Here is Obama's "most transparent White House in history" for you:

[brentspeak]

The Obama White House has classified the entire text of the Trans-Pacific Pact (TPP) trade deal -- a deal guaranteed to make you and your family more poor and more powerless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/alan-grayson-trans-pacific-partnership_n_3456167.html

Alan Grayson On Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama Secrecy Hides 'Assault On Democratic Government'

Posted: 06/18/2013 11:24 am EDT | Updated: 06/18/2013 5:20 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Progressive Democrats in Congress are ramping up pressure on the Obama administration to release the text of Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secretive free trade agreement with 10 other nations, amid intensifying controversy over the administration's transparency record and its treatment of classified information.

The only publicly available information on the terms of the deal has come from leaks, some of which have alarmed public health experts, environmentalist groups and consumer advocates. According to a document leaked in the summer of 2012, the deal would allow corporations to directly challenge government laws and regulations in international courts.

Members of Congress have been provided with only limited access to the negotiation documents. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) told HuffPost on Monday that he viewed an edited version of the negotiation texts last week, but that secrecy policies at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative created scheduling difficulties that delayed his access for nearly six weeks. The Obama administration has barred any Congressional staffers from reviewing the full negotiation text and prohibited members of Congress from discussing the specific terms of the text with trade experts and reporters. Staffers on some committees are granted access to portions of the text under their committee's jurisdiction.

"Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told HuffPost. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"

Obama, earlier this year:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/02/15/transparency-withhold-targeted-killing-information-obama/

“This is the most transparent administration in history and I can document how that is the case. Everything from every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the public record – that’s something that we changed. Just about every law that we pass, every law that we implement, we put online for everybody to see.”

[leftstreet]

1. It's encouraging that CongressPeople actually want to read it

They signed the Patriot Act without even looking at it

This is good news

[JaneyVee]

2. Congress should try here:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

More links at side of site page.

The deal isn't even finalized.

[Blanks]

11. What fun would that be? No, it's much more enjoyable to complain about being uninformed...

Than it is to read the provided and easily accessible information.

[rhett o rick]

30. So I take it that you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. nm

[George II]

43. What "Trans-Pacific Partnership"? When did it go into effect?

[rhett o rick]

47. I knew you wouldnt commit yourself. You guys never do unless you are certain

which way Pres Obama leans. Well he is leaning to pass this piece of shit and I am guessing you are leaning the exact same amount. Not a degree more or less. How easy for you.

[Skittles]

62. you've noticed that too?

they have to know what he thinks before they know what they think

[Marr]

78. God, that's the truth.

They always have exactly that same, 'wait and see, who knows, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about and yet somehow I reserve all judgement' attitude until Obama tells them what they think.

[woo me with science]

114. It's one of the tells. nt

[cali]

49. 2005, but these negotiations, from what's been leaked (the negotiations have been going on

for quite a while) may change the pact to make it even more corporate friendly.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/what-you-need-know-about-worldwide-corporate-power-grab-enormous-proportions?paging=off

[Blanks]

55. I didn't say that.

I'm merely pointing out that the White House has an information page up and anyone that doesn't know anything about it hasn't looked for more information very hard.

I don't agree with the statement that its a secret. I've heard people around here blame the joblessness on NAFTA, but the arguments seem to be more against automation than treaties.

I expect there are bad things about the TPP, but the White House has had a page up for a long time. I call bullshit on the ignorance. They have the dates and times of the 'secret meetings' published. NAFTA has damaged small indigenous people's sustainable farming operations in favor of corporate farming - so I expect the TPP will have similar negative impacts on sustainable farming operations in other parts of the world. I don't believe that these treaties play as large a role in Americans losing manufacturing jobs as others on the board claim. I don't vehemently oppose them for that particular reason.

That's not the same as saying I support the TPP. I'm suspicious of it, but at the same time I am not an isolationist so I believe these kind of talks should take place. They probably could be more open, but the fact that the White House has a web page and I've been aware of it for around a year - pretty much refutes the 'secret meeting' conspiracy talk.

[brentspeak]

15. Wow! A whole webpage chock-ful of nebulous TPP stuffff!

Information for when "registered direct stakeholders" (i.e. representatives of multinational CEO's) can attend secret cocktail party lobbying events. And a "fact sheet" of White House propaganda about the TPP.

