Even After TPP, Some Stand By Their man

[WillTwain]

"You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand"

"Stand By Your Man"

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man

You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand

But if you love him, you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him, oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man.
Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.

[tridim]

1. After TPP?

Do TPP people really believe the TPP is already the law?

I've seen this too many times for it to be a coincidence. What are you talking about?

That said, I trust the President because he has proven that he is trustworthy over and over again.
Why don't you trust him?

[WillTwain]

2. I do not understand your first question?

Nobody is saying it is the law. I do not understand where that came from.

They defend its passage.

Five quickies at the top of mind: He wanted to cut Social Security benefits through chained C.P.I. He is fast-tracking TPP, which is flogged by most economists and unions as devastating for the middle-class. He pushed for Larry Summers for Federal Reserve chief - a devout neo-liberal that initially was against saving the auto industry. He did not raise the abysmal minimum wage, while nearly half of all Americans live in poverty. He promised to march alongside striking workers in comfortable shoes - nope.

I have taken the time, upon your request, to list a few of his mis-steps. Please consider them. It is too easy to shake heads and click away.

[WillTwain]

6. After his support of and fast-tracking is why I wrote after TPP.

What is wrong with this? It is after his support. I do not get your complaint.

[randome]

5. Do you still think 'fast-track' means 'rush'?

You need to drop that bogus point.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillTwain]

7. Well Rachel Maddow, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann,

hundreds of elected democrats and tens of millions of Americans do, too.

The small minority think otherwise.

[pampango]

14. It's not a 'small minority' that think otherwise.

The voting public strongly opposes having Congress pass fast-track authority for consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

By more than two to one, voters say they oppose (62%) rather than favor passage of fast-track negotiating authority for the TPP deal. Among those with a strong opinion, the ratio climbs to more than three to one (43% strongly opposed, just 12% strongly favorable). Demographically, opposition is very broad, with no more than one-third of voters in any region of the country or in any age cohort favoring fast track. Sixty percent (60%) of voters with household incomes under $50,000 oppose fast track, as do 65% of those with incomes over $100,000.

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).

Members of Congress who vote to approve fast-track authority—especially Republicans—are taking a substantial political risk.

Fully 43% of voters say they are less likely to vote to reelect a Member of Congress who supports fast-track authority, while just 11% feel more motivated to vote for this candidate (the remainder say it will not affect their vote either way).

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%.



http://fasttrackpoll.info/

[WillTwain]

16. Nearly two thirds is a large majority in American politics.

"Members of Congress who vote to approve fast-track authority—especially Republicans—are taking a substantial political risk."

[pampango]

21. I will grant that. Of course a majority of Democrats support fast-track, while a huge republican

majority opposes it (87% to 8%). Indeed the 'large majority' that opposes fast-track is predominantly composed of independents and republicans.

[WillTwain]

25. 52% is a narrow majority. Most probably do not even understand the issue and go along.

[pampango]

31. It is a narrow majority of Democrats that support fast track but it is a majority nonetheless.

The overwhelming opposition to fast-track from republicans and, to a slightly lesser extent, from independents stands in stark contrast.

I do not share your doubts about the level of understanding of the issue among Democrats.

[WillTwain]

8. Nothing Irritates Obama devotees more than the facts.

[randome]

9. Your 'fact' is wrong if you don't have an understanding of what 'fast-track' means.

That's okay, have a good time with your disgruntlement.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillTwain]

10. The fact that he pushed chained C.P.I. is wrong? What?

[zappaman]

54. "Obama devotees"

Yeah, how strange to find those that like and trust our Democratic president on a Democratic board.
Weird, huh?

[WillTwain]

58. Not strange at all. That is why I am here. You open a church where the most are lost.

[BlueCaliDem]

163. And that's why you've received your pizza from the Admins. Yaaaay!

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Okay ...

1) He wanted to cut Social Security benefits through chained C.P.I. - That was a political tactic (that even republicans knew was going no where, given the conditions that he placed on the offer) to show America that republicans were unserious. And it worked, look at the "republican obstructionist" polling numbers, before the offer, and the numbers after the offer.

