those who betrayed the people to day, all 41 of them and replace them with real Democrats who represent the PEOPLE.

[floriduck]

118. As a Washington resident

both Patty Murray and Maria (give me Ex-Im or I'll vote no) Cantwell are toast. I will actively support any Progressive candidate who runs against them. And Murray is up for reelection in 2016. And I hope Peter DeFazio runs against Ron Wyden in Oregon. We need to clean out the crap and get back on track.

[sabrina 1]

160. I love DeFazio, that would be a great choice. I will help you unseat the betrayers, wherever they

are. So disappointed in Wyden and Murray. I think the motivation to remove the corporate tools will be intense. See the past two mid terms, eg. It was already intense and successful.

This party needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up and that is actually happening now for a few years, on the local and state levels, with success in many cases.

[SusanCalvin]

119. Well, I guess I better start saving up my money

To give to the best candidates who primary those traitors.

[closeupready]

126. Hillary will find a way to deceive voters into thinking she ALSO

opposed the TPA, in whatever form it passes - even if it cured cancer and brought peace to the Middle East.

[wyldwolf]

136. I love DU predictions

Bookmarking and will revisit soon.

[sabrina 1]

148. Me too. 2008, same thing. We knew Obama could win, but were more or less dismissed then too.

[CreekDog]

149. i guess there was no error in my post because i asked you to point out where i was wrong

and you were silent.

you should take back the part where you said i was wrong.

[wyldwolf]

150. "You" knew Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, George McGovern, etc. could win.

Fact is, 'you' refuse to believe Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate.

[sabrina 1]

156. Wrong guess. I knew Kucinich would be attacked, after all he stood up to the Bush regime at a time

when that was viewed as practically treason. The others I wasn't around for other than Nader who I always thought should have run for Congress as he had no chance of winning the WH.

But Sanders IS a once in a lifetime candidate, even more so than Obama in many ways. I knew the country would elect an AA, young people especially were the key.

But even though I supported him, I had reservations about him after his vote for the FISA Bill amendment which caused me to realize that we didn't have a real record of where he was on major issues. Still, I supported him because of his opposition to the Iraq War and his opposition to Mandated Ins. which he immediately abandoned once elected.

Bernie otoh, has a long long record of good judgement, on Gay Rights, on Civil Rights, on War and the foresight to see into the future, the consequences of votes that others were too cowardly to cast when they were needed.

That is what makes him unique, and the ability to speak directly and place blame right where it belongs, rather than the usual 'we can't do that, it will make us look bad' weasly behavior we have become so used to.

Next time ASK me where I stood, rather than tell me. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, in case you didn't notice.

[wyldwolf]

162. Absolutely not wrong. Obama won and you think that means you're a good political prognosticator.

When, fact, he won on the basis of deep voter concerns about the state of the economy and strong disapproval of President Bush. He also benefited from overwhelming support from new voters and those under 30. Hispanic voters helped him win in several key states. And, not surprising, African-Americans turned out in large numbers to help elect the first black president in U.S. history. (He received 95 percent of the black vote.)

[sabrina 1]

181. You're doing it again, you are telling me what I THINK. This is a very bad habit some people have on

the internet, the notion that they have super powers that allow them to look into the minds of total strangers and either PUT thoughts in their heads to suit their OWN beliefs, or that they can actually SEE into someone's mind from across the internet.

You are once again WRONG. I have an opinion, it seems to be bothering you for some reason. Yes, I was right about Obama, because there really was no other choice, it was logical that someone who had voted FOR Bush's war was going to lose a huge and critical amount of votes. That didn't take rocket science.

Had Hillary voted against Bush's agenda, had she had the judgement necessary in a good leader to see what Bernie saw, eg, she would have won that election.

Same thing is going to happen again. And no, we will NOT forget that terrible vote, that helped condemn so many innocent people to a life of hell, IF they survived, and that is still ongoing. Human lives MATTER. Sen. Byrd in his historical speech before he voted no, talked about the consequences for the Iraqi People. He was not going to do to them what Bush had in mind.

Those who voted for that war, who couldn't predict what the warmongering and obvious liars would do with that power, showed a lack of the necessary qualities to be good leaders.

So, again we have a candidate who had the excellent judgement to predict what Bush and his warmongering profiteers would do and one who did not.

That vote will be a factor again. All people need to do is look at the mess in the ME right now, more than a decade later, a mess that was not hard to predict, and wonder why someone who is running for the highest office in the land, was unable to do what ordinary people were able to do.

