Will you fight the Fast Track of the TPP and TSA? Will DU?

[marym625]

The great people at Fight For The Future / Free Press have again made it simple to take action against these horrible agreements and the fast track of them. Could not be easier

Email from FFTF:

Dear Fight for the Future member,

Wikileaks just released the text of a trade agreement that’s even more secretive than the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and poses just as great a risk to our Internet freedom.

You should read this entire email, but if you’re in a rush, please Click here to take action. Congress is moving to “Fast Track” these agreements THIS WEEK, and the vote will be terrifyingly close. Your voice counts right now more than ever, use it before it’s too late!

You’ve probably never heard of the agreement that Wikileaks just exposed, because like the TPP it’s been negotiated in almost complete secrecy. It’s so secret, in fact, that the text is intended to be classified for five years after the agreement goes into effect.1

It’s called the Trade in Services Agreement, or TISA, and the leaked texts show why governments are working so hard to keep it quiet: like the TPP, TISA could have devastating effects on Internet freedom and privacy, and could even be abused by monopolistic cable companies to undermine global net neutrality.2

Congress is voting this week! Click here to tell them not to “Fast Track” secret trade agreements that break the Internet.

Based on what we’ve heard, the vote is scheduled for this Thursday, and there are still a large number of lawmakers who are undecided.

Unlike most issues, “Fast Track” is not playing out like a partisan circus. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose it for their own reasons (many Democrats are concerned that these secret trade agreements could lead to offshoring American jobs and undermining environmental standards, while Republicans are hesitant to give President Obama additional authority to conduct negotiations in secret.)

No matter what your political persuasion is, we can all agree that decisions that affect the future of the Internet and our most basic rights should never be made behind closed doors without public debate.

We have a once in a lifetime chance to stop Fast Track this week, but time is running out. Click here to take action right now!

The bad news about Fast Track is also the good news. If we lose on this vote and Fast Track passes, it almost certainly means that the TPP and TISA (and any other agreement that this President or the next one cooks up) will become law. But if we win, we REALLY win, and it’s likely that we can stop these anti-democratic agreements once and for all, and protect the Internet for generations to come.

We’ve done the math, and if every person who reads this takes action, we would almost definitely drive enough contacts to Congress to stop this vote. Click here to do your part.

Thanks team. We’re on the brink of another huge victory for the net. I can almost taste it. But we’ll need to remain vigilant this week.

More soon. Thanks for all you do.
-Evan Greer at Fight for the Future

P.S. Industry lobbyists are pouring into DC right now to do everything they can to buy more votes for Fast Track. Will you chip in $5 to help us fight them with our creative campaigns?Donate


[1] The New Republic. New Republic”The Scariest Trade Deal Nobody’s Talking About Just Suffered A Major Leak.”

[2] Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF “TISA: Yet Another Leaked Treaty You’ve Never Heard Of Makes Secret Rules for the Internet.”


Want more awesome more often?

* Like us on Facebook
* Follow us on Twitter

Obviously, we've all heard of the Trade in Services Agreement. That's just what was in the email

This site makes it simple to email your representatives and will even call them for you. They'll give you a script to follow if you aren't comfortable with your own words.

And thanks to Don't Call Me Shirley, here's a couple numbers you can call yourself:

Call your politicians now and keep calling to oppose this horrid "trade" deal (corporate coup)

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111 

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121 


TPP IS UNACCEPTABLE!!!!! 

Shame shame PO!

Additionally, if they should choose to do so, DU can support the fight with FFTF's easy code to add to websites and blogs. They can even increase traffic to DU by adding this:

#InternetVote Leaderboards

These sites are driving the most emails and calls to lawmakers. Want to join their ranks, as a hero? Get the code for your site.Points are assigned from how much traffic you send to Internet Vote, but you can get extra credit for miscellaneous acts of heroism that you tell us about.

StatsSites participating: 7,902 Total actions from all sites: 30,390 Total calls to Congress: 12,234 Calls to Congress (today): 426 Total emails: 112,358

Get the code

If you have a blog or website, please join the fight

There are many other links to information on the treaties on the Take Action site

[marym625]

1. kicking

This is just too important and we have very little time

[jwirr]

2. I certainly will. But my MN representative is strongly against it already. So what else can I do?

[marym625]

3. Thank them.

Spread the word? That's the most important thing we can do. We need to show people how bad these are so they will take action.

Also, the number to leave comments with the White House is in the Don't Call me Shirley part of the OP near the bottom.

Thank you, jwirr!

[marym625]

111. Just so you know

If you use the phone thing, it calls all your congressional people as well as the house and Senate leaders. It's a really awesome tool. You put in your phone number, a script comes up, you get a call and boom, you're connected, one by one to everyone you need to talk to! 

[raouldukelives]

4. Kick. Have and will continue too. nt

[marym625]

5. awesome! Thank you!

[tridim]

6. Am I allowed to read it first?

Unfortunately it doesn't exist yet, so it's not possible at this point.

And no, sausage making is not an agreement on anything.

[marym625]

7. Actually, no.

By the time we will have access to the full agreements it will be too late

There has been enough leaked to know how bad these are. If you want to allow them to pass without doing anything, if you want to ignore what we already know, that's your prerogative

[tridim]

8. No agreement on anything has been leaked. Period.

[marym625]

9. portions of both the TPP and TiSA have been leaked

[Recursion]

65. It's impossible to leak something that doesn't exist yet

It would be like "leaking" the iPhone 7. There are the USTR's positions (which legislators can read) and his report of the pushback on them he's getting from other countries.

[marym625]

106. and still, you haven't answered my question.

From the USTR propaganda site

Providing Members of Congress with plain English summaries of TPP chapters to assist Members in navigating the negotiating text.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/january/fact-sheet-transparency-and-obama

Of course it is not the done deal. That's what the fast track allows, making it a done deal. The negotiations have been ongoing for years. To state that what is available to be read under the watchful eye of the secret service, and not discussed with anyone, or shared with the public in any way under threat of prosecution, is just their thoughts on it, is ridiculous.

The only response I will give you on your claim about NAFTA is, you are obviously ill informed. The fact you don't know what is currently happening with new lawsuits against the US due to NAFTA just proves that.

I am done responding to you unless you state something from what is really going on.

[Recursion]

35. You keep saying that. How will it be "too late"?

If TPA passes, the TPP will have to be made public for 60 days before Congress can vote. That's two months to read it and express your opinion on it to your legislators. How is that "too late"?

[marym625]

39. I already answered that

I thought I answered you

[TheKentuckian]

94. Because it isn't that hard to count to 51 or 218 and remember that the TeaPubliKlans

aren't to be trusted not to fuck us any way they can much less actively be on the lookout for the best interests of the American worker, the environment, or reigning in corporate dominion.

The only reason the Republicans won't pass it is it actually is good and there is a minority of Democrats that will be Gung Ho come Hell and highwater.

Any stopping the deal is fanciful and all but purely theoretical, every Democrat could hold the line and there would still be votes to spare and we know good and well there will be no such solidarity particularly with the President whipping hard for it.