2) He is fast-tracking TPP, which is flogged by most economists and unions as devastating for the middle-class. - Doesn't it bother you that so many people are making these claims without actually knowing what is in the agreement? It should.

3) Larry Summers for Federal Reserve chief. - Okay, got me. Who is the Fed Chief now? And, wasn't there someone else before this one. And didn't each bring a particular skill set to the job, at a particularly, fragile economic time?

4) He did not raise the abysmal minimum wage, while nearly half of all Americans live in poverty. - How, exactly, does a/the President raise the Minimum Wage, for anyone but Federal employees, and employees of federal contractors ... which, btw, he did.

5) He promised to march alongside striking workers in comfortable shoes - nope. - Yep. Nope ... at the request of those that were marching ... remember, that part?

[ProfessorGAC]

32. You Don't Really Expect A Cogent Response, Do You?

Your posting to someone who gets to decide which facts are facts, and which facts don't really count.

[WillTwain]

36. You funny.

[WillTwain]

35. Stand By Your Man

1) He put Social Security on the table. Bernie and the progressives blocked him. Remember, the president cannot really do anything on his own. He needs democrats to support him. They refused his nonsense.

2 )See the Iraq War - blind faith in right-wing agendas fail.

3) Again, the left blocked Larry Summers appointment. Obama was as pissed as I ever saw him. He still calls Larry a cherished advisor - birds of a feather. We dodged a bullet. Everyone hates Larry, he is toxic and Obama conceded.

4) Supermajority for four months and one week and the most powerful man on the planet cannot get a bill to his desk - ineptitude. Only democratic president to not raise the MW since its inception. Reagan is the only other to not do it at all. Another strange bedfellow for Obama.

5) Never put on the comfortable shoes for any union in the country. A simple fact. Do you have evidence that they blocked him from marching in WI?

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Nope ... I stand by facts (when there are facts to stand by) ...

1) He put Social Security on the table. Bernie and the progressives blocked him. Remember, the president cannot really do anything on his own. He needs democrats to support him. They refused his nonsense.

Bernie and the progressives didn't block anything. Go back a check the tape ... He put the offer out and republicans ran from it AND told their memberships never to mention it again.

2 )See the Iraq War - blind faith in right-wing agendas fail.

What?

3) Again, the left blocked Larry Summers appointment. Obama was as pissed as I ever saw him. He still calls Larry a cherished advisor - birds of a feather. We dodged a bullet. Everyone hates Larry, he is toxic and Obama conceded.

Isn't that the opposite of what you stated earlier ... AND completely unresponsive to what I wrote.

4) Supermajority for four months and one week and the most powerful man on the planet cannot get a bill to his desk - ineptitude.

Who is responsible for those bills get to his desk?

5) Never put on the comfortable shoes for any union in the country. A simple fact. Do you have evidence that they blocked him from marching in WI?

All I have is a post from a Wisconsin DUer who linked to a statement from the Wisconsin unions asking President Obama to not come because it would have been seen as a distraction. I'll try to find the post.

[WillTwain]

40. Stand By Your Man. The reverend Jones had loyal follower,too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. So you a done, huh? Nothing left in the tank? n/t

[WillTwain]

42. Dude, you have ODS.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Fumes is all you've got. n/t

[WillTwain]

46. I just beat you senseless, then you woke up and said with your eyes still crossed,

"you want a piece of me?"

I will find no joy in saying "I told you so," after the middle-class gets devastated by TPP. Hopefully, the left can save us from our Republican president. He called himself an 80s Republican.

The truth is, I do not have time for your blind faith. You will never give up - sort of like Sean Hannity.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[WillTwain]

53. Fumes is all you've got. n/t. It was too easy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[Fumesucker]

70. Nah, that would be me

I have plenty of them...

[WillTwain]

73. SBM would like a few if you can spare them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Thank you; but, no. I think most will see this exchange for what it is/was ...

and understand why I disengaged. Suffice it to say, "the pig was enjoying it too much."

