General Discussion

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)

101. If it was good for us (ie. the 99%) there would be Republican Senators against it.

Thu Mar 26, 2015, 03:14 PM

Mar 2015

There's not one that I know of that is against it.

Things that are good for the 99% cost the .1% money (money that they could never hope to spend in their lifetimes) . Republican Senators fight that with everything they have.

Since we are not allowed access to the details of the TPP, I have to base my support or lack of it on what the politicians are doing. ALL of them.

Senators have had access to this in varying capacities throughout the creation of the TPP.

Of one thing I am certain: If I can't have access to potential legislation wherein ALL (or almost all) Republican Senators are for the TPP (which is vast and encompasses so much more than trade issues), I am AGAINST it. Especially when good, progressive Senators that have seen it don't think it's good either. Obama's position on it leaves me scratching my head.

I don't like basing my opinion on things where I don't have access to all of the facts, but this is just too important. It's too large and too encompassing. And, ALL Republican Senators seem to be for it. That's a very good reason to not support it since we can't even read it ourselves. Republicans are HORRIBLE these days, and they are voracious in their support of the billionaire class at the expense of every one else.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The investment chapter is to remain classified for 4 FUCKING years after the TPP is [View all] cali Mar 2015 OP

Aw, cali, don't you trust the corporations? djean111 Mar 2015 #1

other chapters have been leakes and there's a ton of info on that cali Mar 2015 #2

Oh, I am keeping up with that. I try and air out the stench of it every once in a while, here. djean111 Mar 2015 #6

if this pos of a "trade agreement" gets through... Javaman Mar 2015 #3

Along with the citizens of every country that signs on to it arcane1 Mar 2015 #9

exactly. spot on. nt Javaman Mar 2015 #12

i 'VE said this since the beginning......... its also been in their plans for years Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #33

Truly outrageous. How can anybody pretend we're in a democracy? (nt) enough Mar 2015 #4

Calm down, they just don't want to spoil the surprise arcane1 Mar 2015 #5

Not true. The NEGOTIATION documents, which were released by Wikileaks, were supposedly classified Hoyt Mar 2015 #7

so the NYT is lying? I don't buy it. cali Mar 2015 #8

NYT is not making the distinction, and people spreading this aren't either. Hoyt Mar 2015 #19

which shows how much you don't know. cali Mar 2015 #28

Wrong again. Michael Froman is the USTR. Hoyt Mar 2015 #34

You're right. Brain sputter. Siddiqi is the former chief- ag- negotiator cali Mar 2015 #48

Fortunately, like the FCC net neutrality debate, Obama will have the final word. Hoyt Mar 2015 #62

wrong. It's up to Congress to pass or not pass fast track. Without he's fucked when cali Mar 2015 #73

No, not fucked. It would mean Congress would get to alter the treaty jeff47 Mar 2015 #78

Wrong again. Obama must endorse it by submitting it to Congress. Hoyt Mar 2015 #79

bwahahahaa. cali Mar 2015 #82

Because shitting on the only honest politician of our generation is so much more effective. tridim Mar 2015 #87

I no longer trust politicians. 840high Mar 2015 #95

The fact that these accords already exist doesn't make them good. arcane1 Mar 2015 #16

Doesn't make em bad either. Every nation -- including European Union -- insist on them for obvious Hoyt Mar 2015 #21

The EU is having fits about the ISDS chapter in the TTIP. cali Mar 2015 #25

No, a FEW people who don't know what they are protesting about are having fits. Hoyt Mar 2015 #30

bzzt. fail, fail and fail cali Mar 2015 #35

Wrong again. The person quoted in the article is for replacing the current language with Hoyt Mar 2015 #44

Please link to the proof for your claim that "negotiation documents" are what's to be ND-Dem Mar 2015 #36

Do a little research on your own. It's quite simple, if you have an open mind. Hoyt Mar 2015 #47

You made the claim, you back it up. If you won't, it's just BULLSHIT. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #51

You have nothing. DisgustipatedinCA Mar 2015 #65

If you need to see "TPP WILL BE RELEASED," will you accept something from Ezra Klein (Vox Media). Hoyt Mar 2015 #77

Wonder what is the motive for that. treestar Mar 2015 #58

Informative and balanced article. Thanks for posting it, cali. n/t pampango Mar 2015 #10

Not quite. The working document is. jeff47 Mar 2015 #11

+1. Hoyt Mar 2015 #23

prove it. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #37

Ok. It's literally in the document that was leaked. jeff47 Mar 2015 #40

Copy the relevant text. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #43

Geez, I had to go all the way to the title to find it. jeff47 Mar 2015 #50

That doesn't prove your point in any manner whatsoever. Here's a reminder as to your claim: ND-Dem Mar 2015 #53

My point that it's a working document is quite well demonstrated by the title saying so. jeff47 Mar 2015 #54

Irrelevant to your claim that *only* the "working document" will be classified. As you well ND-Dem Mar 2015 #57

Actually, it does prove it. jeff47 Mar 2015 #60

you haven't proven it's the draft that is to be classified. I repeat: PROVE IT. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #66

The title says so. Thus proving it. jeff47 Mar 2015 #69

it doesn't say any such thing ND-Dem Mar 2015 #71

You mean the parts where it says "draft" and "working document" don't exist? jeff47 Mar 2015 #72

