Who's telling the truth: Sanders/Warren, or Obama/Third Way/most Republicans*?

[MannyGoldstein]

Sanders and Warren say the TPP would be a disaster. The other folks say it's a big win.

Who do you believe?

*by "Republicans", I mean elected Republicans. Even rank-and-file Republicans have the good sense to know that yet another "free" trade agreement will enrich the few and @#$& the many.

46 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Sanders/Warren
	46 (100%)
	Obama/Third Way/most Republicans
	0 (0%)
	@#$& Glenn Greenwald!
	0 (0%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	All the Democrats are truthful, all the Republicans are liars
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[senseandsensibility]

1. Not sure I understand how the polls work at DU now

or much of anything else here (but that's another story); still, I tried to vote for Sanders and Warren. What else could I do?

[daleanime]

2. It worked....

Click on show users names and you can see who voted.

[Quantess]

3. Glenn Greenwald?

What does he say about it?

[randome]

50. No, even better, what does RT.com say?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Recursion]

4. Sanders and Warren are different.

Warren has a way of saying things people want to hear without really saying much. Sanders has actually articulated a pretty consistent and well-thought-out political philosophy for a while.

[tokenlib]

7. But OMG!! Bernie isn't a Democrat!

but he surely tells the truth...

[JI7]

8. he is aligned with dems and if he runs for President he would do so as a Dem

[Recursion]

9. Well, keep in mind I'm one of those horrible third way corporatist pragmatic types

I'm personally in Schweitzer's camp right now, followed by O'Malley. I don't really think Sanders or Warren are the right direction for the party to go right now (for various reasons, both about principle and about political practicality), but I do see a crucial difference between the two. And the more I see of Warren the more I think that if we do decide to go that way it needs to be Sanders and not her that leads it.

I have no doubt that Sanders will happily check the boxes to officially be a Democrat if he decides to run. And if he does, I'll definitely pay attention to him in the campaign and debates.

[JonLP24]

13. I can't help but think of Tommy Carcetti whenever I think of Martin O'Malley

I know David Simon said he was just one of several Baltimore politicians who were inspiration for the role but the circumstances portrayed were remarkably similar to the real life O'Malley. His successors also went with a community based policing (rather than "standard policing&quot which are shown to be more effective.

Basically he strikes me as a continuation of the status quo.

[Recursion]

14. That's why he's second to Schweitzer. We need a farmer in the White House again

Though, he did just commute all death sentences in MD.

[JDPriestly]

16. I'm not a big Feinstein fan, but Schweitzer apparently called her a prostitute according to

Wikipedia.

That "gaffe" is not going to win women's votes for Schweitzer.

Plus he is lax on gun control legislation. That could hurt him in urban areas like Los Angeles.

With regard to guns, what may save lives in Montana could cause a lot of deaths in Los Angeles.

Clearly, Schweitzer has some good ideas on some things. He signed off on childcare -- kindergartens and other things, but I don't know that he would carry voters especially female voters across the country.

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

He isn't going to swing the conservative Western states and is not a Southerner. What would be the advantage with him? He isn't a bad state candidate, but I don't think he would get a strong national following. Experience as a governor is a positive for him, but at this point, I can't see him running.

Being a farmer is not all that important to most Democratic voters. Most Democratic voters struggle in cities.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. On behalf of Democrats everywhere, I'd like to thank you

and your various pragmatic fellow travellers for two decades of leading our party.

The results speak for themselves.

[Recursion]

32. You mean winning 5 out of 6 Presidential elections?

Yeah, we're kind of proud of that.

Tell McGovern, Mondale, & Dukakis we said hi.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. A permanent Democratic majority has been acheived

Our economy is vibrant, and working Americans have never done better.

Heck, the stock market, like the number of homeless students, has doubled under Obama. The TPP will spur further increases in both.

Huzzah!

Haven't seen Dukakis in some time, but I'll send my regards if I see him again.

[Recursion]

34. OT: I've met him, and he's a very good man

That was flippant of me, and I didn't mean that to disrespect any of those three, particularly Dukakis.

[L0oniX]

65. *

[NuclearDem]

5. I demand a Snuffleupagus option.

[AgingAmerican]

6. Looks like Obama/Third Way®/GOP are not doing so hot...

nt

[Motown_Johnny]

10. a disaster for most, a big win for a few n/t

[JonLP24]

11. LOL

Thanks to boiling it down to what really matters.

