General Discussion

Blanks

(4,835 posts)

55. I didn't say that.

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:17 PM

Jun 2013

I'm merely pointing out that the White House has an information page up and anyone that doesn't know anything about it hasn't looked for more information very hard.

I don't agree with the statement that its a secret. I've heard people around here blame the joblessness on NAFTA, but the arguments seem to be more against automation than treaties.

I expect there are bad things about the TPP, but the White House has had a page up for a long time. I call bullshit on the ignorance. They have the dates and times of the 'secret meetings' published. NAFTA has damaged small indigenous people's sustainable farming operations in favor of corporate farming - so I expect the TPP will have similar negative impacts on sustainable farming operations in other parts of the world. I don't believe that these treaties play as large a role in Americans losing manufacturing jobs as others on the board claim. I don't vehemently oppose them for that particular reason.

That's not the same as saying I support the TPP. I'm suspicious of it, but at the same time I am not an isolationist so I believe these kind of talks should take place. They probably could be more open, but the fact that the White House has a web page and I've been aware of it for around a year - pretty much refutes the 'secret meeting' conspiracy talk.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here is Obama's "most transparent White House in history" for you: [View all] brentspeak Jun 2013 OP

It's encouraging that CongressPeople actually want to read it leftstreet Jun 2013 #1

Congress should try here: JaneyVee Jun 2013 #2

What fun would that be? No, it's much more enjoyable to complain about being uninformed... Blanks Jun 2013 #11

So I take it that you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #30

What "Trans-Pacific Partnership"? When did it go into effect? George II Jun 2013 #43

I knew you wouldnt commit yourself. You guys never do unless you are certain rhett o rick Jun 2013 #47

you've noticed that too? Skittles Jul 2013 #62

God, that's the truth. Marr Jul 2013 #78

It's one of the tells. nt woo me with science Jul 2013 #114

2005, but these negotiations, from what's been leaked (the negotiations have been going on cali Jun 2013 #49

I didn't say that. Blanks Jun 2013 #55

Wow! A whole webpage chock-ful of nebulous TPP stuffff! brentspeak Jun 2013 #15

"No text of the deal itself, though."? Maybe because there IS no deal.... George II Jun 2013 #44

There's a full negotiation text brentspeak Jun 2013 #60

Actually Grayson is correct nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #17

??? secondvariety Jun 2013 #19

Some here are ok with "fluff". Easier reading. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #33

Yeah, once it has been finalized (in secret), THEN we can complain. progressoid Jun 2013 #20

It is the old "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" gambit. nt bike man Jun 2013 #21

No, it's not like that at all. cheapdate Jun 2013 #23

What I typed is quite similar to what you typed, don't you think? Not exactly the same, bike man Jun 2013 #26

There's a pretty big difference cheapdate Jun 2013 #46

Not really lark Jul 2013 #96

Maybe so. cheapdate Jul 2013 #104

Only after getting Obama's permission. nineteen50 Jun 2013 #25

Can you spell rhetoric? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #29

Doh! I just now got your name!!!! Vinnie From Indy Jul 2013 #86

Thanks for that link....I think you save a lot of "progressives", if they read the AVAILABLE(!!).... George II Jun 2013 #36

Here come the Adminsitration cheerleaders mick063 Jun 2013 #3

does that mean if anyone leaks details of tpp, they can be chrged with being an enemy of the HiPointDem Jun 2013 #4

+1 leftstreet Jun 2013 #9

Just about every law? hootinholler Jun 2013 #5

This is corporate fascism. woo me with science Jun 2013 #6

X 1000 ctsnowman Jun 2013 #35

As Ron Kirk, the chief negotiator, alluded to. If we knew what was in it we'd stop it. pa28 Jun 2013 #7

These may be "the good old days." AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #10

President Obama is a hypocrite. AndyA Jun 2013 #8

I had to lol when I heard Obama say something about govt respecting the rights of its citizens. Apophis Jun 2013 #12

It's a good thing you didn't hear the whole speech, then... KoKo Jun 2013 #13

It made a swell, if empty, campaign slogan. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #14

But it is transparent. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #16

The little people can't be trusted n2doc Jun 2013 #18

Kick. Rec. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #22

is this for real?? Why the hell would a trade deal be classified? cali Jun 2013 #24

Yes, members of congress have been complaining. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #27

Our government is very handy at classifying anything that might not go well with the public. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #34

It's 'classified' because if the public knew what was in it, it wouldn't pass. X_Digger Jun 2013 #37

That's my question too. blackspade Jun 2013 #39

I'd love to know the justifcation cali Jun 2013 #48

That's classified.... blackspade Jun 2013 #54

NAFTA had the same "loss of sovereignty" Kolesar Jun 2013 #28

Yes. polly7 Jun 2013 #31

No doubt in my mind that Congress will pass it by a large majority. They're all in it together forestpath Jun 2013 #32

If it's a "secret" pact, how will Congress be able to vote on it? George II Jun 2013 #41

Here is how cali Jul 2013 #85

DemocracyNow! on the TPP "Leaked Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporarations Avoid Regulations" Catherina Jun 2013 #38

I'm wondering how long it will be for DemocracyNow to get thrown under the bus by the worshippers. L0oniX Jul 2013 #94

I was told by another poster Puglover Jul 2013 #125

See posted link in post #2....... George II Jun 2013 #40

So you're calling Alan Grayson and Elizaeth Warren liars, are you? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #65

Grayson and Warren offered OPINIONS on the still-not-completed "agreement"... George II Jul 2013 #77

