General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho is "freaking out" over the TPP? Hint, it ain't just DUers
the vast majority of congressional dems. As of now, despite the epic arm twisting and cajoling for the WH TPA/TPP war room in the Eisenhower Building, less than 20 Democrats in the House have gone on record supporting the TPP. Over 150 are on the record in opposition to it. In the Senate, only 4 Democrats are on the record in support of the TPP.
Labor Unions: Almost all have come out against the TPP. I think one union may have stayed on the sidelines. The AFL-CIO, SEIU, Communication Workers, and the rest- all have been actively fighting it for YEARS.
Environmental Groups: All against it: Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Wildlife Fund, Audubon, Earth Justice, 350.org, League of Conservation Voters, and on and on. They have all analyzed the leaked Environmental Chapter and excoriated it, particularly regarding oceans and enforcement.
http://ourfuture.org/20150122/environmental-groups-denounce-fast-track-trade-process
Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz- both Nobel winning economists: Opposed
Virtually every liberal public interest advocacy org, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to Public Citizen have been fighting this for years and years.
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blog/2015/04/27/2009-organizations-call-on-congress-to-oppose-fast-track-authority-for-the-tpp/
https://www.eff.org/
I could go on. I could tell you who's been lobbying heavily for it for years- like the Chamber of Commerce and Monsanto, Halliburton and the oil and gas industry- some of the worst corporate actors.
You want to trust President Obama? Fine, but don't pretend that the support for the TPP isn't corporate, right wing and republican, and the opposition to it isn't liberal, democratic and public interest.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/?referrer=
TPP has become a lightning rod for many people. The reason it's a political turd is global capitalism has never worked for most people. It's not the end of the world, just the continuation of something that produces more losers than winners, which will continue no matter what happens with TPP.
cali
(114,904 posts)and please note that I put freaking out in quotations, indicating that I don''t believe expressing concern or opposing the TPP is actually freaking out.
Krugman is opposed to it. My OP is accurate and cannot possibly be refuted.
I've never said that it's the end of the world but it could be quite bad in discrete areas- not job loss so much, but such things as losses of generic drug availability, IP access and freedom, and ocean degradation- something all the environmental groups opposed, have expressed specific concern about.
swilton
(5,069 posts)....'it doesn't look like a good thing eitherfor the world or for the United States' doesn't get any less enthusiastic than that
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I was mocking the phrase freaked out. Opposition to the tpp is not synonymous with freaking out, fred. I realize that may be too difficult a concept for you to grasp, fred.
And sorry, fred, but Krugman has come out in opposition to the tpp, fred. grasp at the flimsiest of straws much, fred?
Disingenuous stuff from you, fred.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)with those fred fries, Cali!
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)as against it as you say." Really? If there are good reasons to pass the TPP, the supporters haven't been able to express them.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)That's a new one, and quite apt.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Maybe you could praise with faint dams: "TPP is the most wonderful trade agreement ever. Now watch as the obstructions to this deal fall away just like the water rushing over this old, broken dam. Freedom!!!1!1"
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Hey, whatever works...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)of stupidity. 
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)I shall continue to braise with quaint maize.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)It's the eternal question: Who put the Bop in the Bopshebopshebop? Who put the Dang in the Bobbalobbadingdang?
Who put the Damn in the damningwithfaintpraise?
That's whose fault it is.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I am no trade expert, but I believe in President Obama's assurances.
cali
(114,904 posts)thereof, fred. I simply noted who is opposed.
and of course, you won't respond to this post or any other of my posts. that takes something you apparently don't have.
bananas
(27,509 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)tennstar
(45 posts)Didn't know Brits were free to look at the documents to verify that Obama was trust worthy.
Wow that is truly amazing. I:wow
Looks like you could use some better reading skills
lark
(23,091 posts)Actions speak louder than words and his actions on this stink, full on loud throated support for the global corporations and the 1% - nothing for workers or the environment and nothing to stop currecy maipulation, which is the major barrier to trade with Japan and China. It's not really about trade, it's about increasing the power of the multinational corporations over those of elected governments, that's the main impact of this awful bill.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
salib
(2,116 posts)about global climate change. They all love to respond "I am not a scientist, but..."
Just as one does not have to be a scientist to form a effectively consistent opinion and not simply trust what Exxon is telling you, it is not necessary to be a trade expert to be able to realize that maybe what people are trying to sell you is not really very good.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)We got the worst economic crisis since the RepubliCON Great Depression 7 years later. Maybe this one wont take as long to destroy our economy.
