Question for Hillary backers: how do *you* feel about the TPP?

[MannyGoldstein]

Hillary championed the thing as SoS, and hasn't changed her mind as far as I know. I'm a little confused about someone wanting to be a champion for the 99% while advocating an action that will likely cause bigger profits for the rich, and more job loss and wage erosion for the rest of us.

Can you understand my confusion? And I'm probably not the only one scratching their head over this.

Please help us unbelievers out. Is the TPP not a bad thing? Or is it just not a big deal? Or, so what, you just want Hillary because you want Hillary? Or... ?

Thanks in advance.

[peacebird]

1. ... Crickets .....

[OKNancy]

4. a lot of us ignore Manny so I don't think waiting a little while

for a response means anything.

[seabeyond]

7. i pretty much do, too. i went above and beyond, replying. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

10. If only!

e.g., http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026435011

[SidDithers]

21. Many of us also doubt the sincerity of his "questions"...nt

Sid

[DisgustipatedinCA]

29. Do tell, Sidney.

Do you believe Manny is a troll? A secret Republican? A bagger? Please do use your own words to spell out how "many" of you doubt his sincerity. Or are you just making more noise?

[seabeyond]

30. sure. i assumed no sincerity but effort at a gotcha. especially after moments, see crickets

from the first manny supporter. which i guess this ah

has become, after seeing PU.

[sabrina 1]

226. So what do you think of the TPP?

[orpupilofnature57]

229. Better question, What does Hillary think of TPP ? n/t

[sabrina 1]

268. I don't know what she thinks. She will be asked, so I guess sooner or later we will find out.

I would like to see people who support her answer that question though. I see a lot of excuses for not answering, but the question stands alone.

And frankly any Dem who votes for this in Congress better be prepared to lose their next election.

[orpupilofnature57]

283. I agree, besides the " Mindless Cheerleaders " not many comprehensive

Comments, answers or questions posed, just a lot of " Yesterday is todays tomorrow " stuff .

[WillyT]

53. How Does One Ignore Manny, And Yet Know What He Posted ???

[truebrit71]

105. Right?

[MannyGoldstein]

153. I do it all the time. nt

[Fearless]

224. DUzy!

[AgingAmerican]

290. If they ignored Manny

..they wouldn't even see this thread, let alone be able to post in it lol

[rhett o rick]

185. LOL. If you ignore him why do so many of you post in his threads? But never to discuss issues. nm

[sabrina 1]

221. Well since you're here, can you answer the question?

[rhett o rick]

259. On one side you have the anti-TPP posting fact after fact, and on the corporate side

you have posters posting derision after derision. Not one single post supporting the TPP with a single fact.

Their answer is, "I support whatever Clinton thinks is best."

[sabrina 1]

269. True. I can't imagine waiting to see where a politician stands, no matter how much I may like them,

before forming my own opinion and being willing to state it. I would be disappointed if my choice of candidate supported the TPP, but would try to use my support for them to influence them.

No one could influence Hillary more than those who say they support her.

The TPP is so unpopular that even Obama has had to admit it.

Those who support Hillary should be letting her know that this issue alone could lose her the election.

[chapdrum]

235. Crickets indeed...

The ever-complicit MSM will likely not bother Madame with such a question.

[hifiguy]

2. . . .

[OKNancy]

3. 1. Hillary was working for the President

It's not like she made up the whole thing on her own.
2. It's been several years since she has said anything about it and also several years since she was involved in any of the drafting.
3. From what I read the first drafts were pretty fair.
4. She has many months to speak on it. It will be tricky because she doesn't want to slam Obama.
5. I don't think Obama would push something that would be detrimental to the working person.
6. On the list of my concerns, it's not high on the list of my major things I care about.


I care about equal rights for LGBT, and women, I care about the Supreme Court and I believe that Hillary is the only Democrat that can win in 2016. I'm unlike some... a Democrat winning is very high on my list of what is important.

ETA: it may be moot anyway if the Democrats in Congress can stall it....

[MannyGoldstein]

12. So in short, she had to do it, it's probably a good thing,

and maybe Democrats can stop it.

BTW, Hillary seems to have no problems with bashing Obama's foreign policy.

[davidpdx]

166. I think he held a gun to her head and told her she had to support it

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

228. Which republican candidates for president are on the record against TPP?

Rand Paul?

[MannyGoldstein]

234. "If Republicans do it, so can Democrats." nt

[Kelvin Mace]

14. 1) So, she isn't working for the president now

and we have heard nothing from her about it. I am guessing she will support it, or at the very least will dodge the question since her consultants will tell her she can't oppose it without alienating her Wall Street backers.

2) She is one of the most powerful people in the world, and she has access to the information about a trade deal which promises to be NAFTA on steroids. Hard to believe she doesn't keep up and have an opinion.

3) The early drafts of the Iraq war plan said we would win it in six weeks to six months.

4) Possibly, but I think they are on the same page.

5) The failure to punish Wall Street was horribly hurtful to working people, since it rewarded the 1% while taking it out of the hide of the middle class and poor in the form of lost jobs and lost homes. Obama was perfectly willing to side with the DADT gang until it became very apparent he needed LGBT votes to win in 2012.

6) NAFTA wasn't high on the list of voters here in North Carolina, but here we are 20 years later and 90% of our textile and furniture jobs have vanished.

HRC's views on LGBT rights have evolved, finally, after being not very helpful for a LONG time. As to the SCOTUS, that ship has sailed. The SCOTUS was lost when Dems gave Thurgood Marshal's seat to Clarence Thomas. Without Thomas' vote in Bush v. Gore, the last 15 years would have been very different.

But don't worry, she will win. We, however, are going to get screwed.

[davidpdx]

167. I hear you on the disappearance of jobs

While I generally support free-trade, I'm not happy when entire industries in the US fold. We've come damn close to losing our entire auto industry. I live in South Korea (see the flag below) and can see some good effects of trade. Yesterday I bought a bottle of Oregon wine for a special occasion this weekend and happened to look it up on the internet to make sure it was the kind I liked. I also happened to see the price, which was about half what I paid. When ever I can I talk up Oregon products (especially beer, wine, and cheese) here in Korea because it makes me proud to be from Oregon.

I am opposed to the TPP and wrote Senator Wyden a note this morning.

[Kelvin Mace]

175. We used to be home to Burlington,

Cannon and Hanes Mills, not to mention practically every big name furniture company in the U.S., and the International Furniture Market. The companies packed up and moved their manufacturing jobs to Asia. Now we are losing the Furniture Market slowly to a competing market in Vegas, since it is 2000 miles closer to where our jobs went and how can a small town like High Point compete with gambling and legal prostitution?

All we have left is high unemployment, workers ill-suited for any other profession (along with a GOP-controlled government which cut taxes on top earners and raised them on the bottom 20%) and even our main vice crop, tobacco is being bought from Asia and South America.

The TPP servers only the oligarchy, and it is telling that Obama (and I am sure Clinton) are so damned determined to sign it.

[KoKo]

66. Here's what she said in 2011: "Hillary's Trade Dilemma"

Plus, when she was SOS she was doing Trade Deals...which is usually role for Secretary of Commerce and not SOS... Some of those deals she could have done promising the TPP would be passed to give confidence for the negotiations.

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


Hillary's trade dilemma

By Doug Palmer

3/20/15 6:49 PM EDT

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillarys-trade-dilemma-116278.html#ixzz3XQoPzs4X

Union groups, including the AFL-CIO labor federation, also have deep concerns about the prospective trade pact with Japan and 10 other countries in the Asia-Pacific that, along with the United States, represent more than 40 percent of world gross domestic product. They fear the deal will encourage companies to move more jobs overseas, suppressing wages in the United States.

Clinton, as Obama’s secretary of state, is closely associated with the agreement, which could grow to cover 21 economies in the region, including China. “Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific,” she wrote in October 2011.

The issue is front and center as Obama pushes for approval of trade promotion authority, a bill that would allow him to submit trade agreements, like the proposed TPP, to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote without any amendments. The next president, whoever it is, could also use the authority to negotiate a deal bringing China into the pact.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillarys-trade-dilemma-116278.html#ixzz3XQoLz8ka

[JDPriestly]

86. "I don't think Obama would push something that would be detrimental to the working person."

The cat-food commission. Cutting Social Security benefits for the very elderly and calling it an adjustment. Bailing out banks but not really requiring banks to bail out homeowners.???????

Sponsoring TPP in the first place???????

[KoKo]

89. I didn't think Bill Clinton would introduce NAFTA, either....

That one slipped by me when I was convinced he was going to be our Populist President. The "Man from Hope, Arkansas." I bought it all...

[CentralMass]

159. He didn't introduce it. Nafta had its genesis in the Reagan and G.H.W. Bush administrations.

George H.W. Bush signed the treaty portion of the bill with the member countries before he left office.
The bill piece of lingered into Clintons first term before it was signed into law.

[Art_from_Ark]

280. Meanwhile, Al Gore signed on to the Kyoto Protocol for the US,

but George Bush let it die an agonizing death.

[Art_from_Ark]

160. He actually did some liberal things as governor

For example, my family is eternally grateful to him for his role in helping to protect Arkansas homeowners.

And when I met him in Springdale, Arkansas, in August 1993, it was like he was still a governor who was interested in the well-being of ordinary Arkansans.

But something happened after that which I can't explain.

[treestar]

249. Obama would not support something he thought would be detrimental

to the working person.

You and Obama disagree. That's all.

[840high]

113. #5 - are you kidding?

[Marr]

149. Hope© springs eternal.

[cui bono]

162. #5... really? What makes you think that?

Put Wall Street right smack dab in the middle of the White House.

Put SS on the table.

Had secret back room meetings with insurance companies (that he continually denied until he had to admit it) while not allowing single-payer advocates a place at the table.

Told the left to stfu.

Appointed ex-Monsanto CEO to the EPA.


#6... really? Why not? Are you ignoring what's in it?

[erronis]

227. Yup - in a normal world this would be collusion and bribery and prison.

[rhett o rick]

186. I also care about equal rights for LGBT and women as do all progressives. But I think that if

we allow Wall Street to make us all paupers living without government representation, we will soon lose all our equal rights.

