Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:11 PM Jun 2014

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): are you in favor or against?


8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I'm in favor.
0 (0%)
I'm against it.
8 (100%)
I don't know, because it's being kept secret, possibly until after it's voted on.
0 (0%)
This is an unfair poll (please explain).
0 (0%)
Manny, it's very telling that this post doesn't address the specific concerns of [group x].
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): are you in favor or against? (Original Post) MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 OP
The thing is - i'm against it because we don't know what's in it. el_bryanto Jun 2014 #1
However the president feels whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #2
The President is highly in favor MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #3
So is HRC, helped draft it OhioChick Jun 2014 #4
Joking of course whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #6
Got it. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #9
Against. Most "free trade" agreements are bad... HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #5
"Free Trade" is dog-whistle for "Screw the Workers and the Environment." Maedhros Jun 2014 #19
"Fair Trade not Free Trade". I think Kucinich used that phrase in a debate. KittyWampus Jun 2014 #22
were you unable to do this without snarking on people who care about other issues? bettyellen Jun 2014 #7
Sorry, perhaps you haven't noticed. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #8
so "he started it" works for you, LOL? Okay then. bettyellen Jun 2014 #11
No. I didn't do the same thing back. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #13
it looks like childish tit for tat to me. bettyellen Jun 2014 #15
Where did I write that I'm MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #18
what were these racist accusations about then? very eagerly awaiting your response! bettyellen Jun 2014 #23
As I already linked to in a response to you in this very thread: MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #24
no one called you are racist. they said it appears racial matters do not concern you. bettyellen Jun 2014 #27
LOL. You're still upset about my post from a week ago? Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #25
Manny must have misread your post- he claimed you called him a racist! Not true at all. bettyellen Jun 2014 #31
Is there a draft bill yet? JoePhilly Jun 2014 #10
Perhaps Ed Snowden can make a visit and let the people know what its gov't is doing. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #12
When would our President want that draft bill to be available to the public? MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #14
Fast track is used to prevent senators from trying to derail legislation with JoePhilly Jun 2014 #16
Thanks, but you didn't answer my simple question. nt MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #20
Nor did you answer mine. Funny how that works. JoePhilly Jun 2014 #21
I think I did, but to make it clearer MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #26
Works pretty good at stifling push back from all comers TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #30
Except Republican Senators are the ones pushing for fast track passage. pa28 Jun 2014 #32
Against it because it does not do what needs to be done. pampango Jun 2014 #17
I'm against it, but I recognize that's a knee-jerk reaction to secrecy.... mike_c Jun 2014 #28
Whatever it is, I'm against it! KamaAina Jun 2014 #29

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
1. The thing is - i'm against it because we don't know what's in it.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jun 2014

I am not opposed to all trade agreements, but I am opposed to ones done in secret that we don't know the contours of.

Bryant

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
6. Joking of course
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:28 PM
Jun 2014

Just illustrating - for people who will post tons of links to shilly op-eds - how much easier and more efficient it is to simply cut to the chase.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
5. Against. Most "free trade" agreements are bad...
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:27 PM
Jun 2014

... because they give unrestricted mobility to capital, that doesn't exist for labor. Therefore, labor in all countries signed on to the agreement end up getting the shaft.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
19. "Free Trade" is dog-whistle for "Screw the Workers and the Environment."
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:58 PM
Jun 2014

I'm against the TPP for multiple reasons.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
7. were you unable to do this without snarking on people who care about other issues?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jun 2014

and you wonder why people stay out of those threads, LOL. haven't figured it out yet....

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
13. No. I didn't do the same thing back.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:44 PM
Jun 2014

Simply a bit of pre-emption.

It sucks to be called racist, misogynist, and so forth, even for nonsensical reasons.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
15. it looks like childish tit for tat to me.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

and you're still hurt about being called out for making fun of african americans dislike of watermelon jokes?
i guess that means your apology was bullshit.
but taken all together, it appears you are deliberately alienating people here, which is interesting.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
18. Where did I write that I'm
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014

"still hurt about being called out for making fun of african americans [sic] dislike of watermelon jokes"?

I eagerly await your response, thanks.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
24. As I already linked to in a response to you in this very thread:
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:36 PM
Jun 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5119911

At this point, it seems like you're pushing an agenda against me rather than trying to have a discussion.
 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
27. no one called you are racist. they said it appears racial matters do not concern you.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jun 2014

that is a very different thing. was the watermelon joke the only pile of shit you stepped in?
that was kind of big, and gives this discussion- and the questions those Duers asked you, a whole lot of missing context.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
14. When would our President want that draft bill to be available to the public?
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:45 PM
Jun 2014

Actually, since our President wants fast-track authority, the agreement would essentially be the bill, no?

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
16. Fast track is used to prevent senators from trying to derail legislation with
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:56 PM
Jun 2014

extraneous riders. Its not like the GOP hasn't used approaches like that to obstruct legislation before, right?

And as I'm sure you are aware, legislation is introduced by a member of Congress, not the President.

Its tough for me to freak out about a piece of potential legislation that, as far as I am aware, has not been drafted bu anyone.

This topic is starting to look a lot like the "OMG, the President is about to gut/slash/kill social security" threads.

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
26. I think I did, but to make it clearer
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:44 PM
Jun 2014

There is not an explicit draft bill but there is effectively a draft bill, which is the draft of the TPP.

Now, your turn.

TheKentuckian

(25,328 posts)
30. Works pretty good at stifling push back from all comers
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:56 PM
Jun 2014

As far as introduction of legislation, let's not blow too much smoke, the thing will get hammered out by the negotiators and some patsy will introduce it. I ask so what?

pa28

(6,145 posts)
32. Except Republican Senators are the ones pushing for fast track passage.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:11 PM
Jun 2014

Democrats like Harry Reid are trying to obstruct. Opposition to fast track is the Democratic position.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
17. Against it because it does not do what needs to be done.
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014

There need to be labor and environmental standards in any trade agreement. If TPP does not have them, and it sure seems like it doesn't, then sticking with WTO trading rules (which do not have labor nor environmental standards) is better than missing the opportunity that TPP could have represented.

To improve labor and environmental standards globally we will have to negotiate enforceable agreements with the rest of the world. Given what we know about TPP it looks like we will have to wait a long time for that.

mike_c

(36,281 posts)
28. I'm against it, but I recognize that's a knee-jerk reaction to secrecy....
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 04:49 PM
Jun 2014

In truth, I don't have much information about the details of the TPP so it is difficult to make an informed argument against it. However, the secrecy surrounding it generates distrust and unease.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trans-Pacific Partnership...