"The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the financial service
chapters of U.S. “Free Trade” Agreements (FTAs) limit the regulation of financial service
sectors subject to these agreements. The United States bound most banking and securities services
to comply with these rules and made sizeable commitments in insurance. The “trade” pact rules
simply ban many common forms of financial regulation, even if such policies apply to domestic and
foreign firms equally. U.S. government and corporate efforts in trade negotiations complemented
domestic lobbying to weaken and eventually repeal the New Deal’s system of banking regulation. For
instance, the Glass-Steagall Act created a firewall between commercial and investment banks to
prevent the former from speculating with consumers’ savings. But the 1997 U.S. WTO commitments
noted an intent to change Glass-Steagall to conform with WTO rules. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
which did so, passed in 1999 – the year the WTO’s Financial Services Agreement (FSA) took effect. "
Many people blame the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for the economic crash in 2007.
"Many people still assume “trade” pacts are about traditional matters, such as tariff cuts. In fact, the
WTO, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other U.S. FTAs require signatories –
including the United States – to conform domestic policies to a broad non-trade deregulatory agenda.
Few in Congress read the legislation implementing the WTO in 1994 or NAFTA in 1993, much less
the pacts’ actual 900-page texts. Congress didn’t even get a vote on the expanded U.S. financial service
deregulation commitments contained in the subsequent WTO FSA. But if any country’s laws fail to
comply with WTO, NAFTA or FTA rules, the laws can be challenged before foreign tribunals, and
the country can be subjected to indefinite trade sanctions until its laws meet “trade” pact dictates.
https://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf
See how quickly an FTA affects every citizen. People who think an FTA doesn't affect them, haven't thought the ramifications through.
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)Your head is in a bad place re. trade deals based on the past. You have a lot of company.
cali
(114,904 posts)whether the TPP is, overall, more beneficial than damaging- not all of the equation, but part of it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)protections.
Folks have to stop comparing historical harvests of oranges to the current crop of apples.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It's worse. Those agreements didn't target the normal regulatory functions of government. This one does.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)that new enforcement agency that's going to make these companies comply with these stringent new rules. I'm sure that's in the agreement somewhere... along with the assurance that there will be more than miniscule monetary fines and instead actual jail time for repeat perpetrators, right?
pampango
(24,692 posts)trade that he inherited from Coolidge and Hoover, there would be no WTO today. Trade was minimal under republicans before FDR and there were no international organizations that had any role in trade between countries. FDR changed that.
In 1944 FDR proposed the International Trade Organization which would have "required signatories – including the United States – to conform domestic policies to a broad non-trade agenda" including labor standards, business regulations and a goal of full employment. GATT was established by Truman as a stopgap mechanism to reduce tariffs and 'liberalize' trade until the ITO came into being. When the republican congress rejected the ITO, only GATT remained for almost 50 years until it became the WTO. If FDR and Truman had left republican trade policy alone, none of this would have happened.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.
Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region. Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.
We are glad to explain here how the United States is working to ensure that partners’ commitments under multilateral environmental agreements and other environmental laws and rules are enforced in the TPP.
The groundbreaking conservation and marine fisheries provisions proposed by the United States in the TPP talks – fully explained in our December 2011 “Green Paper” online – go beyond the multilateral agreements on fisheries management to which the United States and some of the other countries are already parties. We are proposing that the TPP include, for the first time in any trade or environment agreement, groundbreaking prohibitions on fish subsidies that set a new and higher baseline for fisheries protections.
Similarly, the broader U.S. proposals on conservation, also detailed in our Green Paper, would elevate other TPP countries’ commitments toward our own congressionally-set standards on issues such as the conservation of wildlife, forests, and protected areas.
cali
(114,904 posts)NRDC, The Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, analyze the late leaked draft text on the Environment and find those "protections" LACKING.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/TPP_Enviro_Analysis.pdf?docID=14842
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It will be just like NAFTA where the polluters shrug and carry on, business as usual.
And environmental concerns pale in comparison with the human rights concerns.
We do not want the fucking TPP. Get that through your head.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)out against the TPP that actually seems to be on the table. And that means that he and I are in a similar place."
