Elizabeth Warren: Poutrage or Hate?

[SomethingFishy]

Wow Elizabeth Warren seems upset about this "secret" trade deal going down. So is it poutrage or hate? Is she a racist? Or is this something I am "allowed" to disagree with Obama on?

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-warren-opposes-obamas-nominee-tra

"I asked the President's nominee to be Trade Representative -- Michael Froman - three questions: First, would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text? Or second, if not, would he commit to releasing just a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. (Note: Even the Bush Administration put out the scrubbed version during negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.)

Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem.
?
Mr. Froman's response was clear: No, no, no. He will not commit to make this information available so the public can track what is going on.

I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative -- A direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American people have the right to know more about the negotiations that will have dramatic impact on the future of the American economy. And that will have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on the environment, on the Internet."

[progressoid]

1. She didn't get her pony.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Clearly, she's taking a principled stand. I don't think she's racist, it's not poutrage or hate.

And I'm pretty sure you can disagree with Obama all you like.

[SomethingFishy]

6. I do disagree with Obama.. a lot.

And I agree with him.. a lot.

I'm just confused as to why when I disagree with him I'm a "hater" or "poutrager" but Elizabeth Warren is making a "principled stand"...

[NYC_SKP]

10. Oh. Well, there are probably a few people who just take cheap shots and aren't good at discussion.

Namecalling and distraction are the first tools out of the box for the intellectually weak.

Just look at Michael Savage or any other OTT RW nutbag.

[Moosepoop]

12. It could be in the delivery.

Perhaps you come across as a "hater" or "poutrager," and she doesn't? Just throwing out possibilities...

[BillyRibs]

108. I get this

Same crap every time I complain about the POTUS too!

[pnwmom]

117. I don't know where you stand personally.

But many of the anti-Obama crowd here aren't Democrats. They are people who view themselves as better progressives than most Democrats and make that abundantly clear.

Like Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren is a solid Democrat, not a Naderite, or a "liberal" Libertarian, a Communist, or even a Green.

[cartach]

118. It might help if

you made a reasoned argument for your disagreements.

[idwiyo]

3. It's both, and you forgot envy. To make it worse, all three are based on racism.

[sabrina 1]

4. She's a traitor, anti-American, a Paulite, a racist and she is helping the terrorists.

Did I miss any of the talking points?

Thanks to her for not allowiing blind partisanship to stop her from doing her job.

[AngryAmish]

8. THat is what they want you to believe

Actually, she is a crypto-Jew anarchist conservative. She hates freedom.

[Ford_Prefect]

36. Oy Vey!

[ReRe]

107. And she's part-Native American Indian

... like me. We are REAL "Mer-i-cuns.)

[Dragonfli]

119. Someone usually throws "ratfucker" around at some point.

[QC]

5. Elizabeth Warren never really loved him!

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. ^^this^^

[JackRiddler]

7. She has boxes in her garage.

[awoke_in_2003]

56. And puts cream in her coffee. nt

[MNBrewer]

76. French roast, probably.

[ctsnowman]

81. lol

[awoke_in_2003]

110. String her up...

[Progressive dog]

84. Don't compare her to Snowden

Even in jest.

[JackRiddler]

87. The same kind of empty ad hominem rhetoric...

has been thrown at Warren on this board for committing the cardinal sin of speaking to reality instead of in praise of Obama at all times. Same as with Grayson, Snowden, Greenwald, Cornel West, hell, even Harry Belafonte.

[Progressive dog]

89. I didn't use ad hominem rhetoric, you did

Forgot your "the boxes in the garage" comment already.
Of course you cleverly avoided using his name, but you know who boxes in the garage refers to.

[JackRiddler]

93. What grade are you in?

[Progressive dog]

94. ad hominem huh Jack

You can deny this one too, but next time I expect you to actually know what it means.

[Aerows]

127. Do her neighbors like her?

Does she stop and pet their dog?

[Recursion]

9. Sigh. If DU limited itself to factual complaints and opposing nominations like Warren did...

... you wouldn't see the kind of reaction you do.