[WillTwain]

79. I have less faith than you. This is a Third Way site.

Better a pig than a chicken.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Yeah. Okay. n/t

[WillTwain]

85. OK

[WillTwain]

3. If you could respond to my list, that would be greatly appreciated.

[WillTwain]

11. Can personal email attacks be alerted to the DU staff?

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I received an email from a DU member calling me an idiot and a liar. My attempt to alert DU (twice) was not responded to. Is there another path to report the ugly abuse?

If we cannot have intelligent debate without vicious personal attacks, we will never solve the problems in our country or our party.

I am not a liar or an idiot. If a DUer disagrees with me, fine. Let's talk it out. When facts are presented, a little thoughtfulness and research would be great. Reflexive nativism corrodes intelligent conversations.

[sufrommich]

15. First,block the person from sending you mail.

Send the offending email to someone on MIRT,they should be able to get it to the right people.

[WillTwain]

18. Thanks

Can they normally be alerted directly from the email? There is an alert button in the email, but it did not appear to work.

Thanks again for your help.

[sufrommich]

22. I've never had anyone send me an offensive email

at DU so I don't really know,although the alert button seems like it should get someone's attention. Someone in MIRT,past or present,can probably tell you how it works.

[WillTwain]

24. Ok, it was a little scary.

[sufrommich]

26. No one should accept crap like that.

I don't get why people feel the need to do things like that,it's childish.

[WillTwain]

27. We need to be civil among our own party. at the very least.

[zappaman]

57. Yeah right, dude.

Calling people "Obama devotees" is really fucking civil, eh?
Unless you're referring to a party different than the Democratic Party...

[WillTwain]

59. dev·o·tee - noun a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about some person or thing

You compare that to liar and idiot.

This explains the thinking of the devotees quite well.

[randome]

61. You're on a mission and you're not funny.

Judging from your other recent posts, you just want to argue and not debate. Witness how fast you changed the subject from TPP to Chained CPI.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillTwain]

63. All I want is a debate. You guys just insult and huddle.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I am on a mission: it is to force into conversation the uncomfortable truths that we all must confront. Denial is a death spiral. Democrats have been corrupted by the neo-liberals. This is suicide.

[whathehell]

67. Yes, they can. n/t

[WillTwain]

71. It did not work - twice.

[whathehell]

92. I don't know HOW you do it but

I've read posts that reported it.

[WillTwain]

96. I feel like FDR

"I welcome there Hate."

Do you think They will boot me?

[whathehell]

98. Boot you for what?

[WillTwain]

99. Being anti Third Way and pissing them off so much.

[whathehell]

100. Are you talking about being

booted from DU, or some forum or group?

[WillTwain]

101. DU

[whathehell]

102. WillTwain

There are lots of anti Third Way posts and posters on DU...As long as you keep it relatively civil you should be fine

[WillTwain]

103. ok

I was booted for 90 days already for saying such vile things as, "I do not know what you are talking about half the time" and I once said "winning." I know these are words that shake people's souls. - sarcasm.

whathehell, I have really pissed off some long time 40000-1000000 comment DUers.

It makes one wonder where the line is drawn for lefties on DU.

Regardless, my work is not finished.

Nostrovia

[whathehell]

104. You couldn't post for ninety days?

Just for "winning" and "I don't know what you're talking about"?...Oooh boy.

They certainly don't seem all that bad..On the other hand, I've had ridiculous

things like that hidden -- All you have to do is get a few people who REALLY don't

like you AND hold grudges.

I'm going to send you a pm, if I may. I need to get more information for you,

so you will probably get it tomorrow am, if that's okay.

Hang in there!

[WillTwain]

105. Thanks

I have a target on my back.

[whathehell]

112. You're welcome

and don't think that -- There's a long time DUer here

who posted that he's on the Ignore List of 60 people!

Trust me -- You're not alone.