Progressives all agree with you that a winning Democrat is very important, but that winning with a Democrat that will fight for the 99% is more important.

Do you support the TPP, or not support it, or don't care? Why would you be afraid to answer?

[bvar22]

205. I agree.

Economic Justice and Opportunity is the mother issue.
All "Social Issues" are a subset of Economic Justice.

[AgingAmerican]

292. "I don't think Obama would push something that would be detrimental to the working person"

Huh, what? Obama IS pushing this, otherwise this thread probably wouldn't exist.

[Maedhros]

5. Let me save some time here, Manny:

1. We don't know what's in the bill, so therefore it can't be bad.
2. The bad parts that have been leaked won't be in the final bill. Trust us.
3. Undercutting environmental and labor regulations only helps the working class.
4. All the cool kids are surrendering their national sovereignty to global corporations.
5. In any case, now is not the time to inspect or criticize the bill - wait until it's established law and we can't do anything about it.

I think that about covers it.

[zeemike]

56. I think you hit all the points.

And I like the point about the cool kids...we all want to be cool.

[rhett o rick]

187. Nope, left out an important one. "We support equal rights for women and LGBT and don't give a crap

if we lose our sovereignty, democracy, and meager wealth. "

Another one: "If Pres Obama is in favor, it has to be golden."

[zeemike]

189. Yep that is another goodie.

Rationalizations are numerous and diverse.

[libdem4life]

59. Brutal.

[L0oniX]

64. 6. Souls aren't really worth that much anyway.

[madfloridian]

94. .....

[JDPriestly]

95. Thank you.

[840high]

115. Oh yes - Pass it and then

we'll read it.

[Hoyt]

127. You'll have an opportunity to read it before its debated by Congress. I bet most here

won't read it, they'll just say Obama is selling is down the river.

[MannyGoldstein]

135. Not until 4 years after ratification. nt

[Hoyt]

137. Manny, either you know that applies to the interim negotiating documents, not the final draft to be

voted on by Congress, or you should. If it's the latter, you need to do some actual research before posting BS.

Besides, the interim negotiating documents are being released.

Why don't you just admit you spread a bunch of junk before researching the facts?

[MannyGoldstein]

142. Someone needs to tell the Washington Post, and quick!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trans-pacific-partnership-treaty-will-help-neither-workers-nor-consumers/2015/03/31/145e98ba-d727-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

The brutal negotiations of the TPP haven’t been about tariffs but about protections and regulations. Last week, the draft chapter concerning the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” mechanism was leaked to Wikileaks and the New York Times. Essentially, the chapter allows a company to sue for taxpayer damages if a government (federal, state or local) passes laws or take actions that the company alleges will impinge on future expected profits. The “tribunal” is a panel of lawyers, drawn from a small group of accredited international lawyers who serve both as judges and advocates. If successful the companies can collect millions in damages from governments. The provisions are so shocking that the TPP mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the TPP goes into force or fails to pass.

By all means, give them a call.

[Hoyt]

144. They are wrong. Read the actual dicuments. The negotiating documents say they are not to be released

for 4 years, but if course we know they are being released.. If the parties arrive at a final agreement to be approved by each of the states, you'll get a chance to read - and give us your misinterpretation - of every word.

[MannyGoldstein]

146. So according to Hoyt, the Washington Post and I spew BS.

I guess anyone reading this will have to decide for themselves as to who's right on this one.

And who has bad manners.

[Hoyt]

154. On this, pretty much. Read what the negotiating documents say, even though

they aren't supposed to be released, but have been.

You will see any final document that might be presented to Congress, if Obama decides it is good for us overall.

[rhett o rick]

271. Interim negotiating documents. So let's look at who are doing the

negotiating. It's the corporations and not the unions. I am guessing that you are a supporter of the corporations in this battle.

Interim documents implies that even tho the documents we've seen may be bad, that maybe the final documents may not be quite so bad. But that's not the only possibility. The final documents could be worse. After all what we've seen are only "interim documents".

[Hoyt]

273. Nope. US government officials appointed by the Perez were negotiaters.

Labor unions, environmental groups were on advisory committees. I suspect they were more interested in political posturing than contributing in meaningful ways.

[Hoyt]

206. One day later, you've found out you were wrong. How quickly will you post it here.

Maybe you are wrong about a lot of other stuff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141069038#post8

[MannyGoldstein]

207. I was right at the time

I've already posted about it in another thread.

Thank you for thinking about me.

[Hoyt]

208. LMAO. No, you misinterpreted something someone told you that was incorrect. Worse, you didn't

investigate it to see if it was true, just passed on the incorrect info as criticism of Obama and Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

195. Looks like some Democrats in Congress are skeptical.

At least for the Fast Track authority. Do you support it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776457

[BeanMusical]

281. ...

[AgingAmerican]

293. That was the GOP rant on Obamacare

"Nobody has read it!!!"

[valerief]

220. +1000

[cui bono]

294. You did forget one: "It hasn't happened yet, so no criticism allowed. Wait until it passes."

It's as if they just don't understand democracy at all.

[Maedhros]

295. Their understanding of Democracy is reduced to this:

The politician I like is behind this legislation, so I like it too.

[seabeyond]

6. i am not a supporter but have been defending those rights to be supporters. i hate it. as i did

as obama was playing with it.

hate it.

a wrong, very wrong choice for us.

[hrmjustin]

8. I am not a fan of TTP.

I am hoping the progressive caucus's proposal gets more attention.

[Quackers]

43. Something I've been wanting to say to you for a while.

I don't support Hillary. I hope she is not the nominee. You are a die-hard Hillary supporter and you even host the group for her. With that being said, you are one of the most sincerest and polite posters I've seen on DU. You are always professional in your responses and are a credit to your cause.

[hrmjustin]

46. Thank you very much for the kind words.

I knew a few who with good reason would disagree but thank you very much.

[Maedhros]

80. hrmjustin always argues in good faith, and should be commended.[n/t]

[MannyGoldstein]

84. +1 nt

[F4lconF16]

99. +2

Always enjoy reading him, even if I don't agree.

Props to you if you see this, hrmjustin

[villager]

109. +3

[TDale313]

116. +4

Sincere and civil. We could use more of that.

[rhett o rick]

196. +1000

[840high]

117. Oh yes - always a pleasure.

[daleanime]

49. That would be nice....

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Is DeMarco Murry's contract going to be a good thing or a bad thing for Philly in 2015? ...

Wouldn't a lot depend on what was actually in the contract?

[Jim Lane]

171. The Obama Administration is rejecting your argument, at least when it suits them

I invite your attention to this thread from last night. It reports on remarks about TPP by the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez:

The Labor Secretary believes the proposed Pacific partnership would improve working conditions in such countries as Vietnam and Mexico, open markets and lead to better wage jobs for U.S. workers.

So, is he correct that the TPP would help workers? Well, gee, wouldn't a lot depend on what was actually in the TPP?

There is no logical or fair basis for saying that what's known about the TPP is sufficient for Obama Administration spokespeople to tout its alleged good points, but is insufficient for any "professional leftists" to say anything negative about it.

This double standard is especially galling in light of the Obama Administration's position that TPP should be considered under fast-track rules. If Obama and his allies (Boehner and McConnell) can whip up enough support for fast track, then the whole process of public discussion will be artificially compressed. Given that looming danger, people with concerns about TPP would be foolish to go along with the demand that they withhold all criticism until the Obama Administration, having spent months touting the agreement, finally releases the official text and starts the clock running.

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. Really? ...

There is no logical or fair basis for saying that what's known about the TPP is sufficient for Obama Administration spokespeople to tout its alleged good points, but is insufficient for any "professional leftists" to say anything negative about it.

Really? Do you really think that a Cabinet Member (particularly, the Labor Secretary) has the same or less access to information (in this case, the state of TPP negotiations) than "professional leftists" (as you put it)?

Really?

[Jim Lane]

198. That's an indefensible double standard.

You've responded to several posts about leaked drafts by arguing that it's only a draft and we don't know what the final deal will look like. Well, in that case, neither does Perez.

My personal opinion is that a detailed draft, leaked after more than four years of negotiation and not disclaimed by any of the participants, is almost certainly a correct statement of a recent draft and will almost certainly be very very close to the final agreement.

If Perez has some inside information that enables him to know with certainty what the final agreement says, then he should share that with us.

None of us who lived through the Vietnam era will be inclined to accept the argument that "You should acquiesce in the government's policy because those officials have access to classified information that you don't know about."

[1StrongBlackMan]

204. Come on ...

do you live in the real world where there is always information that Administration insiders have access to, that outsiders, even citizen outsiders, do not.

None of us who lived through the Vietnam era will be inclined to accept the argument that "You should acquiesce in the government's policy because those officials have access to classified information that you don't know about."

No one is saying that ... the agreement, in its final form, will be released to the public, to be debated and (with Fast Track) voted up or down.

[Jim Lane]

222. You're still upholding a double standard.

Certainly, Administration insiders have more knowledge.

The double standard is in taking their pro-TPP comments at face value, while anti-TPP comments, even if based on undenied leaks, are dismissed on the basis that the deal might change before it's finalized.

If the final deal might deviate from a draft leaked by Wikileaks, then it might also deviate from whatever version Perez is relying on.

You're correct that, at some point, the final version "will be released to the public, to be debated and (with Fast Track) voted up or down." My point is to oppose the "with Fast Track" part of that. For more than four years, the proponents of the deal, including Administration officials and including the multinational corporations that have helped draft it, have been privy to all that inside information you mention, and have been preparing their arguments in support. The plan contemplated by Fast Track is that hundreds of pages of text will be released to the public, at which point labor unions and environmentalists and others inclined toward opposition can begin the process of analysis.

The tight time constraints of Fast Track would put the opponents at a marked disadvantage. It's offensive that the Obama Administration would seek such an unfairly tilted playing field. It's particularly objectionable in that no good reason for it has been presented, other than the obvious point that the chance of railroading it through is greater if the opposition is handicapped in developing its arguments. There is no screaming urgency to approval of a deal that's been in negotiation since 2010.

