Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," [View all]treestar
(82,383 posts)71. It'll be interesting when it finally comes out
how Liz and Bernie will vote.
Sometimes I think as politicians they are not above stirring up support among those they know are relying on them as saviors.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," [View all]
ucrdem
Jan 2015
OP
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
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
But wikileaks isn't, and that appears to be the source of these characterizations.
ucrdem
Jan 2015
#52
Okay but negotiating treaties is what the Constitution says the executive branch
ucrdem
Jan 2015
#13
Tne Constitution does not contemplate the president's negotiating treaties that would deprive
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#51
Useless blabber. It is not concrete. You can assess nothing based on those generalities.
JDPriestly
Jan 2015
#53
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
So I just want to make sure because I haven't seen anything about TPP in WEEKS
Number23
Jan 2015
#12
Aw, aren't her fans here precious and predictable? Methinks you are definitely on to something...
Number23
Jan 2015
#84
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
What we want is TRANSPARENCY. We want our Reps in Congress to have access to these
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#31
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
There is just so much data out there proving the disastrous effects of NAFTA on wages, on jobs
sabrina 1
Jan 2015
#41