Would you actually *do* something to stop the TPP?

[MannyGoldstein]

If you had a concise information about the TPP on a web site or flyer, would you commit to bringing it up and discussing it with five people that you know? And asking them to do the same with other people?

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I'd commit to that!
	7 (88%)
	Yes, I'd commit to that but I wouldn't really do it.
	0 (0%)
	I wouldn't commit to that, but I would commit to what I've posted about, below.
	0 (0%)
	Meh.
	1 (13%)
	Why would anyone think the TPP is bad? Let's wait and see what's actually passed.
	0 (0%)
	I think US workers can easily compete with Vietnamese making less than a buck an hour.
	0 (0%)
	I'm rich and I'll make a fortune off the TPP, @&*#heads!
	0 (0%)
	Let me wow you with my sophistry, posted below!
	0 (0%)
	Other.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Faryn Balyncd]

1. Yes.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. If I thought it would do any good at all, I would at least give it a reasonable effort. n/t

[JI7]

3. i would think those who really do oppose it would already do that

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Concise information is a pretty big "if".

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Why?

Serious question.

Do you think it doesn't yet exist (I don't think it does), or that it can't be done (I think it can), or... ?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. The talks are largely secret and all we have are leaks and...

speculation. The leaks, of course, are to prove one side or the other's points, not to enlighten us.

Now, if indeed the whole thing is to counter Chinese dominance in Asian, and worldwide, trade, what is the fundamental argument for destroying it rather than improving it?

[MannyGoldstein]

10. So are you a "Let's wait and see what's actually passed." person?

I think we have some pretty good info from reliable sources.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. What does that mean? it's a treaty to be ratified by the Senate...

when that time comes we'll know what's in it.

[sabrina 1]

17. And by then it will be too late to do anything about it, won't it? I know that's what the plan is

which is why it has been so secret, SO secret even Congress was denied access to it.

So you trust 600 Corporations, many of them Foreign who could give rat's ass about this or any other country, to participate in the writing of legislation that will affect every aspect of the lives of Americans for the foreseeable future?

I've read the leaks, and I've read what Sandy Levin had to say about it since he has, finally, been able to see some of it.

And after doing so, I am wondering if ANY Democrat could possibly support it.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I thought that there was a provision to keep it secret

for five years AFTER ratification.

[msanthrope]

13. Manny..the last time you and I discussed your info, I correctly noted that you were

attributing to the TTP and President Obama copyright issues that had in fact been made into law 16 years prior.

So, forgive me if I take your claim of "pretty good info" with a grain of salt. But let's start with sources....who are you using?

Here's the thread.....because I don't want the jury to think that I am making up what I am saying.....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550863

[MannyGoldstein]

15. I don't click on links unless I'm told what's in them

But would that be the thread where you refused to click on the link I provided because you don't click on links unless you're told what's in them?

[msanthrope]

21. Oh Manny....I don't click on blind links. But that's a DU thread where you blamed the President

for the passage of CETA....16 years ago.

Again...what's your source of knowledge for the TTP? Is it the same source that gave you the incorrect intellectual property information?

[bettyellen]

23. Interesting gaffe you uncovered there. Hope you get an honest reply instead of another dodge.

Thanks!

[msanthrope]

25. Isn't that an interesting gaffe about the TTP? I wonder its source. nt

[sabrina 1]

16. Which side's points does giving foreign corps the right to by-pass our hard fought for Environmental

Laws? Or do you think it's okay to allow foreign corps to be free to abuse those laws?

Which side are Democrats on, the Environmental side or the anti-Environmental side?



I've seen this 'talking point' about the leaks a couple of times now.

Never saw leaks referred to as if the leakers were doing it for some kind of personal 'gotcha'. Now I'm seeing it all over the place.

The leaks on the Environment were obviously done because someone is extremely concerned about Corporations being able to ignore our laws.

SHOULDN'T we want such a person to be able to 'prove' OUR side's points?

We ARE still on the side of the Environment, aren't we?

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Whoa! These might (or might not) be...

proposals on the floor, but that does not mean they will be in the final draft, or that the whole thing should be shot down now.

Rather than windmill tilting by trying to kill the whole thing, why not scream about particularly horrific provisions that we don't want in there.

This could be what's behind these leaks-- warn the Senate that it shouldn't approve a treaty with these provisions. (As if they'll listen... but that's another problem)

[Scuba]

20. Or we could be given access so we could cheer for the good parts.

Assuming there are any, which seems doubtful.

[sabrina 1]

28. Windmill tilting? Trusting 600 Corporations to work in secret

for several years and expect them to be focused on taking care of the working class! That's what I call windmill tilting!

I'll go with the evidence we have from all of our experience with Corporate control over anything that relates to average working class people.