He's pretty clearly opposed.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Evar
(44 posts)I don't admire the progressives who, fueled by pure speculation and not facts, have trashed the TPP. This trade deal is NOT NAFTA, it is about America building into the agreement workers' and environmental protections and the means to take to court countries that don't abide by them. To walk away from this partnership with the 11 countries with whom America sells 45% of our exports is crazy. We can't be isolationists in the 21st century or leave China, with its bad labor and environmental practices, to dominate world trade. That would be a disaster for America. And despite the hysteria, the fact is that Fast Track is anything but fast. It takes at least nine months, with congress weighing in at every turn. The president, who has saved this country from economic ruin and worked tirelessly to create jobs, is not about to sell us out. We, who call ourselves Democrats and progressives, should at least give him and this plan a fair hearing.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Oh, and also the labor unions, environmentalists, economists, etc. They are basing their opinions on speculation?
I guess it's just you, Obama, a small number of Democrats and almost all Republicans that are smart enough to know what this is really about.
Sure.
lark
(23,091 posts)the 1%. They are the biggest winners if this passes, the rest of us lose.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't admire anyone who doesn't do their due diligence. Sorry, there is a substantial amount of information- both historical and current for anyone to delve into who is willing to do the research.
And for someone who is chastising others about speculation, your post is more than a little ironic. YOU speculate madly throughout your post: You refer to environmental protections- how the fuck do YOU know? And sorry, but a late draft of the Environment Chapter was leaked, so the Environmental Groups that analyzed it and released and leaked process documents, are not merely speculating as you are.
We already have trade agreements with the majority of the tpp nations. We trade extensively with ALL of them. Tariffs are already low. This has jackshit to do with isolationism- which none of the opposition is advocating. That is a fib. As for China, it already has an fta in that region, including Malaysia and Vietnam and more importantly, the Philippines and Indonesia as well as several other nations. Nothing about the TPP excludes or prevents China from exerting their power within their geographical sphere of influence.
Fast track doesn't refer to speed and it governs more than just its dictate that the vote be straight up or down- much, much more.
I'm so tired of trying to discuss this with you trustifarians- people whose support for this is rooted SOLELY on their trust for President Obama.
And He could release it right now in almost finished draft form or release those parts of the text that are complete- before the vote on the tpa. It's too late after its been passed. I'm not going to explain why to you. I've had it up to my eyeballs with people who haven't bothered to actually do the research.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)When things look out sorts, they often are.
The R's in congress have obstructed almost everything Obama has tried to do, where they couldn't they tried to repeal it.
Now they are all for TPA/TPP, and the Dems have their heels in the ground.
That looks out of sorts. It probably is.
Congress critters actually get to see the drafts, and the dems don't like it. Their position isn't based on speculation.
This agreement isn't going to change China, or our trade with it.
Failure of this agreement won't shut down 45% of our export trade.
That's all red-herring crap.
Appreciate the attempt, but you need better memes.
Rilgin
(787 posts)The leaked chapters show that the new Trade Deals will have the same International Tribunals that past deals have. I believe that the trade deals might incorporate some bottom line base level worker and environmental protections. These may or may not be good. However, there are historic enforcement problems with such agreements. More important is that you are wrong about the workings and effect of the tribunals.
These tribunals do not allow our GOVERNMENT (Emphasis Added) to bring other countries to some court to enforce worker and environmental protections. They allow Corporations to sue for lost profits if a country enacts worker or environmental protections that hurt their projected profits. In no case would a corporation's profits be hurt by relaxing worker and environmental protections so these tribunals only apply to increases in worker and environmental protections that a country might choose to make.
I hope you see the difference. It is large. It causes a race to the bottom or at least a stagnation. Any country wishing to add a chemical or process to their environmental law or who wishes to add some extra worker protection will face a very costly corporate law suit for any corporation whose costs will increase through the additional regulation. This by itself will stifle progress.
Floors are great. However, governments should be allowed to add (emphasis added) more worker and environmental protections to their laws without having to pay out corporations.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We already have free trade agreements with the vast majority of the TPP countries.
The only major economy where the TPP would actually break down trade barriers is Japan. By getting rid of their whopping 1.2% tariff. Oooooooo.
So no, it isn't because of isolationism. We already aren't isolated.
Obvious propaganda is obvious.
/ignore list.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Maybe if there's NOT any of those draconian things that have been leaked in there, people will stop freaking out.
I doubt it though. It's probably WORSE than has been leaked. But that's the point. If it's better, why not release the text?
BTW Need help? The Check Spelling tab is still working.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)low wage, unregulated labor markets of Asia doesn't make us isolationist.
And don't tell us about "strong regulations".
There is ZERO in place to prevent loss of American jobs, and loss of wages. There is ZERO put in place to ensure environmental and human rights concerns are enforced.
This deal is just another attempt to transfer more wealth from non-rich to rich. It is class warfare.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)swilton
(5,069 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)you say these groups do...why so misleading?
