A real Democrat doesn't support the TPP...

[TheProgressive]

The TPP, et.al. effectively ends American sovereignty. It allows corporations to fire American workers and ship those jobs overseas. This action destroys the livelihood of millions and millions and millions of Americans so that a very, very, very few people can be rich beyond belief.

The TPP and all the other 'free trade' agreements, which by definition are illegal per the Constitution, effectively turns the United States of America into a serf state with the oligarchy calling all shots... and the people? they don't give a shit about the American people.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Does not President Obama support it?

[rhett o rick]

11. Yes, what's your point?

[Duckhunter935]

14. I think it is quite obvious

[rhett o rick]

15. I hope you don't mean that because the President approves we must all fall in line.

[Duckhunter935]

18. Of course not

But under the new rules..........must support..........never criticize.....

[rhett o rick]

20. But, but Obama supports the TPP and Hillary doesn't, so what do I do?

[Duckhunter935]

21. Good question

[ConservativeDemocrat]

22. You can disagree with President Obama without pretending to yourself he's not a Democrat

He is simply proposing a different bargain, giving up different things, than you would.

And you, of all people, are not judge and jury of who is and who is not a Democrat.

Are you even going to vote for the Democratic nominee against Donald Trump?

Oh right. We already know the answer: NO.

Why are you even here?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Hortensis]

42. Good post. We're no longer bashing Democrats here,

and the claim that President Obama and...well, me very generally speaking, are not real Democrats is bashing. It's meant to be an insult and taken that way.

[rhett o rick]

46. What happens when Obama and Clinton disagree? Can either position be questioned?

"Why are you even here? " I am supporting those among us that are struggling. I see it every day and it's been getting worse. This is a politically liberal message board and that means to me that we can question the positions of our representatives especially when they affect those among us struggling.

[YoungDemCA]

61. As I understand, Clinton's point of disagreement with POTUS is not about the TPP as a concept

But about certain details of the agreement itself. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Her stance is far more pragmatic and nuanced than what passes for "analysis" from many reflexively anti-free trade progressives.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

74. She is very clear about her standards for free trade agreements...

She's in favor of them. However, rather than simply be good for America and Americans in general, she measures the worth of a negotiation by whether it raises middle class wages.

"My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, ‘this will help raise your wages.’ And I concluded I could not."

- Hillary Clinton on the TPP

There are reasons to see it President Obama's way. Even as it exists today, the TPP makes enormous strides in environmentalism, labor standards in the third world, and a host of other considerations. However, Secretary Clinton has come out against it, and so I don't think the TPP will pass, unless the GOP suddenly decide after the election to back it.

But neither will free-trade haters be completely happy with President Clinton, as she will likely go back to the bargaining table, and likely will try to strike a new deal, bringing the American unions in as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Fair point.

[George II]

38. Seems the implication is that President Barack Obama isn't a "real Democrat"?

[rhett o rick]

47. My comment was to the poster that seems to "imply" that we need to support the TPP just

because the President supports it. I disagree and do not support the TPP, do you?

[Pharaoh]

75. ^^This^^

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. I don't support it now. If Hillary changes her mind after she's president, I'll support it then.

I'm evolving.

[rhett o rick]

79. So you disagree with Pres Obama?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. That's a tricky question. All I know is that I agree with Hillary. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

81. LOL

[chwaliszewski]

83. ^^ Double This ^^

[George II]

89. I don't think anyone on this forum knows enough about the details to make a definitive decision....

....for or against it yet.

[rhett o rick]

90. And why is that? Why isn't the President explaining how the TPP will help us?

I look at it and see that the Big Corporations wrote it and love it, and the labor unions hate it. I would hope that those that support labor would be against it. The fact that Obama likes it shouldn't be enough for Democrats. If he can't or won't explain how it will help the People, then I have to be against it.

[George II]

91. That's not the point - remember, the subject is:

"A real Democrat doesn't support the TP", which is an entirely false premise.

[rhett o rick]

92. You want to argue about what is or isnt a true Democrat and not discuss the TPP?

I am curious how people feel about the TPP now that Obama and Clinton disagree. How do you feel about the TPP. I know you don't like the wording in the OP how about this agreement that the unions and doctors without borders don't like.