They described how access to the draft is severely restricted muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #79

Restricted permanently or just while the agreement is still under negotiation? George II Jul 2013 #83

So, in other words, we have to wait until it's too late to change anything appal_jack Jul 2013 #87

How many negotiators do we want? A handful or 535? randome Jul 2013 #98

What possible motive would the "left" Enthusiast Jul 2013 #81

It is no secret that the Obama administration has been criticized by both sides..... George II Jul 2013 #84

Many of us would be eager to praise Obama Enthusiast Jul 2013 #90

I seem to recall that secret meetings between Cheney and corporate leaders Maedhros Jul 2013 #95

"eager to criticize Obama any chance they get" navarth Jul 2013 #102

shhhhh... nashville_brook Jun 2013 #42

His deeds so frequently belie his words... MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #45

Chilling. woo me with science Jun 2013 #50

That window of opportunity gets smaller every day. n/t LuvNewcastle Jul 2013 #105

I'm in a warm mood so I'll make an excuse Babel_17 Jun 2013 #51

CTC = good source for info imo lunasun Jun 2013 #52

I didn't know the President could approve treaties Progressive dog Jun 2013 #53

Yes, this is one they keep trying to make something of treestar Jun 2013 #57

I understand he wants it fast-tracked. Buns_of_Fire Jun 2013 #58

Yeah, that transparency crap is pretty annoying. pa28 Jun 2013 #61

You have any names of these 600 or Progressive dog Jul 2013 #64

Post #65 contains a quote from Elizabeth Warren. I hope she is trustworthy enough for you? idwiyo Jul 2013 #66

I still don't see the names of the 600 corporate stakeholders nt Progressive dog Jul 2013 #69

If you read the entire quote in post #65 you would know why you don't see those names. idwiyo Jul 2013 #72

I asked for names, not why you don't have any. Progressive dog Jul 2013 #76

So you didn't read the quote or you are calling Elizabeth Warren a lier. Which one is it? idwiyo Jul 2013 #91

I read the quote, didn't see any names in it, didn't Progressive dog Jul 2013 #103

That quote clearly explains why you don't see any names in it. Or why you don't see any names idwiyo Jul 2013 #108

600 corporate stakeholders per Elizabeth Warren is what you read Progressive dog Jul 2013 #109

What I read is quoted below, together with a link to definition of "corporate stakeholder" idwiyo Jul 2013 #110

Oh, I see labor and NGO's are corporate stakeholders Progressive dog Jul 2013 #111

Which part of Elizabeth Warren's statement are you questioning? idwiyo Jul 2013 #112

None of hers. Progressive dog Jul 2013 #113

I am looking forward to reading your apology to pa28! Now that you know where the 600 number came idwiyo Jul 2013 #115

No. no. no. Don't ask for that. pa28 Jul 2013 #117

I doubt my opponent would apologise, so please accept my apologies for their rude behaviour. idwiyo Jul 2013 #118

You are very confused , aren't you? Progressive dog Jul 2013 #119

I knew it was very unlikely you would apologise. That's why I apologised for you. :) idwiyo Jul 2013 #124

Since you think you speak for Elizabeth Warren Progressive dog Jul 2013 #127

I am sorry you feel hard done by! :) idwiyo Jul 2013 #130

The story plays on ignorance of the treaty process jberryhill Jul 2013 #88

yeah, the secrecy over this is just so normal cali Jul 2013 #122

bull. cali Jul 2013 #123

Actually the Congress has delegated Progressive dog Jul 2013 #126

yes it has. doesn't change the Constitution though cali Jul 2013 #128

Secrecy over TPP is not unprecedented Progressive dog Jul 2013 #129

This is terrible. Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #56

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #59

K&R. (nt) Kurovski Jul 2013 #63

Grayson has been speaking out on this and many other issues Savannahmann Jul 2013 #67

Obama is a howling liar and hypocrite. Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #68

Jury results. galileoreloaded Jul 2013 #80

There are some who want things to remain exactly as they are, despite the problems Fire Walk With Me Jul 2013 #106

Why the hell is the president selling us all out? Ilsa Jul 2013 #70

I guess Alan Grayson is a racist now. PDittie Jul 2013 #71

Don't forget Elizabeth Warren. Tseko Jul 2013 #73

A woman on KTNF in Minneapolis yesterday explained part of it yesterday. Puglover Jul 2013 #74

Why should he care if he never has to be reelected again. gtar100 Jul 2013 #75

There is nothing but nothing, more important than stopping this cali Jul 2013 #82

Probably because of the sweeping climate change regulations Obama has demanded be inserted in it. nt raouldukelives Jul 2013 #89

Good point. Imagine the Republican grenades they would insert if possible. randome Jul 2013 #101

Transparent like a bucket of mud kenny blankenship Jul 2013 #92

TERRORISTS! Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #93

Giving up some of our sovereignity to court rulings would be a good thing, IMO. randome Jul 2013 #97

We have, Bush v Gore, 5-4. Octafish Jul 2013 #107

Why in the hell should a TRADE AGREEMENT be classified??? Bake Jul 2013 #99

It's not even a final draft yet. randome Jul 2013 #100

The only nonsense is contained in your post brentspeak Jul 2013 #116

no kidding. cali Jul 2013 #121

jaysus. you're actually defending this? cali Jul 2013 #120

Mebbe ya should effin read the Federal Register struggle4progress Jul 2013 #131

kick woo me with science Jul 2013 #132