General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuess which "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty" opposed TPA?
Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)
If you guessed Pat Buchanan or Donald Trump, you'd be close, as they've both come out publicly against TPA. But the winner is My Old Kentucky Home-boy Rand Paul: *
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has emerged as a top spokesman for a view on trade legislation that could complicate President Barack Obama's push to pass a major Pacific trade pact.
The 2016 presidential candidate says he is a "big believer in free trade" but has qualms about the legislation, known as fast track, designed to help pass major trade deals with limited involvement by the Senate. Some other Republicans are expressing similar misgivings in both the House and Senate.
{snip}
But on Monday, Mr. Paul told WMUR in New Hampshire that he opposed fast track, in part, because of his frustration about the secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
"I've told leadership I'm a 'no' vote on trade promotion authority," Mr. Paul told the station, according to an account on WMUR.com. "I'm hesitant to give blanket authority on stuff we haven't seen." He said he might be persuaded in the future to back fast track if he approved of provisions in the TPP.
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/rand-pauls-fast-track-dilemmaupdate-20150511-01586#ixzz3aIvcFiKc
So stand with Rand takes the prize again. Here's the "sovereignty" quote:
..................
*note: "My Old Kentucky Home" is the official Kentucky state song.
http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/kentucky/state-quarter-state-song/my-old-kentucky-home
cali
(114,904 posts)equally creepy rebuke and corporate assholes. Duh.
And I can counter him with at least a thousand liberals. Double duh
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Nothing unusual there.
cali
(114,904 posts)with the President with this and who stands against him? Zip. The fact remains that the pig shit worst stand with him and the best- people and organizations and lawmakers- who actually fight for people and the environment, stand against him.
Are there exceptions? Yes, but the field is so lopsided that your op is a joke.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And if there's going to be any effort to make the best of them it's going to be by making sure Obama negotiates them. It's like infrastructure expansion: you can either stick your neck out and push through high-speed rail, like Jerry Brown is doing in California, or you can privatize existing right of ways and add massively inegalitarian toll lanes, like Governator did, or you can do nothing and let existing systems antiquate, like the GOP congress is apparently content to do with Amtrack.
That's not a perfect analogy but basically I'm going with Jerry and Barack as I believe they have a vision of a better future and so far haven't been wrong on the macro-economics. On a micro level there's room for disagreement but these trade deals operate at the level of international accord and I support accord over discord any day of the week.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)If one assumes are leaders are always right, and we let the billionaire class as represented by republicans run roughshod over our political process. Does it bother you in the least the TPP is fully supported by the republican party? Or that our manufacturing base has been devastated due to to trade deals like TPP?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Trade is a good thing. War is a bad thing. That's the underlying reality. Yes, of course, the labor implications are concerning but the reason Obama is pushing it is to create good jobs. And I don't think we've yet seen a deal like TPP which is why I'm anxious to see the details, not just the bits convenient to Darryl and Jules and their swiftboating puppet masters.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Or any of the other corporate written trade boondoggles. America was the leading exporter and had the largest trade surplus well before these trade deals. Insinuating that this country must give up its wealth generating manufacturing base to avoid war is just flat out ridiculous. Rather, a country that losses its ability to manufacture will also lose its ability to innovate and its ability to defend itself from nations that have the industrial power to assert themselves globally. One does not have to see the details of TPP to know the track record of such deals have left a path of economic destruction throughout our country. Here Obama is no different than country club republicans.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There are lots of chapters but they're all related to regularizing regulation so to speak of various aspects of international commerce (country of origin labeling for instance) and its effects (labor and environmental concerns notably). The draft chapter that's been floating around the web since 2012 (IP) also is 100% trade related at a rather eye-glazing level of specificity.
USTR fact sheet listing chapter topics: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg
Joe Turner
(930 posts)The labor and environmental rules will be ignored and the corporate freedom to operate with few restrictions will be followed. As Bob Dylan once said "You don't need a weather to tell you which way the wind is blowing". Maybe this agreement works for your business but it certainly won't for most Americans.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Such brainless sycophantry is best kept to th Cave.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)He could enter in to this trade agreement without them, and will, if they keep screwing with it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Apparently the negotiations have been proceeding without Congressional agreement since 2012 or so by I think he's going to need their consent to get it ratified, and without TPA he'd need 2/3 vote. Haven't looked into it recently though.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I feel so sorry for him!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is helping him?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He basically doesn't have a choice.
cali
(114,904 posts)Ted Cruz is all in. Marco Rubio is for it. and don't forget Turtle and Bonehead. In fact, the vast majority of the repukes in Congress.