[George II]

93. I'm not arguing it at all. I just think it's a narrow definition of a "real Democrat".

[rhett o rick]

94. I think the definition should include support of the People over corporations.

Would you agree? And I am guessing you don't want to commit yourself to a position on the TPP.

[George II]

95. This is a country of 320 million people, with dozens, hundreds, even thousands...

...of individual issues and concerns. I doubt that many of those can be addressed to the satisfaction a "support" of all 320 million people.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.

As I said, the definition of a "real Democrat" is very narrow if it is defined by support of the TPP.

[rhett o rick]

96. And once again you don't commit yourself. I will guess that you don't care about the

TPP and will support whatever position your favorite candidate supports.

[rhett o rick]

77. Do you support the TPP?

[arcane1]

31. And the Republicans in Congress support it more than the Dems.

Whose side is the right side: Obama and the Republicans, or the Democrats?

[George II]

39. Does it boil down to just those two options? Obama isn't a Democrat now?

[cheapdate]

2. Yeah, I'm against it too

for several very important reasons, but you might ought to tone it back a little. In the first place "real Democrats" can have different outlooks and be in different places in their understanding of the issues. Secondly, the TPP is only incrementally worse than the GATT, the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. TPP isn't "the end of US sovereignty". It's an improvement over NAFTA, which isn't saying much. Oppose the shit out of it, burn it down, I'm with you. I'd just rather a better case be made than "the end of US sovereignty".

[SouthernDemLinda]

7. Withdraw from WTO and Repeal NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA

[link:http://|http://www.petition2congress.com/2376/withdraw-from-wto-repeal-nafta-gatt-cafta]

Petition2Congress

Free petitions that send email to Capitol Hill
Withdraw from WTO and Repeal NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA

2,326 Letters Sent So Far

The Constitution of the United States of America established our nation as an independent Democratic Republic controlled by the people. The Constitution established the laws and principles that bind us together as a free and independent nation; and Our Constitution established that Congress, and only Congress has the power to negotiate trade with foreign countries; and, in confirmation, Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”; and as a member of the WTO, the United States must conform to the rules and regulations of a foreign multi-lateral agency called the World Trade Organization; and as a member of the WTO, Congress has illegally forfeited the power, (granted only to Congress by our constitution), to regulate U.S. commerce to a foreign power called the WTO.

Moreover, there is no provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to pass the power to regulate, control, or govern U.S. commerce to a foreign nation, government, body, or agency like the World Trade Organization.In addition, the President does not have the Constitutional power to negotiate trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or the Central American Free Trade Agreement, as trade negotiation is the sole domain of the Congress of the United States according to our Constitution, Article 1, section 8.

Moreover, We the People of the United States of America believe that our Constitution is the law of the land and membership in the WTO violates Article 1, section 8 of our constitution; and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal. Furthermore, We the People believe that NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA both undermine our economy, our security, and the sovereignty of our great nation; and WHEREAS, U.S. trade deficits with China, Mexico, and Canada have increased significantly since the implementation of NAFTA and GATT, and that undermines our economy, sovereignty, and our independence as a nation; and....etc.

Then you sign and submit.

[SouthernDemLinda]

10. http://www.petition2congress.com/2376/withdraw-from-wto-repeal-nafta-gatt-cafta

Can't get link to work.

Petition2Congress

[pampango]

40. Apparently FDR did not agree with your analysis of the constitution. He proposed the ITO (with GATT

in it) in 1944. He must have believed that a congressionally-approved international trade organization was constitutional - as were the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and other international organizations that were part of FDR's legacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Trade_Organization

The good news for you is that, when the republican congress rejected the ITO on national sovereignty grounds, Truman enacted GATT (meant to be a transitional part of the ITO) by executive order since he believed that the republican congress would reject it just like it had the ITO. GATT then governed international trade for almost 50 years before the WTO was created. Since congress never approved GATT (it being 'forced' on us by a liberal Democrat), there would seem to be grounds to say that it is unconstitutional.

The other good news for you is that Mr. Trump and many state GOP party platforms agree with you, so it is a 'bipartisan' move.

Here is part of the 2016 Texas GOP party platform:

International Trade- We strongly oppose the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We demand the immediate withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). We demand the repeal of the current Fast Track Authority/TPA.

