I have met Obama,

[ChairmanAgnostic]

And he are us, with all apologies to Pogo.

I have looked over several news aggregators, responses to comments mine, and various diaries pointing out the harder, clearer and easier to follow line that he has drawn. And I gotta say, I really like Obama.exe, Ver. 2.0.

A couple of things at play, in no particular order.

1. There is no Rahmbo telling progressives to "Fuck off."
2. Obama's staff noticed that when he takes a principled stance, he wins. And when he reaches across the aisle, they pour acid on his hand, stab him in the back, and go back on their word.
3. His unexpected leadership acts have thoroughly confused and confounded the GOP, which expected even more aisle crossing efforts. It has led directly to fratricide inside of the GOP, a blood-letting that has only begun.
4. His last electoral victory has freed him from artificial constraints.

Anyway, I think he is doing great, both domestically AND in foreign affairs, making the GOP look even more inept and irrational.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. One acronym: TPP.

eom

[Vincardog]

2. THATS WHAT I AM TALKIN ABOUT! I have seen 11'th dimension Chess player before. TTP?

Is he willing to denounce the Corporate takeover of all our laws?
Or is he demanding that WE surrender all Government authority to the corporations?

[NanceGreggs]

8. Yes, of course.

Obama is going to "surrender all government authority to the corporations". That was his diabolical plan all along - and only the politically astute recognize that reality.

After building an enviable legacy as a two-term POTUS, Obama is obviously going to destroy that legacy by signing a treaty that will ruin the lives of American workers. Forget all that he's accomplished - from the ACA, to supporting the rights of LGBTers, to using diplomacy rather than war, to reducing the deficit, to promoting things like equal pay for women, raising the minimum wage, making college affordable for everyone - the list goes on and on.

But it was all an evil trick to fool the masses. His real aim is to sell out his fellow citizens and go down in history as the man who did exactly that. I mean, it just couldn't be plainer, could it? It just makes so much sense, doesn't it?

It's hard to believe that anyone bought into Obama's "I care about his country" schtick - when all along his only desire was to leave office reviled, hated, and pointed to for the rest of his life as single-handedly having sold out everything he professed to believe in, along with having destroyed the middle-class workers who he pretended to care about.

Yesiree, makes perfect sense. Why leave office with a long list of positive achievements to your credit when you can just as easily exit the WH being reviled?



< for those who actually require it,

[Vincardog]

9. So you agree the TTP is a vile instrument of destruction of America's Sovereignty and agree

That PBO should immediately announce "it's dead and never to be mentioned again".

[NanceGreggs]

10. Well, unlike you ...

... I have yet to read the finalized version of the TPP and all that it contains.

Perhaps you should post a link to the finalized agreement - because last I heard, it's still being negotiated. Apparently you know differently.

I look forward to your link to the completed agreement - please post it ASAP, so we can all see what it says!



Note: I hope I was clear as to it being a link to the finalized treaty - those "leaks" that have been posted here already being as worthless as the paper they're "leaked" on.

TIA,

[ND-Dem]

13. That's a good idea, wait until it's "finalized" and ready to sign before you read it.

Then you'll be able to decide if you like the fait accompli you're be living with the rest of your life.

[NanceGreggs]

14. Until it IS finalized ...

... everything is conjecture, assumption, projection, surmise.

Far better to comment on "leaks" that are just as likely to be pulled out of someone's ass as to be points that will be included in the final agreement.

You've yet to comment on WHY Obama would promote a treaty that, according to you, will "hand the gov't over to corporations". Surely if the POTUS is planning on destroying his own legacy along with his fellow citizens, there must be some compelling motivation for doing so.

So what, in your esteemed opinion, would that motivation be? Why, in your well-thought-out opinion, would a highly successful president throw his own legacy away in order to sell out his country and his fellow citizens?

I await your explanation ...

[yallerdawg]

19. TPP is catnip for most DUers.

I think it's like the premise of "The Last Temptation of Christ."

Where would we be without trade agreements, including NAFTA?

What the White House says:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/03/04/see-what-most-progressive-trade-agreement-history-looks

[ND-Dem]

20. and once it *is* finalized, it's too damn late to do anything about it. obama's

legacy, like that of most modern presidents, is moving up and getting paid.

[Major Hogwash]

33. We can cook popcorn.

[840high]

54. You got that right.

[NanceGreggs]

59. Okey-dokey, ND-Dem.

Can you now enlighten us all as to how Obama's legacy is "moved up" by destroying that very legacy, and how he will be "getting paid" for doing so?

[whathehell]

98. No, until we READ it and actually know what is in it.

No one is, or should be, waiting to understand WHY Obama would do this -- the fact is,

he IS pushing it. The question of "why" is irrelevant at this point.