By "judicial," do you mean the American judiciary? Buns_of_Fire Mar 2015 #107

No, I mean the pseudo-courts set up in the leaked draft. jeff47 Mar 2015 #116

ND, please take a few minutes and think about what you are posting. The final draft will be released Hoyt Mar 2015 #67

prove it ND-Dem Mar 2015 #68

I can certainly understand your reluctance to research any of this on your own... LanternWaste Mar 2015 #76

I understand his reluctance to accept either you or the government. bvar22 Mar 2015 #114

My dear cali, how better to forestall contituent wrath until AFTER a subsequent election? closeupready Mar 2015 #13

Not to mention a changeover in administrations, giving the one in office at the time of release the GoneFishin Mar 2015 #14

DingDingDing! Handpay! Call Attendant! closeupready Mar 2015 #15

Calm down. We should just wait until it passes so we can see what is really in it. GoneFishin Mar 2015 #17

Right! See what is in it.... away from the 'fog of controversy'. closeupready Mar 2015 #26

that's what rational, serious people do. who could doubt the logic? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #39

Thanks for the FUD Cali!!!1 tridim Mar 2015 #18

I'll wager I know a lot more about it than YOU. cali Mar 2015 #22

Yes it is true that you read all the FUD you can find and repost it. tridim Mar 2015 #24

oh bullshit. damn, I'm sick of mendacious crap. cali Mar 2015 #27

Does Chained CPI exist? tridim Mar 2015 #29

Are you actually suggesting that the TPP doesn't exist? wowzer. cali Mar 2015 #31

A TPP bill does not exist. tridim Mar 2015 #32

The TPP is not a bill, my not-a-friend cali Mar 2015 #38

Ahh, the old "Big time" support for a trade agreement that doesn't exist. tridim Mar 2015 #85

yes, chained CPI exists, just as much as CPI itself exists. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #46

What are you getting at here? Are you suggesting that Obama did not support a Chained CPI Broward Mar 2015 #52

He says it doesn't exist, even though Obama included this fictitious entity in his budget. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #55

disgusting. cali Mar 2015 #75

Neither Chained CPI nor a TPP agreement exist. tridim Mar 2015 #86

For fuck sake, you don't wait until it's law to exert societal influence. It's like waiting for the Ed Suspicious Mar 2015 #89

It's kinda like the Scientology of politics. Fuddnik Mar 2015 #97

I'll be extremely interested if/when it is an actual proposal tridim Mar 2015 #106

Failure to get it through doesn't negate that it wasn't the proposed plan any more TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #92

so the NYT is spreading FUD & Obama bashing and doesn't know if TPP exists or not? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #41

Name-calling: a sure sign of a solid argument. arcane1 Mar 2015 #42

Where's Gorbachev when you need him? KamaAina Mar 2015 #20

There has been no denial by the administration that TPP is real, nor a denial of fast track GoneFishin Mar 2015 #45

Wow. Some of the pro-TPP spinning downthread is breathtaking. marmar Mar 2015 #49

No kidding! I'm half expecting the "You hate the TPP because Obama is black" argument arcane1 Mar 2015 #61

actually it's there Doctor_J Mar 2015 #108

Or an insane asylum nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #120

And if anyone stops fucking, the 4 years might be tolled. treestar Mar 2015 #56

LOL! randome Mar 2015 #59

Gosh. Octafish Mar 2015 #63

Out of all of the change he discussed during the elections,..... NCTraveler Mar 2015 #64

Treaties are always negotiated in secret and later voted on. randome Mar 2015 #70

Point 1. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #88

NO SNARK ZONE! REDUCE SPEED! randome Mar 2015 #96

Hey, these days... Oilwellian Mar 2015 #74

Here's article by Ezra Klein attempting to describe why TPP is important, and where people disagree. Hoyt Mar 2015 #80

I read it. dog shit. cali Mar 2015 #81

Not "dog stuff" at all. You are being myopic -- This is a re-write of NAFTA. Hoyt Mar 2015 #83

If it was good for us (ie. the 99%) there would be Republican Senators against it. stillwaiting Mar 2015 #101

So you are for fast-track, since many Republicans seem to be against it? Hoyt Mar 2015 #102

Their reasons for opposing Obama are clearly racist. stillwaiting Mar 2015 #104

Forgetting TPP for moment, It really is a shame Obama's Presidency has been crippled by that. Hoyt Mar 2015 #105

"TPP could, in its best form, help level that playing field a bit (though only a bit)" arcane1 Mar 2015 #109

Unless some other country takes the lead in world trade and our influence declines. Hoyt Mar 2015 #110

Wow, this is fun! Check out this bit from the OP hedda_foil Mar 2015 #84

//\\ G_j Mar 2015 #90

they sure do. cali Mar 2015 #99

So we need to keep our powder dry for 4 effing years truebluegreen Mar 2015 #91

And if you talk about it, you're a ''Conspiracy Theorist.'' Octafish Mar 2015 #93

All I can say is, truebluegreen Mar 2015 #94

In my book, then, you're a Patriot. Octafish Mar 2015 #98

That contract lost all meaning during the 1980s. Rex Mar 2015 #100

I can hear it now from our conservatives: bvar22 Mar 2015 #115

you can keep your trade agreement if you want,... I can see the political ads coming NM_Birder Mar 2015 #103

well see? Dyedinthewoolliberal Mar 2015 #111

"The most transparent administration EVER" n/t oneshooter Mar 2015 #112

I'll wait for the final release ,,,,,,, thank you. Ichingcarpenter Mar 2015 #113

Is it even possible to imagine a bigger red flag hifiguy Mar 2015 #117

K&R woo me with science Mar 2015 #118

kick woo me with science Mar 2015 #119