No text of the deal itself, though.

[George II]

44. "No text of the deal itself, though."? Maybe because there IS no deal....

......does "ongoing negotiation" mean anything to you?

[brentspeak]

60. There's a full negotiation text

Which details all the salient portions of the pact which have already been hammered out. This is what Grayson and the other Democrats want released to the public.

Reading is your best friend. You should try it before soliciting your opinion on matters you evidently don't know much about: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/alan-grayson-trans-pacific-partnership_n_3456167.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Actually Grayson is correct

Large chunks are classified. The San Diego Session had some open sessions, must was behind closed doors enforced not by harbor police (in swat gear) but by the Feds

I guess I imagined all that.

It is so bad all who attended, including media, were advised to remove badges before leaving the hotel.

[secondvariety]

19. ???

That's nothing but fluff.

[rhett o rick]

33. Some here are ok with "fluff". Easier reading. nm

[progressoid]

20. Yeah, once it has been finalized (in secret), THEN we can complain.

[bike man]

21. It is the old "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" gambit. nt

[cheapdate]

23. No, it's not like that at all.

The Senate must ratify the agreement. They can take all the time they want to do so. Or if they're feeling particularly irrational and irresponsible, they can ratify it first and read it later.

[bike man]

26. What I typed is quite similar to what you typed, don't you think? Not exactly the same,

but similar

"Or if they're feeling particularly irrational and irresponsible, they can ratify it first and read it later."

"We have to pass it to see what's in it"

[cheapdate]

46. There's a pretty big difference

in the matter whether or not a choice is involved.

Is it unusual for multiparty negotiations over trade agreements to take place in private? I think probably not.

Nonetheless, Alan Grayson is right to make noise. The leaked draft document from last summer, if it's to be believed, and I assume it is, is a piece of shit. It seems plain that it would give foreign corporations the authority and the right to ignore US law.

"Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of any non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory."
- from leaked TPP draft, link at HuffPo

Sounds like a continuation of the race to the bottom.

(on edit : wait, legalese is confusing. This provision only says that a party can't impose stricter requirements on a foreign corporation than it does on native corporations. I fucking hate contract language.)

[lark]

96. Not really

The president is pushing hard for fast track specifically to limit discussion. He doesn't want labor and effective government types to see how he's given up our sovereignty, even our environmental and labor laws to foreign corporations.

He's now part of the 1% and puts their desires far ahead of the needs of the working class.

[cheapdate]

104. Maybe so.

That's a bold statement. Unequivocal. No hedging at all.

Anyway, we'll either see an early copy of the agreement or not. One thing that is certain is that we'll see it if and when it's brought to the Senate floor for debate.

[nineteen50]

25. Only after getting Obama's permission.

[rhett o rick]

29. Can you spell rhetoric? nm

[Vinnie From Indy]

86. Doh! I just now got your name!!!!

Very good!

cheers!

[George II]

36. Thanks for that link....I think you save a lot of "progressives", if they read the AVAILABLE(!!)....

...information from tearing out their hair and gnashing their teeth. Or at least you took away their excuse for doing so.

[mick063]

3. Here come the Adminsitration cheerleaders

Flashing back to high school.

Yayyyy!!!

"Our" team won.

We got spirit, yes we do! We got spirit, how 'bout you?

[HiPointDem]

4. does that mean if anyone leaks details of tpp, they can be chrged with being an enemy of the

state like snowden?

[leftstreet]

9. +1

[hootinholler]

5. Just about every law?

So they admit there are secret laws?

[woo me with science]

6. This is corporate fascism.

This is not representative government. This is corporate fascism.

[ctsnowman]

35. X 1000

[pa28]

7. As Ron Kirk, the chief negotiator, alluded to. If we knew what was in it we'd stop it.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

The idea of BP or Nestle coming into your community with it's own set of laws that supersede yours is almost too outrageous to believe but it's almost here.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. These may be "the good old days."

There is no way that those at BP, Nestle, Monsanto, etc., are going to have such power and not use it to their advantage against us.

[AndyA]

8. President Obama is a hypocrite.

Having the most transparent administration in history doesn't mean much when the difference is so small you can't really tell there's a difference.

I had the TV on earlier, but didn't watch President Obama's speech in South Africa. I did pass through the room, however, as he was talking about governments respecting the rights of its citizens...and I thought to myself, "What a hypocrite."