Charles Krauthammer. Scum banksters, chamber of commerce.
bzzzt super fail. embarrassing fail.
Everyone knows that by and large, the best oppose this piece of crap agreement and the worst of the worst in this country support it.
You can try and misrepresent who supports and opposes but everyone can see your transparent little ploy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Others can make their own beds and lie in them. No pun intended.
cali
(114,904 posts)thousands of them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Yeah, Rand Paul is on "my side", but as far as who is opposed to this deal, he's one of the few repuke creeps in Congress who are opposed. If you insist that I stand with rand, you sure the fuck stand in the sewer with the worst of the worst- including cruz- and oh so many more.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Your argument is hilarious. Is this 5th grade or something?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I happen to think that the guy I voted for four times is doing all the heavy lifting while the independents and come-lately's are exploiting the issue to make a buck. We're allowed to disagree.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)They're for the TPA. You're for the TPA. If those of us who oppose it "stand with Rand" as you cast it, well then you're definitly cruisin' with Cruz... and pretty much every other Republican.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...to point out that you're willingly in bed with the Republican Party. I have more self respect than to get in bed with these cretins.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)They are pretty much the only group that supports TPA. The republican base, particularly the tea party wing, hates it with a passion.
But there are 'strange bedfellows' on all sides of this one.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That doesn't seem so hard to fathom but the issue has been demagogued up one side and down the other and by now it's completely unrecognizable. I skimmed the purloined IP chapter and once you get past Julian's ominous introduction it's basically a lot of rules giving record companies and the like a little cover from getting their wares illicitly peddled in various media. Well, good luck with that. The drug business I didn't see. Possibly it's in another section. But the IP chapter is about as far from Black Helicopters as Ask Jeeves is from Brave New World. No connection basically.
cali
(114,904 posts)with the dem base, but do some digging. I just posted a story about the flack that Joaquin Castro is getting for not having come out in opposition.
You want to believe this but you're going to be sorely disappointed. You have posted this at least 2 dozen times. Sorry, it's bullshit. How do we know? Look at dem congress critters. I can guarantee you that they fear backlash over a YES vote on this, not a no vote.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I don't "want to believe" anything and won't be "sorely disappointed" if the polls 'catch up'. I don't accept or reject polls on the basis of whether they conform to what I believe.
Undoubtedly some of them do. Again the polls indicate that republican politicians have much, much more cause for concern over a voter backlash for a YES vote than do Democratic ones. I think politicians often fear a 'backlash' from party activists in both parties particularly in primary season.
http://fasttrackpoll.info/
68% of republicans (74% of the tea party wing) will hold a YES vote against their candidates while only 17% of Democrats will do so. Now those 17% of Democrats are still a lot of people and may include most Democratic activists who strongly oppose this. In addition 11% of voters will hold a NO vote against a politician. That was not broken down by partisan group but given the overall sentiment in the poll it is likely that most of those are Democrats.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . stand with the Democratic base, particularly its liberal wing.
They are pretty much the only group that supports TPA.
I dinnit know I was a liberal, liberal, liberal!!
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Rand Paul voted in favor of the TPA, as did nearly every other Republican Senator. Most Democrats opposed it, but you have decided to ally yourself with the Senate Republicans.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You already had Ted Cruz on your side and now Rand Paul has joined you, congratulations on getting every Republican Senator to support your position.
Every Senator that voted for my position is a Democrat.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As for the Democratic delegation, they have constitutents to consider and have to cover their asses so I'm not going to criticize a no vote though I happen to think demagoguing up a $46 million kitty is really running it out. That's a euphemism.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You attempted to accuse opponents of TPA of standing with Rand when in fact Rand Paul voted with your side as did every other Republican Senator. You have allied yourself with the Republicans on this issue and Obama has as well.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I must be a Libertarian.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Spain, Greece, Italy gave theirs away when they unelected technocrats to run their countries and force austerity on them so that IMF could get their money.
Global corporations want these trade laws to pass so THEY do not have to answer to a counties laws about anything, in fact, so they can dictate TO us what we have to do for them.
Just because Rand Paul makes sense on a couple of things does not mean Dems are traitors for agreeing with him on those points.
In fact, as long as our Congress remains so severely divided, it gives bad laws like TPP a better chance of passing.
I would prefer to see both sides vote down the bill..
pampango
(24,692 posts)For them anything that impacts national sovereignty in the slightest - in their view the UN, the WTO, the Arms Trade Treaty, the Disability Rights Treaty, any international climate change agreement, as well as any kind of arbitration in trade agreements - is the coming of the New World Order.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Surely this isn't so hard to figure out.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If the opposites of globalism is nationalism wouldn't a liberal be on the side of globalism and a conservative be on the side of nationalism?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and not trade agreements that surrender our liberty to a bunch of trade lawyers. Our country was founded on this liberty.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Liberals favor liberalization which means increasing, not inhibiting, international commerce.
