General Discussion

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)

63. Sure, I can -- I work for State

Sat Jan 3, 2015, 08:53 AM

Jan 2015

I work for the State Department. Everything you just found is what State (or another government agency) has chosen to make available to the public. Sens. Warren, Sanders, Brown and others are not spun up about unavailable talking points (that's the Benghazi committee's job); they're spun up about the details of the agreement itself - which haven't been released to the appropriate Senate committees, even though some corporate leaders have seen apparently them. And I can tell you that I've had White House folks tell me frankly that, of course the details are being kept secret (details like how many US jobs are projected to be lost, and how much prescription drugs are now going to cost in member countries), because if they became fully known there would be a public shitstorm in pretty much every country signing on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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