General Discussion

ucrdem

(15,720 posts) Fri Jan 2, 2015, 10:39 PM Jan 2015

A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," [View all]

the latest from Dec. 18 2014:

See for yourself: http://search.state.gov/search?oe=UTF-8&ie=utf8&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=0&getfields=%2A&lr=lang_en&client=emb_en_iipdigital&proxystylesheet=emb_en_iipdigital&site=emb_iip_en&q=Trans-Pacific+Partnership&ulang=en&ip=68.177.49.70&access=p&entqr=3&entqrm=0&entsp=a&wc=200&wc_mc=1&ud=1&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1#axzz3NiiqQ5DV

One of these is a detailed "USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline" that has been available online, in three languages, since Nov. 13, 2011:

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg

Can someone please explain what it is we're not being told about TPP, and why Liz and Bernie appear to be unaware of the State Department's website?

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," [View all] ucrdem Jan 2015 OP

"USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline" ucrdem Jan 2015 #1

Worthless vagueries about the content of the agreement. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #43

That article has nothing to do with this thread ucrdem Jan 2015 #46

I'm reminded of the "sales job" of the Declaration of Independence, versus failures of the "Bill of Trillo Jan 2015 #69

So which one of the "790 texts" contains the current text of the actual agreement? PoliticAverse Jan 2015 #2

There is no current text of the actual agreement. It's still being negotiated. ucrdem Jan 2015 #3

Hence the word 'current' implying it is a working draft that might change. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2015 #22

Oh, we knew that. And we also knew it is 'being negotiated' without the input of the US CONGRESS! sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #26

Would this be the same US Congress that has REFUSED to work with Obama? But Benghazi hearings!!! Hekate Jan 2015 #57

No. This would be 151 House Dems that said they will not support fast tracking the TPP think Jan 2015 #77

AND Boreal Jan 2015 #30

How can they post a text that isn't written yet? Recursion Jan 2015 #6

When people negotiate they do write things down so they know where PoliticAverse Jan 2015 #23

And, generally, in international treaties those notes are kept secret Recursion Jan 2015 #24

There's nothing "nebulous" Boreal Jan 2015 #34

Public Citizen, a very careful, trusted organization in the US for one. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #44

What does Public Citizen know that we don't know? ucrdem Jan 2015 #47

Public Citizen is a serious, trustworthy reswearch organization. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #49

But wikileaks isn't, and that appears to be the source of these characterizations. ucrdem Jan 2015 #52

Disinfo, you say? Do tell. Scootaloo Jan 2015 #59

You can thank Darrell Issa for this awesome wikileak: ucrdem Jan 2015 #80

Where's the disinfo, ucrdem? Scootaloo Jan 2015 #82

Realizing we've been betrayed & taken for fools misterhighwasted Jan 2015 #4

Can you please explain what exactly you find objectionable about this outline? ucrdem Jan 2015 #5

We have no say in our future with TPP misterhighwasted Jan 2015 #7

Okay but negotiating treaties is what the Constitution says the executive branch ucrdem Jan 2015 #13

Maybe you should look it up Boreal Jan 2015 #37

Yes, I did. I also voted for Kerry and Obama. ucrdem Jan 2015 #38

Bush and Kerry Boreal Jan 2015 #40

Tne Constitution does not contemplate the president's negotiating treaties that would deprive JDPriestly Jan 2015 #51

But there isn't any treaty, so this fear-mongering is ridiculous. ucrdem Jan 2015 #54

That outline is absolutely worthless. The devil is in the details. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #45

"The agreement�s broad framework is as follows" ucrdem Jan 2015 #50

Useless blabber. It is not concrete. You can assess nothing based on those generalities. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #53

You can't get to the details without the outline. nt ucrdem Jan 2015 #55

The outline is filled with corporate speak. stillwaiting Jan 2015 #60

Slight correction: "You can't get to the details AT ALL..." Buns_of_Fire Jan 2015 #70