Which Republicans are reachable on workers getting hosed and what kind of clusterfuck would it take to cause every Democrat to hold on top of that?

[marym625]

184. crickets

He doesn't answer direct questions

[Omaha Steve]

49. Read reply #47

[Dont call me Shirley]

10. For every 1 call you make to your elected officials you represent 4000 constituents.

That is powerful. You are worth 4000 voices. So speak up!

And Thank You marym625 for keeping this alive! You rock

[marym625]

11. Thank you!

Thank you for keeping it out there and keeping the numbers out there.

We don't have much time left.

Representing 4000 people is a lot of people

[Dont call me Shirley]

12. ...

[marym625]

13. kick, kick, kick

[marym625]

14. kick, kick, kick

[sabrina 1]

15. Thank you, yes I absolutely will call tomorrow. I will post this on twitter also, where there is

already a huge effort to stop this. The Unions are working hard to get it stopped also.

Bernie and Barbara Lee I believe delivered over 2,000,000 signatures from various groups to Congress this week demanding that this abomination NOT be passed.

Great post, thank you. The people still do have SOME power and we better use it right now.

[marym625]

19. Thank you, Sabrina

I am not on twitter as much as I used to be but that's where I found this awesome organization, Free Press. They have done this with Net Neutrality and a couple other things and have been highly successful. I want to work for them!

We have a fighting chance so let's keep fighting!

[sabrina 1]

22. It's never been more active or more exciting. I used twitter mostly for news, following much more

than really participating. And it was great for that.

But now I am using to promote Bernie and in one week, to show you how active his supporters are, I have added over 100 followers, simply by following all the various groups who are supporting him.

Bernie has added thousands, of course, but to gain that many followers for someone who is not part of any group just by following HIS supporters, shows how enthusiastic and hard working they are.

Hope you do find time to use it. It's a fabulous tool for this kind of campaign.

[marym625]

27. agree! I will try!

[tritsofme]

16. No, I support TPA. President Obama deserves an up or down vote in Congress on the deal he negotiates

If it is a bad deal, it should be rejected. But President Obama should not be the only president in 40 years to be denied an up or down vote on the trade deals he negotiates.

[ucrdem]

18. Exactly.

Why does this stuff always wind up here?

[marym625]

45. Because it is a bad treaty for the American people.

[jberryhill]

97. Then argue to have the treaty voted down after it is available

You are essentially arguing that it should be voted down before it is read.

That doesn't seem any different than arguing it should be passed before it is read.

I continue not to see the issue with voting to proceed in order to have the opportunity to vote it down if it is a bad treaty.

[Omaha Steve]

104. That has never happened in US history on a fast track trade agreement

Why would this be the first?

[marym625]

108. The people I respect that have read it, think it is bad for America.

What I have read in the leaked documents is bad. The fast track ensures passage. And you know it as well as I do

[marym625]

20. No he shouldn't be. The others shouldn't have gotten it either.

And this is the most secret agreement ever. What's wrong with seeing it before he is given autonomy in deciding?

[tritsofme]

23. Under TPA the text of the agreement must be public for 60 days before Obama can sign

There would then be a months long process in Congress that ends in an up or down vote. Congress may reject the deal if it is a bad one.

It is rather backwards to make the text of an unfinished agreement public, Obama needs TPA to be a credible negotiating partner with the other nations, without it his word is meaningless.

[marym625]

44. Here is another way to go at it

Please take a look at this. Then explain to me why you support this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026655244

[tritsofme]

121. If House Democrats had engaged on TPA instead of providing uniform opposition

A longer review period is the sort of concession the White House should have been willing to make, but now there is very little leverage to make that happen.

It was a poor strategy, instead of helping make TPA better, Democrats shut themselves out, and will have to live with the deal the White House was able to strike largely with Republicans.

[marym625]

131. It was a show and it was bullshit.

But that doesn't mean we have to just sit back and let it pass. And I won't.

[tritsofme]

136. The opposition to TPA was a show. Opponents smelled blood, and went in for the kill

They miscalculated and made the wrong bet, it was a poor strategy. A TPA bill that passed on the strength of Democratic votes could have looked quite different

It is a shame Democrats shut themselves out of the process, Democratic input could have strengthened TPA and addressed some of the concerns you note, however the White House was left only to make a deal with Republicans.

[marym625]

180. It was a show and it was bullshit.

But that doesn't mean president Obama had to make a deal with the Republicans. I believe that the show was actually part of the deal Obama made

[Omaha Steve]

130. Obama deserves an up or down vote in Congress on the deal he negotiates??? HE?

You really think POTUS wrote this?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150605/11483831239/revealed-emails-show-how-industry-lobbyists-basically-wrote-tpp.shtml

Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP
from the well-isn't-that-great... dept

Back in 2013, we wrote about a FOIA lawsuit that was filed by William New at IP Watch. After trying to find out more information on the TPP by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and being told that they were classified as "national security information" (no, seriously), New teamed up with Yale's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic to sue. As part of that lawsuit, the USTR has now released a bunch of internal emails concerning TPP negotiations, and IP Watch has a full writeup showing how industry lobbyists influenced the TPP agreement, to the point that one is even openly celebrating that the USTR version copied his own text word for word.

What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.

The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.

More IF you care to read.

[marym625]

133. +1000

Thanks OS!

[ucrdem]

17. New Republic changed hands not so long ago and fired most of its long-time staff.

Wikileaks I've never trusted as anything but an anti-Obama disinfo mill, run by dog knows who. EFF, who knows, but I have my suspicions. And the avalanche of newly hatched one-issue astroturf sites makes me rather skeptical of such appeals.

[marym625]

21. Your prerogative

[ucrdem]

185. Likewise ...

Here's my take on TPP, from a post in the BOG:

I think it will have an immediate positive effect on the economy in terms of job gain, export volume, probably import volume too, and I think the jobs lost will be far fewer than with NAFTA, as there frankly aren't many industries left that haven't already offshored as much as they can. Plus I think the issue has been given considerable thought by Barack Obama, who reportedly asked Steve Jobs in 2011 if iPhones couldn't be made in the US, and there will be provisions and incentives discouraging job flight in the final bill.

[marym625]

198. The problem with that assessment

Is it's based on one question 4 years ago.

There is much more that we know as of just a couple days ago. We also know that countries involved in the agreement have laws that are misogynist, homophobic and they violate human rights, like Brunei. Brunei just in the last few weeks passed more laws against women and KGBT community. We know that both the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Organization for Women are imploring people to take action against the fast track authorization. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026816696

There are over 2000 organizations against the fast track. Good, trustworthy, non profit, usually liberal, organizations. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026815695

There are hundreds of links I could put here. There are multiple links in the second link I did put there. There are many factual reasons to fight the fast track.

Too support this because of a question from 4 years ago is pretty mind blowing.

[Marr]

32. Quite a stew of paranoid conspiracy theories there. /nt

[marym625]

46. +1000

[LeftOfWest]

89. noted.

[Rex]

24. It's not going to pass.

It will never become law. Too much toxic sludge now that some have peeked behind the curtain. Could hurt careers down the line.

