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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Liz Warren plays political games too [View all]hedda_foil
(16,985 posts)22. Let's look at the facts.
The TPP didn't begin in 2002. You are referring to a separate and ratified agreement among 4 of the parties. It's likely that when two more AsiaPac countries joined the original four, the U.S. government got justifiably nervous about China's potentially wooing those nations into their orbit. Here's a very good explanation from Wikipedia.
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership AgreementEdit
During the 2002 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders' Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico, Prime Ministers Helen Clark of New Zealand, Goh Chok Tong of Singapore and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos began negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership (P3-CEP). Brunei first took part as a full negotiating party in April 2005 before the fifth, and final round of talks.[30] Subsequently, the agreement was renamed to TPSEP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement or Pacific-4). Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) were concluded by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore on 3 June 2005,[2] and entered into force on 28 May 2006 for New Zealand and Singapore, 12 July 2006 for Brunei, and 8 November 2006 for Chile.[31]
The original TPSEP agreement contains an accession clause and affirms the members' "commitment to encourage the accession to this Agreement by other economies".[30][32] It is a comprehensive agreement, affecting trade in goods, rules of origin, trade remedies, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement and competition policy. Among other things, it called for reduction by 90 percent of all tariffs between member countries by 1 January 2006, and reduction of all trade tariffs to zero by the year 2015.[33]
Although original and negotiating parties are members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the TPSEP (and the TPP it grew into) are not APEC initiatives. However, the TPP is considered to be a pathfinder for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), an APEC initiative.
Trans-Pacific PartnershipEdit
In January 2008, the US agreed to enter into talks with the Pacific 4 (P4) members regarding trade liberalisation in financial services.[34] On 22 September 2008, under president George W Bush, US Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab announced that the US would be the first country to begin negotiations with the P4 countries to join the TPP, with the first round of talks in early 2009.[35][36]
In November 2008, Australia, Vietnam, and Peru announced that they would join the P4 trade bloc.[37][38] In October 2010, Malaysia announced that it had also joined the TPP negotiations.[39][40][41]
After the inauguration of Barack Obama in January 2009, the anticipated March 2009 negotiations were postponed. However, in his first trip to Asia in November 2009, president Obama reaffirmed the US's commitment to the TPP, and on 14 December 2009, new US Trade Representative Ron Kirk notified Congress that President Obama planned to enter TPP negotiations "with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact".[42]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#History
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
179 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
I am too! But I genuinely believe that her supporters will be the thing that smash her like a grape
Number23
Apr 2015
#166
too many are just using her. to disrupt du and bash obama. too many really do not give a fuck
seabeyond
Apr 2015
#169
I agree. And this idea that she is a sweet, little blonde lamb that is a paragon of truth and virtue
Number23
Apr 2015
#171
Good post. And if you haven't been properly welcomed, welcome. If so, another never hurts. n/t
libdem4life
Apr 2015
#101
How very odd. That is not what it said when I looked. Also the OP posted on this
merrily
Apr 2015
#160
I like how organized labor, human rights and environmental groups were especially well represented.
Octafish
Apr 2015
#7
See, it's not just Obama's trustworthiness to get a less than halfway decent deal.
hedda_foil
Apr 2015
#10
me, too. but thank you for your information in here. dying for some facts. thank you maggieD. nt
seabeyond
Apr 2015
#29
It's no surprise they support Obama. Nonetheless, the OP article is worthless.
merrily
Apr 2015
#130
I've never been in any personality cult. No one has proven she lied or was duplicitous. No one can.
merrily
Apr 2015
#141
Your claim is that Warren KNOWS America will like the TPP, but is saying America won't?
merrily
Apr 2015
#144
I think you misquoted Warren. You also left out the part where Obama called her out
merrily
Apr 2015
#150
No, you did not quote Warren's words. You took words attributed to other people out of context.
merrily
Apr 2015
#154
Dodge? I am not obligated to repeat myself every time you repeat yourself. Again, see Replies 154
merrily
Apr 2015
#172
Wow. That is NOT what your post 11 conveyed at all. Talk about moving a goalpost.
merrily
Apr 2015
#133
The talks for the TPP did not start in 2002, as your post 11 said. That was a different
merrily
Apr 2015
#148
Is that really the question? Perhaps I am confused on that point, but I wonder if
Jefferson23
Apr 2015
#23
Seems to be a real outbreak of anti-Warren Obama is right fever on the board tonight
rurallib
Apr 2015
#26
Oh? So Warren *could* have told Rachel exactly what she'd read without facing some
winter is coming
Apr 2015
#49
It's in a locked room. People have to have a security clearance to read it AND have
merrily
Apr 2015
#54
You are at least the third or fouth poster who has pointed out the sudden influx.
merrily
Apr 2015
#134
Well, she has read it ans still does not like it. Are you saying she is making it up? nt
Logical
Apr 2015
#27
Wait, so you think the American people will like it?? She is lying about it? nt
Logical
Apr 2015
#31
Yeah, she's not telling the truth about everything.. and I don't give a shite what her supporters
Cha
Apr 2015
#42
LOL, she READ SOMETHING so she is saying what she said the people will not like......
Logical
Apr 2015
#35
Then HOW CAN OBAMA BE SUPPORTING IT????? If she does not have enough information....
Logical
Apr 2015
#44
You found an opinion hit piece in the Daily Banter that supports the position you wanted to take
merrily
Apr 2015
#81
Yes, Elizabeth Warren is being untruthful and of course nobody wants to see that. So they attack
Cha
Apr 2015
#67
You call it the "dark side".. that's doesn't mean it's dark. I have enough respect not to
Cha
Apr 2015
#69
Who can possibly argue with an opinion hit piece in a webzine that flat out claims Warren is lying?
merrily
Apr 2015
#82
Again, thank you.. I agree with what Tommy Christopher said in his article, too. He explains
Cha
Apr 2015
#75
It's probably just a coincidence the rec's are all from Clinton supporters.
AtomicKitten
Apr 2015
#77
And also just a coincidence that most of the strongest Obama supporters are also the
merrily
Apr 2015
#84
YOU read for comprehension. I said you found an article that supported the position you wanted to
merrily
Apr 2015
#129
Uh, yes. Point was, your response was no more "adult level" than the poster you
merrily
Apr 2015
#137
This thread proves one thing. Some of us tend to think anyone who agrees with the position we want
merrily
Apr 2015
#86
No surprise. However, you haven't proven she used bs. Your OP article is ridiculous.
merrily
Apr 2015
#128
A tenured professor at Harvard adept at playing political games? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
mulsh
Apr 2015
#102
If Democrats treated republicans like they are treating Ms. Warren, they'd win more elections
notadmblnd
Apr 2015
#103
I think Warren and the Dems should hold the TPP hostage just like the GOP does all the time.
hollowdweller
Apr 2015
#116
Well, since this administration sold public education to the highest bidder....
madfloridian
Apr 2015
#151
Some people sure have taken an interest in your OP. Consider it a (revolting and unwanted) complimen
Number23
Apr 2015
#167
Actually, Number 23, you don't know whether Warren ever voted for Reagan or not.
merrily
Apr 2015
#176