International Organizations- We support United States withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/312471673/Texas-GOP-Permanent-Platform-Committee-Report

And Mr. Trump will get us out of NAFTA ('tear it up' with unilateral tariffs on Mexico) and out of the WTO ('tear it up' with unilateral tariffs on China), 'tear up' CAFTA, and cancel negotiations on TPP, TISA and TTIP, you have republican support at the presidential candidate level as well.

[SouthernDemLinda]

49. Congress, and only Congress has the power to negotiate trade with foreign countries

Congress, and only Congress has the power to negotiate trade with foreign countries; and, in confirmation, Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”; and as a member of the WTO, the United States must conform to the rules and regulations of a foreign multi-lateral agency called the World Trade Organization; and as a member of the WTO, Congress has illegally forfeited the power, (granted only to Congress by our constitution), to regulate U.S. commerce to a foreign power called the WTO.

[pampango]

50. And if congress approves negotiated US membership in an international trade organization? Is that

not "regulat(ing) Commerce with foreign Nations". The constitution does not say that congress does not have the right to approve treaties with other countries that involve terms of trade despite your interpretation of "the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations".

US membership in FDR's ITO was rejected by congress so it never came into existence. Congress have approved membership in the WTO. It has approved some trade agreements/organizations and rejected others. That sounds to me like Congress is 'regulating commerce with foreign nations'.

Be sure to publicize your petition on right wing sites. They are particularly opposed to what they call Obamatrade and the role that the WTO plays in it. You will probably get more signatures there than you will here.

Obamatrade renders Congress and the Constitution null and void

In his foreign policy address, Donald Trump warned against following the “false song of globalism.” This was a sharply different note and counterpoint to President Obama’s “No Walls” European tour. Donald Trump declared the nation state to be the foundation for harmony.

http://obamatrade.com/

[cheapdate]

88. "Congress has the authority to regulate

foreign commerce." True statement. Supported by the Constitution.

"Congress, and only Congress...." Arguable statement. If the founders had meant "Congress, and only Congress..." Then why didn't they say so?

I oppose these agreements on ethical grounds. I don't think the constitutional arguments are compelling.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. Yes, Hillary supported TPP before she changed her position. But, she's always been a Democrat in my mind.

[Maeve]

3. And no true Scotsman refused to wear a kilt! eom

[oberliner]

4. President Obama Urges Swift Passage of TPP Trade Deal

President Obama released a statement Wednesday evening championing the major Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership shortly after the trade deal was signed in New Zealand by officials from the 12 member nations.

Officials from the U.S. and other involved countries have been negotiating the deal, which seeks to reduce trade barriers among the signatories, for five years. President Obama says the agreement “sets new, high standards for trade and investment in one of the world’s fastest growing and most important regions” but left-leaning groups like labor unions and environmentalists are wary of its potential impact on American workers. Both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton oppose the deal. When Clinton was a part of the Obama administration she said TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements” but came out in opposition to the deal during her presidential campaign.

“Right now, the rules of global trade too often undermine our values and put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage,” Obama said in a statement. “TPP will change that. It eliminates more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on Made in America products.”

http://time.com/4207350/barack-obama-tpp-trade-deal/

[deaniac21]

6. We have to support

a Democratic President!!!

[oberliner]

9. We have to at least acknowledge that he is "a real Democrat"

Even when we disagree with some of his positions.

[rhett o rick]

12. Isn't Hillary against the TPP?

[Duckhunter935]

16. I don't know for sure

[oberliner]

17. Yes

Democrats don't always agree on every single issue, as I would imagine you know.

[Recursion]

25. She thinks Vietnam and Malaysia got off too easy, IIRC

She has a point; it's only a marginal improvement in labor requirements from our current bilaterals with them, and we probably only get one swing at this. Honestly I don't see it as "big" enough to matter either way; a version with just the western hemisphere signatories is something I could be a little more enthusiastic about (and it is a pretty clear improvement on NAFTA and CAFTA in that sense).

[Pharaoh]

27. No she was for it

I'm not sure what she thinks now.

[MADem]

65. Not accurate. She was the functionary of a boss who supported it. Her opinion didn't matter.

Once she was able to express her view, she called her former boss, warned him that she was going to part ways with him on that particular issue, and made her views known.