Even if they're full of shit, why isn't "third way" talking about the things that matter?

[Maedhros]

12. Here's the thing:

After extensive analysis and triangulation the "thing that matters" is identified and then the rank-and-file are instructed.

[nationalize the fed]

15. What would Candidate Obama say about "NAFTA on Steroids"?

Maybe something like this

Would Warren or Sanders send a Goolsbee to say they were just lying to get votes?

Whoops - Obama Adviser Did Talk NAFTA With Canadian Gov't

By now, everyone is familiar with the Canadian television report that alleged an Obama adviser went to the Canadian government and told officials that Obama's NAFTA-bashing is merely campaign rhetoric, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Also well known are the Obama campaign's denials, and the Canadian government's denials.

Turns out, it may well be true. Someone leaked a memo to the AP that describes a meeting between Obama's senior economic policy adviser Austan Goolsbee and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago. In the memo, Goolsbee's comments on NAFTA on portrayed this way:
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/03/whoops-obama-adviser-did-talk-nafta-canadian-govt

Goolsbee/Gruber 2016! "If Dumb Americans want to be lied to, we'll outperform!"

[JDPriestly]

17. Obama either misrepresented his views during his campaign or he let millions of American

workers and their families down. And now TPP. That's a big disappointment on Obama's part.

[Boreal]

20. He lied nt

[Scuba]

25. +1

[RiverLover]

18. I'd forgotten about that leak. Back then, I thought it was made up. bwa! I never forgot this though~

How did they manage to keep straight faces?

[F4lconF16]

77. Best thing about running for something you believe in?

Standing up for the right thing, the truth, fighting to help people? You never look like that. You might screw up now and then, but that doesn't happen.

[RiverLover]

19. ....

#t=20

[pampango]

21. Some say it would be a disaster (including 'most republicans'), a big deal or, Krugman's view,

too hyped by all sides.

If the TPP has enforceable labor and environmental standards, as outlined in Obama's negotiating guidelines, it could be a big deal. The only way to get those critical issues included in trade rules is international negotiation and agreement.

If it does not have these standards or if they can be stripped out by republican majorities in congress, Obama would do well not to submit a final agreement (assuming one is ever reached) to congress.

Polls show that the Democratic base supports 'fast track' for Obama while the republican base hugely opposes it.

Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: 60% of Democrats see TTIP as a good thing compared with 44% of Republicans, while 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

[RiverLover]

22. Your link title- "Only The Strongest Obama Supporters Want Him To Have Fast Track Authority"

Obama supporters -really- don't represent "liberals". Candidate Obama, sure. But President Obama supporters are centrists.

[pampango]

24. "... only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea."

"Republicans ... both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher."

Make of that what you will.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Sorry, I meant *elected* Republicans

But I didn't write that, I'll clarify.

[joshcryer]

70. The IP aspects subvert the environmental aspects.

But the labor aspects are good all around. Would it be that we had strict labor standards to deal with China...

[brooklynite]

23. I think both sides are embellishing

[Hoyt]

27. Exactly.

[WillyT]

29. Bill Moyers NOW: 'Trading Democracy' - NAFTA

Link: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_tdfull.html

[RiverLover]

30. This should be an OP, WillyT.

Thanks for the link.

[onecaliberal]

52. ^^That

These trade agreements are not good. They are not written to benefit workers. How much more proof do people need. Why do we continue with epic failed ideas over and over and over. When will there be enough pain?

[NCTraveler]

26. Do you have a link to the verbiage of the TPP?

I have yet to read it. I would need to read the same agreement that Sanders/Warren, Obama/Third Way/most republicans are reading in order to make an opinion. From what I have read I would have to vote Sanders/Warren. That being said everything I have read comes from accidental releases or opinion. Very little fact. Please post the verbiage of the TPP that these people are basing their opinions on.

Would be interesting if a similar poll was done with respect to giving the administration the ability to Fast Track it. I imagine it would look very similar to a poll taken at FR on the topic. Seems that is one that should be easy to stop.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Exactly ...

with the possible exception of President Obama, no one has the slightest idea what the agreement's verbiage is shaking out to be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Strange how they want to get it fait accompli before letting the rest of us know what it says.

Now where's that sarcasm tag?