When I voted for change, I voted to put an end to the abusive Bush policies of spying, underhanded deeds for political advantage, lying to the American people, getting rid of corrupt appointees and Republicans running various departments.

Yes, we did get some change, and a lot of it has been very good. But, I'd sure appreciate a little more of the good, and a lot less of the same ole, same ole.

[Apophis]

12. I had to lol when I heard Obama say something about govt respecting the rights of its citizens.

It was a pitiful and hypocritical speech in SA today.

[KoKo]

13. It's a good thing you didn't hear the whole speech, then...

it got worse. I had BBC on...and it was startling given the latest revelations. Hypocrisy is the word for it.

It was a sad thing to see the photo op of him staring out of Mandela's jail cell in a contemplation (according to the news announcer) earlier in the coverage.. when I know that there are detainees in GITMO who have been cleared of wrong doing on a hunger strike being force fed through tubes and that Bradley Manning was held naked in a cage like container in his first detention and then subjected to being deprived of exercise and decent sleeping arrangements once he was transferred here and incarcerated before the protests called attention to his condition.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. It made a swell, if empty, campaign slogan.

[Fuddnik]

16. But it is transparent.

He slaps everyone with the Espionage Act, right out in public.

He doesn't try to hide it!

[n2doc]

18. The little people can't be trusted

I'm getting the impression that this Administration doesn't trust anyone. They know best, and don't want anyone screwing up their magnificent plans.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Kick. Rec.

[cali]

24. is this for real?? Why the hell would a trade deal be classified?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Yes, members of congress have been complaining.

[rhett o rick]

34. Our government is very handy at classifying anything that might not go well with the public.

Sadly the authoritarians among us are ok with that. They love Big Brother secrecy. Makes em feel secure. "Everyone knows the government spys, so what's the big deal?" "Everyone knows the government lies, so what's the big deal".

[X_Digger]

37. It's 'classified' because if the public knew what was in it, it wouldn't pass.

You may laugh, but that's what one of the negotiators actually said.

[blackspade]

39. That's my question too.

[cali]

48. I'd love to know the justifcation

[blackspade]

54. That's classified....

[Kolesar]

28. NAFTA had the same "loss of sovereignty"

allow corporations to directly challenge government laws and regulations in international courts.

A state or community may ban a product, but the corporations can overrule them until the trade committee votes on it. Then, the state could have to pay a penalty for lost sales. I think it has happened after NAFTA, too.

[polly7]

31. Yes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc

This is from a year ago, but it didn't get much attention back then.

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2012
Breaking ’08 Pledge, Leaked Trade Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporations Avoid Regulations

A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling. We speak to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a fair trade group that posted the leaked documents on its website. "This isn’t just a bad trade agreement," Wallach says. "This is a 'one-percenter' power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights." [includes rush transcript]

TRANSCRIPT

LORI WALLACH: Well, the reason why it is so incredibly important that this agreement be exposed is this could well be the last agreement that’s negotiated. So, many of your listeners and viewers have been involved in the sneaky way trade agreements have been used by corporations to limit regulation and to foster a race to the bottom since NAFTA. And each of these agreements has gotten bolder, more expansive in its limits on government regulation and in its granting of corporate powers. This one could be the end, because what they intend to do is leave it open, once it’s done, for any other country to join. So, this is an agreement that ultimately could have the whole world in it as a set of binding corporate guarantees of new rights and privileges, enforced with cash sanctions and trade sanctions. It is not an exaggeration to say that the TPP threatens to become a regime of binding global governance, right at the time that the Occupy movement and movements around the world are demanding more power and control. This is the fightback. This is locking in the bad old way plus. And in addition, the way that the agreement is being negotiated, these rules would require that you not only change all of your existing laws—so good progressive laws would have to be gotten rid of—but that, in the future, you don’t create new laws.

[forestpath]

32. No doubt in my mind that Congress will pass it by a large majority. They're all in it together

except for a very small minority. And when it's a done deal, no doubt in my mind that Obama will come up with something even worse.

He's transparent, I can see right through him. He'll do anything to keep the 1% happy. That's what it's all about.