Any other authority other than the one link?
From your link:
"Once these agreements are finalized, a process known as “fast track” is used to push the agreement through. Fast track asks Congress to forgo the usual process of careful deliberation, and vote within 90 days of Congress and the public first seeing the agreement. Congress also agrees in advance not to amend or filibuster the agreement. This sets up a rushed situation, in which massive corporate PR campaigns can pressure Congress to pass the agreement, and not “kill the whole thing” over problems that they might find. The public does not have time to digest the implications of the agreement and rally opposition, if warranted.
The letter from the environmental groups explains:
“Fast track was originally designed in the 1970s, when trade agreements focused on traditional trade issues such as cutting tariffs and lifting quotas. Today’s trade agreements, however, are about much more than tariffs and quotas and have significant implications for our environment, public health, and global climate.”
Full letter:
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Fast_Track_Enviro_Letter_to_114th_Congress.pdf?docID=17141
Environmental Protections in TPP
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/January/The-US-and-Environmental-Protections-in-the-TPP
cali
(114,904 posts)And sorry, environmental orgs damn well are against the TPP.
And you are just another "trust/love the president" sort whose opinion is entirely faith based.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Your original post was not in response to me, so what I do or do not deserve is immaterial. I merely point out that your posts are absolutely devoid of any substance, as was your response to me.
pampango
(24,692 posts)opposition to it isn't liberal, democratic and public interest."
All quite true, cali. Also support comes from the Democratic base, particularly liberals, and opposition comes also from the republican base, particularly its most conservative wing and its tea party politicians in congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)because of their hate and fear of President Obama. Also, they believe (bizarrely) that it will open the floodgates to masses of illegal immigrants.
pampango
(24,692 posts)including trade agreements, the UN arms trade treaty, the UN disability rights treaty, the UN itself, the WTO, etc. I suspect that Obama favoring these things makes their opposition that much more vehement but the opposition is not new.
cali
(114,904 posts)which is not the case with Environmental groups, public interest groups and dems in the House and Senate. I guess what I mean is why lump them with the above. Seems kind of like grasping at straws to make a point that not all of the opposition is liberal opposition. By and large, the vast majority of the opposition is liberal and the vast majority of those supporting it are repub, right wing and corporate interests.
pampango
(24,692 posts)motivates the republican base may be a critical factor in the House if fast track and TPP are to be defeated. If they are not 'lumped with' the liberal opposition, it is unlikely that the opposition will be successful. If that reality gives them 'credibility' that is not my intention.
By and large, the vast majority of the opposition is liberal and the vast majority of those supporting it are repub, right wing and corporate interests.
I don't view pointing out that most Democrats support it and most republicans oppose it is 'grasping at straws'.
If you are talking about politicians and organized groups, you are accurate. But that does not apply to people in general where "the vast majority of the opposition" is conservative and the vast majority of those supporting" are Democrats.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)what it takes to defeat TPP then I am fine with that. Stopping this travesty is too important. By all means we can continue to oppose the Tea Party in other areas and we should have no illusions about them. But politics is the art of forging coalitions with factions that we would otherwise oppose.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)That is probably the only way to counter runaway corporate power.
Some on the right are opposed to coroporate hegemony and loss of sovereignty, and their paranoid nature also makes them allies on issues of surveillance. They probably couldn't care less about the environment, but they can be rallied to support Americans not having to compete against labor conditions and wages in third world economies.
This same sector of the right is probably also willing to join us re corporate money in elections, and re undisclosed foreign money funding U.S. candidates.
They're starting to wake up to the fact that our government no longer works for them it works for multinationals who would just as soon pay someone in the third world a tenth (often much less) of what it takes to earn a living wage here.
As hard as that pill is to swallow, it is the path to wresting our government out of corporate hands. We can fight them with all our might on social and environmental issues while allying with them on economic issues. They are humans with human needs, and they're just as frustrated as we are that it is getting so much harder to have those needs met.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)if it takes a coalition of progressive Democrats and Tea Party Republicans in the House to defeat it then so be it.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)If Hillary is nominated and wins.she is a Republican Lite just like Obama
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)but it is also the truth. I don't even see it as Democrat or Republican, it's more of a top / bottom issue, or corporate / populist.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
B2G
(9,766 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)the powerful forces on the right that love it. No equivalency.
B2G
(9,766 posts)on either side of the aisle.