[1StrongBlackMan]

223. Okay. n/t

[bvar22]

203. "They" said the same things about NAFTA, CAFTA, and every other "free trade"deal.

The last "Free Trade" Deal was with Korea, and was the "prototype" for TPP.
America was promised over 70,000 new jobs, and change in direction of the balance of trade.

The Truth:
American Workers LOST over 60,000 jobs, and the balance of trade is worse than ever.

"They" have said the very same thing about EVERY "Free Trade" deal.
The results have ALWAYS been negative for the American Workers.


How much longer is ANYONE going to believe these empty, bogus promises
Free Trade only makes the Rich RICHER.

The stats are IN.
There is no such thing as "Free Trade".
It has always proved to be a scam that lets Global Corporations avoid Environmental Protections, Human (Labor) Rights, and every single trade deal has put DOWNWARD pressure on wages and benefits for the American Worker.

[treestar]

248. That's because it would take a lot of reading for most people

to figure it out in all its aspects.

People here expect you to hate it because they said it was terrible. They can't explain why and when they try (copyright issues or the investor dispute thing) and you start looking into it, you can tell it is more complicated than that. If you want to take it under advisement because it is complicated, they call you a corporatist or something. They expect agreement on this thing though it cannot be simple.

[Jim Lane]

267. You're right, and the complexity of it all is the best argument against fast track.

The "lot of reading" will be done primarily by specialists (on copyright, on environment, on labor, etc.) looking at particular chapters. Even for them, however, it's a lot of reading and a lot of background reading and a lot of discussion among experts in order to arrive at a reliable conclusion. Doing a proper job of that under the fast track authority that Obama wanted simply wouldn't be realistic.

The good news is that the unholy alliance of Obama/Boehner/McConnell didn't get everything they wanted. I'm not completely familiar with today's compromise on fast track, but, even on the most cynical view, it appears to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Obama plan, although (as one would expect from a compromise) it still has major flaws.

As someone who voted for Obama twice, I still find it galling (and inexplicable) that we have to negotiate against him in order to salvage even something.

[treestar]

247. There are certain DUers who have made a bogeyman of the TPP

And act all shocked if you even ask whether it is a good thing or not.

Very very very broad brush thinking - The TPP is somehow similarly categorized as NAFTA, which was a disaster of some kind, though we are still alive 20 years after it.

[rhett o rick]

250. Well since every thing I've seen has been bad for the 99%. We know that if it favors

corporations (those involved in writing it) it won't be good for workers, unless you believe in "trickle-down". We have seen well known people like Sen Sanders and Sen Warren speak out against, with specific facts, but yet to hear the supporters like Obama and Clinton actually tell us any facts on how it will help the 99%.

The Republicons seem to like the TPP and the unions don't. Seems like the 1% favor it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

263. First,why do you insist on calling something that we do not know to have been agreed to ...

a specific "fact" of the (not yet) agreement?

Secondly, why do you insist on claiming you have "yet to hear the supporters like Obama and Clinton actually tell us any facts on how it will help the 99%."?

Are you confusing "not hearing" with "not accepting"? Both President Obama (and members of his Administration that are in position to KNOW) and HRC have spoken to how the TPP will benefit the American worker.

(I would post links, if I thought you would read them ... but, alas, you haven't and I suspect you won't.)

[one_voice]

11. First things first...

as SoS she worked for the president. Enough about her position about TPP then...it's self explanatory.

You're right you nor anyone else knows how she feels about it now because she hasn't spoken about it. She's a few days into her candidacy, doesn't she get at least a week?

How about you hop on over to twitter and ask her yourself. Be sure to tell her Third Way Manny wants to know.

Nope, don't understand your confusion. I will tell you what else I don't understand; with all these *types* threads you start, how you get away with never having to lick the spoon.

For the record, I'd like to see more people join the race, Martin O'Malley in particular.

[fadedrose]

13. Gees Manny

Am not an HC supporter and I don't know how I feel about the TPP.

I like the President very much, and like that he didn't sign up with the XL pipeline, and is going for an agreement with the P5 +1 to try to stop Iran from going nuclear. I like a lot of the stuff he did and is attempting to do.

I am hoping to see him pull a big fat cute baby rabbit out of the TPP hat and we find out that it's not a snake like everyone's expecting.

I'm reserving judgment, but encourage all of you who are clamoring about it, because you may be the reason that it turns out better than it was supposed to be.

[sheshe2]

50. Beautiful.

[dflprincess]

100. I'm afraid when he pulls the bunny out of the hat

we'll find that it's already been swallowed by the snake - all we'll see is the bulge working its way down through the snake.

[fadedrose]

131. giggle nt

[Art_from_Ark]

164. A la Bullwinkle, no doubt

[dflprincess]

264. Nice find!

[JDPriestly]

101. Any agreement that imposes corporate, international trade courts on us an d our government

is not going to be redeemed. No cute baby rabbit is going to be pulled out of the TPP.

Elizabeth Warren and many other Democrats oppose the TPP.

In fact, whether you oppose the TPP or not sort of says a lot about your experience in the world and your native ability to understand the world.

I oppose the TPP especially because of the trade courts that will be imposed on us by it.

[Hoyt]

128. We've had those same trade courts for decades, as has the European Union.

But now they are suddenly selling our "national sovereignty." I know it's not the same thing, but it sounds too much like the Sovereign Citizen Movement to me.

[JDPriestly]

138. I have objected to them all along. We don't need to get another one.

The sovereign whatever movement is rather silly. But allowing a trade court that has no jury of your peers to issue a judgment on your country that makes your taxpayers liable to pay a corporation for losses, speculative losses, that the corporation never really experienced without adequate input from the citizens is a terrible idea. And our Constitution already provides for the consideration of claims by foreign nationals and foreign countries. Read Article III of the Constitution. These trade deals that set up courts, supranational courts are, in my opinion, not compatible with our Constitution which provides for jury trials in civil cases when the amount in controversy is great enough to qualify for a jury trial.

No to those trade courts. They are meant to give corporations a means to destroy or place in jeopardy and displace and disable the democratic processes of our country.

I hope you understand that I am not talking off the top of my head but rather from my experience.

[Hoyt]

139. Haven't really been harmful and have helped us and other countries attract investment and jobs

that help the world.

[BrotherIvan]

15. Over the line!

[longship]

16. Yet more divisive chair throwing in GD.

For Christ sakes, Manny, can't you let it rest for a bit so folks can catch their breath?

And to all the others, both pro and con Hillary Clinton, breath! Take a deep breath for a change.

It's nearly 19 fucking months until the election.

All this hyperventilating at this time is pointless and just makes DU utterly suck.

For shame on all of you!

[FiveGoodMen]

23. If that wasn't sarcasm, then let point out that you've pretty nearly fulfilled post 5's

5. In any case, now is not the time to inspect or criticize the bill - wait until it's established law and we can't do anything about it.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Aka "11-dimensional chess."

[longship]

44. Let's get this fucking straight right now.

This OP was absolutely, positively not about TPP. This is yet another tiresome Hillary Clinton bashing post, which mirrors the nearly equal number of Hillary Clinton cheerleading posts.

And it is 19 fucking months until the election!!!

The only fucking thing such posts can accomplish in that time is to drive every rational person away from DU, leaving only the internecine Hillary haters and Hillary worshippers, where they can possibly fight until the death. Maybe there should be a cage match on Pay-Per-View. At least DU could raise some money and we could get rid of some of the mother fuckers here who somehow think that their political opinions mean more than having a respectful dialog or figuring out some strategy to turn back our recent considerable losses.

Maybe then we could rid GD of all these baiting OPs and getting back to getting the Democratic Party in the majority again in state houses and legislatures across the land. For Christ sakes, holding the White House in 2016 is useless if the theocratic GOP holds the rest.

One builds a party from the bottom up, not the top down. Hasn't anybody learned that bitter political lesson of the past few decades yet? How in the Sam Hell do you think that the GOP did it? While we were focussing on the White House, they took all the rest of the chips.

We were ignorant rubes.

I've learned by my mistakes and I can repeat them exactly.
Peter Cook, a British comedian and satirist of some note

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. Where is the DNC, DSCC... any leadership forthcoming?

The Democratic "leadership"
has failed miserably to WIN
any significant seats, overall.

That's where the problem starts
and needs to end.

They are the gatekeepers.
They control the levers and
approve who gets party support.

The recent DNC report on election
losses is abysmal!
The "solution" to getting our asses beat...
rebranding... RE-effin-branding

Meanwhile it's hippy punching,
blame the voters, and pushing
3rd-Way retreads on the party
and demanding fealty or...republicans!!!11!11

Someone want to be our "champion"
but doesn't want to tell us how or why?
No need to "earn" our vote anymore?
We are supposed to get in line and vote (D)
or..republicans!!!!11!!!1!

When will the party leadership
start building the party foundation
from the bottom up?

Here's what the "Victory Task Force"
figured out after a decade of stunning losses
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256467123/Democratic-Victory-Task-Force-Preliminary-Findings

[longship]

140. People are still making the same mistake that Manny is making.

Hasn't anybody here learned the lesson that Tip O'Neill so presciently expressed: All Politics is Local

You ignorant rubes! You do not learn the lessons from history, even recent history. George Satanyana was correct, in spades. Especially with regards to some frequent posters here on DU.

What the fuck good is the presidency when the rest of the political structure is in the hands of madmen? (Women need not apply unless they are Sarah Palin clones, or maybe Phyllis Fucking Schlafly.)

The extent to which we do not build our party from the bottom up is the extent to which we are screwn. Hillary, or whoever, is irrelevant if we don't turn this around.

You are all missing the most important target. And it is not the presidency at this point.

You ignorant rubes. You are being played. The extent that you do not understand this is the extent to which Hillary winning or losing will be irrelevant.

[Cosmic Kitten]

179. Who are the gatekeepers?

[longship]

180. That is a great question.

It is one every single person on this board should be asking themselves. Of course, we all kind of know the answer, especially since Citizens United.