[wyldwolf]

196. Bernie isn't running against an unpopular president. He's running FROM a popular one.

[sabrina 1]

199. Bernie isn't running FOR the Corporations, he's running AGAINST THEM and against the MONEY

spent to ensure politicians are beholden to them, poisoning our system of government as witnessed yesterday.

He is the ONLY candidate in the race who is putting his words into action by doing the job of getting the money out of politics HIMSELF by refusing to take those bribes.

THAT is going to be a very big issue in this campaign, for the first time. Hillary could help also since she has stated she too wants to rescind CU. She take the challenge and refuse Corporate money as Bernie has. He's doing great in just a month so far, without it. She probably would do better if she refused it also.

Voters will notice that IF you are opposed to Corporate funding of candidates, but are taking obscene amounts yourself, you might be just talking.

[CreekDog]

153. In 2008, Obama was the trade opponent in the primaries yet he lost those industrial states

Why won't you answer that?

You don't have an answer to that.

He aggressively came out against trade deals in the 2008 primaries in our Industrial Core (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) and she won them handily.

You keep saying Bernie is going to win because of his position against this trade agreement.

That didn't help Obama, a much stronger candidate, in 2008 win those states, why will it help Bernie this time?

You don't have an answer.

You're just talking...talking...talking.

Sounds good, but it's air, just air. I love Bernie by the way, but your argument is not borne out in recent history, not at all.

[frazzled]

200. Wrong: John Edwards was the darling of DU

at this point in the nominating cycle in 2007. He was going to be the next POTUS, and he was going to make the two Americas one! He was better than sliced bread!

[stonecutter357]

145. solid at 60%

[sabrina 1]

235. Down from the over 80% we kept seeing here on a weekly basis. And way down in NH

where Bernie is gaining so much support he is now only 10 points behind her.

[Thespian2]

157. Bernie is now

America's only hope...

[DCBob]

159. WPF

[ucrdem]

161. So you don't trust Bernie to win or to handle trade fairly?

If he's such a sure thing to win I'm not seeing the problem here.

[sabrina 1]

206. Was this meant for ME?

[sabrina 1]

208. Of course they'll pass, Corporate bought members of Congress will do their job for their

real bosses.

Hillary, where does SHE stand on this secret Corporate 'deal' for Corporations?

We know she called it the 'gold standard' of trade deals before she was a candidate.

Do you know if that is what she still believes?

We know where Bernie stands, he stands with the people, doesn't accept corporate bribes and is running a fantastic campaign without the billions Hillary will have.

And he will win, though millions of Corporate dollars will be spent trying to stop him. We know that.

[bucolic_frolic]

171. Wonder if TPP

can be overturned by Constitutional Amendment?

HOW do they keep passing laws that cannot be reversed? Ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

219. I was wondering about that also, or can the people sue due to a law

NOT written or even seen until public forced the tiny peek they got, by our Legislative Body but by entities that have no authority to write laws for this country.

[bucolic_frolic]

229. It's all written by lawyers

Where are the GOP that complained for 6 years about Obama overstepping his
executive authority?? Now they're silent, because they're getting what they want.
Obama has done wide ranging things with executive orders, but he's always
compromised with Mitch & Boehner. Bush never had to compromise.

It's the story of our democracy, where issues are decided and written into code or
given to others to administer, and put in places where no one can get at them.

The US Code is 73,954 pages. Can't change any of it, need a $300 an hour lawyer or
accountant to interpret it.

[bucolic_frolic]

230. That might be the best angle

Unconstitutional. Congress cannot delegate its powers to a foreign power
such as a multinational or a corporation based overseas, or a legal authority
serving those interests.

[sabrina 1]

231. It definitely seem unconstitutional to me. And such a lawsuit might get exposure of just who

these entities are that are writing our laws now.

I also think that elected officials who supported it, AFTER a decision on the first case, should be impeached. That take an oath to do ONE THING, to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. Seems to me they violated that oath when they signed onto to this betrayal.

[bucolic_frolic]

232. You've hit it, that strikes right to the core of the law

It takes big money and influence to challenge a law, and time, and expertise.

It really boils down to exactly as you say.

[Jefferson23]

172. I hope so, sabrina..will work tirelessly for him. K&R

[onenote]

174. I'm confused. If TPP passes and all of the Dems who supported it are ousted

who is going to control Congress?

