Why would Obama go along with this "secrecy" stuff??

[kentuck]

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 04:13 AM - Edit history (1)

It doesn't make sense??

Doesn't our Congress have a right to know what they are voting upon ??

[Vincardog]

1. Obama knows if the facts were known he couldn't pass this Shit.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Bingo. Succinct and perfect response.

[onecaliberal]

3. It won't effect him or his.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. We have the right to know.

State secrets are for national security - to protect our nation from other nations. The other nations in this fucked deal all know the details. The global corporations are in on the details. It is only us peasants who are in the dark. Why would that be?

[haikugal]

5. ^^^^This^^^^

[840high]

6. ....x10

[JoePhilly]

35. Why haven't any of the other nations published the full text?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. They are doing the same thing to their peasants.

This pact benefits none of the peasants in any of the involved countries. By mutual agreement democracy has been shut down.

[JoePhilly]

44. Ahhh ... so its not because ...

... they think that would weaken their own bargaining position in the negotiations?

btw ... when did golbal trade become a democracy. If it did, we'd surely lose.

And given our congress will have at least 60 days to debate and then vote on the resulting legislation, how is democracy in this country shut down?

[TimeToEvolve]

7. once again Bill Hicks nails it..

[MrMickeysMom]

8. absolutamente, Time...

Nail was always hit ahead of everyone else's hammer with this guy… EXACTLY how I feel about this subterfuge…

Why the fuck does it take this long to wake up?

[TimeToEvolve]

11. americans cannot be counted on to do the right thing..

most americans are way too comfortable for their own good..
and if that was not bad enough, they anesthetize themselves from dawn to dusk with all of the toxic banality of the morally-bankrupt and spiritually-dead pop- culture produced by the cultural engineers...

[MrMickeysMom]

13. Maybe some Americans are uncomfortable with how others are way too comfortable...

I think somewhere in the middle of this are a few blades of grass that don't collapse in the breeze the same way.

I know you said, "most"… and I think that's true.

[TimeToEvolve]

15. nearly every level of social strata has the numbing effects of pop culture aimed at it..

it is absurd how "inflategate" gained national attention, but the US citizens are willfully ignorant to how US politics works, and some are too intellectually lazy to look for the truth themselves, so they rely on a bunch of lying pundits to tell them what they want to hear.. most of the people in this country does not like anything that does not stoke their little egos.

[kentuck]

17. Che? Is that you?

[TimeToEvolve]

32. no im not Che, just TimeToEvolve.

But my previous post is not that far off, the seeds of the modern consumerist/ media conglomerate were sewn during WW1 by a man named Edward Bernays (1891-1995), who is known as "the father of public relations". He was one of Sigmund Freud's best scholars, so he was very well experienced in certain aspects of psychology.
after starting off as a press agent, he worked with Woodrow Wilson and George Creel to manipulate the public's opinion of the US fighting in WW1; around this time, Bernays coined the term "public relations", after the wars he began working in advertizing, one of his most (in)famous campaigns was getting women to smoke during the 1920's, as well as betty crocker cake mix ("have the woman add the egg&quot . a century later, nearly all of what he pioneered is still in use.

Bernays himself referred to what exactly he does as the"engineering of consent". Is it any wonder why 80 years later ethnobotanist Terrence McKenna referred to the media, advertisers and entertainment industry as "cultural engineers"?

[MrMickeysMom]

22. You describe members of my family….

I mean those who are intellectually lazy… I can quote them: "I won't vote for anyone but a Democrat"…. Meanwhile, you didn't mention stealing of the largess by the big banks, who may continue to live by the motto, "We'll continue to break the law and steal your money because it's worth the return of investment"….

When persons like my SO and I go out and run for office locally, get into office and are run out of office for speaking truth to power, we have a special understanding regarding the parallel of how state and federal legislators "compromise" their way until they hear nothing at all.

So, what have we said here? I have personal experience with trying to make a difference, and you might have the vantage point from outside the U.S.

If you reside in the U.K., you may well ask yourself what the hell happened in the elections and how they enjoy the Royals' family life.

[TimeToEvolve]

33. no, Im not in the U.K., am in the U.S.

thanks for your concern though, if I was, I'd be S.O.L. & J.W.F. (tories)

[TimeToEvolve]

9. and this one is even more relevant to providing your answer

i think may post this to any thread concerning Obama and the TPP

[kentuck]

10. Seems to be real close to the truth...

[TimeToEvolve]

12. not likely close as is spot on...

there is not a doubt in my mind that this is why we always get screwed.

the self-appointed guardians of the status quo will not relinquish their position without a fight to the bitter end; they are psychopaths, and this corrupt economic system is the only kind of system which will support their parasitic personalities... and they know this.

[mythology]

14. You do realize that treaty negotiations are virtually always done in secret right?

This isn't something new.

And Congress will be able to vote on the TPP. It would be an up or down vote on the entire package. Think how difficult any agreement would be in all 12 of the countries involved in the negotiations had not one voice, but in the case of the U.S. 536 voices about every detail. Look how difficult it is to get anything through the Senate where it takes 60 votes to decide anything of any importance. Look at how one idiot like Tom Coburn held up a bill on veteran's suicide prevention just because.

Getting to a single package and then voting on that up or down, is the only way to get things done. And Congress members can go look at the proposed bill. It's a pain in the ass to have to go look at it rather than download a pdf, but it's part of the job.