However, if one is going to argue for a progressive future for the Democratic Party one had best pay attention to the words of Tip O'Neill and George Satanyana plus the lessons learned by today's GOP. Ask yourself this. How did the GOP turn into such a toxic swamp? I think one might very well conclude that it was done from the bottom up. And that transformation began in the 1970's with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority (hint :they were neither), and completed by Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.

Once one sees the result, today's theocratic GOP and their authoritarian no compromise nature one should realize that the GOP was transformed from the bottom.

If we want the same kind of transformation we have some work to do.

Run for precinct delegate. Get your progressive friends, acquaintances, and relatives to run, too. If you want to take over the party, that's how it is done. All politics is local.

[Cosmic Kitten]

182. So the gatekeepers are who exactly?

Seems you are advocating working
outside the party establishment?

What is the narrative?
All politics is local is a slogan.

Right-wing pols are zealots.
Frequently authoritarian zealots.
That is not a quality esteemed by the left.
As such, they are not naturally power seeking.

How is that phenomenon addressed?

[longship]

183. Gees, Louise!

Get involved in local politics. That is how it is done. Being a delegate, one can make a difference in the party's direction. And just maybe one can help turn around the GOP's dominance in local elections. If more progressives did that, there would be change.

Again, the presidency is useless if the theocrats in the GOP have all the rest. (Which they do in my so-called liberal state -- Michigan.)

All politics is local.

[Cosmic Kitten]

184. Oh, OK. Problem solved, Thanks

[longship]

188. What you you recommend as an alternative?

Just a friendly request.

Best regards.

[Cosmic Kitten]

190. A multi-prong approach

Yes, local politics is paramount.
It's not the end all, be all though.
It is how the Tee Party gained clout.
A farm league is essential, no doubt.
What is the core or central focus?
Being a "democrat" is not enough.

Congress is unresponsive to the public.
The Democratic Establishment holds
the base in abject contempt.
Where is the accountability?

Even at the local level the gatekeepers
are a closed clique of power/privilege
seekers intent on moving up through the
ranks for more recognition or compensation.
Ignoring the local millionaires that control
local politics is marginalizing the systemic
rot in the system itself.

Maybe we need some sunlight to disinfect
the backrooms and dark corners?
So long as the malignancy metastasizes
there is little hope of changing course.
Just saying, the problem has deeper roots.

[longship]

193. If one takes over the precincts, there are no local gatekeepers

That is how Falwell and Robertson did it. And that is precisely why the GOP is the toxic swamp it is today.

Bottom up, not top down.

[libdem4life]

63. Do you think you could be a bit clearer? LOL. Good Post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. There is a huge difference between committed Democrats...

There is a huge difference between committed Democrats touting his or her preferred candidates on this board and posters constantly calling out other posters...

[Maedhros]

82. Hillary's role in crafting the TPP is not some trivial bit of political sausage-making.

It is perhaps the most accurate bellwether we have on how she will govern. It is good and right that we peel this issue open and inspect it closely.

[cstanleytech]

96. Ageed it wasnt about the TPP but rather a trollish attempt to attack Hillary.

And no I am not pro Hillary OP but I am pro not letting the Republicans gain more power and will support whatever democrat ends up being the nominee even if it should happen to Hillary though to be honest I believe the OP is making a mistake by apparently focusing so much of their energy against Hillary when the state level offices are where the majority of power resides since they set the voting districts up.

[one_voice]

118. Not so much Hillary as those that support her...

it's a game of tapping the line of calling out other posters but not quite crossing it. That's left to the replies....

[rhett o rick]

211. Calling Manny a troll isn't cool. But it seems the default when someone can't defend their stand.

Manny is pointing out that H. Clinton supports the TPP and yet her supporters won't argue in her behalf. The best they can do is disparage those that are against the TPP.

One either supports the TPP, is against the TPP or doesn't care. I do not support the TPP. Why is it so hard for H. Clinton supporters to admit where they stand?

[cstanleytech]

213. Take it up with wiki then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

[rhett o rick]

215. Calling Manny a troll is rude and shouldn't be necessary to get your point across. nm

[cstanleytech]

216. But my point is that it was a trollish post or do you disagree that it wasnt trollish?

[rhett o rick]

217. Do you agree that calling a long time DU poster a troll is rude? nm

[cstanleytech]

232. I think its far worse to defend a trolling post just because someone has posted here for a long time

than it is to call that post out.

[rhett o rick]

245. If you don't like his post then you have the option of alerting, countering his points or ignoring.

There really isn't an excuse to be rude and call him a troll.

[cstanleytech]

255. I called it like I see and so far I havent seen you once deny that it wasnt a troll post.

So how about it? Was or was it not meant to troll?

[rhett o rick]

256. Calling it like you see it isn't justification for being rude.

I don't answer your questions.

[cstanleytech]

265. "I don't answer your questions." Thats close enough, thanks. nt

[TheKentuckian]

236. If the OP'S questions are making you feel discordant or upset then it is you who are the problem as

far as I can tell.

I would assert the blatant, consistent, and ongoing refusal to answer the simple question along with the accompaning finger pointing shows pure and willful bad faith in discussing the issue.

I see a bunch of folks wanting to defend the indefensible without the conviction to actually do it so the alternative is accusations, misdirection, and arguing in strange circles that are careful to avoid any actual position.

[cstanleytech]

266. Except I dont have to defend her because I'm not supporting her because to be honest

I just dont think she will win the nomination, what I am doing though is pointing out the distastefulness of the OP and those aiding the OP in trolling fellow DU members who do support her.
I mean thats something I would expect to hear happened over on Fox News not here on the DU though.

[TheKentuckian]

270. I didn't refer to a her for you to defend. Still ducking the policy position.

The policy position is the indefensible and it is STILL being danced around.

It is amazing how many responses folks can have and dodge the actual issue all the way. We could put together an All World two hand touch football team, I haven't seen whirling and dodging of this level sick Barry Sanders and we have a whole team with such otherworldly talent just in this one thread.

[Fumesucker]

274. The Republican party has a huge advantage in organizing...

The Republicans are almost entirely comprised of authoritarians, authoritarian followers fall naturally into organizations because they crave a figure to follow blindly, someone who tells them what to think and how to think it.

If you haven't read Bob Altemeyer's free online book "The Authoritarians" you really should, it makes clear a lot of things about Republicans and some Democrats that just don't make sense to many of us who aren't authoritarians. Authoritarians have very different motivations than those who are not that way and understanding them is key to beating the Republicans.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

This book was written in 2006, halfway through George W. Bush’s second term as president. A great deal was wrong with America then, and I thought the research on authoritarian personalities could explain a lot of it. Since then a new administration has been elected, and although it has had to deal with a very serious economic crisis brought on by others, it is taking steps to correct some of what is wrong.

However, the forces that largely caused the problems have remained on the scene, and are more active today than ever before. As I try to show in the “Comment on the Tea Party Movement” (link to the left), the research findings in this book apply at least as strongly to America today as they did four years ago. Indeed, the events of 2009 and 2010 have confirmed conclusion after conclusion in The Authoritarians. I wrote in 2006 that the authoritarians in America were not going to go away if they lost the 2008 election, that they would be infuriated if a new president tried to carry out his mandate. That has certainly been the case.

If you check the “hit counter” on this page, you’ll see that this site has been visited nearly 300,000 times so far. The feedback I’ve gotten from those who have read The Authoritarians enables me to give you the major reason why you might want to do so too. “It ties things together for me,” people have said, “You can see how so many things all fit together.” “It explains the things about conservatives that didn’t make any sense to me,” others have commented. And the one that always brings a smile to my face, “Now at last I understand my brother-in-law” (or grandmother, uncle, woman in my car pool, Congressman, etc.).

Maybe it’ll work that way for you too.

Bob Altemeyer
May, 2010

The Democratic party is by no means free of authoritarians but they are much less prevalent than among the Republicans, that's where the old line about "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat" comes from, authoritarians are just more organizationally minded than non-authoritarians, "Herding cats" is another way it's often put when talking about liberals/progressives and Democrats.

See also this post of mine from last October about authoritarians and the Ebola panic at that time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025673828

Kicking down and kissing up: Signs of a classic authoritarian

There is a common misconception about authoritarians, they want to rule everyone. In fact a classic authoritarian is obsequious and servile to those perceived to be of a higher social status or possible utility while at the same time being extremely harsh and strict with anyone they judge to be their social inferior and of no utility to them.

Watching the reactions in the M$M to this Ebola story has been interesting, every time there has been a screwup their first reaction is to blame the lowest status person they can find (unless they can somehow make it Obama's fault, they do have another agenda).

[eridani]

65. But it's a few days until TPP fast track comes up for a vote n/t

[JDPriestly]

108. And a lot of the Democratic caucus members who have seen the TPP agreement, the written

agreement, oppose it. That tells me a lot.

And Hillary has not stated where she stands on what she has seen of it.

When will she announce her stance on the TPP? Before or after it passes or fails in Congress?

[Autumn]

296. Against it if it passes, ignore it if it doesn't.

That is my guess.

[rhett o rick]

200. You are free to "take a breath". But I see this coming election the last chance for

the 99% to try to save our economy and democracy, if it isn't too late. DU doesn't "suck", it's a great example of the ever growing rift in our Party.

[longship]

209. Well then I suggest that everybody get working on turning over the state legislatures.

Because Hillary (or anybody else) will mean nothing if we don't do that. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the Democratic Party is screwn in local politics.

[rhett o rick]

210. Some of us are busy but I don't agree that electing a outspoken progressive President

"will mean nothing" I think we need great national leadership.

[treestar]

285. No he will not let it rest

and expects agreement on the substance of the TPP.

[pampango]

17. She and Obama likely don't think "that will likely cause bigger profits for the rich, and more job

loss and wage erosion for the rest of us." They may think that continuing existing trade policies with the WTO, NAFTA and other existing trade agreements with is more likely to be bad for the middle class.

[rhett o rick]

212. Are you trying to say that the TPP is going to fix NAFTA? I hope not. nm

[trumad]

18. Yawn!

[sheshe2]

33. Lol~

Careful trumad, as I saw in a thread that posted jury results, people think you should be more alert....ed~

I do believe they all voted to leave it!