[marym625]

28. I hope you are right

I won't count on it though. I don't trust the 1%

[Rex]

31. I don't either, but by now it has started to spoil out in the sunlight.

And you know how D.C. worries more about a cozy career getting messed up with some trade deal that won't really help anyone but China.

[marym625]

33. spoiled in the sun! love that.

It will be very interesting that's for sure

[Recursion]

25. Depends. I'll wait until it's negotiated

Then I'll read it, and decide if I support it or not.

[marym625]

29. That will be too late. But your prerogative

[Recursion]

34. How will that be "too late"? The law requires it to be public for 60 days before Congress votes

And if TPA passes, Congress will have to vote after 60 days but before 90 days.

[marym625]

37. Because at that point,

Nothing can be changed. And that is not anywhere near enough time to decipher and analyze a document that large and intricate. No way is it enough to figure out all the ramifications. And no amendment either.

I don't understand why anyone wants something that almost all the Republicans want anyway. When was the last time they wanted anything that was good for the American people?

[Recursion]

38. Right, it's an up or down vote. A country can't just unilaterally change a treaty

Congress can vote yes or no under TPA. If you end up not liking it, urge your legislators to vote no.

And that is not anywhere near enough time to decipher and analyze a document that large and intricate.

Umm... that's silly. It will take a couple of hours to read.

I don't understand why anyone wants something that almost all the Republicans want anyway.

Most Republican voters oppose free trade agreements. Most Democratic voters support free trade agreements. Republican legislators generally support FTAs, but they're going against their base in doing so.

[marym625]

42. What?

Even if it can be read in just a couple of hours, to analyze and decipher exactly what the ramifications will be will take much longer. Much longer. Hell, it took years and we're still discovering new horrors of NAFTA.

This Republican Congress supports passing this treaty.

The straight up and down vote is bullshit. And with the time allotted to argue different points, and the inability to change anything, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.

Your answer ignoring the fact the greater majority of the Republicans in Congress want these agreements, doesn't answer my question.

[Recursion]

63. We aren't "discovering the new horrors of NAFTA"; people are just completely making shit up

about NAFTA.

Seriously, who can look at the post-NAFTA labor market (the only increase in working incomes since the 1960s) and say that it was a bad deal?

[NanceGreggs]

82. Really?

"Even if it can be read in just a couple of hours, to analyze and decipher exactly what the ramifications will be will take much longer. Much longer."

And yet ... a bunch of people on DU have purportedly read "leaks" of the agreement, and apparently KNOW exactly how bad it is, and exactly what the ramifications will be.

And they continue to post endlessly about their "analysis and deciphering" and "ramifications", regardless of not having the "much, much longer time" necessary to do so.

So how does that work?

[marym625]

107. Oh come on, Nance,

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

We usually don't agree. But I really expect better than that from you. You're too smart for that.

We can see and read a very small portion, the parts that have been leaked. We can easily tell, for instance, that the most recent leaked piece regarding pharmaceuticals, will cause big pharm corporations to dictate higher prices and cost consumers even more than it does now. But to put it with other aspects of the agreement, how far that can go, what international laws they can dictate, what it means to labor, etc etc etc will take quite a while to figure out. And that is just a tiny piece of it.

We can't even come to a consensus on a democratic site. Imagine how long a debate in Congress would take.

Please, be real if you are going to respond

[NanceGreggs]

143. Here's what is real ...

The finalized version of the treaty has not yet been released. Therefore, any "leaked" provisions may or may not be included in the final version. And that's even assuming that any or all of the "leaks" are even legit.

"We can easily tell, for instance, that the most recent leaked piece regarding pharmaceuticals, will cause big pharm corporations to dictate higher prices and cost consumers even more than it does now."

Who is "we"? What is the specific provision being referred to? If you've only read "a very small portion" of a lengthy, complicated agreement, how do you KNOW if and how any single provision is affected by other provisions you have not "seen"?

You might have noticed that all of the DU "experts" who carry on about how drugs will cost more, jobs will more easily be off-shored, etc., never point to specific provisions they've "read" and offer an explanation - on a well-grounded legal basis - of HOW specific provisions will do what they claim they will do.

As a court reporter of 30-plus years, I have worked on cases involving international trade agreements, and I have seen judges and lawyers - experts in this particular field of law - who have been completely flummoxed by the wording and intent of treaty provisions, and have spent weeks, sometimes months, poring over lengthy agreements in their entirety in an attempt to understand the inter-relationship between the provisions contained therein.

Any yet, a bunch of posters on a message board can read snippets of "leaks" and declare exactly how this treaty will work and what its impacts will be - despite their lack of expertise or experience in the area, and despite the fact that the cannot possibly have read the agreement in its entirety. Add to that mix the fact that the "leaks" they've read may not even be part of the finalized version, rendering any opinion on same a moot point.

You might also have noticed that many of the DU "experts" who have been posting the we're all doomed posts have been corrected repeatedly when they post completely inaccurate information - e.g. no one can see the actual agreement until it has been in force for five years - and yet persist in repeating that kind of min-information as though it were fact. So much for the "experts" who can allegedly decipher a complex document and KNOW all of its ramifications - but can't even get a simple common sense fact straight.

So please be real yourself - you don't KNOW what is in the final agreement, nor do you KNOW its effects. You are simply relying on a bunch of people on a website to tell you what to think about something THEY know nothing about either.

[marym625]

145. You made my point for me.

Thanks for that.

Don't assume what I have read, can decipher or what my background is.

I have not seen anyone claim to be an expert. What I have seen are leaked documents that no one has stated are incorrect, that have pretty detailed verbiage, that cannot possibly be analyzed completely, especially considering the chapters and pages we have not yet seen and have to be taken as a whole, in 60 or 90 days. A statement which you obviously agree.

That said, I can use common sense. I can read both the leaked documents and the analysis of them.

I also know that the secrecy in "the most transparent administration" is both telling and frightening. When 600 corporations not only see everything but have the right to comment on proposals, when union leaders and citizens don't, when only Congress persons with security clearance can view it but not take notes or share the contents with anyone under threat of prosecution, that's a problem. It's a huge problem.

Additionally, we already know how trade agreements have worked out for the average American in the past. We have no reason whatsoever to trust this will be good. None.

Of course it's not done. No one has said it is. But we have no opportunity to change anything that is bad with the fast track. The purpose of the fast track is to give permission for it to be finalized. Why would we do that without knowing what's in it? Because we trust corporate America? Because we trust the Republicans that have worked against us for decades? Sorry, President Obama is not trust worthy in this IMHO. Especially after his snide comments about Elizabeth Warren

Every single elected official that I respect that has read the documents is against this.

It absolutely amazes me that anyone would want something that will have such a deep and long impact on our country, would want to fast track these agreements. It's contrary to everything we should want as citizens of this nation.

600 corporations have a say and we can't even see it. That should worry everyone

I am happy to discuss this but I won't respond to more bs like, "You are simply relying on a bunch of people on a website to tell you what to think about something THEY know nothing about either."

[NanceGreggs]

147. I don't know how you could think ...

... that "I made your point for you".