[George II]

41. If it's a "secret" pact, how will Congress be able to vote on it?

[cali]

85. Here is how

if the legislation gets fast tracked which is what the President is pushing for both personally and through the office of the USTR and newly confirmed Trade Representative Michael Froman, the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Obviously, they get to see it before voting but if its fast tracked, so what? They have no input into it at all.

[Catherina]

38. DemocracyNow! on the TPP "Leaked Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporarations Avoid Regulations"

You can learn a lot more about this dangerous “free trade” agreement here:

http://www.exposethetpp.org/
http://www.citizen.org/TPP
http://www.citizen.org/trade/

Published on Jun 14, 2012

DemocracyNow.org -A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling. We speak to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a fair trade group that posted the leaked documents on its website. "This is not just a bad trade agreement," Wallach says. "This is a 1% power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights."


The Trans-Pacific Partnership n.

1. A “free trade” agreement that would set rules on non-trade matters such as food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation, and the environment.
2. A binding international governance system that would require the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, and any other country that signs on to conform their domestic policies to its rules. 3. A secret trade negotiation that has included over 600 official corporate “trade advisors,” while hiding the text from Members of Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, civil society, and the public.

[L0oniX]

94. I'm wondering how long it will be for DemocracyNow to get thrown under the bus by the worshippers.

I hear they stomp on bunnies too.

[Puglover]

125. I was told by another poster

that Amy Goodman was called a "ratfucker" by a poster here. To be fair I didn't see that but honestly it would not surprise me.

[George II]

40. See posted link in post #2.......

This frigging misinformation presumably from the left is getting as bad or maybe WORSE than what we get from the right.

Sure, it's easy to post a lot of negative crap and hope that no one does any research into its validity, but with a little work you might have saved a lot of anguish and perhaps have learned something. That is, IF you're interested!

Posting this, with the subject line and the "content", is irresponsible and totally wrong.

There are NO SECRECY about this - all you want to learn about this ONGOING (not completed) negotiation is posted ON THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE!

Do I sense a retraction coming? I doubt it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. So you're calling Alan Grayson and Elizaeth Warren liars, are you?

The OP is clear - Grayson was shown an edited form of the current draft, and he's not allowed to discuss it with experts. Here's what Warren says:

I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the US Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
?
For months, the Trade Representative who negotiates on our behalf has been unwilling to provide any public access to the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. The composite bracketed text includes proposed language from the United States and also other countries, and it serves as the focal point for negotiations. The Trade Representative has allowed Members of Congress to access the text, and I appreciate that. But that is no substitute for public transparency.

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.

I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade Representative should too.

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.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=164

[George II]

77. Grayson and Warren offered OPINIONS on the still-not-completed "agreement"...

....this is getting more republican as we go along, now I'm accused of calling people who offer opinions "liars"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. They described how access to the draft is severely restricted

Not an 'opinion' - simple facts. And you call what Grayson said "misinformation". So, yes, you're calling him a liar; and Warren confirms how access is restricted, so you effectively call her one too.

[George II]

83. Restricted permanently or just while the agreement is still under negotiation?

When there are labor negotiations or any other kind of negotiations, a blow by blow detail of those negotiations are never revealed, in fact most of the time no details are revealed during negotiations. Only when the proposed agreement is finalized (not formally agreed to) are the details revealed. THEN those responsible for passing judgement or approving an agreement is revealed.

[appal_jack]

87. So, in other words, we have to wait until it's too late to change anything

So, in other words, we have to wait until it's too late to change anything to even read the proposal. That sounds REAL Democratic to me. I can feel the hope and change coursing through the nation's veins as I type!



-app

[randome]

98. How many negotiators do we want? A handful or 535?

If it's still being drafted, we can wait to see how it turns out before gnashing our teeth.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Enthusiast]

81. What possible motive would the "left"

have for spreading misinformation? Why would we want to raise the awareness about a trade deal? Is it because we hate Obama and wish to see him fail? What is the reason for this misguided lefty attack on a perfectly wonderful trade deal?

[George II]

84. It is no secret that the Obama administration has been criticized by both sides.....

.....the left because he's not doing enough and the right because he's doing too much.

I suspect many on this site would agree that many DU posters have been eager to criticize Obama any chance they get. This is yet another chance, even though NOTHING has been agreed to yet.

[Enthusiast]

90. Many of us would be eager to praise Obama

if we could. Unfortunately....