[WillTwain]

138. Obama Is On Hardball, classic TPP debate.

[whathehell]

158. I DVR Hardball along with a lot of other MSNBC shows, so I'll be able

to watch all of it tomorrow...I DID see a clip on the Ed Show,

and I was not impressed with Obama's "selling" of the thing (I'm totally against it)

What's obvious is he does NOT go into specifics, so you're kinda left with

"Trust me"....He himself called Ronald Reagan a "transformational president",

so my answer to him would be one of Ronnie's favorite lines: "Trust, but verify"

Frankly I do NOT anyone else on this monstrosity -- I learned too much about it

and it's horrible....Why Obama' is pushing it, I don't know, but I'm certainly not

in favor of it -- In fact, I think it's vital that we ALL call our Reps and Senators

and tell them what Harry Reid just said "Not only 'no', but HELL No"!

[DanTex]

12. TPP hasn't passed yet, FYI. We don't know what is in TPP, much less what's going

to happen "after" it.

[WillTwain]

13. That thinking got us the Iraq War.

Besides, Warren, Sanders, Trumka, Gerard, Hartmann, Schultz, Reich, Stiglitz, David Kay Johnson and thousands more very bright men and women of great wisdom oppose your trust.

I am with them.

[DanTex]

20. I don't get the Iraq War comparison.

Yes, there are many bright people who oppose TPP. There are also bright people who support it, for example, Obama. And then there are bright people who don't think it's a big deal either way, like Krugman. I agree with the no-big-deal people.

As far as trusting Obama, yes, I do. His track record of positions and policies on plenty of other issues indicate that he is not some evil guy looking to sell out the middle class. For example, he supports raising the minimum wage, he is making Climate Change a priority, etc. If his goal was really to sell out the country to wealthy corporate interests, he wouldn't have done those and many other things.

[WillTwain]

23. So Obama and Paul Ryan support it, along with nearly all elected republicans and few democrats.

This is serious. The list of respected politicians is short.

[DanTex]

28. Ron Wyden and John Kerry also support it, for example.

There are two separate things here. One is the TPP and the other is fast track.

We don't know what the final TPP looks like yet, but we do know what fast track is. It allows Obama to negotiate the entire agreement and then have an up-or-down vote. The thing about fast-track, with Obama as president, is that the question is whether allowing congress to amend the bill would make it better or worse. Since Republicans are a majority, there's an argument that fast track will actually prevent Republicans from putting harmful stuff into the final deal.

As to TPP itself, since we don't know what's in it, a lot at this point depends on what we think Obama is going to do. Is he going to sell out the working and middle classes to corporate interests? His record doesn't indicate that. Why would he be fighting to, say, raise the minimum wage only to just sign a bill to ship jobs overseas? Why would he be fighting for climate regulation only to sign a deal that would allow trade to move to countries with weak environmental laws. Etc. He's made it clear that he will only sign a bill if he believes it would help working Americans.

[WillTwain]

50. I am with the majority and against Paul Ryan and the corporatists.

[cascadiance]

60. In a democracy, citizens should be able to demand the right to know what legislation is being passed

... especially if has the effect of international treaties which can trump constitutional law and our sovereignty, which arguably TPP is going to do. Those that try to do this in secret and try to make the effect sound "minimal" are not really pushing the principle of democracy, but authoritarianism instead, and should be booted from office.

Yes, why would he sign in to a law something that could trump his veto of Keystone oil pipeline, or affect his other rulings too in a negative way. Perhaps because those who fund him behind the scenes between and they know that things like the Keystone Oil pipeline veto was window dressing to have people think that he's working for them, but in effect the trump cards are being given back to the corporations via TPP.

People out there should look at the past history since Reagan of our so-called "free trade" treaties and ask themselves if even ONE of them lived up to the promises of greater jobs and prosperity that were to follow if they were passed. NONE of them have in my book, and in fact they are shown to lose jobs, increase our massive trade deficit that affects our national debt and who owns our national assets. In effect these treaties are turning us in to a third world country but excluding the wealthy and the corporations from that negative outcome selectively.