My point was that you haven't seen the entire agreement, nor do you know if what you are applying your "common sense " to is even part of the final agreement.

"The purpose of the fast track is to give permission for it to be finalized. Why would we do that without knowing what's in it?" What is in it WILL be known at least sixty days before it can be signed.

Fast-tracking means a yes or no vote - because if it didn't, the treaty would be open to debate literally forever and would have no chance of ever being implemented. Such a "debate" would mean that every comma, every word, every term would be argued and re-argued until the end of time.

International trade agreements have always been negotiated in secret. Whether you like it or not, THIS is the way it's always been done. It is not up to Obama, or anyone else, to disclose what 12 nations have agreed to keep behind closed doors as part of the negotiation process.

Of course corporations have input. You don't negotiate treaties that involve corporations without their input - any more than you would negotiate building a bridge between two countries without the input of civil engineers. Expertise in many fields is required. Negotiating teams from the various countries include such expertise, such as advice from international tax experts who assess things like duties on goods that will be enforced or waived, etc.

Of course no one on DU has declared themselves "an expert". They just rant on and on about what they KNOW to be facts without anything concrete to support those "facts".

"President Obama is not trust worthy in this IMHO. Especially after his snide comments about Elizabeth Warren."

So now we get to the crux of the matter. Obama said something about Warren that you don't like - ergo, he is not "trustworthy" when it comes to negotiating trade agreements. Got it.

[marym625]

177. Are you seriously going to pretend that this is about what President Obama said to Warren?

I gave many reasons I am against fast track and that's what you choose to say is "the crux of the matter"? Unbelievable. And completely and totally wrong. I don't trust President Obama because he has given everyone good reason not to trust him. His attacks, his condescending remarks about Elizabeth Warren were terrible.

O'Neill said Obama's "clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about. I think it was disrespectful."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/241845-now-president-obamas-warren-critique-sexist

But the biggest reason I don't trust President Obama in this trade deal, besides his constant coziness with Wall Street, is that he publicly criticizes those that have read it and publicly challenges them to tell him what's wrong, knowing full well that they have told him but cannot do so publicly, unless they want to go to jail. That's cowardly and shady.

Those still are not the biggest reasons I am against the fast track and the TPP.

I was not for NAFTA, CAFTA, or some other trade agreements. And so far, I've been right.

Of course corporations have input. You don't negotiate treaties that involve corporations without their input  Sure, but God and Obama forbid, citizens and unions that will be effected have any input. Hypocrisy much?

Yes, you made my argument for me. Regardless of what your point is. The ramifications cannot possibly be analyzed in 60 days. Even with an up and down vote, to give that vote, to even ask for that vote, when the agreements can't possibly be fully understood, is irresponsible at best, definitely unethical, and against the best interest of the American people most assuredly.

Your claim that it's not a done deal is moot. To even use that as an argument is ridiculous. You think that what is now written will change so much between now and the documents being presented that what is written means nothing? That the documents that President Obama is inviting Congress to view, with security clearance, under the watchful eye of the secret service, unable to copy, write any of it down or share anything about under threat of prosecution (you know, that transparent document in the White House of the most transparent administration ever) is nothing like what will be presented if the fast track passes? The documents that President Obama says is so wonderful is not even close to what will be approved by him?

Trade Agreements are negotiated in secret, but the secrecy around these agreements is unprecedented. Quoting Michael Wessel,

But the ability of TPP critics like me to point out the deal’s many failings is limited by the government’s surprising and unprecedented refusal to make revisions to the language in the TPP fully available to cleared advisors.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#ixzz3cj6hBA2V. That is up to Obama and it has never before happened in our history.

I know what the fast track does, thank you, I already said it. Since we have already agreed that 60 days is not long enough to analyze what all the ramifications could and will be, I will skip that part. To not be able to change anything or amend anything, guarantees the agreements will pass as is. There is nothing currently in Congress that will guarantee any safeguards against currency manipulation and other horrors that we do already know are in, or not in, the agreements. But even if they are only suspected, like the free for all on environment, there is nothing we will be able to do to change it.

It has never happened that fast track authority was given and the treaties didn't pass.

There is no way that ONLY corporate stooges and Wall Street bankers are the only experts available to do negotiations on these treaties. Absolutely ludicrous to claim that 600 different corporations are needed as experts yet no union organizers or civilians experts (non corporate) in those same areas are not. 600 corporations.

You did say, "You might have noticed that all of the DU "experts'" so I don't know why you are back tracking on that.

We don't know exactly what is in the agreement. What we do know is highly suspect.

We do know that well respected people and many well respected Democrats in office, who have read it state it is bad for American people.

We do know that the Republicans, that have done nothing good for the American people in decades, are for the agreement.

We do know that negotiators are almost all Wall Street bankers and corporations that have screwed the American people and the American government over, repeatedly, for decades.

We do know that some countries involved in the treaties are horrible on women's rights, LGBT rights and human rights in general.

We do know that both Terry O'Neill, President of NOW, and Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority, have spoken out against the TPP. To quote Ms. Smeal, "TPP is a bad deal for women"

https://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/06/03/groups-hold-national-day-of-action-to-oppose-fast-tracking-of-tpp/

http://now.org/blog/trade-partner-bruneis-penal-code-promises-to-flog-women-lgbt-persons/

We do know that the best and most trusted environmental groups, including The Sierra Club, are against the fast track.

We do know that over 100 liberal, Democratic and progressive organizations are against the fast track.

Some of the organizations against the fast track http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026810491

2,000 Organizations Are Opposing Fast Track Authority for TPP

We do know that ALEC, The Heritage Foundation and other right wing organizations funded by big corp, including big pharm, want fast track authority.

But President Obama wants it and we should just trust him. Got it

[NanceGreggs]

178. I was just quoting ...

... your own words. You were the one who thought it important to bring up "Obama's remarks to Warren", not me.

Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of posters who are always ranting about how bad the TPP will be are the same posters who are always ranting about how everything Obama has ever said, done, or proposed is always WRONG, WRONG, WRONG?

Do you think that's just an amazing coincidence? Or do you sense some semblance of a pattern there?

[marym625]

179. What is amazing is that you are ignoring everything else.

Have you ever noticed that those who are always saying every single thing President Obama has done is wonderful, can't see the forest for the trees?

I have not been one of the people that has said everything President Obama has said and done is bad. Hasn't happened. I don't, however, pretend that everything is wonderful. I brought it up because it is relevant. It was bad enough for Terry O'Neill to publicly comment on it. Or does she fall under your excuse to ignore everything else as well?

So how about skipping that criticism, which seems to be a go to instead of addressing issues with people who can't recognize that mistakes have been made, about me and my thoughts on President Obama and deal with the issue at hand?

[Hotler]

154. If this was such a good deal for the American worker there.....

would not be the level of secrecy about it. The President and others would be welcoming everybody to read it, copy it and discuss open and freely.

[NanceGreggs]

155. I don't know why this needs to be repeated ...

... over and over on this site.

All int'l trade deals are conducted in secret. That is the way they have always been done, and probably always will be.