[SomethingFishy]

17. Bullshit.

It's not a fact that the NSA spying program has gone overboard? It's not a fact that the War On Drugs is still being fought and people who are legally supplying medical marijuana are being arrested? It's not a fact that we are supplying arms to Al Queada in Syria?

The fact is that now that Elizabeth Warren has a disagreement with Obama it's a "principled stand". Were it me making this "principled stand" against this secret free trade deal I would be called out for hating Obama or for poutraging. And I can tell you exactly why I would be "called out".. because it's a SECRET and I should just trust Obama. Like I should just trust the NSA.

[Coccydynia]

37. BINGO!

[byeya]

88. Double Bingo

[Enthusiast]

120. Triple bingo!

[Phlem]

92. yep

"because it's a SECRET and I should just trust Obama"

like congress trusting Bush on weapons of mass destruction.

Some of us are probably not wearing our blinders properly. Thus the "hater, poutrager, no pony, etc..... names. Now fix it and get in line!

-p

[cantbeserious]

101. + 1,000

eom

[Marrah_G]

26. Bullshit

[redqueen]

51. Yep. Exactly. nt

[Skittles]

53. LOLOL

you guys are a hoot

[Hydra]

67. Facts are being presented and dismissed by people who can no longer be objective

The fact that the 3rd highest rec'ed thread at the moment is "If it's not racism, then what it is?"

It's called: Bad Policy. Probably Illegal too. But apparently we're not supposed to care about that.

[MADem]

78. +1,000 !!!!

I think that a certain, shall we say, sensitivity, has revealed itself today.

[Number23]

99. Brother, you AIN'T LYING. Whew, all kinds of "sensitivities" have been revealed

And it's probably long past overdue.

[MADem]

100. I'm learning an awful lot.

I'm genuinely sad to say I mean 'awful' in every sense of the word. Wish it wasn't so, but what can we do? It is what it is.

[Number23]

105. Welcome to my world, MADem.

[JI7]

104. internet warriors, they seem more concerned with attacking others

who support Obama than the issues itself.

shows to me these people really don't give a shit about the issues.

there was a thread about Valerie Plame's comments on Snowden and Prosense responded saying she had no problem with Plame's comments and she still got an asshole type response . they were probably upset they couldn't spout out the same stupid attacks at her.

[Logical]

114. +1

[MADem]

135. The meanest and nastiest 'warriors' are, by and large, strangers to me.

They are embraced by those who are more familiar to me, because the more familiar are liking what they are saying. But a lot--not all, but a lot--of the nastiness seems to be coming from what's "outta town" from my perspective.

[sabrina 1]

133. Not just today. A whole lot has been revealed about certain people here over the past several

years. A whole lot:

Let's just hope they are not representative of the Dem Party itself because if so, the party is about to lose way more than the Independents and young people they lost in 2010.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. It is hate based poutrage because she did not get her pony.

That goes without saying.

[bigwillq]

13. More of a razecist than Paula Deen

[ProSense]

14. It's

"Elizabeth Warren: Poutrage or Hate?"

...neither. Did someone say it was?

Senate confirms Froman as next trade representative
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023053523

[SomethingFishy]

22. Nope, so far no one is going to stand against her..

Although you seemed pleased with the pick. You made an OP about it. Do you agree with Warren?

[awoke_in_2003]

59. Don't you feel special?...

you got your own PS answer complete with a link. Are you straightened out now?

[TekGryphon]

15. I don't think these conversations are productive.

On either side.

The last few days I've logged in, instead of seeing the nuanced debate I enjoy, I'm seeing passive aggressive threads like this battling against imaginary cliques that I can't even see, or who seem so miniscule that they hardly warrant taking up front page space over day after day.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. The answer, I suggest, is that inexperienced people think that there are "imaginary" cliques.

If you simply look at the post count of those who object to the piling on by certain cliques, you may come to understand that they have experienced the piling on by certain cliques.

[treestar]

45. +1

[backscatter712]

46. What we have are disruptors and shills pretending to be Democrats.

They're doing the whole "I'm progressive, but..." game, and you know what, some of us don't buy the bullshit.