[blkmusclmachine]

42. Past your bed time?

[trumad]

47. Nah...I get bored with repetitive shit.

I expect to be yawning quite a bit for the next year.

[Triana]

19. I think the TPP stinks. So did NAFTA. That Obama supports TPP stinks.

And I voted for him - twice. I guess I'm one who thinks any Democrat is better than a Republican. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is.

[FiveGoodMen]

25. " I'll vote for whoever the nominee is. "

And they know that.

Therefore they won't do ANYTHING to deserve your vote.

[mike_c]

28. ding ding ding....

The history of Democratic Party politics in the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries. You've summed it up precisely.

[Triana]

38. It's either that or a Republican in 2016.

Protest votes (or protest NON-votes) get you Republicans. It's a two-party system. Until that changes...

[frylock]

54. lather, rinse, repeat

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026513967#post25

[Maedhros]

85. We must not succumb to the politics of fear.

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

We need to make liberal voices heard, and we need to make ignoring us costly.

[FiveGoodMen]

91. And voting for the bad Dem (just because) gets you worse and worse Dems.

[JDPriestly]

110. This is the time to back a candidate you really like.

And we only have a short time in which to do that.

I will not vote for Hillary. The TPP is one of the reasons. I won't list the many, many other reasons here. But I will not vote for Hillary. I will vote for all the other Democrats on the ballot, but not for Hillary.

[99Forever]

219. This is Hillary Clinton's PERFECT opportunity to prove...

... her new found "liberalism" isn't just a bunch of campaign bullshit. Flex your political muscles Hillary and take down this job-killing, anti-American PIECE OF SHIT legislation. If you don't have the gravitas or the inclination to do so, you aren't ready to be POTUS.

I won't be holding my breath waiting, btw.

[840high]

121. ...^ that

[BainsBane]

20. What is O'Malley's position on TPP?

The issue isn't Clinton vs. theoretical perfection. It's against actual candidates. The only person we know likely to run is O'Malley. Others may declare, but we'll have to wait for that. So it's Clinton, O'Mally, Jeb, Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rubio. Do any of them live up to your standards on TPP or any other issue?

I was actually surpised to read that Clinton had opposed NAFTA. I guess we have to ask her what her position on TPP is. Her own position may not be the same as that of the Obama administration she worked for. I know it's popular to blame her for TPP and ignore the fact it's Obama's policy, but it's not reasonable or rational. For sometime, however, the Democratic party has supported such trade agreements. I don't like it, and I wish it were different. If you know how to convince them otherwise, I'm all ears.

[lovemydog]

48. You make some outstanding comments here BainsBane.

Hillary Clinton opposed NAFTA.

It's possible that TPP actually strengthens the average American worker's position as compared to existing trade treaties like NAFTA.

I'd like to see all the pros and cons of TPP laid out clearly. Not a bunch of rhetoric.

I think O'Malley, Clinton, Jeb, Cruz, Paul and Rubio and a host of others will eventually state their positions on it. At least I think all democratic party candidates will. I will carefully read / listen to what each has to say.

[Maedhros]

87. Every analysis of the leaked portions of the TPP

shows that it definitely will not strengthen the position of American workers.

[lovemydog]

124. I'm learning that too.

I apologize for my ignorance on it. I'm learning more about it.

[BainsBane]

192. TPP replicates chapter 11 of NAFTA

in the investment provision leaked by Wikileaks. See this Bill Moyers documentary on Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It's chilling.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Hillary Clinton *touted* NAFTA

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/

[BainsBane]

191. Will you address my question?

about O'Mally? How about the rest of the declared candidates? or how you would suggest getting the Democratic party to move away from its support of such "free trade" treaties. Opposing Clinton is only enough if the goal is to see Republicans elected. It doesn't answer the question of what we do about TPP and what alternatives we have within the Democratic Party to voting for someone who supports TPP.

It's easy to criticize. It's not so easy to work to change something. Since you are a host of the progressive reform of the Democratic Party group, I was hoping you would have some ideas of what we can do to oppose TPP.

[Jim Lane]

172. O'Malley is against the TPP

As for where he differs {from Hillary Clinton} on the issues, he opposes the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, which Clinton supported as secretary of State, and is no fan of NAFTA, a signature achievement of President Bill Clinton.

"I'm not for the sort of trade deals that hollow out our standards while they hollow out our middle class and middle class wages," he says.

from "Martin O'Malley pitches populism in New Hampshire", April 2, 2015

O'Malley's opposition to TPP is clear. Note, however, that O'Malley didn't say that Clinton supports it. O'Malley is not endorsing the reporter's characterization of his position as one "where he differs" from Clinton. I personally don't know what Clinton's position is. The reporter may be making an assumption based on Clinton's role in the initial stages of the TPP negotiation.

[BainsBane]

194. Thanks for that

I'd like to see a more substantive discussion by him on the issue of international trade relations, including TPP.

[JaneyVee]

22. I, like everyone else in the world, haven't read it yet. But...

I'm not just a single issue voter. I believe there are many areas in which Hillary can move America forward. Sometimes progress is measured one inch at a time. Here's a quote from my hero, Saul Alinsky:

"A word about my personal philosophy. It is anchored in optimism. It must be, for optimism brings with it hope, a future with a purpose, and therefore, a will to fight for a better world. Without this optimism, there is no reason to carry on. If we think of the struggle as a climb up a mountain, then we must visualize a mountain with no top. We see a top, but when we finally reach it, the overcast rises and we find ourselves merely on a bluff. The mountain continues on up. Now we see the "real" top ahead of us, and strive for it, only to find we've reached another bluff, the top still above us. And so it goes on, interminably.
Knowing that the mountain has no top, that it is a perpetual quest from plateau to plateau, the question arises, "Why the struggle, the conflict, the heartbreak, the danger, the sacrifice. Why the constant climb?" Our answer is the same as that which a real mountain climber gives when he is asked why he does what he does. "Because it's there." Because life is there ahead of you and either one tests oneself in its challenges or huddles in the valleys of a dreamless day-to-day existence whose only purpose is the preservation of a illusory security and safety. The latter is what the vast majority of people choose to do, fearing the adventure into the known. Paradoxically, they give up the dream of what may lie ahead on the heights of tomorrow for a perpetual nightmare - an endless succession of days fearing the loss of a tenuous security".

[libdem4life]

88. The pentultimate description between Liberal and Conservative. Classic.

Fear...the consummate difference. I choose hope and faith and tolerance. I believe in the Beatitudes, and lest I wax too religious, it is the basis of all true religions...thus the hope for humanity.

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R

- But with Hils-At-The-Helm®, I'm sure it'll be a softer, gentler TPP.......

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. Bwahahah...Hils-At-The-Helm®

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I'm not a Hillary backer and I don't like the TPP, but any serious or even honest discussion about

her views on Trade Agreements that includes things done by her boss, the President or by her husband, that other President while not bothering to mention that Senator Clinton voted against CAFTA as a US Senator is not complete. It's not discussion of issues, it's using issues to push a bill of goods. It's the opposite of community building and consensus making which are the goals of the progressive and of progressive politics.

[kelly1mm]

35. Hmmmmm. Any discussion of Sen. Clinton voting against CAFTA without mentioning her

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2015, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

votes for free trade with Oman, Singapore and Chile while a Senator is not complete. It's not discussion of issues, it's using issues to push a bill of goods. It's the opposite of community building and consensus making which are the goals of the progressive and of progressive politics.

[davidpdx]

168. +1

It is those who call posts like this "bashing" that are being dishonest.

[1StrongBlackMan]

225. +1. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

27. I find it difficult to decide either way on TPP since the details has not been released, all other

is pure speculation.

[daleanime]

51. You can tell a lot about it....

by who was involved in writing it.


Labor-nope, Multinational Corporations-yes.

[Thinkingabout]

97. Speculation.

[daleanime]

151. The Labor wasn't involved?

Not speculation, fact.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I need the TPP

[Vattel]

67. What do you need it for?

[Warren DeMontague]

69. The Almighty Demands it

[Vattel]

70. Seriously, I set you up with a nice soft underhand pitch,

and you miss the ball?

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I figured I would answer in a roundabout way

Anyway, some people seem to enjoy trying to discern what they think are the inscrutable multiple layers of meanings to the things I say and do, here. I figure I'm providing them more entertainment if I leave it a bit open-ended.


Get it? Open-ended?

[Vattel]

74. Ty, my faith in you has been restored.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Plus, there's always the off chance a jury might hide "bunghole"

although I guess now I'll find out anyway.

[Vattel]

78. When it comes to a bunghole, I always vote to hide it,

but I guess leaving it alone is a good response to.

[zappaman]

106. Love that place

http://www.bungholeliquors.com

[nightscanner59]

32. Oligarchs who propped up our POTUS for election are likely making him make good on the promise

To lick their dicks in return. (was that over the top? I can never tell) I suspect President Obama does not have the option to not back this legislative turd.
I don't believe that a trade deal negotiated in secrecy and likely contains a lot of bypass-all-regulations environmental and financial damage to do is as likely as good a thing as POTUS has been propped up to promote it.
And it makes me sad the RW "see I told you so's" they'll be able to use as ammunition if this thing turns out to be as bad as rumor has it, although they are supporting it too.

[Rex]

36. It will bring about a middle class that can be robbed in foreign lands!

Er I mean world peace and the end of warfare! New World Order...get on board Manny! Be a team player!

[Cosmic Kitten]

37. TPP will be fine, just ask the WTO...

Trade body rules against US on 'dolphin-safe' tuna

BERLIN (AP) - The World Trade Organization has found that the U.S. needs to amend rules underpinning "dolphin-safe" tuna labels, upholding a complaint by Mexico in a long-running dispute.

The U.S. revised rules in 2013 following a previous WTO ruling but Mexico returned to the Geneva-based trade body, arguing they still treat Mexican tuna less favorably than fish from elsewhere.