There are 12 countries involved here. It is not up to Obama to disclose what all twelve have agreed to keep secret until negotiations are finalized.

[marym625]

186. The secrecy involved in these agreements is unprecedented

And it has nothing to do with the other countries involved.

I really don't know why this has to be repeated

[NanceGreggs]

194. The secrecy is not unprecented.

It is the way it's always been done.

To say that an international treaty involving twelve countries has "nothing to do with the other countries involved" is about as politically naive as one can be.

[marym625]

195. Nice that you know better than negotiators

That have been involved in multiple negotiations, including this and NAFTA.

To say that you know more than people involved in negotiations, including someone involved in international treaties for the US for four decades is incredibly arrogant.

[NanceGreggs]

196. How so?

Did the negotiators from other nations agree with your assessment that "it has nothing to do with the other countries involved"?

[marym625]

197. my assessment?

You have obviously not read about this. Not on your own or even links provided to you

This is not my assessment. There are procedures that are dictated within each country that are beyond what is required on a whole. What President Obama is doing is unprecedented and his decision.

It makes no difference what each country does beyond the scope of privacy required. It makes a difference what we are doing.

[Hotler]

191. I don't care how it has been done in the past. It needs to change.

I don't put up with this kind of secrecy with my City Council and I for sure not going to put up with it and let it slide with this or any other administration.

[marym625]

187. The secrecy involved in these agreements is unprecedented

Please see my reply #177 and the quote and article by Michael Wessel

[Hoyt]

157. +1000

[AuntPatsy]

26. Kicking

[marym625]

30. Thank you!

[Hoyt]

36. Not this bull again about it being secret for 5 years. That's the negotiating documents, not the

final agreement which will be available months before it even has a chance of being ratified. Most folks spreading this junk, won't read it anyway.

[marym625]

40. Not this bull again.

Whatever, hoyt. You just keep pushing for the horror that is the TPP and I will keep pushing the truth.

[Omaha Steve]

47. Then why are our representatives reading it for the last month or so?

In secret. No notes. Under guard. It was in all the papers.

No it hasn't been written.

[marym625]

48. +1000

[Hoyt]

57. Simple, it too is a negotiating document. The final agreement, assuming there is one, will be

available for you to read every word. Do you actually plan on doing that?

[Omaha Steve]

58. Have YOU read anything on this?

Cause you see to be swimming in that river in Egypt.

Try reading something yourself.

[Hoyt]

60. I've read almost everything available, including this kind of junk. Go read the TPA

passed by the Senate and you will see the final document, again assuming there is one, will be available before Obama submits it to Congress, again assuming he thinks it is good for America.

[Omaha Steve]

61. So on a Democratic board you agree with the majority of Republican's on just this one issue???

Want to buy a bridge?

Ignorance is no excuse.

[Recursion]

62. The majority of Republican voters oppose the TPP and free trade agreements in general

Republican representatives are for it, but they go against their base on that.

Democratic voters are more positive on FTAs than Republicans, though recent polls show Democratic voters souring on the TPP also.

Hoyt and I (and a few others) have views on trade that are not popular on DU, and increasingly less popular among Democrats in general, but still more popular among the Democratic rank and file than the Republican rank and file.

[Omaha Steve]

67. So the POTUS is acting in our best interests on this with a Congress that wants to destroy him?

A congress that has been run by the party of NO!

I want to be sure I got this right.

[Recursion]

70. Stopped clocks. DU is just wrong about trade; it happens

In particular, DU confuses cause and effect here. NAFTA was a response to globalization and offshoring, not its cause. The jobs that left would have left with or without NAFTA, we'd just be paying more for shirts. Ditto TPP. The jobs that are going to go to Indonesia are going to go there (and, as always, China and India are taking a lot more jobs than any country we have a FTA with -- because China and India will never agree to the required labor and environmental protections for an FTA).

[Omaha Steve]

73. HHHMMM

Even the right wing press: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/exclusive-busted-freshman-gop-rep-admits-she-hasnt-read-obamatrade-backs-msnbcs-defense-of-deal-secrecy/

Right now, the text of the TPP is being kept in the basement of the Capitol in secure facilities on both the House and Senate sides—and only members of Congress, and some staffers with high enough clearance levels who can only go in the room with members, are allowed in there to read it. Obama could publicly release that text if he wanted to, but he has thus far decided to keep it secret.


That doesn't sound like the draft several DUers keep calling it, does it?

I wouldn't bring up China while a Clinton runs for POTUS. That could be dangerous on this board.

[Recursion]

74. No, there is no "the text of the TPP" to be kept anywhere

Right now the USTR's negotiation records are being kept secretly in the Capitol basement.

Obama could publicly release that text if he wanted to, but he has thus far decided to keep it secret.

I suppose he could declassify it, if he wanted to completely piss off all the countries we're negotiating with. Not sure why he'd want to do that, though.

[Omaha Steve]

76. I'm growing tired of somebody that can't read 100's of articles about what is going on and get it

So it is better to piss us off after it is finally revealed???

I'm calling it a night.

[Dragonfli]

85. It is not surprising that someone who gains financially when jobs are shipped to India

Would be in favor of deals that favor the fortunes of Mumbai over Main St. USA.

It makes perfect sense Steve, it has much to do with self interest and personal fortunes.

[Hoyt]

90. India is not party to any of these agreements.

[Recursion]

93. What does India have to do with the TPP? (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

100. It's obvious that the human rights abuses in some of the signatory nations don't bother you at all

You are comfortable with creating favored status with Brunei, which is establishing horrific religious law which it says it is doing to insulate the culture from globalization even as Brunei seeks to take part in globalization Brunei says they are going to chop the heads off of gay persons to protect Brunei from the TPP of which Brunei was an initiating party.

That alone is reason to reject this crap. Those of you who support it need to never, ever claim to be allies of LGBT or supporters of human rights because they are not.

[Dragonfli]

102. it has more to do with fast track, there are three "trade" deals we are being prepped for,

TISA should be a real money maker for you, you would be remiss were you not aware of that, but somehow, I think you are.


I understand, money is money and the rest of human need can suck eggs (from your prospective).

"Screw you I'm getting mine" is after all the mating call of the well to do international neoliberal. Here in the States, we have a different call "why are all the jobs gone"

[neverforget]

78. Bush made the Free Trade of the America's Agreement publicly available

Senate Debate Reveals Absurd Levels of Trade Deal Secrecy

Hatch conveniently overlooked that fact that even if lawmakers find specific problems in a deal, there would be little they could do to stop it because fast-track allows no amendments and no filibusters.

The solution of posting a partially redacted version of a deal for everyone to see -- before the president gets fast-track powers -- isn't a new idea, or even a Democratic one, Manchin said. He pointed out that President George W. Bush released the text of the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement.

"He did this months before he was granted fast-track authority," Manchin said. "He wasn't afraid to let us see. He wasn't afraid of the American public to know what was in that ... it didn't squelch the deal. It didn't harm anything."

Confronted with those details, Hatch seemed somewhat bemused, but didn't contradict them or back down and agree to a vote on the senators' bill.

"We supported the president's position, if I recall it correctly," Hatch said when asked if he remembered Bush's transparency.

