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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
33. That's NOT a dodge ... It is a direct answer to your question ...
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 02:43 PM
Jan 2015

Now, if you are asking WOULD I support a TPP that included the terms outlined in the leaked memos? My answer would be "No ... I would oppose it."

On the other hand, if you are asking WOULD I support a TPP that included the terms outlined in the US government's Objectives? My answer would be "Yes ... I would."

Response to your second answer, "I'm undecided on fast-track". Again nice dodge.


Again ... that's not a dodge. It's a direct answer to the question that you asked.

Seems to me that we by-pass our balance of power when we allow the President to ram-rod thru agreements made in secret with little debate. Neither democratic nor Democratic.


Does Congress not get the penultimate say (vote) on trade agreements? ... (under fast-track) They vote it down, it's a dead deal; the vote to approve it, the President has the final say.

Sen Sanders says no to Fast Tracking and no to the TPP because:

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.


Yes, I read that, too. It was stated right before (or was it after?) he's complaining about the lack of transparency of the process for him, and the American people. IOWs, it will do all kinds of terrible things, even though I really don't know that any of these things will be in the agreement.

Supporting conservative Democrats is supporting the status-quo. We need change.


Now, here we agree!

Recommendations

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

The US Government's Negotiating objectives, related to drugs ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #1
Intellectual Property and Drug Prices: Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #2
How is relying on the lofty words of the US Objectives ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #3
Krugman has a pretty good answer for you: Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #4
Again, what is he basing that opinion on ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #12
When our negotiating positions stink, & when "really bad ideas" are "being floated", & when Congress Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #37
history ND-Dem Jan 2015 #24
History is the opposite of progress. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #30
so far as governments lying goes, there has been no "progress" in millenia. ND-Dem Jan 2015 #38
Okay. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #40
You are correct. THe rhetoric you repeat above is nothing like what is contained in the agreement. rhett o rick Jan 2015 #5
There is no agreement yet, so it's silly to talk about "what's in it" Recursion Jan 2015 #6
Secrecy + Corporate Input + Fast Track + "Don't Talk about what's in it tell it's done" = OLIGARCHY Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #7
Bingo Populist_Prole Jan 2015 #8
if they obey tpp, the world will have drug prices as high as those in the US which are way ND-Dem Jan 2015 #25
Response to your first comment ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #13
Response to your first comment ... rhett o rick Jan 2015 #29
That's NOT a dodge ... It is a direct answer to your question ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #33
The discrepancy you cite is EXACTLY the point. Jim Lane Jan 2015 #10
+1 Good post BrotherIvan Jan 2015 #11
We have people who I trust that have seen the TPP and are firmly against it. stillwaiting Jan 2015 #14
I have not seen a single person expressing support for ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #16
Oh my... nt stillwaiting Jan 2015 #17
Well, at least not on DU ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #18
I consider support for Fast Track, in effect, support for the TPP. stillwaiting Jan 2015 #19
How? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #20
Fast Track means that, no matter what unsavory stuff is contained in the TPP - nothing djean111 Jan 2015 #26
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #31
The GOP is slavering for this agreement, because it enables corporations to djean111 Jan 2015 #32
The gop is slathering over this agreement ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #34
His "stated" objectives are trade based. He does not address the Investor State giveaway. djean111 Jan 2015 #35
Yes.He.Does ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #36
The analysis by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #15
I disagree with your criticisms of Medecins Sans Frontieres. Jim Lane Jan 2015 #21
because they've done so well so far at 'negotiating' prices with big pharma ND-Dem Jan 2015 #22
The US government hasn't been involved in ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #28
It would allow the shysters to push prices on alreadt skyrocketing generics through the roof. Faryn Balyncd Jan 2015 #9
+100 ND-Dem Jan 2015 #23
This is so simple for those who DO support Fast Track - thus supporting the TPP - just don't djean111 Jan 2015 #27
In December, MSF together with the AFL-CIO, AARP and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association sent Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TPP Trade Deal Will Be De...»Reply #33