I suppose it's true to describe these groups of disruptors and 50-centers as cliques.

[sabrina 1]

50. Exactly, and doing a very bad job of it as always.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

68. Exactly! So when will disruptors and shills who constantly bash Obama leave?

Seriously, I'm waiting.

It's perfectly acceptable to say "All in all, I disagree with the majority view in the U.S. that we should have anti-terrorism surveillance; I'm not worried about terrorism so I respectfully disagree with the President". While I disagree with that sentiment, at least it would have a modicum of acknowledgement that these are thorny issues. Instead though, the D.U. hosts counterproductive anti-Democratic party screamers - who are not interested in discussion, much less debate. They pull "facts" out of their ass, flat out lie, invent strawmen (like this OP did) because they don't want to acknowledge facts, and appear to be doing their best to drive people away from the party they pretend they're in favor of.

So, when are these constantly anti-Democratic "Democrats" leaving? Why are you even here? Have you considered RevLeft instead? It might be more your cup of tea.


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

[great white snark]

75. They won't leave. They crave dissension and purging to the point of addiction.

Your reply is worthy of being an OP. I stand with you in the reality based community.

[sabrina 1]

49. There are no 'sides'. There is serious issue of possible violations of the rights of the American

people. I fail to see where there can be 'side's when it comes to such a serious issue. There is a small group here who rather than discuss the issues, attacks anyone who tries to do so. They are not a 'side', they have no position on the issues, or at least they have not presented it. They are here to try to derail any discussion of the issues. Yesterday they sank to a new low. And we expect they will find a way to go even lower when this latest attempt also fails.

My advice to everyone who genuinely cares about these issues is to simply ignore them, not to engage them at all and to continue to discuss the issues they are here to distract from, and let them rant and rave in their own small echo chamber.

The fact is, if true, the recent revelations show conduct by secret courts and secret committees and multi billion dollar 'Security' Corporations, that is against the very principles we claim to care so much about in this country.

The ACLU has already filed one lawsuit, since we cannot get Congress to end the secrecy and explain to the American people why these Bush policies are still in effect AFTER the people voted out the party that initiated them.

[awoke_in_2003]

60. I took yesterday off...

Decided to finally start reading the LOTR trilogy. What did I miss?

[TekGryphon]

69. Every debate has sides, and I'm happy to hear both sides, but...

.. what I'm getting tired of is logging in and seeing thread after thread with no discussion, just passive aggressive broad brush painting groups of people as racists, apologists, etc, etc.

It's not productive, and I think I'm not the only one getting tired of seeing it on a discussion forum that typically prides itself on holding a higher standard of discourse.

[sabrina 1]

70. I have posted OPs on the issues. If you are tired of all the bickering about irrelevancies, then

write an OP about what you want to discuss.

Ignore those you believe are there only to disrupt, and focus on the discussion.

No amount of distractions will stop me from focusing on the important issues.

There have been plenty of OPs that were about the issues and had nothing to do with meta.

Trash the meta threads, I thought they were not allowed in GD anyhow, and look for the ones that are focused on issues. There are plenty of them if you look for them.

[byeya]

90. You've posted very informative OPs here on this and other topics and a close minded coterie

cannot stand to read the truth. Are they paid interlopers or just merely thick?
Anyway, keep on posting: It's good.

[pscot]

62. Pretty much the opposite of productive

It's generating hard feelings, but some fools just can't help it.

[great white snark]

71. +1

Spot on.

[NorthCarolina]

129. Maybe, but one thing is clear...

DU'ers are becoming more saavy, seeing through the BS and talking points being perpetually spewed by our resident 'conservative' third-way crowd...and THAT is a good thing.

[forestpath]

16. The same people who have double standards when it comes to any criticism of Obama

whenever he acts like Bush or even worse also have double standards for those they deem worthy to criticize him or not.

It would be comical if it weren't so irrational.

[RedCloud]

18. You mean "our" President finally appointed one from "our" side to his cabinet?

That would be breaking news. I don't recall "W" filling his cabinet with lefties.

[Bobbie Jo]

19. Neither

She oozes credibility, of course.