[Hoyt]

69. Well, you apparently are agreeing with the majority of Tbaggers who hate having

anything to do with foreigners, including the TPP.

[LeftOfWest]

87. Disgusting.

Absolutely disgusting Hoyt.

"but but but"

No...DISGUSTING.

You get yours, we get it.

Disgusting.

[Art_from_Ark]

171. It is absolutely disgusting

to unabashedly shill for such an abomination.

[Joe Turner]

56. Documents running hundreds of pages requiring prior security clearance

with no right to take notes is effectively secret. And has been for 5 years. Your transparent corporate shilling to the contrary. Thanks to Wiki leaks we at least have some understanding of what the corporate welfare cabal wants to drop on the American people. You need to get a real job.

[Hoyt]

59. Those are negotiating documents. You will see the entire final agreement, assuming

there is one, months before Obama submits it to Congress, assuming he decides it's good for America. My bet is you won't read it, because you don't even understand what is going on, or what the TPA passed by the Senate says.

[Joe Turner]

64. What a laugh. Obama has already made up his mind on TPP

He is for it and has been since it was conceived. Who are you trying to fool? And you think a month is enough for congress to analyze something of this magnitude with all the noise of a full court press from the corporate lobbyists? You are quite the obtuse one.

[Hoyt]

66. 90 days is the shortest period, it could be longer. You don't even know enough facts upon which

to base you conjecture on the impact of the agreement.

[Joe Turner]

72. As discussed at length with you in other threads

The history of corporate trade agreements have been an unmitigated disaster for this country starting with NAFTA on down. That this agreement gives even more power to corporations to sue governments and has been written by corporate lobbyists coupled with what we already know about TPP is more than enough convincing for me that this agreement is pure poison to the country. Spinners gotta spin I guess.

[Recursion]

75. Citation needed

NAFTA was a good deal. The late 1990s was the only wage increase for working Americans in the past 40 years.

[sabrina 1]

68. Millions of people say you are wrong, including some our most trusted Democrats. This is a travesty

no better than when Bush tried it and airc, on forums like this, there were no excuses made for HIS trying to Fast Track his Trade Bill. Sometimes I don't get the change of heart on issues that Dems appeared to be so committed to back then.

Dems STOPPED Bush from Fast Tracking his Trade Bill for all the reasons we are still trying to stop yet another one. I went back to read their speeches from 2007 and remember how proud we were that Dems were so committed to end this practice for all the right reasons.

The opposition to this is the most of seen to almost anything in this country. I am at a loss to understand Obama's participation in this. I supported this President assuming from what he conveyed to us at the time, that this would be something he would never even consider. But here we are ...

[Hoyt]

71. Millions of Americans say you are wrong too, including Democrats.

Do you not believe the final document will be available to review at least 90 days before Congress votes? Or are you one of those who know this so-called "secret" agreement is bad for America, through some psychic knowledge?

[Omaha Steve]

79. 90 sure, but...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/08/exclusive-busted-freshman-gop-rep-admits-she-hasnt-read-obamatrade-backs-msnbcs-defense-of-deal-secrecy/

and what would be different between this time and all previous trade deals on fast track, since none in U.S. history have ever been stopped

[sabrina 1]

80. No I know what will happen if Fast Tracking passes. It will be a done deal, the vote will nothing

because once it is Fast Tracked, Congress has given up its right to fix anything in the bill that will harm the American people, no amendments can be added, nothing will change, and we KNOW that what is known about it is badly in need of changing.

Why do you support this? Did you support Bush's efforts to do this also?

And please don't give me the 'I trust Obama' nonsense. This won't be FOR Obama, it is a six year deal, he will not have the powers it will give the Executive Branch for for five of those six years. Do you trust this to Jeb Buhs, to Santorum, to any of the Republicans?

All I can say is that if it does pass, then we must work overtime to make sure the powers Obama is fighting so hard for, goes to Bernie Sanders, the only candidate I would trust not to abuse, them.

[Dragonfli]

86. It also makes the vote unique in the Senate as fast track lowers the vote threshold from over sixty

Which we are told is the reason we can't have nice things to a simple majority. People forget that nifty little point.

[Hoyt]

91. Not true. The Senate TPA allows Congress to rescind Fast Track if it does not meet objectives

in the legislation. And there is nothing to prevent Congress from withholding approval pending Obama getting something changed. One call from Boehner to Obama saying, "we have no choice but to vote No if you don't get this changed, " is all it would take.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Anyone counting on Boehner and company to look out for American workers and the environment is

straight delusional or a conartist.

The only reason Sir John of Orange makes that call is if the deal is too good for the people not the reverse.

It is one thing for you to support the deal but once you insistently tell us to count on the Republicans to protect us if the deal isn't good for us and the environment then you have crossed into full on snake oil sales because no honest, decent, sane, and reasonable person would ever pretend any such thing.

You are taking Chickens for Colonel Sanders to whole new level here.

[Hoyt]

96. I'm correcting the incorrect post I responded to. Congress can force a change in

the agreement. Whether they will is a different matter.

[sabrina 1]

119. Sure they can, then why Fast Track it? Bring it to the floor so the people KNOW what is in it.

Since WHEN did we the people LOSE THE RIGHT to know what is in a Bill that will affect us for generations? Can you explain that?

The sheer incomprehensibility of supporting handing over the rights that many people DIED FOR to Corporations is so far beyond my comprehension I cannot even grasp the reality that there are actually people willing to do that.

I asked you before. Did you support Bush's attempt to Fast Track his Trade Bill?

[Hoyt]

120. You haven't lost the right. You know a lot now, you will know everything before it goes to Congress

Now, whether you will actually read it -- and understand it -- is a different issue.

I don't think this is handing over rights people died for to corporations. Sounds a bit hyperbolic and fails to understand that 2500 trade agreements since 1959 have the same kind of dispute mechanisms in them, developed by the UN and WTO.

Are you opposed to the United Nations?

I did not support anything bush did after he bombed Iraq. Hope that answers your irrelevant question.

[marym625]

134. man you're condescending.

If you don't want to take action against the fast track of the agreements you know will be horrible for the average American, more power to you. But cut the shit that you are in any way better than anyone here.

It's unbecoming at a minimum.

I am done with you. Have a good day

[Hoyt]

135. I guess posting accusing me of being a callous, right winger is OK with you, though.

I happen to believe this agreement and others will help far more people in the future, than it could possibly hurt (and that's assuming it hurts anyone that is at risk whether or not the agreement proceeds).

[marym625]

137. Don't try to play the blame game when your first reply was "not this bull again"

You came here looking for trouble with your insolence. You don't get to then blame others for responding in kind.

Enough.

[Hoyt]

138. Well the OP did include blatant mistruths. I guess those are OK with you too.

[Omaha Steve]

139. 100's of articles, every progressive talk host against this...

And WE are using blatant mistruths?

[Hoyt]

140. You got it, every self-styled "progressive" talk show host trying to build a following.

[Omaha Steve]

141. And the night hosts on MSNBC?

They are lying to us too?

