Nation: "The Democratic Party’s Draft Platform Doesn’t Oppose TPP—That’s Bad Policy and Bad Politics

and de facto head of the party.

That makes a lot of sense.

needed the majority of the GOP House to get fast track passed.

190 Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 28 Democrats in the House voted for it:

https://ourfuture.org/20150615/the-28-democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/245417-house-approves-fast-track-218-208-sending-bill-to-senate

It should already be ratified, IMO.

The House Democrats only had 28 members vote to fast track this corporate garbage.

It took 190 House Republicans to push it through.

The unions are against it. The environmentalists are against it. Doctors without borders are against it.

It's going to be passed in a lame duck session.

But it certainly doesn't surprise me that YOU think it's great.

This Democrat loves it.

Even Joseph Stiglitz doesn't like it.

It's corporate trash and everyone who is honest about it knows it all too well....

The unions, environmentalists and Joseph Stiglitz are all wrong.

(TPP, TTIP, TISA, and CETA)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027957446

Alfred de Zayas, the U.N.’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, is assigned the task to apply the standards of international law to proposed treaties, to determine whether they’re in accord with international law. On Friday, June 24th, he issued his finding on three large proposed treaties regarding international trade among Atlantic countries: TTIP, TISA, and CETA. Earlier, on February 2nd, he had issued a similar finding on the proposed TPP treaty between Pacific countries, and his conclusion there was the same: that the proposed treaty violates international laws, and is inconsistent with democracy.

snip

“Asymmetrical investment protection” refers to the power that these proposed treaties grant to international corporations to sue (for alleged loss of their profits) nations that increase regulations to protect the safety of the public from toxic products, and from environmental harms, and that protect workers’ rights and other human rights that can also, in some circumstances, reduce corporate profits. “Asymmetrical” refers to the absence in the proposed treaty of any symmetrical power granted to a government to sue an international corporation that violates its laws to protect the public. De Zayas goes further than merely charging that these treaties are “asymmetrical”: he adds that, “In case of conflict between trade agreements and human rights treaties, it is the latter that prevail. States must not enter into agreements that delay, circumvent, hinder or make impossible the fulfillment of human rights treaty obligations.”

proves and the experts know; 25+ years of these global, neoliberal and disagreeable market 'agreements' is more than enough.

love it. How is it beneficial to the average American in real terms? What evidence can you point to that shows these benefits are real and tangible?

If Obama, the Democratic party leadership can't convince the average democrat that it's a good deal, it is clearly bad politics if not bad policy.

Obama has convinced the 'average Democrat'. He hasn't had as much success with the 'average republican' who still oppose 'Obamatrade' according to those polls.

benefits the average American. There is no evidence that any of our free trade agreements have improved the average American's economic well being. So how is this one different? How does it do a better job of creating good paying jobs for the working class, as opposed to economic windfalls for corporations and stock-owners?

republicans think it is more of the same. (republicans did not support the earlier agreements either.)

I was reacting more to the: "If Obama, the Democratic party leadership can't convince the average democrat that it's a good deal ..." (which apparently they have done) than arguing that TPP is actually a good deal.

I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

...that ought to tell you something.

But while you are so busy telling us how BRILLIANT it is, perhaps you could spare a moment and explain the reasoning that led you to that conclusion?

Or not.

Yet people are still pretending that it's some sort of "progressive" policy.

Obama and the republicans are on the same side here. Period.

worry about President Obama.

I should be supported by the platform.

No reservations about recent events, perhaps?

I can't believe you said that.

if you had said

that would make too much sense.......

it works better!

Brilliant!

Many here say Sanders should have no input.

We are completely fucked

chose her.

We are in good hands with an exceptional candidate who is more than ready to get stuff done. Can't wait.

I'm very excited about our future.

We just gotta keep knocking down Trump. He and like minded people are the danger.

... why ... why ... why-why-why who could have seen that coming??? ...

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

parties platforms and of those times how often have they ended up playing a major part in winning an election?

So am I. I'm sorry but there is still controversy within our party on this issue. That controversy might not be considered acceptable here, but it is good for the party and good for the American people.

The ISDS provisions of TPP are the death knell of local, state and national democracies since they allow corporations to 'sue' governments if they think regulations, such as environmental or safety ones are inhibiting them earning the maximum profits. And then, the 'case' is adjudicated not by a public court, but by corporate-paid 'arbitrators,' and their decision is binding.

Sorry, the TPP is a piece of trash that will finish killing off the American middle class that made this nation great in the first place. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, good ones that have benefits and that you can raise a family on.

If TPP is so great, then why was it negotiated in secret? Why were members of Congress allowed to only read it in a designated room and not allowed to even take notes? Why was a 'fast track' vote rammed down our throats to prevent filibuster and allow a straight up/down vote in Senate? (on edit) Why has there been no platform for public debate?