[Maedhros]

95. I seem to recall that secret meetings between Cheney and corporate leaders

over energy policy caused a bit of a stir here on DU.

Should we have just shrugged our shoulders then and said "meh?"

[navarth]

102. "eager to criticize Obama any chance they get"

Man, come on. If we can just keep the discourse above the ridiculous level please? The last fucking thing in the world I want to do is criticize a president I voted for TWICE. I would still vote for him given the same choice. NOBODY tells me I can't criticize him if I feel he's doing something wrong.

Eager to criticize him?? Seems to me most people I see here are disappointed as HELL to be criticizing him, me included. The LAST thing I want to be doing. Eager my ass. If you'll forgive the vernacular.

[nashville_brook]

42. shhhhh...

this was supposed to be secret!

[MotherPetrie]

45. His deeds so frequently belie his words...

[woo me with science]

50. Chilling.

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Every day, worse.

Huge, secret trade deals.
Dismantling the Constitution.
And a surveillance infrastructure with capabilities far surpassing any totalitarian government in history.

We don't have much time left to stop this...

[LuvNewcastle]

105. That window of opportunity gets smaller every day. n/t

[Babel_17]

51. I'm in a warm mood so I'll make an excuse

Our system of government has become incredibly dysfunctional and those with money are calling the shots in a larger way than ever.

They will sabotage everything this administration tries to do for the people just to set the stage for them getting more influence on government.

To get any traction on progress for the economy the administration is compelled to cut the monied interests in and shut out the public.

It's either that or announce the fact that class warfare has indeed broken out and in a major fashion.

I don't see our party as having the gumption to fight that fight. We need to compel them to be willing to do so.

So, yeah, the President had a premonition of something like this becoming the case when he told the public to be prepared to force him to do things.

So, keep yelling. As much as I do get disappointed, again and again, by this administration and the Democrats we have elected to Congress I still try to remember just how vicious and virulent are the bought and paid for forces that they face against.

[lunasun]

52. CTC = good source for info imo

This started really getting pumped up about 2 yrs ago
& the train has pretty much left the station at this point but who knows what can happen if a push back really occurs (again unlikely imo)

But this site has some good info on currents events re:TPP
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blog/2012/06/13/newly-leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-contains-special-rights-for-corporation

Unless you are into cheer leading , then not so much for that sport

[Progressive dog]

53. I didn't know the President could approve treaties

but I did know that it was his responsibility and his alone to negotiate them.The House of Representatives has never had a say, before or after treaties are negotiated. So what is this crap about this having anything to do with transparency? They have no right to see treaties until the President asks for ratification by the Senate.

[treestar]

57. Yes, this is one they keep trying to make something of

A new scandal if you will. And it continues to not work.

[Buns_of_Fire]

58. I understand he wants it fast-tracked.

No amendments, minimal discussion, straight up-or-down vote, as quickly as possible.

[pa28]

61. Yeah, that transparency crap is pretty annoying.

Especially to the 600 sum corporate stakeholders who are allowed access to the negotiation contents. They'd rather it be a secret too.

[Progressive dog]

64. You have any names of these 600 or

did you pull that out of somewhere dark?

[idwiyo]

66. Post #65 contains a quote from Elizabeth Warren. I hope she is trustworthy enough for you?

Link to post #65
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3139239

Link to the actual document (thank you to muriel_volestrangler for posting it):

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=164

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.

[Progressive dog]

69. I still don't see the names of the 600 corporate stakeholders nt

[idwiyo]

72. If you read the entire quote in post #65 you would know why you don't see those names.

[Progressive dog]

76. I asked for names, not why you don't have any.

If there are 600 corporate stakeholders, the people claiming this should be able to back iy up with facts.

[idwiyo]

91. So you didn't read the quote or you are calling Elizabeth Warren a lier. Which one is it?

[Progressive dog]

103. I read the quote, didn't see any names in it, didn't

even see Elizabeth Warren call anyone a corporate stakeholder.
So you are trying to create a false choice, either unintentionally or deliberately.

[idwiyo]

108. That quote clearly explains why you don't see any names in it. Or why you don't see any names

anywhere else.

I stand by what I said already: you didn't read that quote or you are calling Elizabeth Warren a lier.