When you are a cabinet member, you're not allowed to publicly air any disagreements or differences you have with your boss, if you want to keep your job. It's ugly, disloyal, bad form. Cabinet members are EXTENSIONS of the POTUS--they aren't rogue actors.

Just because she carried her boss's water on this issue does not mean that she, personally, supported it.

I've had to carry out orders I disagreed with--it's life in public service. Ya deal with it.

[Pharaoh]

67. she was for it

Long after she had resigned from secretary of state. Long after she left the administration

[MADem]

72. No, she wasn't. She declined to crap on her boss--there's a distinction and a difference.

She chose to not contradict him because there was no percentage in it. That is her ALLY. Pissing of POTUS by telling Obama his partnership sucked had no "win" in it.

She held off for as long as she could, then she called him and warned him--like colleagues do.

[Pharaoh]

73. whatever

[floriduck]

63. I agree in principle with that statement. No president makes everyone happy on every issue.

I'm curious why the State Department is delaying the release of Secretary Clinton's TPP related emails until after the election. Either the President doesn't want to show her disagreement with the trade agreement or something else is at play.

But reading the responses in this thread makes me refer back to the new TOS. Criticism of a Dem candidate or official, for the purposes of helping them is acceptable. I'm hoping that factor remains in play so people do not violate it.

[Chan790]

5. I wish some Democratic Senator with a backbone would go on MtP and say the following:

"I'm not sure why Obama is pushing so hard to pass it, now that both candidates are so vocally opposed to it. If he passes it in the closing months of his administration, we will send a bill withdrawing the US from the TPP with broad bipartisan support in the first 100 days of the next Congress to the new President. I have every faith that President Clinton will sign our unilateral withdrawal from the treaty and carry forth our intention to ignore its provisions.

Make it a clear shot across the bow...any action on the TPP will be ignored in-full and repealed by the incoming administration. The mere threat of it will kill it because no nation wants to commit to a FTA that the US is threatening to ignore and not comply with because they don't want to be left with egg on their faces if the incoming administration makes good on the threat.

I know the penalties in the agreement...but nobody has the cajones to enforce them against a US government committed to ignoring them and disregarding any resulting sanctions.

[Silver_Witch]

28. Actually I don't believe Hillary would attempt to cancel the TPP

I think she supports it as much as President Obama. Hillary called it the gold standard. If President Obama passes it she can just left it stand and loose not support from Dems! Win-win. Well except for us!

[PatrickforO]

30. Yeah, we sure as hell won't win anything if TPP passes.

No doubt there.

[rhett o rick]

13. There is really nothing we can do. The Major Corporations wrote it, so it will be golden.

We are watching the corporate take over of our government and some Democrats are cheering.

[avaistheone1]

24. Post#19 believes that most Democrats support TPP

and then the poster go on to state that is what "real Democrats" believe.

If that is the case, it is certainly is a shameful time to be a Democrat.

[pampango]

44. "If that is the case, it is certainly is a shameful time to be a Democrat." But not a

republican?

They oppose TPP much more than Democrats - at least the 'regular person'/non-politician class of republicans. Are they the "'real' Democrats" when it comes to TPP?

[Recursion]

19. It's more popular among Democrats than Republicans, and a majority of Democrats support it

So, honestly, maybe your idea of what a "real Democrat" is needs some updating...

[arcane1]

51. Not in Congress n/t

[pampango]

53. That is certainly true. A disconnect between politicians and their bases - imagine that!

[Egnever]

26. Says someone on the internet

Who judging from their portrayal of it hasn't bothered to look past sensational headlines about it.

It's not all good and it's not all bad in my opinion. It certainly does not effectively end US sovereignty.

[PatrickforO]

29. I agree. These 'free' trade agreements have not created jobs,

raised our standard of living or otherwise made anything better. Instead they've squeezed us, driven wages down, driven jobs overseas and hurt our economic security. The biggest thing about the TPP that concerns me is the ISDS provisions, which allow capitalists to, in effect, overturn local legislation and regulation - basically they allow the capitalists to overturn local, state and national level democracy.

TPP is very bad. A disaster.

[still_one]

32. So are you saying President Obama isn't a Democrat?

[Cha]

34. He's saying President Obama is not a "real Democrat" and is in Clear Violation of the NEW

RULES.

He's testing the New Rules.