People who think they know what's best always seem to want to keep everyone else out of the loop so they can't disagree with what's being done to them until it's too late.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. How is this agreement negotiation process ...

any different from your typical union agreement negotiation process?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. Hmmm

It's an agreement among the capitalists without letting labour negotiate anything?

I may be wrong, but I always assumed in union agreement negotiations, you had representatives of labour negotiating with representatives of capital, not just representatives of capital negotiating amongst themselves?

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. That is not what I was referring to ...

I was speaking to the secrecy of the negotiations.

[Jim Lane]

67. That's simply not true.

Outside critics -- NGOs and members of Congress -- don't know the exact text of the final proposal: True.

No one with the possible exception of President Obama has the slightest idea what the agreement's verbiage will be: False.

The TPP has been in negotiation since early 2010. Drafts that have been leaked are "only" drafts but, come on, let's be practical -- the final product is unlikely to represent a huge change.

There's the additional factor that we know the pro-corporate orientation of the negotiators, and we know that big MNCs have been involved in the drafting while NGOs (unions, environmentalists, etc.) have been excluded.

Overall, although our current knowledge of the final agreement is not perfect, it's still likely to prove to be pretty good. Fortunately, the Obama administration's evident plan -- to keep the negotiations completely secret, and then unveil a long and complex text that must be voted on within a tight time frame -- has been only partially successful. We do have some information about the forthcoming proposal. Also, the request for fast track authority may founder on a combination of Democrats' populism and Republicans' ODS. If this agreement were being proposed by a Republican President, so that party loyalty and the parties' normal political alignments cut the same way, we'd be seeing solid Republican support and almost-solid Democratic opposition.

[Doctor_J]

66. No because the president is keeping it a secret

It's a lot like the Heritage Care "negotiations" in that regard. Why do you think that is? One might guess he's about to break another campaign promise. "I will insist on a public option..." "I will renegotiate NAFTA..."

The upside is that very few believe him any more.

[pampango]

35. "Even rank-and-file Republicans have the good sense to know that yet another "free" trade agreement

will enrich the few and @#$& the many."

Which would imply that the rank-and-file Democrats don't have as much "good sense" as the republican base?

[RiverLover]

37. It's a bi-bartisan revolt in favor of American workers, farmers, internet freedom, local govt rights

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Key Senate Democrat Joins Bipartisan Trade Revolt Against Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trans-pacific-partnership-ron-wyden_n_1540984.html

[pampango]

42. It's a "bipartisanship revolt" led by the republican base supported by a minority of Democrats.

60% of Democrats support the TPP. That leaves many Democrats who do not support it. If that makes the "revolt" 'bipartisan' enough for you, go for it.

[RiverLover]

43. Not acc to everything I've read. The prez is hoping the rethugs will help him out by passing this.

And I'm afraid he's right. We'll find out shortly, it's supposed to be a top priority for 2015.

[pampango]

45. It is according to what I read and the polls. I suspect the TPP is going nowhere anyway.

I think that Obama's not getting 'fast track' from a republican congress which, in so doing, would be giving up its ability to strip anything it wants (like labor and environmental standards) from any agreement Obama submits. Obama would be a fool to submit it without 'fast track' and give republicans that power.

[sendero]

46. Are they pushing hard for the TPP?

Under the cover of secrecy? It's not about sense its about corruption. It's about future quid pro quo.

Nobody could possibly believe, from what we know of the TPP, that it would be good for rank and file Americans.

[pampango]

48. Your beef is with the 60% of Democrats who support the TPP, not with the majority of republicans who

oppose it.

Nobody could possibly believe, from what we know of the TPP, that it would be good for rank and file Americans.

[brentspeak]

80. There is no "60% of Democrats" who support the TPP

Your corporate propaganda attempts on this site are laughable. I've seen your citation of some dubious Pew poll (corporate-sponsored pro-globalization organization) elsewhere posted elsewhere on this site. Give it a rest.

There is a Hart Research poll which shows a narrow 52% of Democrats support giving Congress fast-track authority on the matter, but that's about it -- and the percentage keeps declining.

Your "beef" is with the vast majority of Americans of all political stripes who oppose these job-grabbing, income-cutting scam trade deals.

[pampango]

81. "There is a Hart Research poll which shows a narrow 52% of Democrats" support fast-track for Obama.

My reference to a Pew poll showing 60% of Democrats supporting the TPP is suspect (because, in your opinion the Pew organization is a "corporate-sponsored, pro-globalization organization), while the poll you post shows 52% of Democrats supporting fast-track authority for Obama is more believable?