[Progressive dog]

109. 600 corporate stakeholders per Elizabeth Warren is what you read

[idwiyo]

110. What I read is quoted below, together with a link to definition of "corporate stakeholder"

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=164

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)

[Progressive dog]

111. Oh, I see labor and NGO's are corporate stakeholders

pretty much including everyone that has anything to do with a corporation. Very clever, so Elizabeth Warren would make 601 corporate stakeholders. That might be why she didn't use the term.

[idwiyo]

112. Which part of Elizabeth Warren's statement are you questioning?

[Progressive dog]

113. None of hers.

[idwiyo]

115. I am looking forward to reading your apology to pa28! Now that you know where the 600 number came

from and why pa28 will not be able to provide you with any names, it would be only proper to apologise. That is if one has any integrity, of course.

[pa28]

117. No. no. no. Don't ask for that.

I have to admit I followed your conversation and I know there will be no apology and I would not want one. Sometimes it's better to let them starve in their own cage and let the zookeeper throw in a banana every once in a while.

[idwiyo]

118. I doubt my opponent would apologise, so please accept my apologies for their rude behaviour.

[Progressive dog]

119. You are very confused , aren't you?

[idwiyo]

124. I knew it was very unlikely you would apologise. That's why I apologised for you. :)

[Progressive dog]

127. Since you think you speak for Elizabeth Warren

you are welcome to think you speak for me.

[idwiyo]

130. I am sorry you feel hard done by! :)

[jberryhill]

88. The story plays on ignorance of the treaty process

The details of treaty negotiations are not normally public. Unlike many other governments, the US government assigns the roles of negotiation a treaty and ratifying one to different bodies. It is typical to have a contact group of senators involved in negotiations for the purpose of getting to a treaty which can pass the Senate, but the House has no role.

[cali]

122. yeah, the secrecy over this is just so normal

only it's not.

and the President is trying to get Congress to reinstate trade promotion authority also known as fast track to ram the TPP through the Senate which under TPA cannot amend or filibuster, just render a straight up or down vote.

And isn't it just grand that 600 corporate advisors not only get to see the drafts but have input into crafting them?

[cali]

123. bull.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. . . .” The Obama administration has turned this constitutional power on its head by negotiating the TPP in secret without any congressional involvement but including 600 corporate advisers in the proces. The Obama administration not sharing its proposals with the Congress or American people, and is not releasing text as it has been negotiated being less transparent than any previous president.

[Progressive dog]

126. Actually the Congress has delegated

this authority to the President for a long, long time. Right now, there is no fast track and unless Congress renews it, any trade agreements will go through the normal legislative process.
From the Congressional research service

NAALC
and
NAFTA were negotiated by the Administration and
approved
by
Congress
under
presidentia
l "fast-track" authority — without amendment and with
limited
debate.

So the Obama administration has less authority on TPP than Bush 1 or Clinton did on NAFTA.

[cali]

128. yes it has. doesn't change the Constitution though

and the administration has made crystal clear that they are pushing hard for TPA. Froman is making it a priority and is working with Congressional leaders on it.

And the admins secrecy over TPP is indeed unprecedented.

We'll see whether or not the admin gets its TPA.

[Progressive dog]

129. Secrecy over TPP is not unprecedented

NAFTA was as bad or worse. Congress delegated the authority to the administration to negotiate, but they do not have to choose to approve the results of the negotiation. The Constitution will not have been violated.
It would seem to me that without fast track, the administration would try to keep Congress better informed.

[Harmony Blue]

56. This is terrible.

[Kurovski]

63. K&R. (nt)

[Savannahmann]

67. Grayson has been speaking out on this and many other issues

If he's not careful, the Statist Dems are going to primary him to get him shut up.

[Fire Walk With Me]

68. Obama is a howling liar and hypocrite.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this administration."

And the classic:

Obama saying "attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable".

Cause you see that's about Egyptian protesters. When Occupy Wall Street came around, he said nothing because he's in bed with the corporations and banks. He either allowed or ordered domestic terrorism against Occupy, by the definitions in the "patriot act" and from the FBI.

Look at what happened to peaceful US protesters at the Democratic National Convention (Graphic! Dial-up warning) :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002710303

Now has anyone heard Obama say word one against the domestic terrorism he has either allowed or ordered against peaceful US protesters?


www.thefreedictionary.com/domestic+terrorism?
Noun, 1. domestic terrorism - terrorism practiced in your own country against your own people


Definitions of domestic terrorism

The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: &quot A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Definitions_of_domestic_terrorism

[galileoreloaded]

80. Jury results.

4-2 to leave this OP alone. to quote Jim Leahey, "there is a shit wind blowing".