[kentuck]

16. How come people are just becoming aware of it?

You say, "Think how difficult any agreement would be in all 12 of the countries involved in the negotiations had not one voice, but in the case of the U.S. 536 voices about every detail."

I think this is the point where we disagree? Rather than assuming that it must be good if it benefits corporations, I think it would be better if it was debated by all the "536 voices"...

[yallerdawg]

34. The Senate is debating right now (C-SPAN2) what they want in TPP.

Congressional guidelines regarding trade negotiations is expressed through TPA.

Of course, there are over 200 amendments, but it is Memorial Day weekend, the House is gone already, and Senators are packed.

Get ready for the Friday Night Dump!

[msongs]

18. because shame. shame must be kept secret nt

[davidn3600]

19. This is supposed to be the most transparent administration in history!

Remember that campaign promise?

[Flying Squirrel]

20. It's very transparent to me.

But not in a good way.

[Recursion]

21. They do, and they can read the negotiation drafts right now

This very minute, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren can go into a room and read them. A couple of their staffers can too.

Assuming the plenary round actually reaches an agreement, then the whole country can see it for 60 days before a vote.

If you're implying that for some reason Obama should have broken with the precedent of every single treaty negotiation before ever and done it in the open before the negotiaters were finished, well, I can't say I agree that he should be held to such a different standard.

[kentuck]

23. Yeah, they can do that on their day off...

easy reading and comprehension.

From HuffingtonPost.com :

"We are unable to take any notes or consider what we just saw unless we have a photographic memory and, unfortunately, I do not," Manchin said. "I've tried to remember and look at things I knew I was looking for, but still it's almost impossible to walk out of there having the ability to sit down and evaluate what you just saw."

"I taught the uniform commercial code and the bankruptcy code. I am not afraid of hollow, technical language. But you've got to be able to dig into it, you've got to be able to spend time and figure out the cross-references and the terms of art," Warren said. "It's difficult, thick stuff to read, and it's set up to minimize your capacity to track all the pieces about what's happening."

[Warren Stupidity]

25. no but see it's completely open

oh also having been in "that room" you cannot discuss what you have seen.

Perfectly open process. Our (un)informed representatives will be able to vote "yay" or "nay" with no possibility of amendment and no discussion of the details of the legislation. We, the people, will not know the details of what they have voted on, and in some cases we won't know the details until years after the legislation has been rammed through a compliant ineffective unrepresentative legislature.

[yallerdawg]

36. They can also meet with US Trade Representatives...

for comprehensive discussions.

They can also be Trade Representatives (Congressional level).

They can also read the Summaries attached.

None of that sounds very Senatorial "I don't understand", does it?

"It's a secret!"

That's how stupid they think we are.

[pampango]

24. He's either stupid, corrupt or thinks international talks are usually done in secret.

Even his fiercest opponents don't think he is stupid but those seem to be the three alternatives.

Doesn't our Congress have a right to know what they are voting upon ??

If they were voting now on the TPP sight-unseen I would agree. They are voting on TPA which is the procedure for congress to follow if or when a final TPP is ever agreed to. If and when that ever happens, congress will vote up or down on the specific TPP agreed to and they will know what they are voting on.

AFAIK, most international agreements are not amendable by congress which just gets to approve or reject them. If congress were the American 'decider' on the text of international agreements, other countries would want to negotiate these agreements directly with congress rather than with the president. Why bargain for years with a president just to have congress be able to renegotiate the whole thing? Just cut to the chase and negotiate with congress directly in the first place and ignore the president.

[kentuck]

26. The Constitution...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_regulation

[Maedhros]

27. Because he was told to? [n/t]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Do the people have a right to know what's in store for them?

If not, why not?

[KittyWampus]

29. maybe it was a deal for getting Obamacare passed? Or some horse-trading?

[brooklynite]

30. UNREC

President Obama is not keeping something secret and the Congress is not voting for something without knowing what it is.

1) The "secret" part is the President's ability to negotiate a treaty in private, without interference by Congress (treaties are constitutionally placed in the hands of the executive, with the consent of the Senate). Every President has been given authority ("TPA&quot to negotiate this way

2) There is no treaty to approve. What has been reported are components of the ongoing treaty negotiations

3) When the treaty is ready for consideration by the Senate, it will be made fully public for 60-75 days before a vote occurs. You will have the ability to read it in it's entirety and to lobby your Senators.

4) There will then be an up or down vote, without amendments. This is because amendments changing the treaty would not be binding on the other signatories and would result in endless new rounds of negotiation.

If you're opposed to the concept of free trade in general or TPP in particular, fine, but let's be honest about the issue.

[kentuck]

31. The Commerce Clause:

Commerce Clause

The provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states and with foreign countries and Indian tribes.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

....more at link

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause

[yallerdawg]

37. TPA is Congressional authority given to the executive branch...

to negotiate free trade agreements with Congressional oversight and final approval.

[ucrdem]

38. Yes, and treaties are an executive power

per 2.2.2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Nothing about the House having a say oddly enough . . .

[yallerdawg]

40. A free trade agreement...

is not a treaty.

[ucrdem]

41. Well, one might say that TPP is not an FTA.

It's a partnership. So there's that. But I'm pretty sure that an international agreement by any other name is still a treaty.

[yallerdawg]

42. I agree...

one might say just about anything!

[ucrdem]

39. It's really sort of a false issue isn't it?

There's some measure of security involved, but the willingness of the likes of Daryl Issa to casually ignore them and then loudly complain when the rules tighten up in response give the "secrecy" issue the color of a Benghazi-like talking point. At least to me.