A panel found Tuesday that tougher tracking and verification requirements are applied to the Eastern Tropical Pacific, where Mexican boats operate, than elsewhere. It said different requirements are applied "in a manner that constitutes unjustifiable and arbitrary discrimination."
http://www.jsonline.com/business/national/trade-body-rules-against-us-on-dolphinsafe-tuna7d680e0785004e7387f46b6b20023e0a-299699021.html

See, it's all good.
The WTO made sure
everything is fare-n-square.
TPP will be even more awesomer!

[Phlem]

39. I think you might be asking too much.

I posed this question to them and one didn't know anything but was glad Obama was negotiating it cause he can't do anything wrong and another wasted 20 minutes of my life speaking garbled incoherent sentences. Also I was threatened that they would send a letter to Obama about what I said.

You read that right, fricking letter!

That's just two.

[blkmusclmachine]

40. http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/january222009/1percent.patch.jpg

[Cheese Sandwich]

45. Why don't you just check her website and see her position on the issue?

Certainly a major presidential candidate would have something on their website explaining their views on trade policy.

Unless they didn't want you to know for some reason.

[workinclasszero]

52. I think its horrible

But I fail to see how helping a president Cruz or Walker or Bush to get elected will make it better.

Can you help me out on that?

Didn't think so.

You may be able to persuade your friends to change things, but your enemies will tell you to go to hell and double down on everything else as well.

[DeSwiss]

79. BOO!

[TheKentuckian]

252. Friends my ass is a big piece of the point.

Not being a vile bigot doesn't translate to friendship on any level whatsoever.

It means only that everybody in the discussion is something better than a rabid and inhuman less than an animal, who tend to have much more sense about what color the pelt is and who's junk you like to sniff and lick more.

Nor does not being monstrous on one issue prevent you from being a monster in another.

Friends are in my world anyway the family that you choose, it means something. I'm not not even seeing running buddies or even associates.
Less than the most grievous enemies sure but an opposition that can be pretty hostile and often on what I consider to be pretty fundamental issues if not on the same verse or page with the most grievous enemies way closer to them than me.

Do these folks seem even a fraction convinced? This has been the agenda stuffed down our throats for decades. What are the indications of being convincible?

I see not a shit to give even after a vat of undercooked beans, a giant mess of greens, and a pallet of Ex-Lax. There is no there to be had, it is delusional and religious like thinking except worse it isn't the flavor of faith that just overcomes lack of evidence but rather the tripped out version that ignores direct refuting fact dead in the face.

[WillyT]

55. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. It is one of many issues.

I have my concerns, but I am not a one issue voter.

Let us see who else is aking me for the job.


Besides, I suspect this will be a done deal by the time November 2016 roles around, and it will be a Democrat or a Republican in the White House.

[cheapdate]

58. Hello, Hillary Backer here. I would not support the TPP, and yet I support Hillary

for a big raft of other reasons.

Question for my Warren backers (of which I'm one too) how do *you* feel about her uncompromising support for the state of Israel?

[Cryptoad]

60. Hmmmm,,,, let see

we have a choice of HRC, stand with Rand Man, a Cuban Rethug, or a Canadian Tea BAgger, Now which one will I pick??????????? This aint rocket surgery, folks!

[840high]

122. I'll write in Sanders.

[Hoyt]

62. O'Malley sees the wisdom in a good TPP. I truthfully don't think Elizabeth Warren is interested

in telling the truth about the TPP. She knows her supporters hot buttons, and that most won't do any research themselves, they are more than willing to believe Obama and Clinton are only interested in selling them down the river.

I'm sure Clinton and Obama are for a GOOD TPP, if one can be negotiated. I don't think either will support a bad agreement. If the preliminary negotiations aren't improved, there won't be a final draft presented to Congress.

[eridani]

71. There is no such thing as a "good TPP"

Not unless you mean one that has been stripped of every item except those directly having to do with tariffs. I'm not holding my breath.

[Jim Lane]

173. Your optimism about Obama is misplaced. He's already pushing fast track.

First, as to substance, I predict that the final TPP that emerges from the negotiations, and that Obama will submit to Congress, will be substantially similar to the late-stage drafts that have been leaked. What you call "the preliminary negotiations" have been going on since 2010. It's not realistic to hope that the nefarious work of more than four years will be completely reversed in the final few months.

Second, as to procedure, it's undeniable that Obama is pushing fast track. If Obama gets his way, then, once he presents the TPP to Congress, the whole process of consideration will be artificially compressed into a maximum of 90 days from start to finish. If what he's presenting is in fact a good trade agreement, then why does he need debate curtailed in that fashion?

It would be a logically consistent position for someone to support the TPP and yet oppose fast-track, basing the latter position on a belief in fairness and the democratic process.

[Hoyt]

176. Simple, no nation will give their best deal if they believe our current Congress is going to

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

debate every issue TPP from font size, to minute issues. It would take years with people on both sides trying to score points with underinformed constituents.

[Jim Lane]

197. I'm OK with the no-amendments part of fast track. It's the "fast" part that's objectionable.

In any multilateral agreement, the most practical approach to approval is for each country to consider the exact deal that's proposed. If one country approves, then another country approves with amendments, then the first country has to reconsider its approval, and so on.

Of course, the Obama Administration chose to exclude Congress from the negotiations. Also excluded were various progressive NGOs, such as labor unions and environmentalists, although big business was included. The administration is free to make that choice, but it carries a price. It's perfectly legitimate for a member of Congress to say: "One of the NGOs that I trust has a problem on page 27. It could be fixed by a fairly simple rewording, and if the NGO had been involved in the process that simple fix could have been suggested and incorporated, but it wasn't, and we can't now amend, so I'm voting No on that basis."

The objectionable part of TPA is the compressed calendar. This deal has been in negotiation since 2010. I don't think any of our negotiating partners would balk at cutting a deal just because they know that approval will take some time.

[Hoyt]

199. Actually, there are advisory committees that include unions and environmental groups --

There are also advisory committees, that do not negotiate directly. Among them is a Labor Advisory Committee with the following members:

Clayola Brown National President, A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
Thomas Buffenbarger International President, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM)
Jim Clark President, International Union of Electronic, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE)
Leo Gerard International President, United Steelworkers (USW)
Raymond Hair
President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), AFL-CIO/CLC

Joseph T. Hansen President, United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Mary Kay Henry International President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Ed Hill International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
James P. Hoffa General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
Ken Howard President, Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Gregory Junemann International President, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
Richard Kline President,Union Label & Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Lee Moak President, International Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), AFL-CIO
Jorge Ramirez President, Chicago Federation of Labor
Cecil E. Roberts, Jr. President, United Mineworkers of America (UMWA)
Arturo Rodriguez President, United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
Sarah Nelson International President, Association of Flight Atendants, AFL-CIO (CWA)
Lee Saunders President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Richard Trumka President, American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Baldemar Velasquez President, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Dennis Williams President, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Forthcoming President, Transportation and Trades Department, AFL-CIO

And there is an Environmental Advisory Committee:

Joseph G. Block Retired Partner, Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti
Kitty Block Vice President, Humane Society of the United States
Jake Colvin Vice President of Global Trade Issues, National Foreign Trade Council
Vanessa Dick Deputy Director, US Government Relations, World Wildlife Fund
Jennifer Haverkamp Consultant
Trevor Houser Partner, Rhodium Group
Rhoda Karpatkin President Emeritus, Consumer's Union
Chris Lischewski Chief Executive Officer, Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC
Amanda Mayhew Senior Advisor, World Animal Protection
Glenn Prickett Chief External Affairs Officer, The Nature Conservancy
Peter Robinson President, U.S. Council for International Business
Lowell Rothschild Senior Counsel, Bracewell & Giuliani

James Salzman Professsor of Law, Duke University
Jeffrey J. Schott Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics
Andrew F. Sharpless Chief Executive Officer, Oceana
Adam Siegel Vice President of Sustainability and Retail Operations
John Smirnow Vice President of Trade, Solar Energy Industries Association
Frances Smith Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
William J. Snape, III Board Member, Endangered Species Coalition
Cindy Squires Executive Director, International Wood Products Association
Alexander von Bismarck Executive Director, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
Thomas Weirich Vice President Corporate Relations, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)


Other Advisory Committees include:
From https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees
Advisory Committees
The advisory committee system, established by the U.S. Congress in 1974, was created to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiating objectives adequately reflect U.S. public and private sector interests. The advisory committee system consists of 28 advisory committees, with a total membership of approximately 700 citizen advisors.

USTR's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs & Engagement (IAPE) manages the advisory committee, in cooperation with other agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency. IAPE is also designated as the state coordinator for the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, and provides outreach to official state points of contact, governors, legislatures, and associations on all trade issues of interest to states.

IAPE frequently speaks with outside groups in order to build support for a robust trade agenda and creates materials for public distribution.

Advisory Committees

Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN)

Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC)

Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade (ATAC)

Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITAC)

Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC)

Labor Advisory Committee (LAC)

Trade Advisory Committee on Africa (TACA)

Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC)

[Jim Lane]

231. Those White House talking points don't answer the objections.

I do volunteer work for the Sierra Club, so I'll focus on the environmental aspect.

There exists an Advisory Committee -- that's nice, but have its members been privy to the ongoing negotiations, let alone have the same opportunity that big business does to help draft the specifics? Four of the environmental organizations on your list specifically deny having signed off on the deal:

Officials from Oceana, the Humane Society, the World Wildlife Fund and World Animal Protection all told HuffPost they had not endorsed the TPP pact and are waiting to see the final agreement before rendering a verdict, although the White House quoted all of these groups praising elements of it.

(from "White House Says Enviros Love This Trade Pact, But Enviros Say Otherwise")

Perhaps the CEO of Bumble Bee Seafoods LLC, who's also on your list of environmentalists (!), has had better access.

As the HuffPo article notes, the environmental movement isn't monolithic:

The Obama administration's somewhat selective quotations exploit a real divide in the environmentalist community, however. Some animal welfare groups, including those cited in the White House blog, think U.S. proposals to fight trade in illegal wildlife could help curb the market for rhino horns, tiger parts and other poaching products. WWF and World Animal Protection, for instance, may ultimately endorse TPP if the administration lives up to its wildlife protection commitments in the final deal. But green groups that work in a wider policy arena -- Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Rainforest Action Network, Defenders of Wildlife and many others -- see very big problems in other chapters of the agreement that have leaked to the public.