And what we allready know about this disastrous Trade Agreement.

That is being realistic.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. You seem to think I'm saying...

"trust 'em" but I'm not. It's quite normal for entities to act in their own interests, so there must be controls somewhere.

In this case, like most others, there will be a new trade pact and that can't be stopped. More important than the fruitless task of trying to stop it might be to guide it toward doing the least damage.

FWIW, although trade always has good and bad elements to it, I can't think of any trade pact in history that had predominantly negative impacts. Specific deals, yes, but major treaties are different.

[sabrina 1]

30. It is not normal for any Trade Deal to be negotiated that involves this country where Congress has

been denied, for years, any access to what is going on. The Trade Committee has been screaming about this for a long time. No, that is not normal.

And waiting to see what will happen? We have already waited too long. Because it was SECRET so people didn't know anything about it.

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about. Clearly they have a lot to hide and we got a taste of it from the few leaks we've had already.

We the people elected this President. NOT 600 Corporations many of who are foreign. We did not elect him to ignore Congress on issues like this.

And I can think of one Trade Agreement that has done great harm, to workers in this country and in Mexico. NAFTA.

[daleanime]

32. Amen....

[TreasonousBastard]

33. It's not proven that NAFTA has done a vast amount of harm...

in fact a large point of it was to increase exports to Mexico, which had limitations on imports. Lately, many Mexican farmers have been disadvantaged compared to US farmers, though, which is odd. NAFTA was deliberated largely in secret, btw.

But, yeah, at least some in Congress should be involved-- the problem is that whoever they are tends to also be a secret.

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word 'vast' is.

I don't have time to go into all the reasons why NAFTA has been a disaster for millions of people.

But just one effect was the loss of tens of thousands of small businesses in Mexico.

Such a loss created great hardship for untold numbers of people. Was THAT 'vast'? If you were a small business owner in Mexico, the answer is yes.

Farmers also were adversely affected in Mexico.

But so long as the wealthy are thriving, what are a few working class jobs, salary decreases and forced immigration I suppose?

It's all about the Stock Market.

Anyway, here are a couple of links that should help to determine just how much harm NAFTA has done to millions of people:

Illegal Immigration and NAFTA

How US Policies Fueled Mexico's Great Migration

It was ingenious actually, for major Corporations. Eg, the exporting of pig meat from our cruel and environmentally devastating, pig farms to Mexico, devastated the Farmers there.

This forced some of those farm workers to migrate to the US where they were then hired by the same Pig Corporations who had driven them from their home country.

It worked great for those Corps, cheap labor created by NAFTA for Major Corps.

Anyhow, we all have our opinions on what benefits ordinary people and what doesn't.

And don't get me started on what it did to Americans.

[RobertEarl]

6. TPP burning parties?

It worked pretty good with getting rid of bras.

[Recursion]

7. I think it will marginally raise working wages, though not as much as NAFTA did

I'm registered in DC, so I don't have a Senator, but I can (and probably will) write one of my shadow Senators (Brown, most likely) saying that the negotiation process has been problematic and that the marginal economic gains don't seem to me to be worth alienating most of the Pacific rim (to say nothing of the two fifths of our own party that opposes it), particularly since most of the provisions already exist bilaterally.

In terms of talking with people? I think something like 60% of Americans can't actually name the three branches of government, or which party controls which branch. Trade policy may be a bridge too far, particularly given that even on a relatively politically turned-on forum like this, people think demonstrably false things like "median wages fell after NAFTA".

[Hoyt]

11. +1.

[NewDeal_Dem]

18. Even the most optimistic reports say the wage 'gain' was minimal. 1.3% in Mexico being the

highest and .17% in the US being the lowest.

So "not as much as nafta did" is kind of a joke, since a 1% raise was the best nafta did for anyone.

I wonder if capital got more than a 1% raise.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. The first years of NAFTA coincided with the tech boom,

which drove Clinton's prosperity surge, which in turn could have masked the deleterious effects of NAFTA on the labor market in those years.

[msongs]

9. have already notified my senators multiple times, they are the ones who will vote on it nt

[aspirant]

14. It would be a pleasure.

[el_bryanto]

22. To be fair it would depend on what the concise information was.

My biggest problem with the TPP is how little we know about what it actually does. I'm not opposed to all trade agreements (I don't see any way for international trade to continue without them) but I want to know what this one actually does.

Bryant

[StopTheTPP]

24. The most effective thing to do is call your senators

Google their number, and call them to oppose TPP fast track. It only takes a few minutes, and in large numbers calls can have a real effect.

Thank you for your efforts!

[daleanime]

31. Hell yes.....

anyone who is willing to listen to me has already heard about it.

[Zorra]

35. kick