We see this time and time again, and the TPP is a prime example.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Of course the Republican establishment never saw a trade agreement they didn't like and they would be more than happy to sell the American worker down the river. But there is a lot of opposition from the Republican grassroots and the reason why Democratic votes are needed to pass it in the House is because many in the House GOP caucus oppose it.
This is one of those rare opportunities for the left and the right to find common ground and work together. Regarding motives, I'm sure that a knee jerk opposition to anything Obama supports is part of right wing opposition. But at this point I think that stopping TPP is so vital that I will accept support from anybody if that is what it takes to defeat it.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)from: http://obamatrade.com/why-no-tpp/
"Obamatrade aka the TransPacific Parthership (TPP) is misleadingly called a “trade agreement.” But only two of its 26 chapters actually cover trade issues such as tariffs and quotas. Obamatrade is really an expansive system of enforceable global government that the Obama administration is negotiating with eleven Pacific Rim nations: Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, Mexico and Peru. Obamatrade would impose one-size-fits all international rules to which U.S. federal, state and local law would be forced to conform. It would also give preferential treatment to foreign banks and other firms operating here, exempting foreign companies in the US from financial, environmental and land use regulations that US businesses would still be required to obey. Obamatrade would subject the U.S. to the jurisdiction of two systems of foreign tribunals, including World Bank and United Nations tribunals. These foreign tribunals would be empowered to order payment of U.S. tax dollars to foreign firms if U.S. laws undermined the foreign firms’ new special"
More on their Home-Page but be forewarned, it IS a right winger site: http://obamatrade.com/
cali
(114,904 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is how I would take that comment.
Hell, this morning I was hanging out with a bunch of people who are against it who would be difficult to place in the US usual right-left continuum. But they were affected DIRECTLY by NAFTA
chknltl
(10,558 posts)First, Thom Hartmann is where I got that link. He spoke on it a bit today. He found it fascinating that right wingers also had reasons to be against TPP. I've long thought it reasonable to post at DU things Thom Hartmann finds fascinating. I was looking for an appropriate place to post that link when I found....:
Secondly, an OP titled: "Who is "freaking out" over the TPP? Hint, it ain't just DUers" so I added a link to someone, not DUers who is also "freaking out" over TPP! Seems like a reasonable addition to the discussion....sadly no discussion.... my guess why would be.....:
Thirdly, and this is a biggie for me: is it me or is democracy supposed to work best when a majority of the citizenry stand up...well...sorta united for or against issues with a reasonable expectation that those issues be dealt with to the satisfaction of that citizenry? The elephant in this room I am opening is that the citizenry is divided, our very democracy is held in check because of division. Both sides seem to bask in a self righteous indignation over this division! This will sound sacrilegious to many if not most here at DU but impossible as it seems: the divided citizenry actually shares in a fundamental philosophy, one which is good for this country: It's called democracy
There is an old saying that the enemy of my enemy....well you've no doubt heard it before but We The People still share a common love for our democracy. If we also share a hate for those who would shove something down our throats without including us in the details when we ALL WANT TO KNOW THOSE DETAILS, (by definition: anti-democracy), well why not unite to fight against it? Why not rally around this one issue? There are other rally points but our hate for each other blinds us to them while the real enemy of democracy is laughing all the way to their off-shore banks.
I have been busy all day today, away from my TV where RT or Free Speech TV keeps me updated, away from this computer where DU keeps me updated. It is midnight Pacific time. I do not know how the Senate voted right now. Hopefully I'll read something to lift my spirits, that the Senate told our President "NO!" Hopefully We The people aren't taking it in the shorts...again. Before I go look, I wanted to let you know my three points.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)But now they are trying to bring Alberta tar sands oil through my community by rail to the ConocoPhillips refinery in Santa Barbara county. I have attended two meetings on this and the lies are pretty blatant. I'm trying to put together a post on it for the California forum.
cali
(114,904 posts)Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)I do, but sadly I don't. 
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)
And Every Republican Senator Voted for it. The Turtle changed his vote to no to allow for a future vote again on it.
Kind of tells you something. Even the so-called T-bagger Libertarian types like Paul and Cruz voted for it.
asjr
(10,479 posts)have enough American corporations to move overseas somewhere. They sure pulled out with the first NAFTA. That was a huge mistake.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... has a) heard of this fiasco and b) supports it. Quite the opposite in fact; people here (Republicans, Democrats and others) are either unaware of it or vocally opposed.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)FTA also will cover TTIP, which is actually much more important.
And neither TPP or TTIP are really about trade.
They are about who will govern and own us.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Probably something about TPP being part of the scheme to conquer Texas and make it part of the United States.