It's telling that nearly fifty environmental groups have come out in opposition to fast track: "Environmentalists Reject Obama's Call For Expanded Trade Powers".

Getting back to that issue of who's involved in the negotiations, the Sierra Club states:

The TPP is taking place in extreme secrecy. No drafts of TPP texts have been released. And public input has been drowned out by dominant corporate input; more than 600 corporate advisors are actively working to shape the agreement while the public is being kept in the dark.

Further down on that page, you'll find links to the Sierra Club's more detailed analyses of specific sections of the TPP.

[Hoyt]

201. I trust the Obama admin to submit a final TPP to Congress that removes the majority

of major objections.

I don't see any reason to deal with a lot of "this language looks like it COULD result in enslaving everyone in the USA, air pollution, corporations suing the USA for everything we have, etc., type stuff." The COULD stuff is often so unlikely, it's absurd. Fact is, if something unforeseen arises that was not anyone's intention in the agreement, we'd just say this needs to be changed, or in the worst case "Screw You XYZ foreign corporation, we ain't paying your trumped up damages."

If Obama submits a bad agreement, I'll be the first to be in the streets.


Finally, the TPP is much more than a trade agreement --

Here are a couple of what I think are balanced assessments by Ezra Klein and Jeff Spross:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership

http://theweek.com/articles/544250/what-workerfriendly-transpacific-partnership-look-like

[1StrongBlackMan]

230. You mean like how ...

Iran agreed to the nuclear deal frame work, then immediately after congress did its thing, started adding conditions?

[George II]

73. Since its still in draft form and will be changed, perhaps significantly, and the only details...

...we know of have been selectively doled out, I really don't have an opinion either way.

[pnwmom]

76. I would like to know if Obama will withhold his endorsement of her pending HRC's endorsement

of the TPP. I hope he won't, because I'm not thrilled with what I've heard about the TPP.

If he is twisting her arm about the TPP, she's in a very tough spot. Any candidate going into the general without his endorsement is going to be severely handicapped.

[Agnosticsherbet]

83. If Hillary Clinton approves or disapproves of the TPP, it is Hillary who made that decision.

I don't think she is amenibale to arm twisting.

Obama will endorse whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

[pnwmom]

111. Obama will endorse the nominee. But it can be a strong endorsement or a weak endorsement

depending on . . . whatever.

[davidpdx]

170. I wouldn't think he would

Then again I won't presume to know what he will or will not do. If she is the nominee (which he hopefully wouldn't endorse her until she is), then he's going to endorse her.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I'm down with TPP

yeah, you know me.

[msanthrope]

120. Damn it....now I have a musical earwig. nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

81. I usually wait more than a minute to listen for crickets

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:41 PM

Of course I really don't need affirmation.

[PosterChild]

90. . Its generally a good thing...

...but not greatly good. It certainly isn't bad, let alone evil.

[FiveGoodMen]

92. Poster Child for Global Feudalism

[PosterChild]

98. LOL, Fuedalism....

....isn't global. Isolationism and parochial protectionism are closer to the ancient regime. The future is global and America needs to engage and advance in the world. For our own good, of course, but, I hope, for the good of everyone , everywhere.

[Cheese Sandwich]

102. you're thinking of old feudalism. new feudalism is corporate global super-feudalism.

[PosterChild]

112. I think you're just..

...using perjoritve expressions to be dismissive without any substantive analysis or critique.

Global social organization, particularly economic, has been, is and will continue to evolve as the progressive future of human kind. Fuedalism was a long ago and long gone bump in the road, and is not looming ahead.

[Cheese Sandwich]

125. Nice substantive analysis and critique

thanks!

[spanone]

103. tell us what's in the bill.

[Thinkingabout]

104. Wow, looks like Hillary backers are growing in numbers rapidly.

[hunter]

107. I can't give a shit. Sorry. Thus far, this world civilization is doomed.

What we now define as "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we inflict upon our natural environment and the human spirit.

If you and your kids are not starving, and you have a comfortable, secure place to sleep, go home and read a book.

[azureblue]

114. yes, we can understand your confusion

and we all know you are easily confused. We are not here to convince Hilhaters, especially, dear Manny, when you start out a diary with an outright lie.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. And which outright lie would that be? nt

[Maedhros]

233. Yes, do tell: to what "outright lie" are you referring?

Or are you just being disingenuous?

[MannyGoldstein]

239. You wouldn't want people to think you're lying about calling me a liar,

would you?

But one can only wonder, given your refusal to back your accusation.

[DanTex]

123. Not a big deal. Mostly just something for Hillary/Obama haters to latch onto.

Most of them can't actually explain what TPP is, much less why it is supposedly going to ruing the middle or working class.

[MannyGoldstein]

126. Do you think Sen. Warren understands the TPP?

http://front.moveon.org/warren-supporters-push-back-on-tpp-and-fast-track-run-warren-run-news-316/#.VS8ns9_D_qA

[DanTex]

129. Absolutely. And so does Obama.

I would love to see an in-depth discussion between the two of them about the pros and cons.

But in the end, I think Krugman is right that it's not a big deal.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. Krugman thinks the TPP is a bad idea

He changed his mind.

[DanTex]

136. Yeah, but he also thinks it's not a big deal.

I agree with him that people on both sides make way too much out of free trade agreements. TPP is neither going to save nor destroy the economy. On the left, it's mostly an excuse to hate Hillary or Obama.

[Hoyt]

141. No he does not.. The last thing he said is that people he normally agrees with blame NAFTA for

for things caused by other factors.

I think in the same blog he said if the Chamber of Commerce is for TPP, that might give him pause.

Fact is, most of us work for corporations, directly or indirectly. There is plenty of room for them to improve, but we'd be up a creek working for, and depending on, mom-and-pop buggy whip shops, farms, etc., in today!a world. You think large corporations don't pay well, try working for some small outfit, run by a right winger, working on a shoestring.

[MannyGoldstein]

143. "Not to keep you in suspense, I’m thumbs down."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/?referrer=

[Hoyt]

152. That's hardly a condemnation. It's more, why is Obama putting up with false criticism by people

who should support him. Personsally, I applaud Obama for trying to get what Krugman calls " the idealized TPP that could have been." If Obama doesn't get that "idealized" TPP, he won't submit it to Congress, notwithstanding your belief he's working to sell you down the river.

Besides, the TPP is a lot more tha just a trade agreement.

[MannyGoldstein]

155. I wrote that he thinks it's a bad idea.

You disagreed.

"Thumbs down" means bad idea, I think.

Between this and the Washington Post agreeing with me on the 4-year embargo of the nastiest bit of the TPP... perhaps you can see why I'm getting a little tired of people saying that I'm full of @#$% when what I say is corroborated by the plain meaning of the English language, and by major news outlets.

[DanTex]

158. "I don't think the proposal is likely to be the the terrible, worker-destroying pact

some progressives assert, but it doesn't look like a good thing for the world or for the United States." I guess you missed that sentence. It's a pretty far cry from the daily DU posts about how TPP is going to be the end of the middle class in America.

Basically, Krugman thinks it's not a big deal, and he wonders why Obama is spending so much political capital on it, which I agree with. But he also thinks that the nuts who blame trade agreements for destroying the economy are in fact nuts. Which I also agree with.

BTW, another very good point that Krugman has made recently is that the difference between the two parties is so enormous that arguing over whether Hillary is progressive enough because of minor points like TPP is just plain stupid. If you're interested in the future of the country and the world, the top priority is getting a Democrat elected to the white house, and getting as many Dems in congress as possible. Purity tests are at best a waste of effort and at worst dangerously counterproductive.

[Hoyt]

163. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[NanceGreggs]

165. Well said!

[Thinkingabout]

130. Where does Sen Warren stand on national security?

[MannyGoldstein]

132. She's in favor of it. nt

[Thinkingabout]

145. But she voted against the ISIS Resolution.

[MannyGoldstein]

147. And what was that resolution for, exactly? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

156. Cat got your tongue?

Or maybe you're asleep.

If the latter, I hope you respond in the morning.

[MannyGoldstein]

241. Still waiting. nt

[Thinkingabout]

242. I think National Security is on her back burner.

[MannyGoldstein]

244. Again: what was the ISIS vote about?

You made an awful accusation, let's see what's up.

[Thinkingabout]

251. Perhaps you can ask Warren what it is about, she voted against it.

[MannyGoldstein]

253. She (and I) know exactly what it's about

Seems like either *you* don't, or you're uncomfortable with the facts.

[Thinkingabout]

254. Yes I am uncomfortable with the fact of her vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

258. So you're unable to say what the vote was for,

because you don't want to embarass Sen. Warren.

Do I have that straight?

[Thinkingabout]

260. When I read your first time you ask the question I felt sure you already knew what the ISIS

Resolution ergo I did not feel the need to repeat the information for you. Again I am not comfortable when relying on Elizabeth Warren on National Security and this is perhaps one of the reasons she has not selected to run for president.

[MannyGoldstein]

262. The vote was on whether to arm Syrian "rebels", no? nt

[Marr]

278. Chickenshit accusation, followed by chickenshit avoidance.

How embarrassing.

[MrMickeysMom]

150. Hyperbole

NAFTA GATT, CAFTA and TPP have enabled a slow erosion of the middle, working class and labor force in this country.
They should all go away in their present form. The only person who seems to understand this because he talks about it is Bernie Sanders. Certainly, Clinton should know better, but she is silent the same way she has politically been silent about other decisions that dragged us through senseless, baseless, and illegal wars of aggression.

But getting back to the TPP, which you seem to think many here aren't able to explain...

The U.S., as a member of the WTO rendered itself useless to properly regulate trade! Once upon a time, we had some good ideas on the tariff side of this argument. But the WTO neutered congress by this move. Now, congress has LITTLE authority to regulate commerce and that regulation has illegally been forfeited because our constitution grants them this power. Now the regulation of U.S. commerce is in control by a foreign power called the WTO.