[Elwood P Dowd]

142. Everyone against TPP is lying to you.

Only the all knowing Hoyt and his buddies at Heritage, CATO, Fox News, and the Business Roundtable speak the truth.

[Omaha Steve]

148. Why couldn't I see that

[Hoyt]

144. I watch Big Ed almost every night. But he makes so many blunders discussing TPP

that I think he got too many concussions playing football.

One night he was trying to claim NAFTA didn't have a dispute settlement mechanism like that in TPP. Even his regular guests were trying to tell him he was wrong. He was spitting and blubbering so much, it was embarrassing.

[Omaha Steve]

146. Rachel

Published on Apr 23, 2015
Say NO on Fast Track for a Secret Trade deal! President Obama’s intentions may be good, but SECRECY is the problem. NO! on any Fast Track vote until it’s all made public. Democratic Senators already have 7 PAGES of important guarantees & necessary amendments to protect our planet's environment, labor, and America’s middle class.

Senator Elizabeth Warren explains to Rachel why she’s reluctant to ‘Grease the Skids’ & give ‘fast track’ power to President Obama on a new TPP trade deal, citing concerns that the crafting of the deal was 'RIGGED” by predatory corporations for the 1% corporate elite and against our middle class. She insists the TPP agreement be made public BEFORE a Fast Track vote.

[Hoyt]

149. Sadly Senator Warren is one of the main ones spreading misinformation.

[Omaha Steve]

150. And know we know who it is that doesn't understand the issue

But since you support the POTUS on this. What happened to the "keep your own doctor" promise of the ACA! See the similarity?

Say all you want. No one listens to you and your line of crap. Surprised? Brought it on yourself.

[Hoyt]

156. So now you are going to attack ACA, what's next?

Fact is, you can keep your own docs, if you wanna pay extra for it.

[Omaha Steve]

158. Oh 7 years later YOU add it will cost more to what the POTUS meant

And what will YOU say 7 years after this crap passes about being wrong?

[Hoyt]

159. Are you covered by ACA?

[Omaha Steve]

161. I have ins as a retiree

And ACA did change some things in our union contracted health benefit. It is possible not long from now I'll have to pay the cadillac tax.

ACA benefited the insurance companies more than anything else. But then their lobbyists wrote it. Hey. I just realized. ACA and TPP have lobbyists in common.

Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150605/11483831239/revealed-emails-show-how-industry-lobbyists-basically-wrote-tpp.shtml

And little citizens like us can't read the TTP no matter what. But over 600 lobbyists can read it online, while elected representatives can't.

But the point was the POTUS wasn't exactly right about what ACA would be or do.

[Hoyt]

162. Environmentalists, Unions, doctors, post office, AARP, have lobbyists too, just like corporations.

In any event, you have health insurance, probably earned every penny of it, yet you want to deny it to other folks because you might have to pay a Cadillac tax.

[Omaha Steve]

163. I'm not denying anybody ADA

The point is what the POTUS said ADA would be, and the end result are different.

YOU might start considering the POTUS might be wrong on TPP too.

You really think any off the 600+ that have net access to the ultra secret national security TPP represent the people fighting it?

[Hoyt]

164. He was right on both, and got us the best deal possible. Anyone else would

have walked away and said the heck with the whiners and right wing obstrictionists.

[Omaha Steve]

165. So now TPP is just the best the POTUS could get?

I wish he had walked away from TPP or some of the other trade deals! I'm tired of the workers in the US getting the big stick. And that is exactly what TPP is.

Now you know why many DUers have just learned to ignore you on TPP.

[Omaha Steve]

188. It wasn't this clip of Ed

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/sanders-calls-out-clinton-on-tpp-453534275524

[Omaha Steve]

41. I just got to this party

K&R!

[marym625]

43. Thank you, OS!

I don't think I am going to respond to naysayers anymore. They are disparaging the links. They're saying wikileaks is lying (funny how not one person who has read the actual docents has stated that the leaked information is wrong) They ignore the fact that the majority of the Democrats are against it and all the Republicans are for it, the fact so many other countries are also protesting it, the fact that Eleanor O'Neill has come out strongly against it, means nothing.

Just don't understand.

[daleanime]

50. K&R.....

[marym625]

51. Thank you, deleanime!

[daleanime]

52. Are you kidding?

Thank you for the good OP.

[marym625]

53. Your subject scared me

.

I appreciate that! Thank you and you're welcome!

[daleanime]

101. Sorry about that....

believe me, know where you're coming from on that.

[marym625]

109. No worries!

The message was wonderful!

[Oilwellian]

54. Obama's signature on these agreements...

will be suicide for the Democratic party.

[marym625]

55. +a kazillion!

I hope that he and others realize that SOON!

[stage left]

77. K&R

Clicked to be added to the petition and retweeted. My Congressman is Trey Gowdy. So I'm guessing he's probably for it; he usually supports whatever's going that's stupid or harmful. But I'll call him anyway.

[marym625]

110. Thank you!

If you use the phone thing, it calls all your congressional people as well as Pelosi. It's a really awesome tool. You put in your phone number, a script comes up, you get a call and boom, you're connected, one by one to everyone you need to talk to!

Thanks again!

[nenagh]

81. K&R

Thank you, marym625...

[marym625]

112. Thank you for taking part!

[AzDar]

83. K & R

[marym625]

113. Thanks for the kick and for taking part!

[Elwood P Dowd]

84. It's disgusting that people claiming to be liberals or progressives come on this board

and post talking points and revisionist history that come straight out of the talking points lists put out by groups such as Heritage, CATO, Business Roundtable, Chamber Of Commerce, Fox News, the RNC, etc.
when it comes to fake free trade deals like TPP. Some of them are posting to this OP with the same rabid and radical fervor you would expect from the likes of Tom Donohue (former Chamber head) or William Kristol or some Fox News business reporter.

Do you ever wonder just whose agenda are they pushing? Why do they want another one of these fake free trade deals so badly?

[Art_from_Ark]

88. Some of those people belittle liberals elsewhere

For example,

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10026649703#post70

[Elwood P Dowd]

132. Notice that one always recs his own posts and has the same little group

of people rec his posts. Which one is giving the marching orders with the lists of corporate/repuke talking points?

[Maedhros]

151. Well, that particularly disingenuous and offensive poster has been on my ignore list for years,

exactly for the kind of crap you just linked to.

And he's not the only one to have posted that exact talking point. Wonder where it's coming from? My guess is it's the Center for American Progress [sic], the propaganda arm of the Third Way.

[Hoyt]

92. Brookings supports what they think TPP will say when finalized, assuming it is.

[Art_from_Ark]

167. Who gives a shit what Brookings "thinks" might be the final agreement

Just because they believe in pie-in-the-sky doesn't mean the rest of us have to acquiesce to such a ridiculous notion.

[Hoyt]

168. They've done the research. Few here have dine ant research.

[Art_from_Ark]

169. And I have heard from people who were actually involved in the negotiations

and they say it is a disaster in the making.