Sorry, but I'm NOT in consensus around 'free trade' and will never be. It is a disastrous, bad policy. An example? We don't have single payer healthcare even though the Dems had majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2009. We were told that there weren't enough votes, but that could have been changed by the President using the bully pulpit and calling for the millions who campaigned for him, including myself, to march on DC to pressure and shame the Congress into making it happen. Into making the right thing happen! You know why we don't have single payer?

It is against the strictures set forth in another 'free trade' treaty: the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995. That's right. Single payer would have created what GATS calls a 'service monopoly.' Of course, we COULD have negotiated a waiver with the other signatories on the grounds that health care is a basic right ENJOYED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR US. Or we could have simply overturned GATS in favor of DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Free trade? Bad idea. Bad policy. We already HAD free movement of goods and services over borders. Free trade treaties are about moving capital. Again, bad idea. Bad policy.

Thus I agree with both Stiglitz and Reich. Check out Reich's short video polemic about TPP on You Tube: The ISDS provisions of TPP are the death knell of local, state and national democracies since they allow corporations to 'sue' governments if they think regulations, such as environmental or safety ones are inhibiting them earning the maximum profits. And then, the 'case' is adjudicated not by a public court, but by corporate-paid 'arbitrators,' and their decision is binding.

Sorry, the TPP is a piece of trash that will finish killing off the American middle class that made this nation great in the first place. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, good ones that have benefits and that you can raise a family on.

If TPP is so great, then why was it negotiated in secret? Why were members of Congress allowed to only read it in a designated room and not allowed to even take notes? Why was a 'fast track' vote rammed down our throats to prevent filibuster and allow a straight up/down vote in Senate? (on edit) Why has there been no platform for public debate?

Sorry, but I'm NOT in consensus around 'free trade' and will never be. It is a disastrous, bad policy. An example? We don't have single payer healthcare even though the Dems had majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2009. We were told that there weren't enough votes, but that could have been changed by the President using the bully pulpit and calling for the millions who campaigned for him, including myself, to march on DC to pressure and shame the Congress into making it happen. Into making the right thing happen! You know why we don't have single payer?

It is against the strictures set forth in another 'free trade' treaty: the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995. That's right. Single payer would have created what GATS calls a 'service monopoly.' Of course, we COULD have negotiated a waiver with the other signatories on the grounds that health care is a basic right ENJOYED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR US. Or we could have simply overturned GATS in favor of DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Free trade? Bad idea. Bad policy. We already HAD free movement of goods and services over borders. Free trade treaties are about moving capital. Again, bad idea. Bad policy.

Thus I agree with both Stiglitz and Reich as well as the Nation. Check out Reich's short video polemic about TPP on You Tube:

Policy isn't very relevant unless our candidate gets elected and then has the power to implement policy.

As for the politics, I prefer to leave that to the political experts. I have never run a presidential campaign. Whether or not a party platform should expressly oppose a treaty is a question best left to people who know more than I know about how to elect a president.

I think it is imperative that Clinton be elected. I want Clinton to hire the people who know best how to get her elected. And, I want those people to decide if it will or will not be helpful to expressly address my favorite issues in the party platform. I want Clinton elected so that she will be in a position to convert my favorite ideas to laws.

I feel the way that I do because I trust Clinton on policy and I trust her people on politics. I recognize that she may not be able to do all that I hope that she can do, but I am certain that she will be able to do nothing for me if she doesn't get elected.

"I trust Clinton on policy and I trust her people on politics."

So we should not pay any real attention to the details of policy, apparently. Just trust them, we like them, they'll do the right thing. For sure.

I didn't trust George W Bush. I do trust Clinton.

Some people may not be able to distinguish between Bush and Clinton. I am not one of those people. I do trust Clinton. Perhaps that's the source of our disagreement.

...no one said Clinton was like Bush. But blind loyalty is blind loyalty, whichever direction it comes from.

There really is a difference between Clinton and George W. Bush.

Let's do what we can to get Clinton elected. Let her create the platform that she believes will help her get elected. She can't do anything for any of us if she doesn't get elected.

...to wit:



IOW, you won't be questioning anything Clinton does during the campaign (you don't address anything after the campaign, so neither will I). That is the position of a blind loyalist.

TTFN

that I know as much about how to get Hillary Clinton elected president as the political experts that she has hired. So, yes, unless she starts doing crazy things, I will defer to her and to the experts that she has hired to chart the appropriate political path. So long as she is leading in the polls, I will trust that she is properly handling her campaign.

I know that there are people who believe that if she just signs on to any campaign platform that is placed in front of her, that all of the wishes placed on the list will magically become law. But, those people are just naive. Those people have not won the nomination of a major party for president. We need a victory, not a wish list.

The first job is to win and to become president. A related goal is to fill our legislature with friendly faces who will assist in passing the laws that we want. If we do that, our wish lists might have some real meaning.

Let's let the people who have a record of winning elections decide what is best to include in a platform. If someone wants to let the world know what is on his political wish list, he can write a book or a letter to the editor. But, he shouldn't be permitted to use that wish list to hinder or cripple the chances of a candidate who is winning without the list.

drive them to the booths and break up with our FB friends if they don't back the TPP

I hope they make some revisions.