I hope you're not trying to compare credible figures like Elizabeth Warren to the likes of the mob on this site. The totality of their "work" has rendered their credibility on all-things Obama null and void.

Apples and oranges.

[SomethingFishy]

23. Oh I see, so anyone on DU complaining about Obama

has no credibility, but the people who support him do.

[treestar]

47. Illogical

Some do, yes, because they do nothing but criticize. And do it before they get information, as if they are looking for something wrong and trying to wring all the wrong they can out of anything that looks like it might provide some.

And of course your leap there was inaccurate, and typical of that type of posting.

That is no better than when right wingers call us terrorists for wanting any limits on the government.

[Bobbie Jo]

61. Just where did I say "anyone?"

Again, the totality tells the story.

[graham4anything]

20. She is part of Team Obama and will be on stage in 2016 congratulating Hillary

Because this is not 1980, and it is not Jimmy Carter chasing teddy Kennedy around the stage and egos
leading sense.

Everyone is on the same team when they are democratic office holders in the senate and Presidency.
Harry Reid is working with Elizabeth Warren who is working with Harry Reid.

Look at Max C. The person going to run for the seat, who all progressives like, is working with Max, because
he knows he needs Max's voters AND Max's support to gain the seat.

United WE stand
Divided WE fall.

[SomethingFishy]

25. So you are saying it's possible to support Obama and still

make a stand against something you don't believe in. Wow. I never would have guessed that judging from your regular posts.

[graham4anything]

30. Sorry, but I don't and never will stand with BushPaulNaderfamilyinc.

Do you want another Sonia Sotomayer, or another Sam Alito.
President Obama gave us Sonia. Ralph Nader gave us Sammy.

[reusrename]

64. Why is this acceptable dissent by Warren?

I don't get it.

Isn't she really just a Teabagger?

If not, why not?

Can you explain why her dissent is allowed?

[graham4anything]

65. True Democratic supporters do nuance. EOM, have a nice day. No further needed.

[reusrename]

82. Warren is anything but nuanced on this issue. I don't think that's it.

"I don't know!" is a perfectly acceptable answer to my question. I have no idea myself. That's why I asked.

[Iliyah]

34. Thank you graham4anything!

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.............

This is the intent of the RW. And there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing the president nor anyone else in the Democratic Party thats what I call a healthly Democracy. Usually on the right if you don't toll the line you are considered a liberual loving turncoat.

[IDemo]

21. Between this and calling the SCOTUS 'a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce'

It should be abundantly clear that her name will appear on no Democratic ticket. The Third Way Party suits wouldn't stand for it.

[bhikkhu]

24. Its the usual battle between the legislative and executive branches over trade

...where the executive branch is traditionally given a great deal of leeway (by the constitution, as our failures in trade were a big issue in 1787), and the legislative branch typically tries to curtail that, for political or other reasons.

I don't see hate or evil on either side, its just the day-to-day workings of government.

[SomethingFishy]

27. I don't see hate or evil on either side either..

What I do see is a double standard. Anyone who complains about policy on DU is unqualified and therefore a poutrager or a hater, but when Elizabeth Warren does it it's a principled stand.


A few weeks ago when I posted about this "secret trade deal" the thread was laughed at and dropped like a stone.

[bhikkhu]

32. In the OP she objects to the details of the procedure

...which is pretty reasonable, and stated pretty reasonably. I'd like to see more objections of that kind here; more facts, more details, and less "all caps".

And less derision too on both sides; perhaps if all things were done with some civility and backed by good research and open minds there wouldn't be a "both sides".

[enlightenment]

52. Huh?

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the authority to regulate commerce is in Article I of the Constitution.
Not Article II - so I'm unclear as to how the Executive is Constitutionally given authority over trade. The US Trades Representative was created by Executive order (a rather unilateral action).

[bhikkhu]

113. Here's a little about that:

From the Chamber of Commerce (a source of information in this case, though I am aware of their well-deserved reputation):

"To secure new market-opening trade agreements, Congress must renew the traditional trade negotiating authority that every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has enjoyed. Sometimes called “trade promotion authority” or “fast track,” this trade negotiating authority gives the United States a seat at the table in international trade negotiations. However, this authority lapsed in 2007.