[font color=red]

Don't bash Democratic public figures

Do not post disrespectful nicknames, insults, or highly inflammatory attacks against any Democratic public figures. Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate, and do not compare any Democratic general election candidate unfavorably to their general election opponent(s).
Why we have this rule: Our forum members support and admire a wide variety of Democratic politicians and public figures. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but our members don't expect to see Democrats viciously denigrated on this website. This rule also applies to Independents who align themselves with Democrats (eg: Bernie Sanders).

[/font]

eg President Obama

President Obama is an Excellent Democratic President.

stillone~Mahalo~

[still_one]

35. That is how I am viewing it also.

[steve2470]

58. agreed

If someone wants an honest debate on TPP, I'm all for it, but don't label, by implication, President Obama a non-real Democrat.

[Bradical79]

59. Yes, seems intentionally substanceless

I'm not a fan of the deal at all, but the OP is making a really terrible argument that is intended to rile people up rather than present any kind of real criticism. Makes strong claims with absolutely nothing to back it up. It assumes every "real" Democrat will be fully informed of the reasoning behind the declaration of purity, and automatically agree if they are real Democrats. It's not helpful.

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. There are always pros and cons to these trade agreements, the economic theorists seem to always

favor them for the long run even though they ruin local economies with job losses, etc. Obama seems to take the long view and sides with the theory. It is interesting that there is a school of thought developing around the idea of "Peak Globalization" and that we may be at that point.

[tk2kewl]

48. So how much longer until NAFTA pays off for U.S. workers?

[NanceGreggs]

36. Perhaps you could enlighten those of us ...

... who don't share your obviously thorough knowledge of the TPP by citing the specific provisions that "end American sovereignty" and "ships millions and millions and millions of American jobs overseas"?

In addition to the foregoing, could you include a full list of any and all passages that impact on the specific provisions you will be citing, and the circumstances under which those provisions would be altered or modified in any way by subsequent passages in the body of the treaty?

I'm a court reporter, and have been on cases involving international trade agreements. They are incredibly complicated documents - to the point where judges, with years of experience in international law, are often perplexed by their language and true intent.

So it's nice to know that someone on the internet has read the treaty in its entirety, understands it fully, and is able to explain its intricacies to the rest of us.

TIA.

[sheshe2]

37. Trying not to laugh here.

Trying.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. I'll be watching and waiting for the poster to enlighten me, too, because from what I've already

read about the TPP, its provisions will strengthen positive rules on environment, pollution, labor, protection of workers, and the ability of countries to actually fight a multinational corporation from suing it just because said corporation's profit "suffered" in former trade agreements. All of this is located in Chapter 9 of the TPP.

[nationalize the fed]

41. Candidate Obama: "NAFTA Was a Mistake"

President Obama: "The TPP is a priority"

[pampango]

52. I don't believe he said, "trade agreements are a mistake" but that "NAFTA was a mistake".

He may believe that there are good trade agreements and bad trade agreements; just like there are good nuclear agreements and bad nuclear agreements; good climate agreements and bad climate agreements.

I don't believe that all trade agreements are inherently bad and more than I agree with the republican view that all climate agreements are inherently bad.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. You're right. He also promised that he would fix the weak resolutions in prior trade agreements, and

the TPP does just that.

[Recursion]

84. And TPP will replace NAFTA, and addressed some of his concerns

He pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, and he did.

[glennward]

43. A real Democrat would support the positive environmental and wage aspects of the TPP and work

to remove or revise all of the harmful portions. I guess, I am saying a real Democrat would read the entire agreement and make rational decisions about it and recognize trade-offs and mutual interests.

[zipplewrath]

66. We're not allowed

Obama got the "fast track" authority. You support it all, or support none of it.

And the truth be known, the US has had some of these kinds of protections in previous agreements, and we never enforce them. So their effectiveness is dubious at best.

But let's drop the whole "real democrat" thing before the thread gets locked.

[Cary]

45. Norman Goldman speaks of

THE POPE OF PROGRESSIVE PURITY

[geek tragedy]

54. it doesn't come close to ending American sovereignty and hello corporations have been firing workers

and shipping jobs overseas for decades now.

They are not unconstitutional and yes some actual, 'real' Democrats support it.

[Loki]

55. Please inform me about what constitutes a "Real Democrat".

i am unaware of a purity test. Guess I must have missed the memo.