When did ANY of these trade agreements help the labor force on either side of any U.S. border? To give you some idea, drive along the Texas border and take a gander at what all the maquiladora plants did to the state of the Mexican worker, who live in poverty after working in these trade deals. They can't even afford the kitchen appliances that are made there for pennies on the dollar. The ecology is horrid. What do you think countries will be able to do to sustain current environmental regulations that would be challenged under the way the TPP is written? Answer: not much!

Meanwhile, see what NAFTA, et al has done to the American labor force. Study what has already happened to the electronics industry since the 1980's and especially under NAFTA. Where are our skilled labor going? The U.S. skilled worker can't compete with a dollars a day on the other side of the border any more than we can open job opportunities by the TPP.

So, who are you kidding with this question, now? State your argument FOR it.

There is no provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass the power to regulate, control, or govern U.S. commerce to a foreign nation, government, body, or agency - BUT there sure is now a la the World Trade Organization.

[davidpdx]

169. Hillary hates, Hillary bashers....

Do you actually have something constructive to bring to the conversation besides juvenile name calling?

[rhett o rick]

218. So does that mean you support it? The question is whether people support it or not.

Seems those here that do support it won't explain why. I am guessing their only reason is that either Obama is for it or H. Clinton is for it.

As far as not knowing what's in it, we have seen much more to give us reasons to be afraid than not. In fact no one has come out to explain how it will benefit the 99%. No one that supports the TPP has said a word.

[DanTex]

238. It means I don't really care about it.

I don't know the details, so I neither support it nor oppose it. I imagine Obama has legitimate reasons to support it, and people like Warren have legitimate reasons to oppose it.

Overall all, any Democratic candidate would be so vastly superior to any Republican candidate that getting hung up on minor issues like TPP seems silly to me.

[rhett o rick]

243. If you don't know anything about it, how can you dismiss it as minor? nm

[DanTex]

276. That's a fair question. A few reasons.

For one, from what I've read from people I trust, notably Paul Krugman, my sense is that in serious economic terms TPP won't make much difference.

Also, there's the fact that we already have bilateral trade agreements with many of the TPP countries. And TPP doesn't include China.

Also, and this may not be popular on DU, but the left can sometimes display a significant degree of economic ignorance, although not as much of the right. The scapegoating of trade agreements as the or a major cause of economic ills is one example of this.

Finally, I would say that the burden of proof is on the people who think that TPP is a big deal, rather than on people like me who think it's not. And I say that from both sides. Obama believes that TPP is a big deal in a positive way, and I'm not convinced. Many progressives think that TPP is a big deal in a negative way, but I haven't found a persuasive argument for that either.

In the end, I think that things like the tax structure, privatizing social programs, dismantling unions are much more important for the US economy and distribution of wealth, and seeing that Clinton, Obama, Warren, Sanders, and the Democratic party generally are all in stark contrast to the Republicans on these issues, I find people who are trying to demonize Hillary for small issues like TPP to be unpersuasive.

[fadedrose]

133. going to bed but will read the thread tomorrow

too much to absorb this late.

[hunter]

148. Don't give a shit. My kids are adult and I'm willing to check out of this life as a homeless person.

Been there, done that, homelessness I mean, and I boycott most everything in our "consumer" economy.

Mother Nature will clean up our human messes.

100,000 years from now our civilization will be a curious layer of trash in the geologic record.

All that university paleontology and evolutionary biology coursework and fieldwork, interrupted by periods of dumpster diving and sleeping in my car, yep, it may have left me a bit twisted.

[MannyGoldstein]

157. That's the spirit!

You and I can be the first volunteers to be evolved into Soylent Green.

[DeSwiss]

261. You got it!

As George Carlin reminded, ''The planet will be fine -- it's us that will be leaving.'' And as far as I'm concerned, that is as it should be. We had our shot and we blew it. We are unevolved naked apes who lack he ability to learn from past mistakes. We don't deserve this planet as we have not demonstrated any ability to run it properly. Nor do we respect or appreciate what we had.

- Let the insects have their turn.....

''…we are led by the least among us – the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons…'' ~Terence McKenna

[djean111]

161. Manny, it seems to me that the general drift of what we are ALL supposed to do

as good little Ds is - no primary, because it would hurt Hillary and waste all that lovely money, and accept that NO economic issue is as important as civil rights and SCOTUS.
In fact, I feel we are finally, out in the open, being told to accept that ANY economic issue is a pony.
Finally out in the open that a primary is not wanted.

So - your question is irrelevant to the folks you are addressing, because it is an economic issue and therefore totally not germane to the HRC campaign or what she might do if she is elected.
Easier to not do something if ya have not said you would do it.
And rest assured, economic hardship will fall on men, women, and children EQUALLY - that's the thing that matters here. And, of course, no other Dem candidate cares about equality and choice, just Hillary.

The hubris (and coarseness, in some cases) of the HRC team is remarkable. And off-putting as hell.

[Orsino]

177. One needs only to look at who's pushing it on us.

"Free trade" has always been a code phrase for elevating corporate power above the law.

It sucks, and there's even a giant sucking sound to prove it.

[beachbum bob]

178. how would you feel about a conservative in the whitehouse who will

serve the Koch Brothers 100%???

[B Calm]

181. I don't like TPP, but the alternative (republican president) is too scary.

[YoungDemCA]

202. I don't think you posted this OP in good faith

And I am really starting to doubt that you want a Democrat as President, at this point. Maybe you want one that will solely cater to "economic issues"-no, YOUR economic issues, that are important to YOU, and not those "divisive social issues."

But please, carry on with your shitting on actual Democrats who are out there, getting things done, and whine about how you're not getting your personalized, customized fantasy of FDR or whatever Strong Leader - ignoring the reality that democratic politics is a process that involves people constantly working at it at all levels, and that whining on a message board about how you're politicians are not catering to you is the least productive thing to do.

[rhett o rick]

214. I think you are making the point. Manny and progressives in general don't like the

TPP and have written post after post, quoting article after article. But those that support H. Clinton and/or Obama are silent on the issue. Never committing themselves. They won't discuss the actual issue itself but attack those that oppose the TPP.

If you support the TPP give us some good reasons.

[chapdrum]

237. If this weighty tome of derangement

is adopted, that will be the end of democracy in the U.S. Don't see any way around that. If someone else does, please chime in.

[treestar]

246. How do Republicans feel about the TPP?

They are likely against is as Obama is for it.

[rhett o rick]

257. Glad you asked. Republicons love it, as does the 1%, corporations and conservative Democrats.

It's only progressives that are supporting the 99%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6519352

[Marr]

277. +1. Don't expect a substantive response.

[treestar]

284. So letting them win doesn't help.

I think you may be stuck with it then.

Meh, how do we know it does not benefit people other than the rich? Why wouldn't it? Trade between nations is a good thing, regulated, better.

[rhett o rick]

287. Again with the questions instead of statements. But here goes.

One must be very naive if they haven't noticed that in the last 30years the undoing of the New Deal has impacted the wealthy by huge increases in their wealth while at the same time reducing the wealth of the 99%. While it's possible to create wealth and share it, the wealthy have learned that stealing wealth (like taking peoples pensions) is much easier. All they (the wealthy) have to do is buy some Congress-Critters and get a friendly president to appoint business friendly officials and they can change the laws to transfer wealth from the 99% to them. If we are not doing anything to create wealth, like manufacturing, then wealth is zero-sum. If the wealthy get more, the 99% get less.

Saying "trade is good" is empty rhetoric. Means no more than saying the sun is good. I am sure that some trade is good but some is bad. But discussing trade with regard to the TPP is a silly distraction. The TPP has very little to do with actual trade. I hope you know more about the TPP than that.

If you support the President and Clinton's stand on the TPP why won't you tell us why?

[treestar]

289. How has the New Deal been undone?

In fact since the 30s it has been added to.

There was some bank regulation scaled back, which I don't like, but I couldn't prove it was a terrible thing. Some think it could have created the housing bubble.

Otherwise the Republicans are choking on the stifling regulation supposedly caused by Obamacare.

Making a bogeyman out of a trade agreement is silly. I don't believe as much as you do in the evil rich cabal cackling at how they are going to starve us all to death. They need us a customers and employees, so that is not even in their interests.

[rhett o rick]

291. If you don't think that the protections of the New Deal have been cut back

I am afraid I can't help you.

[rhett o rick]

272. So Manny what's your conclusion? It appears that the only consistant reply to

how H. Clinton supporters feel about the TPP is that they all despise you. Now the documents are not final but that's what we are seeing at this point.

PS: Above I found myself defending you after you were labeled a troll. I felt I had to but would feel better if you would assure me that I am right.

[MannyGoldstein]

275. The problem seems to be in my asking the question

If the question wasn't asked, all would be well.

I'm going to turn over a new leaf, starting with changing my handle to Dr. Pangloss.

[rhett o rick]

288. I think the behavior of those not openly opposing the TPP is special.

It's like the XL Pipeline. Those against the pipeline were very vocal for a long time while Obama was silent. During this time the Obama supporters didn't take a stand either way on the issue, but disparaged those against the pipeline for daring to question the President. Then when the President is convinced by the Left to oppose the pipeline, the supporters, who never took a stand, disparage the Left again for ever having doubted the president. Same thing when we had the debate about indefinite detention except in that case the President signed the law allowing indefinite detention. And now the same with the TPP and fracking. They won't commit themselves but will applaud the President's decision whatever it is.

[Zorra]

279. Naturally, as a well known long time DLC/Third Way supporter of unfettered laissez faire capitalism

here on DU,



I personally (would you pass the grey poupon, dammit, peasant!) believe that the TPP will be the final blow to all the horrid lower 99% working class POS scum on this planet, and we will *finally* (dramatic sigh) see the return of monarchy and feudalism that we upper one percent Federalist Society Heritage Foundation members have been seeking to re-establish ever since that awful Jefferson fellow wrote that ridiculous disgusting Declaration of Independence filth insult to his rightful lawful King and all we God appointed nobles.

Long Live The Queen! Semper ubi sub ubi!

[BeanMusical]

282. Kick and R.

[ileus]

286. How does Hillary fell about it? That's how I feel.