[Hoyt]

170. You are talking to corporatists, because to hear you guys, they are the ones negotiating it?

[Art_from_Ark]

172. What nonsense

No one has stated that only corporations have been involved in the negotiations, just that they have had far too much influence in the formulation of the agreement. Government officials have also been involved in the negotiations, as if you didn't already know that.

Geez, you are such a shill for this shit.

[Hoyt]

173. So who have you been talking to that has been involved? You made the claim.

[Art_from_Ark]

174. I made a couple of OPs about this a couple of weeks ago

There was an event in Tokyo last month that featured speakers who were closely involved with the TPP negotiations, including a current member of the Japanese Diet and a former agriculture minister. You even posted something in one of those threads. I have also watched televised broadcasts of TPP debates in the Japanese Diet. You on the other hand are relying on rosy pie-in-the-sky claims and resort to labeling people who have genuine apprehensions about this secretive agreement as "teabaggers" and "xenophobes".

To paraphrase the late great Joseph Nye Welch, "Have you no sense of shame, sir?"

[Hoyt]

175. Oh, so it's not just corporations involved in the negotiations, as folks keep saying.

[Art_from_Ark]

176. Folks don't keep saying that,

they're just sick of corporations having had so much undue influence in the negotiations, while the average citizen has been kept in the dark.

Once again, Have you no shame, sir?

[Hoyt]

189. You sure seem to know a lot about it for having been kept in the dark.

[Omaha Steve]

190. Only because of leaks

You still believe TPP isn't finished. Who is in the dark is a matter of opinion.

[Romulox]

114. Ever seen a conservo-crat banned from this board? Me neither. nt

[marym625]

115. I used to wonder

Now I am convinced they're either paid shills or they have a great deal of money to be made by its passage. Or both.

It's rather disconcerting

[Hotler]

98. Asking members of DU to fight......

[marym625]

116. Well I didn't mean with each other.

[Hotler]

153. I know that. DU members do not fight........

It is easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch than to get out there and do some REAL protesting. The largest progressive web in the world did nothing but sit back while occupy Wall St. got their asses kicked by the cops. There should have been hundreds of thousands of people in the street over the great melt down. With that many people the cops would not have had a chance. I have been told many, many times here that protesting will not work and our only chance is to vote every two to four years. We don't have any years left. The time to make a stand and to fight is now.

[marym625]

181. I agree

Except for a few things. One is calling and writing Congress does, or can, make a difference. Another is that getting the information out there is very important. It is good to share the information and discuss what it means, what the ramifications may be, etc I will also say there are quite a few older people here, and sick people, who can't get out there. Many of them put in their time on the streets protesting

That said, you are completely right. Every single one of us that was able, should have been out there. I believe some were. I certainly didn't do my part when it came to Occupy. I gave money. I was out there one day in Chicago. My excuse was I was wondering an average of 80 hours a week at the time. I still should have been out there when I could

Yes, the time is now. I am glad to see the resurgence of Occupy

We still need to take action via email and calls on this every day

Thank you for your efforts in Occupy

[LWolf]

99. Done.

I expect another email from Ron Wyden explaining why I'm wrong.

[Art_from_Ark]

103. Wyden's the guy who desperately needs this agreement

to sell blueberries.

How anyone can sell blueberries without a 15,000-page, 12-country "trade" agreement is beyond my understanding

[marym625]

117. Thank you!

I expect one from Quigley. He says he's for fast track and against the TPP. Not possible

[Maedhros]

152. I will never, ever vote for Wyden again. [n/t]

[Omaha Steve]

105. Let us all read it

http://www.readthetpp.com/

[marym625]

118. LOL!

Love this. That's done by the same organization that did the stuff in my OP.

Thanks!

[Lifelong Protester]

122. Another K & R

[marym625]

123. Thank you!

We don't have long to stop this.

[Lifelong Protester]

124. I'll do what I can!

From Wisconsin, where we really need 'regime change'.

[marym625]

125. Oh so sorry!

Yes, you do! Big time!

[Lifelong Protester]

128. Emailed! Twice!

Can't call from work.

[marym625]

129. awesome!

Thanks! We might actually get somewhere!

[libodem]

126. Glad this is out there

And some of us can personally send our message. I just made one call.and was connected to my Rep, Leader of the Democratic Party, Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer's office.

Call those numbers and tell your Rep!!!!

[marym625]

127. ain't it an awesome site with a great tool?

Thanks for taking part. I did it yesterday, today and will do it every day until the vote.

Please call the White House comment line too. It's in the OP but here you go Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111  

[mmonk]

160. Been fighting it since day one.

It' really sad Obama is pushing it given his victories in health care and the meager (but better than nothing) stimulus that helped stem the jobs hemorrhaging that followed the economic collapse of 2007/2008. But I recognize in the age of corporatism, I'm on my own and is why I support Bernie Sanders. The US is a fucking train wreck in slow motion.

[marym625]

182. +1000

I don't understand it I really don't. DADT ending was huge! -Just huge. The ACA sure could have been better, but it's much better than what we had. I don't understand why he is pushing so hard that he is basically sleeping with the enemy.

Good on you for your long fight!

[ozone_man]

166. Big pharma is behind the TPP.

WASHINGTON — Facing resistance from Pacific trading partners, the Obama administration is no longer demanding protection for pharmaceutical prices under the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, according to a newly leaked section of the proposed trade accord.

But American negotiators are still pressing participating governments to open the process that sets reimbursement rates for drugs and medical devices. Public health professionals, generic-drug makers and activists opposed to the trade deal, which is still being negotiated, contend that it will empower big pharmaceutical firms to command higher reimbursement rates in the United States and abroad, at the expense of consumers.

“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency. It was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia. And even though the section, known as the transparency annex, has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”

The annex, which covers pharmaceutical and medical devices, is the latest document obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the watchdog group WikiLeaks, and it was released before the House vote on whether to give President Obama expanded powers to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Senate has already approved legislation giving the president trade promotion authority, or fast-track power that would allow him to complete trade deals without the threat of amendments or a filibuster in Congress. A House vote on final passage of the bill, now expected on Friday, appears extremely close.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/business/international/us-shifts-stance-on-drug-pricing-in-pacific-trade-pact-talks-document-reveals.html?smid=tw-share

A little transparency here would be nice Obama.

[marym625]

183. yep

I am amazed I what I have read. I don't understand this push. There is obviously more to the motives that we won't know for years

[KoKo]

192. Thanks! I've met with Dem Senate Rep and Called and e-mailed my Repub House Rep

Been on this since Public Citizen's Lori Wallach started to put the word out a couple of years ago. Done all I could and am member of two organizations fighting against it.

Would have been nice if DU had embedded that code. But, maybe the site isn't compatible.

[marym625]

193. That's fabulous!

I want a job at Free Press. They're such a great organization that have been fighting all the important battles while helping to make it as simple as possible for us to take action

I see your posts (rec and often kick them) You do a great job here.

I have not seen the admins here post anything at all about the TPP, TPA or TiSA. I suspect that they, having worked for third way and the DLC, are for the fast track and the agreements, though I don't know that to be a fact. I did request they put the link on to push for the sunset of section 215 of the Patriot Act but received no reply.

Thanks for all you do for us!