People ask why Wyden is supporting this and speculating that he feels doing it is supported by those who would vote in his election in 2016? Huh? Polls show Oregonians here are largely against it, and there is a Democratic Party statewide resolution passed in 2013 that specifically tells him NOT to work for a Fast Track bill going through congress as noted here:

http://www.dpo.org/party/business/resolutions/2013-060

This story is starting to capture the resistance that is building towards the "Third Way" thinking behind pushing the TPP.

http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20150420/OPINION/150416255/2011/OPINION

[DanTex]

62. They will know.

Even with fast-track, there's still a vote on it. The only question is how public the negotiations are, and whether the senate can amend and/or filibuster the final product. And the congress who votes on the treaty does so against the will of the people, then they can be voted out. The question is will they. In my opinion, the Republicans in congress should never have been voted in in the first place, but I don't get to decide that.

Yes, why would he sign in to a law something that could trump his veto of Keystone oil pipeline, or affect his other rulings too in a negative way. Perhaps because those who fund him behind the scenes between and they know that things like the Keystone Oil pipeline veto was window dressing to have people think that he's working for them, but in effect the trump cards are being given back to the corporations via TPP.

Yes, that is the question. The obvious answer is that he wouldn't. Much more plausible than an elaborate conspiracy whereby everything else he did in office was to pretend to be a liberal just so he could get the political capital to stick it to the middle class.

People out there should look at the past history since Reagan of our so-called "free trade" treaties and ask themselves if even ONE of them lived up to the promises of greater jobs and prosperity that were to follow if they were passed. NONE of them have in my book, and in fact they are shown to lose jobs, increase our massive trade deficit that affects our national debt and who owns our national assets. In effect these treaties are turning us in to a third world country but excluding the wealthy and the corporations from that negative outcome selectively.

I agree, they haven't lived up to their promises. But I also tend to agree with Paul Krugman that the effects of free trade agreements (at least recently) is way overstated by both sides. I think TPP won't be a huge thing either way. The problems with debt, trade deficit, income inequality, etc, would exist even without NAFTA.

People ask why Wyden is supporting this and speculating that he feels doing it is supported by those who would vote in his election in 2016? Huh? Polls show Oregonians here are largely against it, and there is a Democratic Party statewide resolution passed in 2013 that specifically tells him NOT to work for a Fast Track bill going through congress as noted here:

I guess that's probably not the reason why he's doing it.

[WillTwain]

65. Why is Sherrod Brown expressing his displeasure at the fast track as a rush-job? Sherrod Brown

not some schmuck. What do you know about the fast track system that he does not know?

[DanTex]

66. Obama is not some schmuck either. Like I said, there are smart people on both

sides of this. I'm assuming Sherrod Brown thinks fast-track will lead to a worse treaty. Obama disagrees with him. So there we are.

[WillTwain]

68. Except, Their track records on working class issues are very different , There you go.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[Mnpaul]

95. Rush job?

They get a whole 88 seconds per member to speak on it. Surely you can't consider that a rush job.

/sarcasm

[WillTwain]

64. Wyden is going to be in trouble in Oregon. He probably has something else lined up.

I am amazed at the unwavering faith many have for the corporate democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. ^^^ This ^^^

As far as trusting Obama, yes, I do. His track record of positions and policies on plenty of other issues indicate that he is not some evil guy looking to sell out the middle class. For example, he supports raising the minimum wage, he is making Climate Change a priority, etc. If his goal was really to sell out the country to wealthy corporate interests, he wouldn't have done those and many other things.

What is interesting to me is those opposing (what they think they know about) the TPP are doing so without the context of his 6+ years of initiatives. "TPP will be the death of American labor" ... But President Obama (and his team have spent the past 6+ years promoting American Labor, e.g., pushing the raising of the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, promoting numerous Jobs Programs, supporting unionization ... and the US' Negotiating Objectives include establishing/enhancing universal wage and workplace protections and collective bargaining. "TPP will the death of the environment ... But President Obama has spent the last 6+ years promoting Climate Change initiatives ... and the US' Negotiating Objectives include establishing/enhancing universal environmental protections.