[Omaha Steve]

24. US Senators are not allowed to see it in it's current form

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Snip: "I have been very concerned that up to this date the text of this agreement has not been made public," Sanders wrote. "The only text that I am aware of that has been made public so far has been through leaked documents, and I find what I read very troubling.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)
AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest
multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of
American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall
Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty,
the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.

Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which
would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the
Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to
compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the
United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade
agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class
and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.

MORE at link.

[NanceGreggs]

25. Any opinion to offer ...

... as to why Obama is promoting a "disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest
multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of
American democracy"?

Seems totally out of keeping with his entire presidency, and one wonders why he would destroy his legacy - and his countrymen - unless there were some irresistible motivation for doing so.

Can you tell us what that motivation is?

[Omaha Steve]

28. Like when he didn't prosecute Wall St?

Doesn't match up to his pledge for his transparent administration either.

Maybe you have a theory on this?

Maybe Sen. Warren is more to your liking?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

By Elizabeth Warren February 25

Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.

The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

FULL story at link.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Sorry, OS ...

... but changing the subject is pretty much an admission that you have no valid response to the topic actually being discussed.

[Omaha Steve]

41. What changing the subject?

Both favor Wall St! Same subject.

[NanceGreggs]

46. The topic being discussed ...

... in a subthread prompted by Vincadog (Reply # 2) is about the TPP - not about "prosecuting Wall Street".

So I will ask again: Do you have any opinion to offer as to why Obama is allegedly about to sign-off on a treaty that will destroy American workers and hand the gov't over to corporations?

Surely you believe there is some kind of payoff in it for Obama? Surely you believe that he isn't willing to throw away his presidential legacy for nothing?

So I'm interested in knowing what you think his motivation for doing so would be, and what that payoff is.

[Omaha Steve]

47. Simple answer: His Wall St buddies

Remember all that $ he got from them to get elected?

Then there is always the possibility he is being mislead by trusted advisers. Or he thinks he knows more than those of us against it.

But why the FAST TRACK for a pledged transparent administration???

I was waiting on your opinions on TWO Senators you don't seem to agree with.

[NanceGreggs]

50. Ya know ...

... it always fascinates me that the same DUers who claim they make up their own minds and don't lockstep behind everyone else's opinions almost invariably point to people like Sanders, Warren, Krugman, Reich, etc. and say, "Well, they said THIS so we all must agree."

Exactly who are Obama's "Wall Street buddies"? And what does he owe them? If he doesn't comply with their wishes, what are they going to do about it? Run to the MSM and bitch about how their contributions to get him elected didn't pan out? Maybe they can refuse to contribute to Obama's next presidential campaign?

Spell it out, Steve. Exactly WHAT is Obama's motivation in agreeing to an international treaty that will destroy all he has accomplished, and make him the most reviled POTUS in US history? I'm sure it must be something - please tell us what that something is.

[Omaha Steve]

52. I gave you a choice of answers

"most reviled POTUS in US history?" Well the republicans are on board with this. It won't bother them.


Your turn. What is so great about this deal for the US that the POTUS is willing to fast track it?

Is it better than previous job killer agreements???


http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=693

DEC 18, 2014
WASHINGTON, DC - In a letter sent to United States Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman on Wednesday, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) raised concerns about provisions that may be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that would make it harder for Congress and regulatory agencies to prevent future financial crises. The senators specifically highlighted concerns about provisions related to the investor-state dispute settlement process, market access rules, and capital controls.


http://www.tppmpsfortransparency.org/

11 Feb 14
Parliamentarians call for the release of Trans-Pacific Partnership text to enable scrutiny and debate

Senior legislators from Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand and Peru today issued a joint letter seeking the release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) before it is signed, to enable detailed scrutiny and public debate. The signatories include political party leaders and legislators who currently or previously held senior political office in their national governments.

In 2009 the parties to the negotiations agreed that the text for the agreement would not be released until the negotiations are concluded, and all documents other than the text will be held in confidence until four years after the agreement comes into force, or the last round of negotiations if the agreement is not concluded.
The joint letter of legislators states:

"We, the undersigned legislators from countries involved in the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, call on the parties to the negotiation to publish the draft text of the agreement before any final agreement is signed with sufficient time to enable effective legislative scrutiny and public debate."

Oxfam and Article 19, the global organisations who jointly published the letter today, are amongst many NGOs who have raised concerns about transparency and accountability with negotiators.

Legislators from the United States of America, Mexico, Australia and Chile have also earlier made similar statements seeking release of the text before it is signed.

The Ministers of Trade from the twelve participating countries in negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will convene in Singapore from 22 to 25 February 2014. According to the parties the negotiations are entering their final stages.
The letter and its list of signatories, along with the links to similar statements, can be accessed at www.tppmpsfortransparency.org.


Get the idea yet this isn't just a few DU nuts?

And the Kirk letter in PDF: http://www.citizen.org/documents/senate-letter-to-kirk-on-tpp-and-the-environment.pdf

[NanceGreggs]

53. "What is so great about this deal for the US ..."

