Purity tests.

[jazzimov]

Yes, I am taking the offensive on many unpopular posts, and taking the defensive on similar posts.

I have seen many “anti-Obama” posts declaring that he is screwing us with the TPP and the TIPP. The thing is, both of these negotiations are unfinished! How the hell can you claim to be against something when it’s not even decided? Also, most of these negotiations are secret. Which means “we don’t know shit”. But, many pundits claim to know everything about the negotiations.

There are some claims that it “by-passes” Congress. But Congress has to approve it. Even if it is “fast-tracked”, that only means that Congress has to approve the Trade Agreement “as is” and it gets an up or down vote. So, with a “fast-track” agreement that currently is NOT in place, the Congress is NOT allowed to add “poison pill” amendments. So, regardless of “fast-tracking” it all comes down to the Congressional vote. Repeat - TPP and TIPP must be voted on by Congress. Even in the case of Fast-Tracking.

Now, as for NSA spying - is it legal? Yep, our Congress made it legal in 2008. If you have a problem with it, then you need to take it up with Congress, NOT the NSA.

All of this just emphasizes to me how important it is that Democrats take back the House in 2014. If you disagree, then you are allowing the Republicans to take over. And we know what that has been like.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "if people knew what was going on, they would stop it"

"I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the US Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular -- the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
?
For months, the Trade Representative who negotiates on our behalf has been unwilling to provide any public access to the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. The composite bracketed text includes proposed language from the United States and also other countries, and it serves as the focal point for negotiations. The Trade Representative has allowed Members of Congress to access the text, and I appreciate that. But that is no substitute for public transparency.

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.

I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade Representative should too. "

- Elizabeth Warren

[jazzimov]

2. Well, I agree that it would be better

if we knew what was going on. But I take umbrage with those who CLAIM to know when they clearly do not.

I also take umbrage with those who put words into a Senators mouth.

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren, which means I take umbrage with those who claim that she takes positions that she clearly does not.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. USA! USA! USA!

[Maynar]

4. Oh, it's been decided all right

We just haven't been told our "opinions" yet.

Don't worry, it will all be forthcoming.

[bowens43]

5. 'Yep, our Congress made it legal in 2008'

sorry to disappoint you but a law that is a clear violation of the constitution is not valid.

[Skidmore]

7. Then get Congress to change the law.

I don't understand why people refuse to acknowledge the legislative process and insist on governance by fiat while complaining loudly when that does occur.

[Scuba]

6. I love it when 10% of the Party call the other 90% "purists". Hilarious.