[Fire Walk With Me]

106. There are some who want things to remain exactly as they are, despite the problems

because change is threatening, hoping it doesn't become any worse. Some cannot accept flaws in their daddy figure who MUST be good and right no matter what. I offer that working to support FDR "New Deal" values will create positive Change, and that such people should there invest their time and energy for the greater good.

The emperor is most obviously wearing no clothes. What we now do about it is what is important.

[Ilsa]

70. Why the hell is the president selling us all out?

What does he get from this? Why is this treaty so important for him to get done?

I'm ready to disavow him important if he pushes this on us.

[PDittie]

71. I guess Alan Grayson is a racist now.

How disillusioning. /sarcasm

[Tseko]

73. Don't forget Elizabeth Warren.

[Puglover]

74. A woman on KTNF in Minneapolis yesterday explained part of it yesterday.

For example, if this goes through they will not be able to label the origin of a bag of frozen shrimp. You won't know if you are getting shrimp from a decent environment or shrimp raised in a pool of "antibodies and feces" in Vietnam. Happily I'm not all that fond of shrimp.

[gtar100]

75. Why should he care if he never has to be reelected again.

That's what worries me with all these draconian measures he seems to be supporting. They are so outside the boundaries of the speeches he gave while campaigning.

[cali]

82. There is nothing but nothing, more important than stopping this

killing it and driving a stake through its heart.

[raouldukelives]

89. Probably because of the sweeping climate change regulations Obama has demanded be inserted in it. nt

[randome]

101. Good point. Imagine the Republican grenades they would insert if possible.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kenny blankenship]

92. Transparent like a bucket of mud

and stinks a thousand times worse.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. TERRORISTS!

& R

[randome]

97. Giving up some of our sovereignity to court rulings would be a good thing, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Octafish]

107. We have, Bush v Gore, 5-4.

Hasn't worked out so well.

[Bake]

99. Why in the hell should a TRADE AGREEMENT be classified???

This is bullshit. Thanks, Mr. President.

Bake

[randome]

100. It's not even a final draft yet.

Do you really want Republicans throwing in their usual nonsense, such as tying trade agreements to countries that restrict abortions, gay rights, etc.?

And if you exclude Republican lawmakers, you should also exclude Democratic lawmakers.

It's only being put together now. Nothing is finalized and won't be finalized until Congress votes on it.

You do not put a draft agreement together with 535 'cooks' spoiling the broth.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[brentspeak]

116. The only nonsense is contained in your post

"Do you really want Republicans throwing in their usual nonsense, such as tying trade agreements to countries that restrict abortions, gay rights, etc.?

The Republicans have actually never done that before. As far as "free trade" is concerned, the GOP primarily cares about making trade deals with nations which promise cheap labor to compete with American labor. In fact, the GOP has been 100% behind permitting the abortion-allowing and virtual slave-labor-loving Marianas Islands to claim "made in USA" status.

In a pathetic attempt to claim some sort of liberal street-cred (citing abortions and gay rights) to justify right-wing economic policy (the TPP), you just pulled bull$hit out of God knows where. Sounds like you've attended some New Democrat triangulation seminars.

[cali]

121. no kidding.

ignorant knee jerk administration defense.

disgusting.

[cali]

120. jaysus. you're actually defending this?

so you don't want 535 members of Congress involved, eh?

How about this:

600 corporate advisors have access to the text, while the public, Members of Congress, journalists, and civil society are excluded.

http://www.citizen.org/tpp

And the administration is trying to reinstate trade promotion authority which mean that the Senate would only be able to vote up or down on it. No amendments, no filibustering.

How do you like this:

Last year, a leaked chapter from the draft agreement outlined how the TPP would allow foreign corporations operating in the United States to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its rulings. Earlier leaks from the draft agreement exposed how it included rules that could increase the cost of medication and make participating countries adopt restrictive copyright measures.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/6/obama_backed_trans_pacific_partnership_expands

[struggle4progress]

131. Mebbe ya should effin read the Federal Register

https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+register+trans-pacific+partnership

[woo me with science]

132. kick