I don't know what's great or what's loathsome in a deal that hasn't been finalized yet.

[Omaha Steve]

55. 23 SENATORS SEND LETTER TO PRESIDENT ASKING THAT TPP “KEEP FAITH WITH AMERICAN WORKERS”

Notice there are no R's on the list.

http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/23_senators_send_letter_to_president_asking_that_tpp_keep_faith_with_americ#.VRDRaPnF-So

Lawmakers Outline Concerns About Proposed Deal’s Impact On Workers, Environment, And Consumers

Dec 4, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – The Communications Workers of America (CWA) today praised the 23 Senators who sent a letter to President Barack Obama outlining their concerns with the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade treaty, urging the President to include in any agreement, specific provisions that protect American jobs.(*)

The TPP has been called “NAFTA on steroids,” and is set to be the largest trade deal ever brokered, yet the negotiations have been held in secret, without public or Congressional input. While the public has been locked out of these discussions, more than 600 major corporations have had access to all stages of the process and are actively lobbying for their interests.(*)

The Senators see the TPP as an opportunity to stop offshoring and create jobs here in America by protecting “Buy American” programs, ensure participating countries are adhering to established labor standards and allowing workers to organize and collectively bargain.(*)

The full text of the letter is below and may be viewed here:

http://cwafiles.org/national/News/12-3-12%20Senate%20letter%20to%20President%20re%20TPP.pdf(*)

“Dear Mr. President:

As the economy continues to recover, a major priority of the American people and of your Administration has been preventing the outsourcing of good American jobs. In the context of trade policy, we believe, like you, that trade when done right should create and preserve good American jobs instead of outsourcing them. As your Administration has stated, a balanced trade agenda means opening markets for U.S. exporters and keeping faith with workers here at home.(*)

Pursuing such a balanced trade agenda requires that your Administration and Congress work together. Nowhere is such cooperation on trade more urgent than in the ongoing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a vast, multi-country free trade agreement that will have a significant effect on global trade and investment. It should be crafted to maximize good job creation and market expansion while minimizing the incentives for further off-shoring of middle class jobs.(*)

With that objective in mind, as you and your United States Trade Representative continue negotiations on a TPP, we respectfully urge you to *)

Maintain “Buy American” government procurement requirements. The American people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict “Buy American” and “Buy Local” government procurement policies at the federal or sub-federal level.

Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects.
Ensure that State-Owned and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level playing field. Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate and make decisions on a commercial basis. The agreement should also incorporate a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide information on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.

Safeguard against investment and service sector rules that provide incentives for the off-shoring of both good manufacturing and service sector jobs. These rules should not grant corporations extreme protections that help them relocate investment and jobs overseas.

Include an enforceable obligation to protect fundamental labor rights. A country that denies these rights to workers is providing a hidden subsidy that keeps wages artificially lower than they otherwise would be if workers were free to organize and bargain—a subsidy that makes U.S.-based producers less cost-competitive. The free exercise of fundamental labor rights is key to improving the standards of living and expanding export markets while labor suppression merely ensures that middle classes—and export markets—will be smaller than they otherwise would be.

Safeguard against currency manipulation. To prevent the artificial suppression of job-creating American experts, the TPP should explicitly allow countries to respond to and offset currency manipulation.

If your Administration pursues these basic negotiating objectives and collaborates with Congress during the negotiations—ahead of the ratification debate—we are confident that the TPP can become a tool for job creation that helps rebuild a national consensus on international trade policy. We look forward to working with you and the USTR to ensure that the TPP meets the crucial goals of opening markets to American exports and keeping faith with American workers. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of us.” (*)

Sincerely, (*)

Senator Al Franken(*)

Senator Olympia J. Snowe(*)

Senator Sherrod Brown(*)

Senator Tom Harkin(*)

Senator Barbara Boxer(*)

Senator Ron Wyden(*)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand(*)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(*)

Senator Jeff Merkley(*)

Senator Richard Blumenthal(*)

Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. (*)

Senator Joe Manchin III(*)

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski(*)

Senator Tom Udall(*)

Senator Jon Tester(*)

Senator Stabenow(*)

Senator Patrick J. Leahy(*)

Senator Bernard Sanders(*)

Senator Amy Klobuchar(*)

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV(*)

Senator Christopher A. Coons(*)

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg(*)

Senator Bill Nelson(*)

###

[NanceGreggs]

57. You still haven't explained ...

... what's "in it" for Obama to deliberately sell out his countrymen.

Surely there must be some motivation for a successful POTUS to throw his well-earned legacy away. So what IS IT, Steve?

[Omaha Steve]

58. I said he might be getting sold a bill of its goods from friends he trusts

Just maybe he is wrong on this is possible too.

Take your pick.

