General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Even After TPP, Some Stand By Their man [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... especially if has the effect of international treaties which can trump constitutional law and our sovereignty, which arguably TPP is going to do. Those that try to do this in secret and try to make the effect sound "minimal" are not really pushing the principle of democracy, but authoritarianism instead, and should be booted from office.
Yes, why would he sign in to a law something that could trump his veto of Keystone oil pipeline, or affect his other rulings too in a negative way. Perhaps because those who fund him behind the scenes between and they know that things like the Keystone Oil pipeline veto was window dressing to have people think that he's working for them, but in effect the trump cards are being given back to the corporations via TPP.
People out there should look at the past history since Reagan of our so-called "free trade" treaties and ask themselves if even ONE of them lived up to the promises of greater jobs and prosperity that were to follow if they were passed. NONE of them have in my book, and in fact they are shown to lose jobs, increase our massive trade deficit that affects our national debt and who owns our national assets. In effect these treaties are turning us in to a third world country but excluding the wealthy and the corporations from that negative outcome selectively.
People ask why Wyden is supporting this and speculating that he feels doing it is supported by those who would vote in his election in 2016? Huh? Polls show Oregonians here are largely against it, and there is a Democratic Party statewide resolution passed in 2013 that specifically tells him NOT to work for a Fast Track bill going through congress as noted here:
http://www.dpo.org/party/business/resolutions/2013-060
This story is starting to capture the resistance that is building towards the "Third Way" thinking behind pushing the TPP.
http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20150420/OPINION/150416255/2011/OPINION