Liberal is derived from the the same term as liberty. You are confusing trade liberalization and liberals. The two are not the same. Liberals believe in fair trade not the phony free trade policies designed to benefit a few at the expense of everyone else. This "free trade" agreement is a RW authoritarian bill.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)not to be confused with liber, n., book, with a short i. In any event, internationalism is without doubt liberal, because the word in that instance descends from the late medieval promotion of liberal studies, originally foreign languages, meaning Greek, as the rest of the curriculum was in Latin. Anyway to make a long story short here's what I understand liberalism to mean in the 20th century:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
TPP is not about "free trade" as in laissez faire capitalism, which libertarians would favor, or protectionist tarrifs either; it's about regulated trade. That's why it's called a partnership, not an FTA.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Putting trade lawyers in charge of enforcement sounds like laissez faire capitalism to me. Congress surrendering their trade authority to an unelected body is in no way "liberal".
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Laissez-faire means "let it happen," i.e., no government restriction. That's the libertarian point of view.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)to benefit the capitalists, allowing them to over rule laws written by the public sounds like laissez-faire to me.
Liberals believe in equal rights for all not just a select few.
cali
(114,904 posts)and how do you know the enforcement provisions are strong enough to enforce what regulations there are?
As for laissez-faire capitalism, this is a deal pushed by the major corporations in a major way and with a shitload of input from those same corporations. You have to be incredibly naive and blindly trusting to think that these folks hampered their future activities with tough, enforceable regulations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's dumb, so let's make sure it gets published ASAP. That means passing TPA in the House.
cali
(114,904 posts)My point is you made a claim that isn't based in anything. You're right that's dumb. However, we can draw some conclusions by reading the 3 leaked chapters, analysis of those chapters and leaked process documents, as well as understanding the history of past trade agreements vis a vis ISDS, job loss, trade deficits, etc. We can know something about it by reading analysis of the TPA which isn't locked in a basement and which governs aspects of all future trade agreements and the
And if you want to read it right now, I suggest you contact your hero President and ask him to release it. He doesn't need Congress to pass shit to do that.
Huge fail on claiming that reading it means Congress has to pass it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I've read contradicts the goals laid out in the outlines or the statements made by the President and SOS. So I'm inclined to wonder about the motives of the propandists. They seem to be very well funded however. In any case the devil is in the details and we won't know with certainty which side is right until we see the finished treaty and we won't see that until the house passes TPA. So I hope they pass it and soon.
cali
(114,904 posts)characterizing. And sorry ucrdem, but Sanders funding is hardly anything that any sane, unbiased person could possible believe had anything to do with his position. And what funding are you talking about? What indicates that Sanders and Warren and the many others speaking out needs any funding? Your propensity to just make shit up on the fly, is quite telling.
The details in the tpa, which damn well is public aren't encouraging, and that certainly goes for details in the leaked chapters. But I suppose YOU support "evergreening" of drug patents so as to make generics harder to produce and distribute. And we know that's in the IP chapter.
As I said your adored President whose word on everything you trust 100% , is free to release the document anytime he pleases.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Wed May 13, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670009
Fri Jan 30, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076
Fri Jan 2, 2015: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112
If you have any questions after reading through these just let me know.
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)do about any other country, and if that makes me a nationalist or a jingo or whatever pejorative the globalist, free trader crowd wants to throw at me, then so be it - I'll wear any insult from that crowd like a badge of honor.
Marr
(20,317 posts)How many Republicans agree with you on the TPP? Almost all of them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Maybe you know some personally?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)How about every fucking Republican Senator?
Get the hint yet, buddy?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)Rand Paul is a Senator not a Rep.
cali
(114,904 posts)Fail. at least you're consistent with that.
Marr
(20,317 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Backpeddlle some more, smart guy.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)The post is still there, smart guy. Better hurry up and delete it, eh?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Back in November last year it was:
Rand Paul to Obama: Finish TPP Trade Deal
Instead of just talking about a so-called pivot to Asia, the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the TPP.
Then a few days ago it was:
Paul opposes granting Obama fast-track trade authority
http://www.wmur.com/politics/paul-opposes-granting-obama-fasttrack-trade-authority/32951864
How did Rand vote Thursday?
Rand Paul Flip Flops?
^ Actual item for sale at the Rand Paul Store. Stand and Flip with Rand
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)This is the part where adults admit error and apologize-- just fyi.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)In reality Rand Paul currently supports the TPA and just voted in favor of it.