[WillTwain]

48. How do you reconcile all his "hard work" and such failure?

You would expect a great president that is all in for the working class would have yield more fruit - failure.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Okay. n/t

[xfundy]

157. I don't know how you do it.

I got a hidden post recently, answering an obvious one. You're good at keeping cool.

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. I take a deep breath ...

Type my response ... delete it ... and type, (a variation of), "Okay. N/T."

Some posts/posters merit a response .. others, not so much.

[Hoyt]

29. Every one of those are playing to their readers, viewers, members, etc.

For example, Schultz -- who I like when he's not sounding like got too many concussions playing football -- looked like a fool the other night we he claimed NAFTA did not have a dispute mechanism with tribunals like the early TPP negotiating. His own specially picked guest tried to correct him, but Ed just went on and on. Hope his wife is doing well.

Warren and Sanders are quite loose with the facts. Reich says he still supports NAFTA, but wishes it had included stronger worker and environmental protections, which Obama says the TPP will have.

The Union leaders are doing what I expect them to do, play to their members and their fees.

Stiglitz seems to be looking at it strickly from his view of America, the hell with anyone else in the world needing a chance to share in the wealth we've stolen over the years. Heck, to a peasant in many of these countries, our lower middle class probably looks like the 1%ers to them.

I think the David guys name is spelled wrong, never heard him even when spelled correctly.



Liberals like Ezra Klein and Jeff Spross have written they will, and we should, wait for the final version (which we'll have plenty of time to review before Congress starts playing politics with it). They both explain how the TPP could be important in ways far beyond trade.

I too trust Obama, because he's give me no reason to do otherwise, despite the unfounded criticism he's had to take.

[WillTwain]

39. You make it sound like a conspiracy. Look, labor knows more than Obama.

The POTUS has been a disaster for the middle-class. To imagine, after what will be eight years of his presidency, a man that says his entire presidency has been to fight for the middle-class, will have seen the gap between the rich and rest expand is laughable defeat. Not to mention the rising poverty rate, college tuition, falling union memberships, and a $7.25 minimum wage after eight long brutal years for the working poor. And food stamp cuts, I could go on all day.

Now, we are to believe his TPP fairy tales. Bernie or Barack - this is an easy choice.

[WillTwain]

44. Sort of like how Obama has played Democrats.

[cali]

17. The TPA hasn't even passed, so obviously the TPP hasn't.

[WillTwain]

19. I really do not know what that means.

Did Obama support fast tracking TPP?

That is the issue at hand here.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. No It's Not

Read your own OP. You changed the "issue" so conveniently that i think others on this thread just got whiplash.

[WillTwain]

37. I really thought it was obvious. We have been arguing this for weeks. Some need to be coddled

with information.

Seriously, if you needed a full explanation, the professor thing is for show.

[Rex]

45. It's not going to pass. It is now too much of a political liability.

Oh sure, if they could have kept it under wraps...but it's not.

[WillTwain]

47. Let's hope so.

They look confident.

[Rex]

51. They do, yeah all we have left sometimes is hope.

Not a single call to Congress will a difference make. And they have to know China will make out like bandits on this deal. Just ask Microsoft how well legal appeals work in the PRC.

[WillTwain]

56. No change, just more of the corporate domination.

[Rex]

74. Aw come on, the IMF and WTO are all for it!

When have they ever led countries astray?

[WillTwain]

75. Thank god the World Bank is there rein them in.

I see Larry Summers in your future.

[Marr]

87. Oh, I think it'll pass.

NAFTA was very unpopular before it went through. Working people knew what it meant, too. The political establishment just shoved it through anyway.

[WillTwain]

94. Fast track past, so it probably will, too. The same people vote.

[Marr]

97. They've passed Fast Track?

I didn't hear anything about that. I agree though-- if that passes, there's no doubt the TPP will pass.

Fast Track is the IWR of trade deals. It's just a vote to officially keep the decision out of Congress' hands and give it to the president.

[treestar]

69. You've resorted to this?

This OP is about nothing. And is an attempt to insult the President's supporters. Or anyone who questions the DU frenzy about the TPP.