You seem to blindly believe the POTUS has no clothes.

It took him 4-6 years to learn the R's would always smack him when he extended his hand to them.

[NanceGreggs]

60. Anyone who thinks ...

... that Obama "didn't know" that his hand would be smacked down by Republicans every time he extended it is truly naive.

You don't go from being a community organizer to the first black POTUS by being stupid, or unaware of what to expect from the other side of the aisle.

It would (or should) be obvious that saying, "I won't reach across the aisle because I KNOW they won't cooperate" is meaningless. To actually DO IT and be rebuffed, over and again, proves the point - and leaves no room for speculation as to what "might have happened" had the president only tried to find common ground with the GOP.

Obama is a lawyer - and every lawyer knows you never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. And Obama never offered anything to the GOP without knowing ahead of time how the GOP would react, and without knowing that their reaction would prove that their opposition to his every move was based on obstruction for its own sake, without any regard whatsoever for the good of the country.

[Omaha Steve]

61. But they are in complete agreement on TPP

Can you find a single R raising a red flag like the D's are doing?

[NanceGreggs]

62. Well, that's probably because ...

... the Rs all know that Obama is about to destroy his own legacy because - can you explain exactly WHY he would do that again? I seem to have missed your explanation.

[Omaha Steve]

63. Because he is dead wrong and doesn't get that!!!

It has been fun, but I'm calling it a night.

[NanceGreggs]

64. So he's about to destroy his own legacy ...

... because he "doesn't get it".

Okay. If that's the best you can come up with, that speaks for itself.




Nighty night, Steve! Always a pleasure to engage, whether we agree or disagree on a particular issue - and we regularly do both.

[Omaha Steve]

93. I'm up from my nap

IF blind faith is the best you can do...

[ND-Dem]

67. "Can you find a single R raising a red flag like the D's are doing?"

NanceGreggs: It *must* be good because he wouldn't want to look bad. Even if he is in agreement with the Republicans...*

(*Though I don't know anything about it because it's a big secret and anyway I don't want to know anything, except how dreamy Obama is, until it's completely signed, sealed, and delivered.)

[NanceGreggs]

68. Where did I say ...

... It *must* be good because he wouldn't want to look bad. Even if he is in agreement with the Republicans...*"?

Oh, that's right, I didn't say anything remotely like that. Is there a reason why you are unable to respond to what I actually said, and instead are reduced to arguing with things I didn't say?

[ND-Dem]

70. So your repetitious talk of his concern over his "legacy" doesn't mean that? What exactly is

his concern over his "legacy" then, and how would his "legacy" be ruined if he signed on to a bad trade bill?

[NanceGreggs]

71. Obama's legacy ...

... is comprised of his 'body of work' while in office. It has nothing to do with "his concern", one way or the other.

Those who have decided that Obama is willing to throw away the very positive legacy he has thus far earned seem to have absolutely no explanation - plausible or otherwise - for why he would do so.

[ND-Dem]

74. You keep asking why he'd want to destroy his legacy. That suggests you think he's

concerned with it.

It's the whole point of the argument you keep repetitively making, his concern over his legacy. You just repeated it again, in fact:

Those who have decided that Obama is willing to throw away the very positive legacy he has thus far earned seem to have absolutely no explanation... for why he would do so.


Maybe he isn't a bit concerned with his "legacy" and doesn't care about "throwing it away".

Your entire argument rests on him being concerned about it.

[NanceGreggs]

75. Oh, fer fuck's sake ...

[ND-Dem]

84. that's all you can do, because your position is illogical.

[NanceGreggs]

86. Yeah, that must be the source of my frustration.

What else could possibly be?

[ND-Dem]

87. here, let me copy it again, maybe you'll get it.

74. You keep asking why he'd want to destroy his legacy. That suggests *you* think he's concerned with it.

It's the whole point of the argument *you* keep repetitively making, his concern over his legacy.

You just repeated it again, in fact:

Those who have decided that Obama is willing to throw away the very positive legacy he has thus far earned seem to have absolutely no explanation... for why he would do so.


Maybe he isn't a bit concerned with his "legacy" and doesn't care about "throwing it away".

Your entire argument rests on him being concerned about it.

[NanceGreggs]

90. Perhaps the word "concern" is the problem.

Do I think Obama wants to have built a legacy to be proud of?

Yes, I think he wants that very much. Who wouldn't?

Do I think Obama has built a remarkable legacy thus far?

Yes, I do - as do millions of Americans.

Do I think that Obama would sign any agreement that would destroy that legacy, along with his own countrymen?

Not for a second.

And again, anyone who has declared that he would/will do so has yet to come up with a viable reason for his doing so.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. Traitors, or idiots?

Which is it Steve?

[Omaha Steve]

88. IF you think TPP is great

I'd say it takes one to know one! Which are you?

[MannyGoldstein]

89. I hate the TPP

And, for the record, I'm both.