Trade negotiating authority is a historic compromise between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress authority to regulate international commerce, but it gives the president authority to negotiate with foreign governments. Trade negotiating authority permits the executive branch to negotiate agreements in consultation with the Congress; when an agreement is reached, Congress may approve or reject it, but not amend it."

http://www.uschamber.com/international/agenda/renew-trade-negotiating-authority

As I said, negotiating trade agreements is the president's job traditionally, after which congress can approve or not. George Washington sent John Jay to England to negotiate a trade agreement which favored Britain at the expense of France, which riled up many politicians of the time. Jefferson's ineptitude at trade negotiations led to the Embargo Act, which more or less prohibited foreign trade and hobbled the US economy. It was probably the largest failure of his presidency. Andrew Jackson successfully negotiated many favorable trade agreements on our behalf, in Europe, Asia and South America. And so forth. That's just how it works - it is the president or the administration of the president that is responsible, not congress.

[enlightenment]

115. Okay -

yes, Congress has ceded their authority in many ways - but it is not the responsibility nor the authority of the executive branch to negotiate trade deals - really. The Constitution is not just toilet paper and the authority rests with the legislative branch.

What they have chosen to do or not do with it doesn't change that authority, so let's keep that straight. I don't disagree that they prefer to close their eyes - and since 1960 have allowed the executive (via executive order, by the way) to manage the operation via the US Trades Rep - but that doesn't change the Constitutionally mandated authority.

The US Trades Rep is out of line on this. Full stop.

[bhikkhu]

134. Article II, Section II: "He shall have Power...to make treaties."

The snipped part in the middle there is "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate", which has been the issue over the years. Advice might be listened to or not - there is no compulsion - and consent is simply an up or down vote. That's more or less what we have now.

The controversy historically was that it was often allowed for the president to make treaties and enter into international agreements on trade without senate approval. The history is more clear here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag21_user.html

In any case, the president does have the authority to negotiate trade agreements, granted by the constitution, and that's always been a part of the job description. Obviously congress is required by the constitution to approve anything before it becomes law, though that hasn't always been the case in practice.

on edit - one thing that might make that more understandable is that senators are elected to represent the people of their state in congress. The president represents the interests of the whole. Negotiating with a foreign power has always been done at the "whole" level, and that was the intent of the constitution. The articles of the federation didn't provide for that; individual states were on their own, which worked very poorly for virtually everyone (except perhaps France and Spain, who were able to take advantage of the disorganized mess).

[Doctor_J]

132. yeah but usually it's dems vs republicans

Here of course as usual the president is acting like a republican

[allin99]

28. Neither, cuz clinton made obama do it. DUH!

[Arkana]

29. She disagrees. That's her right.

[karynnj]

31. This is a disgusting op that is just flamebait

No one has called Warren's stand anything other than what it is - a vote for transparency against a nominee who spoke against providing that. I assume that it also is a protest vote against a nomination with sufficient votes to pass without hers. If you want I could point to other such votes by various Senators or former Senators. (All having in common a vote against someone with a statement outlining a broader concern that is not really an objection to the person, who did nothing other than what he had to do. Forman could NOT commit to release something unless the security designation were changed.

It is kind of presumptuous to equate this to your own posts. The fact is that if Warren, Obama, or any other leader does something that people disagree with, they will be criticized - and should be. Where many object is when the criticism moves from criticism of an action (or actions) to personal attacks. People who disagree with what they see as personal attacks may themselves go to far - speaking of hate or "poutrage" It would be so much better if arguments stayed on the issues, but that is not always the nature of discussion boards.

[BrotherIvan]

38. On DU, ANY criticism of the President's policies are seen as personal attacks

No criticism is allowed whatsoever without the sycophants piling on and hurling insults. Some of the very people on here who are trying to looks so reasonable and magnanimous toward Warren's "principled stand" are the very same people who go completely batshit in every thread, hippie punching in all directions like Jackie Chan in the Drunken Master. Oh, and don't forget blanket threads saying anyone who disagrees with NSA surveillance is a racist. Those were classic.