Your headline is completely false, Rand Paul is on your side of this issue.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Sorry you may be desperate to make us believe that your headline is based in reality, but it is pretty difficult to claim that someone who voted for TPA actually opposes it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Thanks.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)If he's made a subsequent statement, I haven't seen it and you haven't linked to it.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Are you actually trying to claim his yes vote is not a statement?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Are you trying to tell me that the fact that a claim that he is going to vote no should be taken more seriously than his actual record which shows he voted yes?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Silly point but keep trying.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You seem to want us to believe that what Rand Paul says is more important than what he actually does.
Rand Paul may have given lip service to my side, but it was your side that he stood with when it came time to vote.
pa28
(6,145 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)He voted FOR cloture BOTH times last week. He knows there are more than enough votes to give his ass cover should he eventually decide to vote no on the final vote. But on the most important vote, the only one requiring 60 to proceed, he fell in with his fellow corporate party members.
What Rand says means nothing. Everyone should understand that.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00180
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yes, this is the level of propaganda we are fed now. Not *just* guilt by association, but brazenly stupid and illogical guilt by association, since the line of Republicans supporting this predatory sack of shit is longer than the Nile.
But who cares? Throw the idiotic arguments out there. The more insulting, idiotic and absurd the better:
The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
Their purpose is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.
It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.
The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.
This is the sewer of corporate propaganda we marinate in now. What a low and disreputable occupation, distributing manipulative rhetoric for corporate predators.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/rand-pauls-fast-track-dilemmaupdate-20150511-01586#ixzz3aOwbPDm6
it's just... loco to keep digging the way you are.
the facts remain: Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the TPP and Repukes overwhelmingly support it. And a 5 point difference just ain't that much.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Wallach writes that Americans continue to support free trade, per "this year's Gallup 'trade' poll findings":
That's 58% for, 33% against.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/polls-show-americans-oppo_b_6847006.html
Re. TPP, TPA, etc: "The Gallup poll does not inquire about people's views on the current trade policy agenda."
mountain grammy
(26,613 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Didn't realize when I posted but he voted for TPA. So yeah he's quite the flipper.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)So just what the fuck is your point?
demmiblue
(36,837 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)demmiblue
(36,837 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)They can't accuse you of not doing your job.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)BainsBane
(53,027 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)anuary 24, 2014
The president wont be able to look to organized labor. Unions are overwhelmingly opposed to a deal that Communications Workers of America posters refer to as NAFTA on Steroids.
The president wont be able to look to major environmental organizations. The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and other green groups are outspoken in their opposition.
The president wont be able to look to progressive farm groups. The National Farmers Union is explicitly opposed to using a fast-track approach that would allow trade agreements to move through Congress with limited debate and without amendments.
<snip>
That group is the American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC, the corporate-funded organization that stirred considerable controversy several years ago with its advocacy on behalf of so-called Stand Your Ground gun laws and restrictive Voter ID rules, produces so-called model legislation for introduction by conservative state legislators. Last fall, the ALEC board of directors approved and circulated a Model Policy that celebrates the TPP and declares that it will be an impetus for further bilateral and multilateral trade agreements
<snip>
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178072/who-backs-tpp-and-nafta-steroids-alec
Who else? Why the sterling corporations and organizations at the U.S. Business Coalition For The TPP. Here's just a small sampling of the guardians of America's middle class and protectors of jobs:
3M Company
Advanced Medical Technology Association
Aflac International
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Council of life insurers
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry
Association American Forest & Paper Association
American Insurance Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Meat Institute
American Soybean Association
amway
apple
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Boeing
Business Roundtable
BSA The software Alliance
Cargill
Caterpillar
Chevron
Chubb Corp.
Citigroup Inc
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motion Picture Association of America
The Dow Chemical Company
Viacom
visa
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
http://tppcoalition.org/about/
And here's detailed piece about the Environmental Org world being misrepresented by the WH- and having to take down cherry-picked, out of context quotes. Support for the tpp from Environmental groupswent from being "wait and see" to active opposition after they read and analyzed the leaked Environment chapter which was released in 2014.
https://www.popularresistance.org/white-house-reveals-desperate-lack-of-support-for-tpp/
So can we please cut the crap about who supports the tpp- the crap about democrats being divided and about how Rand Paul and other tea partiers support it. It's just an attempt to muddy the waters and make it look like President Obama has democratic and liberal support. He doesn't. Support for it comes from corporate America and Repukes.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Why you haven't self-deleted this pathetic pantload is a mystery...
pa28
(6,145 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Time to stop wiping yours?