[WillTwain]

72. OK tree, whatever.

[zappaman]

78. It's getting rather obvious, eh?

[WillTwain]

81. You mean you are getting it. I am getting excited.

[FSogol]

90. You Better Believe it!

[zappaman]

91. !!!

[WillTwain]

93. Keep slapping your forehead, shake it up in there.

[still_one]

76. I don't agree with or defend the president on this issue. Most other issues though I do agree with

him

[WillTwain]

80. All I can say is look at Bernie's website. Go to the AFL-CIO site, Hear out today's great economists

On the other hand, we have Paul Ryan and Larry Kudlow. History matters.

[Faryn Balyncd]

83. Stiglitz is great.

[WillTwain]

84. He really breaks it down.

Did you hera Larry Summers on CNN, last Sunday. He sounded like he was reading from Bernie Sanders teleprompter. Hilarious.

[Faryn Balyncd]

86. I missed that. Must have been interesting.

[WillTwain]

88. Great stuff,

He raised the keynesian flag - raise the minimum wage, more unions, lower tuition, fix inequality, get more money to the middle class, too much money with the rich, huge jobs program in infrastructure.

Bernie could use his rant.

[still_one]

89. We agree

[hrmjustin]

106. unrec.

[WillTwain]

107. Seroiusly?

After all his missed opportunities to rebuild the middle-class, really?

[hrmjustin]

108. Seriously. I support my president.

We may disagree from time to time like on TTP but I stand by him.

[WillTwain]

109. Hrm

i love him, love him around 60 percent of the time. He brought class and intelligence back to the White House, great on foreign policy and good on climate change. But on wealth inequality - brutal.

[hrmjustin]

110. Then stop trashing him.

[WillTwain]

111. I do not think you read my reply - brutal on wages and wealth issues. Free speech - right?

[hrmjustin]

113. Couple of things.

I read it and I still think trashing the president. Read your op.

And there no such thing as free speech on this site. Speech is regulated on this site by the owners.

Now as for your op I don't care for it.

[WillTwain]

114. It is not trashing the President. It is about a man doing loyal friends wrong.

That is a sad statement. We are not allowed to question the leaders of the party? This smacks of Leninism.

I do not care that you do not care, so stale-mate.

Somebody needs to speak truth to power. It is an act of patriotism and love of humanity.

[hrmjustin]

115. So I tell you I don't like your post and it is Leninism.

Yeah about what I expected.

[WillTwain]

116. You are spinning. You said this is a non free speech zone. You spinning the facts is what I expected.

[hrmjustin]

117. You asked about free speech.

Read your post.

You know there are rules here as we all agreed to.

I never said you could not post this here.

[WillTwain]

118. You said the site determines speech - that smacks of Leninism.

[hrmjustin]

119. You agreed to the rules.

The owners of this site set up rules here. If you don't like it tell them.

[WillTwain]

120. That is not the issue. You said it limits free speech. That is all this is about. You made it an iss

[hrmjustin]

121. Iss?

[WillTwain]

122. issue. I am pleased with the post being posted. No complaints. Blocking honest conversation

is troubling.

[hrmjustin]

123. No one is blocking you.

I said I don't care for it.

[WillTwain]

124. I know, but you brought it up. It was a curious twist in the conversation.

I love being allowed the platform to speak on the other side of these issues. Populists are very frustrated with the last 6.5 years.

As i said, I think the POTUS is exceptional on one hand and poor on the other.

FYI: Obama collected more donations from me than any politician in my life, I door-knocked, phone-banked, voted twice for him, lost friends fighting for him, lost a job defending him to my boss.

[hrmjustin]

125. You brought up free speech.

I answered.

You are allowed to criticize the President here and I never said otherwise.

And you brought up the communist angle with Lenin which didn't surprise me.

[WillTwain]

126. You answered with there is no free speech here. I do not know why.

Call it what you want, leninism, totalitarianism, i could not care less. It is all heavy handed thought control. I will call it Leninism. Yes, I brought up the communist angle. It is a great benefit of living in this country.

[hrmjustin]

127. You do understand this is a privately owned site?

And that the owners can regulate what is said here?