[Logical]

39. LOL, now you worry about flamebait! But the post calling me racist was ok?? n-t

[Skittles]

54. YOU KNOW IT, LOGICAL

methinks they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize hypocrisy and irony

[karynnj]

80. I never saw that post, don't know what led to it - and would likely have alerted on it, had I seen i

if the only thing you did was criticize Obama. (I criticized Ken Blackwell many many times - he's black - it's not racist to say that he cheated in the 2004 election. )

[sabrina 1]

74. I agree with this:

Where many object is when the criticism moves from criticism of an action (or actions) to personal attacks

Calling all DUers who disagree with some of this President's policies and appointees racists most definitely lowered the bar for any kind of rational discussion.

Eg, is there some reason why we can't find Democrats for a Democratic Cabiinet, Progressive Democrats, even one Progressive would be nice? Is anyone who objects to the multiple appointments of Republicans by this President, a racist?

Did Bush fill his cabinet with Democrats?

If we wanted Republicans in office we would have voted for Romney. This is a legitimate question. What is the reason for these Republican Appointments? Comey, Clapper, Hagel, Gates et al. Sometimes it looks like the old Bush cabinet. If someone's answer to this question is 'you're a racist' then it appears to me they can't answer the question either and have resorted to the lowest form of debate. Talk to THEM.

[karynnj]

79. And I agree with you on this:

Calling all DUers who disagree with some of this President's policies and appointees racists most definitely lowered the bar for any kind of rational discussion.

In fact, it basically ends any hope of rational conversation. It would be an extremely uninteresting board if no one ever raised a disagreement to any policy a sitting President has.

[summer-hazz]

96. I too would

like to know ..."where are the Democrats"?
I have said this before.. I voted for a Democrat
and got a Republican....

WTF?

[Enthusiast]

122. PLUS ONE! nt

[Larkspur]

33. The only hatred I see her displaying is her contempt for Big Money sucking up our democracy

Obama has done little to stop that.

[Enthusiast]

123. Me too! nt

[whatchamacallit]

35. "I'm not saying she's a racist, but a lot of it is racism"

Or something like that

[avaistheone1]

40. I strongly support Elizabeth Warren regarding openess and disclosure on this trade deal.

Remember how Congress and President Clinton pulled the wool over our eyes on NAFTA. Let's not let that happen again!

[The Link]

41. How ungrateful.

She wouldn't be a Senator if Obama hadn't abandoned her as nominee for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Now it turns out she is a racist too.

[leftyohiolib]

43. who here is qualified to judge poutrage from outrage.

[treestar]

44. She does not disagree with everything

He does or says. Fail. You will be disappointed in her first. She is a senator and will vote for some impure compromised bill.

[The Second Stone]

48. I love Elizabeth Warren

nuff said.

[Politicub]

57. WTF kind of question is this?

It makes no sense, and sounds like weird right wing faux martyrdom.

I don't think many people, especially on DU, are looking at this through the lens of racism. Except maybe you.

Actually, this is the first DU post I've seen that connects racism to support or disagreement with the free trade agreement.

[Bradical79]

121. This is clearly sarcasim

It's a sarcastic response to the thread claiming outrage at the secret NSA phone spying program is the result of racism. I see how you could be confused if you missed it.

[Zorra]

58. Yep. Anyone who questions the supremacy and authority of Benevolent Global Fascism

is a racist.

Disagreement is still allowed, but be aware that all who question will be flagged by the NSA for not accepting the perfection of our Glorious Global Plutonomy.

[Fearless]

63. She is the logical heir to Kennedy

After all. Best choice we've made in a long time.

[watoos]

66. Can't we do without the name calling?

The issue is the TPP, period. I'm against it. If this passes there is a Euro-trade deal next. I still like President Obama, the rest of this name calling is nonsense, or trolling.

[Divernan]

72. Obama's "transparency" is only for his 600 US corporate advisers - they have input.

Out of public view the Obama administration is negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a US-led free trade deal with several Pacific Rim countries. Six hundred US corporate advisers have had input, but so far the text hasn’t been shared with the public or media.