[sabrina 1]

176. That's too easy a question. Real Representatives of the PEOPLE. Anyone who votes for this

is not a Democrat, they were simply posing as one for their corporate bosses. Most ACTUAL Democrats will vote against it. So they will be there along with the replacements chosen this time by the People, as happened in the last two mid terms. The process of getting rid of Corporate funded employees of Corporations, began a few years ago.

Corps bought the Republican party a long time ago, but they needed more employees in Congress to get their anti-People legislation passed so they bought a few more with a 'd' after their names and now have enough from both parties to get their agenda passed.

[brooklynite]

195. Let's be real...there won't be mass primaries of every Dem who voted for TPA.

Because that would be a lot of work and a lot of money. And TPA isn't an issue that gets the average voter worked up.

[sabrina 1]

221. Wow, again speaking for the average voter without any knowledge clearly, of what is important to

them.

Every Union in the country, representing millions of formerly Dem voters for the most part, opposes this secret Corporate deal.

They have the money to keep the promise they made, money that used to go to the Dem Party, spending it instead to oust those who betrayed them.

All over the Social Media last night, Nurses Unions, who know how this 'trade' deal will affect them thanks to the leaks from Whistle Blowers, and dozens of other Union Reps, the AFLCIO eg, were enraged at the betrayal.

But why am I trying to help you understand that outside the DC bubble there are millions of extremely angry voters ready to join the effort to rid Congress, which is SUPPOSED to represent them, of Corporate funded candidates. AND they have already done so, see the Mid Terms and what happened to Corporate funded Third Way candidates as opposed to real Progressives who kept their seats.

It helps Bernie for DC to remain out of touch with the real world actually.

[brooklynite]

222. Speaking for myself: a person involved in political campaigns for 35 years

...most recently in the funding of elections, and thus the crunching of reams of data about the prospects of political candidates.

Let's be clear, I'm happy to support and have supported progressive candidates WHEN THEY CAN WIN. And I've been approached by dozens of candidates running for the Democratic nomination (mostly open, occasionally against an incumbent). I know the States and Districts these people are running in. I know the financial and logistical burdens of finding a candidate and organizing and funding a campaign. And I know it's a huge investment of a Union or Advocacy group's time and financial resources (you want them to help out Bernie as well, right) to "send a message", with very limited odds of success.

But enough about me. Since you're outside the bubble apparently, why don't you go on the record and tell us which of the pro-TPA Senators and House members will be primaried? And how many will be successful? (answer to the 2nd question: 0).

[sabrina 1]

225. Here, first Union to endorse Sanders today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128015861

[brooklynite]

226. We're talking about going after the TPA votes in the House and Senate.

[sabrina 1]

228. The Unions promised to do that IF they were betrayed. The Teachers Union that just endorsed Sanders

today, will now be using their money for HIM and for other progressive candidates to replace Corporate candidates. Union money USED to go to the Dem Party. Now it will go to support candidates THEY choose, not who are chosen for them by the Dem Leadership which is currently controlled by the Third Way politicians. Debbie Wasserman eg. She I know will be facing a primary challenge. Not at all surprised to see her name on the list of SHAMEFUL betrayers.

[MrMickeysMom]

182. K&R for an outstanding thread, sabrina...

Corporate Coup D'etat, as you said. That is what the TPP portends.

I wonder if F.A.I.R. would be polling numbers of the 2015 pre-primary runners. I'm pretty sure corporately controlled media and corporately controlled members of congress get the polling they are willing to become shill for. This is what I'm wondering about the defectors from the Democratic Party (Oregon, for example).

Regardless of polls, or posters inside this thread who are focused on polls supporting their team at an NFL game, we can on GUESS the reasons our so-called representatives are falling over the cliff like lemmings.

And, there is only ONE candidate who has addressed this from his ascent from local government to the U.S. Senate.

I will do EVERYTHING I can to fight fascism. I wish some here would loose the blinders, but that is going to have to be their moment.

MMM

[sabrina 1]

186. Regarding all the polls we are being presented with, you are correct to want to see some independent

polling. And as a matter of fact, you are not alone in this. I saw a request today on Twitter asking if there was some credible polling organization we could get to poll Independents on this election. All we see here are polls of the Dem base.

Since Bernie is far more likely to get the Indy vote, no Corporate candidate can expect to get that vote since they are the reason why former Dems are now registered Independents, than Hillary, and since he himself talked about that huge voting bloc, the largest now in the country, I am far more interested in that vote than the smaller dem base vote, which Bernie already has 15% of , up from 3% in Jan/Feb.