I don't see much difference. The Hart poll you referenced:

Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

Even before having to defend a vote for fast track before general election voters, Republican candidates in contested primaries may find this a hard position to defend. Two-thirds (68%) of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for a Member of Congress who votes to give President Obama fast-track authority. Among the conservative Republicans who dominate many primary electorates, this figure is an extraordinary 74%.

I posted a similar poll to your Hart poll, about 4 weeks ago.

While opposition is relatively uniform both geographically and demographically, the survey data reveals a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5928151

In this poll from the "corporate-sponsored pro-globalization" Pew organization showed a similar percentage (low 50's) of Democrats supporting fast-track compared to the 52% in your 'much more believable' Hart poll.

On the issue of trade agreements, divisions within the Republican Party are again apparent. Staunch Conservatives are strongly opposed to granting the president fast-track authority: 76% oppose, only 22% favor. Moderate Republicans and Populist Republicans also oppose this proposal; however, their opposition is more muted. Among Moderate Republicans, 53% oppose, 43% favor; among Populists, 57% oppose, 35% favor.

Democratic groups are more united on this issue. Roughly 50% of Liberals, Socially Conservative Democrats and Partisan Poor favor fast track. New Democrats are more likely than any other typology group to endorse the idea — 61% favor.

http://www.people-press.org/1999/11/11/section-6-issues/

All the poll - yours, mine and others - show much more support for fast-track and the TPP itself from Democrats than from republicans.

[brentspeak]

82. "in your opinion the Pew organization is a "corporate-sponsored, pro-globalization organization"

The P-ew-employed corporate tool who authored the drivel propaganda piece would agree with me:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/16/most-of-the-world-supports-globalization-in-theory-but-many-question-it-in-practice/

Most of the world supports globalization in theory, but many question it in practice

By Bruce Stokes

People across the globe are of two minds about globalization: in principle, most believe it’s good for their country; in practice many – especially those in advanced economies – are not so sure it’s good for them personally. This skepticism, especially among Americans, Japanese and some Europeans, poses serious domestic political challenges for the transatlantic and the transpacific trade deals now under negotiation, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of publics in 44 countries conducted this spring.

The good news for advocates of globalization is that people across a diverse range of advanced, emerging and developing economies overwhelmingly (a median of 81%) say that international trade and global business ties are good for their country. People also generally voice the opinion (a median of 74%) that it is beneficial for their economy when foreign companies build new factories in their country. The survey included 48,643 respondents from March 17 to June 5, 2014.

The bad news for these same apostles of globalization is that a significant share of people in many nations have reservations about the impact of deeper international economic integration. Just over half (54%) believe trade creates jobs. Only a plurality (45%) holds the view that it increases wages. And barely a quarter (26%) share the opinion that trade lowers prices, contrary to one of economists’ principal arguments for why nations should trade.

[RiverLover]

36. The Economic Policy Institute, after reading the draft, said if the TPP is agreed to, US will lose..

According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Voice-your-opposition-to-t-by-Bernie-Sanders-Agreements_Derivatives_Inequality_Taxpayers-141230-71.html

[joshcryer]

39. Of course the TPP kills US jobs.

It has zero economic properties, it is purely geopolitical.

[joshcryer]

38. If Sanders or Warren is the nominee, then we have a Republican president.

Simple as that. If that's what you want, then so be it.

[RiverLover]

41. And I know to my core if Hillary gets the nom, we will have a Republican president in 2017.

Simple as that.

[L0oniX]

58. ^^^this^^^

[joshcryer]

73. Doubtful, there exist no one on the Republican side more qualified.

Hillary Clinton will be the most qualified candidate to run in modern history.

[sendero]

47. So it's HRC or Republican?

In that case I'll take Republican. HRC would be functionally the same but I'd prefer it was a Republican that lead the country to ruin, not another Clinton Democrat.

[joshcryer]

72. "In that case I'll take Republican."

At least you're honest about it.

[sendero]

74. More than I can say for those..

... who refuse to admit that on the issues that matter to most Americans (economics, business, war, etc) HRC is a Republican. Actually, she's WORSE than many Republicans.