[Bradical79]

60. How are free trade agreements illegal by definition?

They usually don't seem like a net positive, but I'm not following how they are "illegal per the Constitution".

[TheProgressive]

68. Look up 'treaties' and how they apply to the US Constitution...

[Octafish]

62. You are quite correct. The thing is, some have 're-defined' the definition of Democrat.

Democrats as defined today find it OK to side with money and power over the little person, the working person, the poor, etc.

NAFTA helped destroy the middle class. Now TPP will pave the way for mass indentured servitude.

Good for the 1-percent in the castle. Not so good for the 99-percent left outside the gates.

[moriah]

64. I don't like hearing people debate who are "real Democrats" or not.

I admit that, like many others, my knowledge on what the TPP in its final form is/will be is limited.

Jobs being outsourced to India and other economies with workers who are highly skilled but the American dollar buys more there isn't going to stop with ridding us of free trade agreements, because it was greed, not treaties, that started the trend. Given my most marketable skills and old profession involves technology, I'm pretty aware of why I can't find a call center job now as easily as I could in 1998.

But, okay, take Amazon's video tech support (Mayday). It's pretty obvious they're outsourcing. Admittedly they're being recorded so they can't really say "Help me, they're keeping me prisoner and exploiting me!", but the employees look quite happy. And usually, for a transnational, Amazon is pretty good to their people.

Are those employees better off than the others around them, who don't get even whatever Amazon is paying? They employ a lot of women for Mayday, too -- and so for some, getting that job we're insulting them by calling them "serfs" to take, it might be the best job available.

Now, that doesn't mean I *like* the fact our dollar can buy so much in other countries that we can pay them less than an American would accept and the workers actually be happy with the deal. Human rights abuses so common in worse companies are totally unacceptable -- and that WAS one good part of the TPP, or at least that was the plan. To join, member countries had to enact worker protections we find laughable as Americans, but the workers there didn't even have at all. Now, like most things, implementation was crappy. But that goal, at least, is laudable.

Lastly, and no offense meant, but it seemed like while you spoke of exploitation of foreign workers, you focused a great deal on nationalism -- the "serfs" are "taking our jobs" is a meme that disturbs me on several levels. I don't want people in other countries making our iPhones with suicide nets surrounding the building, but we shouldn't be begrudging the foreign workers jobs. We should focus on building an economy with jobs that can't be outsourced, not essentially repeating the idea that the workers themselves are our enemies, if we're talking just about the impact on Americans.

[Rex]

69. The working class thinks the ones that would benefit from the TPP have enough already.

And they are right, enough with helping an insignificant fraction of the population get even richer.

[rhett o rick]

70. If the TPP won't harm the 99% why doesn't the President have someone explain it in detail

how it will benefit us.

I am curious why there is a budget included to train people that lose their jobs? Who will pay for the training, the corporations that profit or the taxpayers? Who will get the contract to train people, Halliburton? For what jobs will people be trained? Will they be for min wage jobs for the $10.10 that Obama supports?

[colsohlibgal]

71. Republicans Pre Reagan Wouldn't Either

The whole political baseline has steadily moved right.

[Hoyt]

76. Almost every country has wanted to be part of these same agreements since 1959.

[kentuck]

82. The biggest downside to these trade agreements ...

...is that they take jobs away from Americans and give them to citizens of other developing nations because they will work for less. It's about profit. That is the bottom line.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

87. Very concerned about TPP ISDS court process

Judicialson who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that by said threat political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

97. A "real Democrat" is defined by one issue?

There are many important issues. TPP is one.

Our president supports TPP, and our next president supports it, then doesn't support it, and in the future might support it or not.

But is this one issue the litmus test for determining if someone is a Democrat? Is a position on Gun Control the litmus test? The position on Choice the litmus test? The position on War? The position on Social Security, Universal Health Care?

What if the president or the candidate doesn't agree with absolutely everything I value? Yeah, of course, he (or she) must not be a real Democrat.

Our current president is wrong on this issue. I hope our do-nothing Congress gives him nothing to sign, because he probably would sign the stupid thing.

[MohRokTah]

98. I am a lifelong Democrat and I support the TPP

I have proved your premise false simply through my existence.

Of course, your entire premise is begging the question.