[WillTwain]

128. YEs, I just think anyone would want an open debate. Especially among liberals.

As long as name calling and cursing is illegal, let's talk.

[hrmjustin]

129. We do have open debates here.

There are however rules we must abide.

I was not claiming you broke a rule.

[WillTwain]

130. Great - let's share ideas and create a better world.

[hrmjustin]

131. Umm.

[WillTwain]

132. Peace

[hrmjustin]

133. peace.

[sufrommich]

134. It's an internet forum that moderates speech according to

its TOS that you agreed to when you signed up. It has nothing to do with your right to "free speech",you should probably look up what your 1st amendment right actually protects you from,it has nothing to do with what you can and can't say on Democratic Underground.Honestly,that's Freeper logic.

[WillTwain]

135. Come on man, can we be civil?

i never brought up the First Amendment. Open conversation should be welcome everywhere based on universal law. I could not care less about the First Amendment argument. Freeper? Really, was that necessary?

[hrmjustin]

136. Really? were you civil when using leninism with me?

Pot, kettle, black!

[WillTwain]

143. Absolutely, Lenin was all about thought control, too. That was a great historical reference.

[hrmjustin]

147. No one is trying to control you.

[sufrommich]

137. I've read your replies in this thread, you're not interested in civility.

Frankly, your posts border on trollish.

[hrmjustin]

140. Damn! You are really showing that spirit of openness as you descibed before.

[WillTwain]

141. I guess you need an explanation.

The troll comment is a defense mechanism we all share (call the traitor a bogeyman). The difference between me and your bud is I did not call your bud a troll, he called me one. i merely said my view is similar, though i did not initiate the name calling. I understand some are not capable of this nuanced thinking, but such is life.

[hrmjustin]

142. Lol the hits keep on coming.

Well at least you don't try and hide it.

Btw i am not third way but enjoy.

[WillTwain]

144. Trite, let's be creative.

[hrmjustin]

145. You start.

[WillTwain]

148. Compare my comments to yours, case closed.

[hrmjustin]

150. Lol. Building that better world you talked about.

I rather think not.

[WillTwain]

151. Good night folks, thanks for kicking the thread.

Got a mensa meeting I am late for.

[zappaman]

152. Uh huh.

[zappaman]

146. Border?

[WillTwain]

149. Border what?

[Sheldon Cooper]

153. Jury results:

I was in the majority.

On Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I've read your replies in this thread, you're not interested in civility.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6545453

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Trollish accusation is hurtful. This has been a reason for hiding recently. In fact on this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:18 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hillary suck up calling good progressives troll for not sucking up to the wealthy queen Clinton. Hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stating that posts are bordering on trollish is fine.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[sufrommich]

154. Thank you.nt

[hrmjustin]

155. Thank you.

[Hekate]

166. Hell's bells, who was Juror #3 ?

If they use that line as a post you betcha I'm going to alert on it!

[JI7]

170. Juror # 3 referring to this no banned right wing troll as "good progressive"

while attacking someone who supports a democrat .

[BainsBane]

156. Leninism?

I thought you fancied yourself a leftist union activist? You use Leninism as an insult?

[hrmjustin]

160. Poster was shown the door.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=309567&sub=trans

[Bobbie Jo]

161. Saw that one from the get.

Good riddance, IMO....

[hrmjustin]

162. Based on posting history it really was not a suprise.

Just would like to know who it was.

[stevenleser]

164. Using song references, eh? Here is one for you...

[zappaman]

165. Weird that this had 8 recs yesterday, but now 5!

Odd...

[BainsBane]

167. He got a new one though

from beyond the grave.

[Cha]

168. The die hard Will Twain fans.. lol.. no matter what shite he posts.

[Major Hogwash]

171. This thwead looks like a Twain Weck!!!

The twain has gone off its twacks!!

[Cha]

172. Twuth!

[Rex]

169. Yes well, Obama was getting cut some slack because you know...his skin color etc..

I SWEAR now tombstoned troll said that and it only got a hide! A HIDE!



Here it is;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6519847