[ND-Dem]

69. Well, you just keep waiting. I'm sure we'll all eat well on Obama's "legacy," regardless

of whatever's in TPP.

[Marr]

95. Oh, puke. This obtuse act is ridiculous.

What do you want? Names and addresses and secret emails? How absurd.

[NanceGreggs]

96. Names, addresses and secret emails!

Oh, my!!!

I wish I knew what you were on about - honestly. But I don't.

[whathehell]

99. His motive is irrelevant

Except, apparently, to his unquestioning fans.

[NanceGreggs]

102. If his "fans" are "unquestioning" ...

... why would they be interested in his motives?

It would seem obvious that the opposite is true. His constant detractors are the ones who don't want to look past their own notion that whatever he does is wrong, stupid, self-serving, or just plain evil. They are the ones who aren't interested in why he does anything, because they've already made up their minds that whatever he does has some nefarious intent - or, in this case, has no intent at all, other than to screw the country for shits and giggles.

I take it from the responses I've gotten that you're all going with the idea that Obama just woke up one morning and decided to promote a treaty that will destroy his own legacy, bring the vitriol of an entire nation down on him, and leave office a hated man - for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Sure, sounds plausible. Makes perfect sense. Yeppurs, as logical as it gets.

[whathehell]

107. They aren't. They've already concluded his motives to be 100% pure, and are now

challenging others to refute that conclusion so as to silence criticism of the TPP.

[NanceGreggs]

108. Uh, nice try ...

... but no.

You're the one (among many) who is insisting that the treaty is diabolical, despicable, and will ruin the lives of American workers.

You made the allegation - therefore, it is your responsibility to support that allegation with evidence. But, of course, you can't do that, because you don't even know what the treaty contains.

You don't get to insist that the earth is flat, and then demand that everyone else prove you wrong.

If you KNOW that the treaty is the horrendous evil you say it is, you should be able to explain why. If you can't, the rest of us will have to draw the obvious conclusion: you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[whathehell]

123. LOL..Sorry, but when your only argument in favor of the deal

is "My President is too wonderful to endorse anything negative", I'm afraid you've already lost.

Given that the substance of the TPP was leaked almost a year ago by

WikiLeaks, and the fact that a number of legislators have seen it,

Your claim that we "don't know what's in it" is patently false.

I'm sure you'll forgive me if, like most here, I choose to put my faith in the 151 mainly

Democratic members of congress who've come out against it, rather than you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024040850

[840high]

56. ....

[Vincardog]

29. Can you tell us what that motivation is? ASK PBO.

[NanceGreggs]

35. Uh, no ...

You're the one insisting that Obama is selling out his country and his fellow citizens. I'm not.

So YOU tell the rest of us what the motivation is. Unless, of course, you are reduced to "because he just felt like it" because you don't have any viable answer.

YOU are the one who stated that "the TTP is a vile instrument of destruction of America's Sovereignty". And you've yet to provide a link to the finalized version of the treaty proving your point.

Do you not appreciate the idiocy in proclaiming such things - and then asking others to disprove what you've stated?

YOU made the claims - it's up to YOU to back them up.

[Vincardog]

38. How disingenuous of you not to believe me unless I can provide "a link to the finalized version of

of the treaty proving your point." Because you know it is not a treaty it is a draft of SECRET deal being negotiated on behalf of Corporations.

Do you really imagine that the American people would allow it to pass if they knew what was in it?

Why else must it be SECRET?

Please enlighten me.

[NanceGreggs]

51. How disingenious of you ...

... to opine on the dire consequences of an agreement that you agree has not been finalized.

[Omaha Steve]

39. One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft

What final version are you talking about???

Why is POTUS going against his transparency pledge to keep this under wraps, then ask for fast track?

[NanceGreggs]

42. I'm not talking about any final version ...

.. because there isn't one as yet.

Please direct your questions about what the "final version" of the agreement is to those who have allegedly seen it, and know its content. They abound on DU - you shouldn't have any trouble finding them.

[Omaha Steve]

44. You trust the POTUS

But not TWO solid D Senators?

[NanceGreggs]

48. In case you haven't noticed ...

... Obama is a solid (D) president. And he has the record to prove it.

But let's just ignore all he has achieved in terms of affordable healthcare, the rights of women to choose, the rights of gays/lesbians to be recognized as equal citizens, the importance of affordable education, the logic of using diplomacy in foreign relations, the need to address climate change and the consequences of not doing so, the importance of protecting voting rights for all citizens - and all that other nonsense.

Let's focus instead on an international trade agreement that has yet to be finalized - and jump to the inevitble conclusion that Obama plans to sell his country down the river for the purpose of - well, for the purpose of what?

While so many DUers express their conviction that Obama is about to do just that, no one has yet to come forward with any reasonable explanation for why he would do so.