[grahamhgreen]

62. Same thing they said about Obama. Not true.

[joshcryer]

71. No one credibly said that about Obama.

2008 was a shoe-in for the Democratic candidate. An absolute shoe-in. There's a reason a dozen Democrats ran in the primaries. Once you got the nomination you had it in the bag.

[grahamhgreen]

79. Candidate Clinton to Richardson: ‘Barack Obama Can’t Win' - ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/candidate-clint/

[joshcryer]

83. And it wasn't credible, no?

Campaign mud slinging at best.

[grahamhgreen]

84. She's not a credible candidate, I agree!

[SidDithers]

40. Shouldn't your poll options then read:

Sanders / Warren / rank-and-file Republicans
Obama / Third-Way / elected Republicans?

You know, if you're going to be consistent in your horseshit framing.

Sid

[sendero]

44. Sanders/Warren...

.. are at least trying to tell the truth. The rest of them are lying through their teeth in a deliberate and calculated way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. I answered "Other" ...

since we don't know what's in the agreement, since there is no agreement.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. I chose Sanders/Warren, but....

it's all in how you look at it.

It's a disaster for most Americans. But it's certainly a big win for the 0.1% that most of Congress works for. So in that regard, everyone is telling the truth.

[Octafish]

54. President Obama called TPP opponents 'Conspiracy Theorists.'

Obama Blasted for Lumping Critics of Trade Deal Secrecy with 'Conspiracy Theorists'

'If the president is concerned that people don't know what's going on in the negotiations then the president should release the text and remove it from being a state secret.'

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
Published on Friday, May 2, 2014 by Common Dreams

Critics of the highly-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations responded with outrage after U.S. President Barack Obama charged they have a "lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations" and dismissed their concerns as "conspiracy theories."

The president made the comments this week during a press conference in Malaysia—one of the stops on his Asia-Pacific tour, aimed at advancing the TPP and the U.S. military "pivot" to the region. His tour has been met with region-wide protests against the economic and military agenda of the U.S.

SNIP...

Bernadette Ellorin, Chairperson of BAYAN-USA—an alliance of Filipino organizations in the U.S., told Common Dreams, "President Obama lacks knowledge of how so-called 'free trade agreements' impact people on the ground. The push-back he has gotten over the TPP comes from people who have long-suffered from these impacts."

"He should go back and talk with the parent-less children in the region, whose parents had no choice but to look for work overseas because they couldn't find work in their own country due to these so-called 'free trade' agreements," she added. "He should go back and talk to the indigenous children whose parents were killed by paramilitary groups because greater foreign investment stipulations in these agreements have led to forced evacuations and militarization of their land for the purpose of large scale foreign mining."

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/02-5

It fits the narrative. From what I've been told by some on DU, one can't be anything lower than a Conspiracy Theorist.

[RiverLover]

56. Does the AFL-CIO know Obama thinks they're like Conspiracy Theorists? nt

[NanceGreggs]

64. What Obama actually said was ...

... "But my point is you shouldn’t be surprised if there are going to be objections, protests, rumors, conspiracy theories, political aggravation around a trade deal."

That is a very far cry from calling TPP opponents 'conspiracy theorists' - well, it's a far cry in the real world anyway.

Here on DU, however ...

[Octafish]

78. 'Crazy,' 'Psycho'...

What's the diff?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Politicians + Truth = Oxymoron

However, Sanders and Warren tell fewer lie and prevaricate less than most politicians.

[Jefferson23]

63. How do you support a secret agreement? I find that impossible to do and why am I being

asked to do so?

Has Obama ever been asked why it must remain a secret and has he answered?

Published on
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
by
Common Dreams

Ten Reasons Why the TPP Must Be Defeated
by
Bernie Sanders

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/31/ten-reasons-why-tpp-must-be-defeated

[ucrdem]

68. Luke/Leia appear to be unaware that their erstwhile senatorial colleague John Kerry

makes a rather detailed set of TPP texts and transcripts available to the public on the US State Dept website:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112

[joshcryer]

69. TPP is geopolitical.

None of them are telling the truth. None. They are pandering to their base. But Obama has to do what is seen as in the interests of the US and its high consumer society.

As long as you want cheap goods from overseas, you want TPP.

[PowerToThePeople]

75. all d's are truthful needed some luv. n/t

[Prophet 451]

76. Mostly Sanders

I haven't heard much from Warren on the issue (my fault, not hers). That said, I also accept that Sanders is working with incomplete and not-yet-finalised information.