What is hilarious.. sendero Jan 2015 #62

Excellent post and excellent questions which need answers. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #27

I think Obama was selected Boreal Jan 2015 #39

Also info on the White House and Europa searchs. ' Liz and Bernie' and many others have Sunlei Jan 2015 #8

I asked this in another thread but has something actually HAPPENED with TPP in the last day or so? Number23 Jan 2015 #9

Well, the drone thing fizzled when Liz jumped on the ISIS bandwagon, ucrdem Jan 2015 #11

So I just want to make sure because I haven't seen anything about TPP in WEEKS Number23 Jan 2015 #12

I think we're being prepared for another campaign performance. ucrdem Jan 2015 #15

Preview: ucrdem Jan 2015 #18

Aw, aren't her fans here precious and predictable? Methinks you are definitely on to something... Number23 Jan 2015 #84

Yep, it's going to be an astroturf field day ucrdem Jan 2015 #86

Good question.... MADem Jan 2015 #76

Just curious, what is the point you're trying to make? tech3149 Jan 2015 #10

Nov. 11, 2014: "Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Ministers� Report on Negotiations" ucrdem Jan 2015 #14

Who is involved in these 'negotiations'? We know that the Congressional Trade Committee has sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #28

There are 12 countries involved, each with its own trade representative and team of negotiators. ucrdem Jan 2015 #56

And not one of those contains the provisions being fast tracked to avoid public review whereisjustice Jan 2015 #16

Yes but do you want Mitch, Rand and Boehner making it better? ucrdem Jan 2015 #19

Fear - the fallback position when ya got nothing else. eom Tommymac Jan 2015 #21

What we want is TRANSPARENCY. We want our Reps in Congress to have access to these sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #31

Which "corporations"? and how is the gov't "working with" them? Recursion Jan 2015 #25

LOL at the Top Secret files on the website... freshwest Jan 2015 #17

LOL. ucrdem Jan 2015 #20

Let's hope so. The post-NAFTA 90s was the best economy of my lifetime Recursion Jan 2015 #29

Well we're all glad it worked for YOU. That, after all, is what matters. However it did NOT work sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #32

Of course I am. Median wages went up for the only time in 40 years Recursion Jan 2015 #33

You have GOT to be kidding me! sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #35

Sorry, you're just wrong. Median wages went up. Recursion Jan 2015 #36

There is just so much data out there proving the disastrous effects of NAFTA on wages, on jobs sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #41

Median wages went up, unemployment went down. Recursion Jan 2015 #42

You're gonna make someone's head hurt with those questions. zappaman Jan 2015 #85

Brand new article, posted in the last hour: ucrdem Jan 2015 #48

Interesting. JaneyVee Jan 2015 #65

Isn't it! ucrdem Jan 2015 #67

Thank you very much, ucrdem, this is solid information. Hekate Jan 2015 #58

thanks Hekate! ucrdem Jan 2015 #66

PR pieces & "broad overviews" don't exactly spell out what's in the TPP. RiverLover Jan 2015 #61

Sure, I can -- I work for State Proud Public Servant Jan 2015 #63

Thank you. PPS!!! RiverLover Jan 2015 #64

Yes I'm sure there is much eeeeevil afoot. ucrdem Jan 2015 #68

Dude, it's not eeeeevil Proud Public Servant Jan 2015 #72

No it isn't. Basically the IP chapter "leaked" in Nov. 2013 concerns bootlegging. ucrdem Jan 2015 #74

p.s. ucrdem Jan 2015 #75

Thank you, PPS. hedda_foil Jan 2015 #78

It'll be interesting when it finally comes out treestar Jan 2015 #71

I suspect they're counting on not having to cross that bridge. ucrdem Jan 2015 #73

K&R & thank you ucrdem. great white snark Jan 2015 #79

HNY! ucrdem Jan 2015 #81

It seems the draft chapter flogged by Assange was first leaked by Darrell Issa: ucrdem Jan 2015 #83