Do you have a reasonable explanation? If so, I'd love to hear it.

[Omaha Steve]

49. Reply # 47

More than one there.

[tblue37]

73. Keep in mind that such leaks are often trial balloons, so it is essential to pop them fast when they

are sent up.

I like Obama and approve of a lot of what he has done as POTUS, but I also cringe at some of his moves--especially those that lean too far in Wall Street's favor and those that seem to carry his desire for bipartisanship way past the point of naivete.

Mind you, I suspect that some things that I have disliked were deliberate gestures of misdirection, intended to create cover that would permit him to slip some progressive policies in under the radar.

Back on DU2 I posted an OP elaborating on this theory, titled "Is Obama a 'Stealth' Progressive? (Could Be.)":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x631285

I *hope* that is the correct interpretation of some of his choices and moves that have distressed me. But these TTP leaks probably *are* trial balloons. In fact, he himself might be pushing those leaks to motivate the liberal base to scream loudly enough to strengthen his hand so he can negotiate better terms for American workers.

IOW, I think we need to pay attention to these preliminary leaks and to raise enough hell about the terms to ensure that they *don't* end up in the final draft of the agreement.

[ND-Dem]

85. no, no, just trust our dreamy prez and wait for the final draft. say some.

[Major Hogwash]

34. Maybe Obama should invite EVERYONE to the White House and hold a jamboree

and a cookout and get EVERYONE's opinion on the TPP so NO ONE will be disappointed.

Sometimes, ya just gotta trust your gut instinct on these things.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. So is Elizabeth Warren naive, or treacherous?

In your respected opinion?

[NanceGreggs]

78. Why do you ask?

Has she posted a link to the finalized treaty?

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Because she thinks the TPP is a disaster.

So is she stupid, or evil?

Or both?

[NanceGreggs]

80. The fact that you think ...

... "stupid, evil, or both" are appropriate responses to anything speaks for itself.

So if EW thinks something, am I supposed to lockstep behind her without question or hesitation?

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Sorry, I misunderstood you!

So, to be clear, you believe that it's reasonable to form a strong opinion of the TPP given what we now know?

[NanceGreggs]

82. I said that exactly where? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

83. ???

Sorry, I'm a little slow tonight.

So, in your opinion, is it reasonable, or unreasonable, to form a strong opinion on the TPP at this time?

[NanceGreggs]

92. Yes, you seem to be.

You haven't answered my question.

If Elizabeth Warren expresses an opinion, am I to lockstep behind her and agree with her, without question or hesitation?

[MannyGoldstein]

94. Of course not.

Now I'D appreciate an answer to mine, thanks.

[MannyGoldstein]

100. Still awaiting your answer

I need to know if I should vote for her again.

[NanceGreggs]

103. So far ...

... you have asked me to "choose" between whether I think Elizabeth Warren is "naive, treacherous, stupid, or evil". I am not bound by the terms you want to propose, nor am I restricted to answering questions based on your rather ridiculous criteria.

I realize that sort of BS "works" with your fans - it doesn't work for me.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. "So, in your opinion, is it reasonable, or unreasonable, to form a strong opinion..."

"So, in your opinion, is it reasonable, or unreasonable, to form a strong opinion on the TPP at this time?"

That's what I asked most recently. Reasonble question. Do you have an answer?

[NanceGreggs]

106. In my opinion?

It is foolhardy to form a strong opinion about the contents of a document that one does not know the content of, and has not yet been rendered in its finalized form.

One can express an opinion as to "IF the final document contains ___", I strongly oppose that, or "IF the final document says ___," I am in agreement with that.

But at this juncture, what the treaty will or won't contain in its final form is surmise, conjecture, and assumption, with a healthy dose of "I don't know what it will say, but I'm against it - just because" thrown in for good measure.

What I personally rely on at this point is this: There is zero motivation for Obama to sign-off on a treaty that will destroy the American worker. There is zero motivation for a successful president (whether you agree with his success or not) to sell his country and his fellow citizens down the river in order to sign any agreement that would result in same. There are zero reasons why a POTUS who has achieved so many positive things for his countrymen would - for no apparent reason - destroy his own legacy and record of accomplishments for the sheer fun of it.

Now, if you - or those who agree with you - can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why Obama would sanction a treaty that would totally fuck the American worker, I invite you to explain that reasoning to all of us.

[TheKentuckian]

112. What was Bill Clinton's motivation for NAFTA? Same.

Maybe he is just wrong on some matters? Even the most well intentioned and intelligent can be wrong.

[stillwaiting]

101. You are fantastic on social issues!!!!!

And trust Obama WAY more than you should. From Day 1 Obama has picked Wall Street lackeys for his Cabinet positions which exposes a very strong Wall Street bias. There's your reason you keep looking for. He has been behind Wall Street and the investor class from Day 1 (even in his health care legislation). The investor class has reaped massive gains in wealth and income during his Administration so any belly-aching and howling they do is ridiculous and might as well be theater. What conceivable grievance could they have with how well their fortunes have increased during his Administration?