And as you say, corporate run polls are not that reliable. No one eg, has ever called this house or anyone I know. But it is interesting that there are so many 'polls' today, in this thread eg. And there a kind of amnesia appears to have set in regarding the almost weekly polls we were seeing with Hillary over 80% in every single one until Bernie entered the race. I did point out that she has fallen quite a bit from those days, down now to between approx 54% - 60%. That is quite a drop, however no one seems to remember those polls anymore. Is it just me? Lol!

[sendero]

190. I believe there IS a "tipping point"...

... but I don't think we are there yet nor do I think this bill is enough to get us there. I'd love to be wrong though.

[LWolf]

192. K & R

[upaloopa]

201. I'll bet you can't find 10% of voters who

anything about the TPP.
Again you live in the DU bubble that in no way represents reality.

[azmom]

205. It's our job to inform them. We need an informed electorate

[upaloopa]

212. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and

disregards the rest"

[azmom]

214. Framing is everything.

[upaloopa]

217. You can talk until you are blue to my wife

about the TPP and she will not know any more after you are finished then she did before you began. Most voters are like her.
Some day down the road it may bite her but she will never make the connection.
The same was true about NAFTA.
People who lost their jobs don't blame NAFTA
They don't even know it exists.

[sabrina 1]

220. Wow, you sound pleased that Americans are deprived of information that is critical to their

lives. I was under the impression that Progressives were aware of the Corporate takeover of our media and the deliberate attempt since then to keep the voters ignorant of what Corporations are doing to this country. I remember when this was a huge issue for Democrats, to stop the propaganda machine from misinforming the public.

When did Democrats abandon these issues and go over to the other side? We KNOW that the goal of Corporate owned politicians and media, see Fox, Limbaugh and the rest of the Rightwing Noise Machine (see we even had a name for the propagannda instruments used for the deprivation of information the public is entitled to) IS to keep the public uninformed and/or misinformed. I still view this as a major issue for this democracy.

Anyhow, to get to the super important issue you raised, perhaps inadvertently, the deliberate attempt to keep important information from the public while those in power pass laws that harm them but create profits for the already obscenely wealthy.

That is OUR job. And so far, I have NO problem with potential voters knowing what is going on re the TPP eg. Especially YOUNG voters who get their news from Comedy Central and the Internet and are far better informed than you are giving them credit for.

And when I find someone who isn't aware of the TPP, it takes maybe ten minutes to give them the information our propaganda machines do not.

One word works like magic in fact. 'NAFTA', it's amazing after that how quickly they 'get it'.

I am saddened though to see anyone here viewing this major issue as a some kind of positive. When throughout the Bush era it WAS a major issue for Democrats.

[NCTraveler]

204. Looks like Sanders has it in the bag. Not just in the bag, but landslide. nt.

[Myrina]

216. "... the entire labor force" ? Bit of an exaggeration, yes?

Most working folk I know have no idea WTH it even is, or why they should care.

[sabrina 1]

227. Every Union in the country opposed the TPP. They represent the labor force in this country.

And the first Union, with 12,000 members has endorsed Bernie Sanders today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128015861

[Zorra]

218. Like Phoenix rising from the ashes. nt

[Rex]

223. Bookmarking.

I agree with you, I did not think the GOP would win this one but it looks like they have the numbers on the TPP. The Thrid Way Dems must be so proud to sellout their own party and vote FOR this monstrosity!

[sabrina 1]

237. They would not have if it were not for the betrayers, Third Way Dems, Debbie Wasserman of course

was right there voting for the Third Way as expected.

Btw, Bernie got his first Union endorsement today.

[bucolic_frolic]

233. Unconstitutional

Congress cannot delegate its powers to a foreign power such as a multinational
or a corporation based overseas, or a legal authority serving those interests.

Congress is elected to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,
not foreign interests.

This whole thing is a muddling of legal authority, state, State, sovereign, national, federal,
international, corporate. It makes no legal sense.

Class action. It's unconstitutional.

[sabrina 1]

234. Thank you for adding that here. I agree. Now what are we going to do about it? Btw, see the update,

Bernie has been endorsed by the VT Teachers Union.

[bucolic_frolic]

236. Constitutional Scholars

are the place to start, and perhaps think tanks of all persuasions.
Libertarian think tanks might be a fertile source. They see things
outside the mainstream.