The level of secrecy is unprecedented. During discussions paramilitary teams guard the premises, helicopters loom overhead, and there’s a near-total media blackout on the subject. US Senator Ron Wyden, who chairs the congressional committee with jurisdiction over TPP agreement, was denied access to the negotiation texts.

In a floor statement to Congress Wyden said, “The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of US corporations — like Halliburton, Chevron, Comcast and the Motion Picture Association of America — are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.”

The deal would give multinational corporations unprecedented rights to demand taxpayer compensation for policies they think will undermine their expected future profits — straight from the treasuries of participating nations. It would push Big Pharma’s agenda in the developing world — longer monopoly controls on drugs, drastically limiting access to affordable generic meds that people need. The TPP would undermine food safety by limiting labeling and forcing countries like the US to import food that fails to meet its national safety standards, and ban Buy America or Buy Local preferences.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-trans-pacific-partnership-obamas-secret-trade-deal/5329911

[MADem]

77. Cheap shot. EW agrees with POTUS on most issues. She doesn't carp and gripe at him

constantly. She doesn't come to DU and start nasty threads about him, relentlessly, constantly, day in, day out.

If she did, she'd still be a Republican, at a minimum. And she most certainly wouldn't be my Senator.

[Enrique]

83. emo-proggery n/t

[sulphurdunn]

85. Why the desire

to make the messenger the message? The former bears no logical relationship to the latter. We can't discuss the TTP rationally anymore than the NSA because they're secret. The issue is government secrecy, not Elizabeth Warren.

[JDPriestly]

86. Thank you, SomethingFishy.

Nothing fishy about your post or about Elizabeth Warren.

[baldguy]

91. There's a huge difference between criticizing Obama to try to make the govt better

and criticizing the Obama to remove him from office & eliminate the fed govt.

Some people can't tell the difference, however.

[Jakes Progress]

95. How about principled?

I know that is something many here do not recognize or value. But I trust her more than the administration.

[summer-hazz]

97. Right now

so do I...
Where are the Democrats?

[East Coast Pirate]

98. She was Greenwalded.

[ErikJ]

103. Warren 2016!!

The ONLY totally honest politician for the 99% in Washington.

[JI7]

106. you seem upset that there weren't Warren Bashing Threads so you can play victim and martyr

against anyone who likes Obama.

[Logical]

109. You seem upset that this post has 107 recs and seems to be making a great point! n-t

[Fumesucker]

111. False dichotomy, it is both hate and poutrage and probably a side order of racism too n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

112. "he American people have the right to know more"

Indeed!

[blkmusclmachine]

116. Yeah, you can't ever disagree w/Obama, or the GOP WINS !!!

The beatings will continue, until morale improves!

[Enthusiast]

124. K&R

I trust Elizabeth Warren to do the right thing on the behalf of the 99%.

[BrainDrain]

126. That is the dumbest QUESTION I have seen......

in a long time. Why not ask if you like hot sticks in your eye or under your fingernails?

Why not ask an intelligent question like, do you agree with what Sen. Warren asked, and agree with the concept of more transperency or not.

STOP with the bullshit strawman arguments and questions.

[another_liberal]

128. Allowed to disagree?

If you are implying that the Senator is pouting or hates President Obama, you are missing the real point. Warren is trying to protect the livelihoods of the vast majority of Americans who would be screwed by this kind of trade pact. Senator Warren is right to oppose anyone who supports secret trade negotiations. From what has been leaked about the Asian tree trade treaty, it's clear the deal would be at the expense of middle and working class Americans.

The President proposed and sponsors this behind-closed-doors rip-off, and he is wrong to do that. President Obama needs to stop listening to advisers from Goldman Sachs and Walmart, and start listening to a few progressive, liberal economists instead.

[Civilization2]

130. More govt secrecy, trade deals outside the light of day,. Why?

These types of deals that effect the entire country and the world need to be PUBLIC,. not corporate eye only. Democracy my ass.

[Doctor_J]

131. she doesn't understand chess

and doesn't understand how government works.