Since you are telling people that you don't have to follow in lockstep behind Warren (and of course you don't have to and shouldn't; no one should), I wish you'd realize that reasonable people can find good reason to oppose Obama on the TPP (esp. Fast Track) using that same logic. Many good and reasonable progressives oppose Obama on this matter, and there are very good reasons to do so.

Anytime a huge initiative garners ZERO resistance from Senate Republicans and ample resistance from progressive Senators in the Democratic caucus I'll side with the progressive Senators. Every time. Especially when I am not even given the chance to read the legislation, but the Senators from both parties have had access to it in various capacities throughout its creation. This is a no-brainer for me. Continuing to say "but Obama" in light of that fact rings very, very hollow for me. Regardless, that fact provides plenty of justification and reason to oppose the TPP and Fast-Track even though we little people haven't been deemed worthy enough to see the details of this "trade" agreement (that includes so much more than just trade issues).

[Hekate]

17. +1,000 Nance

[NanceGreggs]

22. Et tu, hekate?

I see you are just another one of those Obama supporters who don't understand how he has been poised to destroy his countrymen, along with his own legacy, from day one.

You obviously fell for O's "pretty words" when he crafted the ACA and wound up insuring millions of Americans at an affordable rate, along with those who would have been uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions.

Apparently you bought into this whole "equal pay for women" crapola, along with the idea that women have a right to exercise dominion over the own bodies. Raising the minimum wage? Making higher education affordable? Advancing the rights of GLBTers? You fell for all of it hook, line and sinker, didn't you?

And you still refuse to acknowledge that Obama is planning on selling us all out at the first opportunity - and it couldn't be more obvious. After all, I read it on DU, so it MUST be true!

[mcar]

26. I know, right?

It's so obvious he's been playing us for six years. ACA, DOMA, women, college, foreign affairs - it's all been a long con to set us up to give the country over to corporations once and for all.

What fools we've been!1!

[NanceGreggs]

30. I feel like such an idiot!

I was actually elated that my fellow citizens now had access to affordable healthcare, that the rights of gays/lesbians were finally being recognized, that diplomacy was being proferred as an alternative to war - Jesus Hussein Christ, how stupid could I have been?

[Major Hogwash]

31. That's because your hand is on my knee!!!

[NanceGreggs]

37. I thought we'd agreed years ago ...

... that what was discussed in DU PMs stayed in DU PMs.

[Major Hogwash]

43. It's like an old Carol Burnett skit . . .

"Martha, we've got to stop meeting like this. Sally is starting to get suspicious."

[mcar]

40. Long con

I watched "Lost" so I know. The man is ruthless.

[Jamaal510]

45. +1

[Omaha Steve]

109. TPP isn't secret anymore thanks to wiki-leaks

Try to defend it NOW!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141049089

[NanceGreggs]

110. "Leaks" are "leaks" ...

... they very often don't have anything to do with reality.

"RELEASE: Secret draft for the Trans-Pacific Partnership ..."

After 30 years as a court reporter, I have been privy to many settlement negotiations between multiple parties. The 'drafts' of such agreements are never reflective of what winds up in the final agreement.

The link you've provided is someone at Wikileaks' interpretation of what they've allegedly read, without a single actual quote from the text. Lot's of references to "the leaked text" - but no actual wording therefrom. Why is that?

In other words, "This is what Wikileaks says the text means. Just trust us."

No, thanks.

[Omaha Steve]

111. The FULL TPP text

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter/page-1.html

[NanceGreggs]

113. Still a "draft", isn't it?

Still being negotiated, isn't it?

And all that endless legalese - which I am supposed to rely on Wikileaks to accurately interpret for me?

No, thanks.

I have been on many court cases involving international treaties - some of which were negotiated decades ago. And still the lawyers and judges on the case had different interpretations of what the wording in those treaties actually meant, or how certain provisions were meant to be applied.

But no doubt DU's self-proclaimed "legal experts" will be along any minute to set us all straight.

[Omaha Steve]

114. You work in this field and don't get it????

To remain secret for four years after it is enacted. Even my layman status understands that. Funny your trained mind doesn't!

Care to tell us in your words why this should be fast tracked and kept secret from us? Or why POTUS agrees with conservatives on this?

[NanceGreggs]

115. These types of treaties are always done behind closed doors.

Nothing new there.

If you want to believe that Wikileaks knows how to interpret the immensely complex ins-and-outs of international treaties and the laws that govern them, that's your prerogative.

[Omaha Steve]

116. Your not answering the BIG question

Why do WE have to wait for four years AFTER it is passed so YOU can read it and then tell us we were right after all?

Ask you coworkers what they think of it tomorrow while your at it.

[NanceGreggs]

117. My coworkers don't hold themselves out ...

... as experts in international law. Hell, I've seen judges scratch their heads trying to interpret int'l agreements, despite their expertise in the field.

I see no point in debating the provisions of a treaty that has not been finalized, nor opining on Wikileaks' interpretation of a draft thereof.

As I said, if you want to rely on Wikileaks for your info, that's your right.

[Omaha Steve]

118. STILL can't answer WHY it has to stay secret for FOUR years can you

Seems like your on the

[NanceGreggs]

119. You're quoting from what?

Wikileaks' take on it? A "draft" that may have been discarded years ago?

I'll say it again: I don't rely on Wikileaks - or DU - for my information.

There are several threads up and running now on the topic. The usual fare - OMG! We will all be slaves to corporations! Obama sold us all down the river! When will the revolution begin!?!

There's also the time-honoured "if you don't believe Wikileaks, it's because you hate Julian Assange!!!!

And a week from now, no one here will even be discussing it. Same old, same old.

[Omaha Steve]

120. A "draft" that may have been discarded years ago?

A draft dated Jan 2015.

[NanceGreggs]

121. Anyone can put any date as a header on any document.

But you knew that, right?

Like I said, if you want to get your information from Wikileaks, that's your prerogative.

[Omaha Steve]

122. Head in the sand

But you knew that, right?

[Fearless]

3. So what you're saying is that you looked in his eyes and knew he was doing great?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. Hey, I saw Kenya from his eyes.

Oh dear, I have seen too much palinesque crap in my life.

You have to admit his approach is much different, much stronger than 2009 and 2010.

[Fearless]

5. I agree that taking a firm stand is preferable to compromising away our goals.

My reference was to Bush and Putin though.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. Two thinks.

A. How in de hell did I miss that reference?

And

B. Boy, did I miss that reference.

[NanceGreggs]

15. Of course, that is EXACTLY what the OP said!

The minute I see the phrase "so what you're saying is", I know that someone hasn't bothered to read what the OP has actually said.

Not to worry - it happens a lot here these days, doesn't it?

[Fearless]

65. It was a joke, my dear.

[NanceGreggs]

66. If it was a joke ...

... I apologize.

It's hard to tell nowadays - for obvious reasons.

[Fearless]

72. No harm done.

[treestar]

6. He is who we picked

and we did good!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. Aye, matey.

[NanceGreggs]

11. We did extremely well ...

... in choosing the man, didn't we?

[Raine1967]

16. I have as well.

Shook his hand and talked to him, in the White house…

He is the real deal.

[Hekate]

18. KnR

[fadedrose]

21. Your "4." is what improved the version to 2.0

His electoral victory was actually a loss. When those who thought he was not well-liked threw him under the bus, then claimed they were Clinton Democrats and lost, he realized that his silence and staying away was a learning experience. He no longer had to be careful that the House and Senate candidates might be hurt by his actions, so he let go and did what he thought was right, the hell with everyone.

The handcuffs were finally off. 1.0 would freeze and rebooting was always necessary..

I think he's doing great too. I've sent so many emails to the White House for one thing or another, and I will miss sending them when he's gone. He has nice people doing his reading although he reads some.

Thanks for posting.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. I still SEETHE at the mess that one Debbie whatawaste Schultz hath created.

In large part, many Dem office holders ran from Obama, thinking that supporting him or ACA would sink their reelection ship, even though they still lost.

The difference between the DNC under Dean and today's incomprehensible, inane, and ineffective rudderless pigsty is so huge that it makes the Grand Canyon jealous.

I don't know if we would have maintained the Senate had they came out uniformly for Obama's policies and successes in 2014. But it could not have been worse if they did. They ended up looking like weak weasels, and they were duly punished for their inherent weaselish-ness.

[fadedrose]

27. Dean did very well. He should still be there

but he wasn't DLC enough at the time....I think he might be now..

I don't know what the DNC is doing now, but I see nothing of value to anyone who might want to run. Front runner or nothing. There must be donators who don't want Clinton, having lost in 2008 and not wanting to get burned again, and the pussyfooting going around is an injustice to donators, potential candidates, and worst of all, we the voters are screwed ... If they don't give a damn about us now, what will make them care if their candidate get in?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

32. This ^ ^ ^

[Marr]

91. Now that he can't actually DO anything, he's can claim to want all sorts of things, yes.

His position on the TPP will be a stark, unambiguous marker of where he actually stands.

[oldlib2]

97. President Obama

Is a credit to the USA presidency. His approach to the position is dignified and he is the smartest president that we have seen in decades. He never makes irrational decisions and never makes mistakes unless he follows the advice of others.

[nomorenomore08]

105. I would substitute "doing okay" for "doing great," but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

He's certainly a lot smarter and more capable than his predecessor, not that that's saying much.