General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

17. Not unless they pass Fast Track and doesn't look like it will happen. Bush couldn't it, for obvious

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 05:52 PM

Apr 2015

reasons neither should Obama.

Bush tried this exact same thing in 2007. Dems refused to hand over their authority to negotiate Trade deals on OUR behalf which is their JOB. And some Republicans joined them

The reasons they gave then made perfect sense and WE all cheered them on, rightly so.

I'm stunned that people don't remember why that was voted down in 2007. It wasn't because of Bush, his term was nearly over. It was because it was WRONG to hand over that much power to the WH. Had it passed, Obama would have had it back then.

But that is too risky a thing to do now knowing who will be heir to all that power.

IF it passes, all they can do is either vote 'yes' or 'no' without have any ability to change anything, to add an amendment, to take out anything that is damaging to the people.

And essentially Congress would have reneged on their duty.

The chances of it passing this time however are greater than they were then.

Most Republicans support Fast Tracking, not all of them. And some of the usual suspects on our side, will vote for it with them. So since Dems are in the minority anyhow, it is scary to think that Congress could give up its power to properly represent us, to the Executive Branch. And they will not get it back for six years.

That authority will pass to the next president regardless if it's a Repub or Dem.

All I can say is anyone who votes for Fast Tracking on our side, is betraying the people they represent.

A large majority of Americans oppose this.

But then whoever listens to the people in DC.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Question about TPP...is Elizabeth Warren lying when she says Congress can't stop TPP? [View all] Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 OP

not lying, but maybe doesn't know all the facts... or is being advised OKNancy Apr 2015 #1

It's a semantic matter--Who does she mean by "us" or "we" here? Jackpine Radical Apr 2015 #34

Third question Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #2

There's a 60-day-public viewing period. Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #3

Then why not post the agreement? Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #8

I agree Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #10

Because it is not finalized. That particular claim is the one that bothers me the most. There okaawhatever Apr 2015 #16

Good point. nt Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #18

this is how i am seeing it. why do you put out incomplete stuff before it is done? seabeyond Apr 2015 #20

What bothers me is that most of the people demanding the release of it now sound like the okaawhatever Apr 2015 #23

there is dishonesty going on when i am told it is secret and it is not. when told no one can talk seabeyond Apr 2015 #26

Interesting post. But why do you think that Warren and Sanders are doing this deliberately? Number23 Apr 2015 #58

Because the drafts that have leaked so far Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #29

Precisely! 99Forever Apr 2015 #66

The us government have posted drafts before at that were Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #32

Its still being drafted. JaneyVee Apr 2015 #24

Then post the updates as it goes Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #31

And she is gagged as far as telling those she represents what is in it. Plus there are so many sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #9

democracy now. grayson talking about it. why does he get to talk? seabeyond Apr 2015 #14

I don't see Grayson revealing details. Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #37

he clues us in to the specifics. i thought it rather relevant. helped me to decides where the bill seabeyond Apr 2015 #43

What specifics swayed you. Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #46

He did not talk about what is in this Agreement, he spoke generally about the 14 other sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #49

She is not lying, it is secret to us. WE are forbidden from seeing it, and SHE is forbidden from sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #4

So does Congress get an up-or-down vote on the deal? Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #5

Democrats would have virtually no ability to stop it. The real point is of fast track is not to TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #11

Not unless they pass Fast Track and doesn't look like it will happen. Bush couldn't it, for obvious sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #17

How is that - the Rs are for it and they control both houses. jwirr Apr 2015 #54

One other issue Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #6

If people want to oppose TPP, that's fine. Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #7

i thought the doctors without borders was useful JI7 Apr 2015 #12

there's a fucking shitload of specific criticim of it and cali Apr 2015 #21

and president Obama can keep lying his ass off cali Apr 2015 #19

It appears as though Warren lied when she said it's top secret and congress can't stop it Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #27

'she did not. it is classified under national security cali Apr 2015 #36

That's because it's not a final deal Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #52

But... you are the one not being honest tkmorris Apr 2015 #62

What you are seeing is full court press PR campaign Joe Turner Apr 2015 #63

And there will be a time when an agreement is reached and published. Cali_Democrat Apr 2015 #65

Only those members with proper security clearances are allowed to access parts of the draft. Luminous Animal Apr 2015 #13

'Nor are they allowed to discuss contents with staff or relevant experts'' Ichingcarpenter Apr 2015 #22

Except that they are discussing it. A Sanders interview is posted above. Why are people continuing okaawhatever Apr 2015 #28

Are they discussing the deal in Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #35

Since it hasn't been finalized that is how they should be discussing it. It is not responsible or okaawhatever Apr 2015 #41

Since it is our asses on the line Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #50

And the process of posting summaries doesn't change anything you've mentioned and Obama hasn't okaawhatever Apr 2015 #51

Guantanamo is still open Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #57

Once again, absolute and total dishonesty. The only thing that comes close to the truth is okaawhatever Apr 2015 #60

The only lies are the pretty little Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #67

They can say they do not like it and what they think the effects will be but except for the leaked jwirr Apr 2015 #44

But there isn't "exact wording" yet. It hasn't been finalized, there is only proposed wording. nt okaawhatever Apr 2015 #47

Yes, I understand that which is why they are arguing in general terms of what they have seen so far. jwirr Apr 2015 #56

Because it's true? /nt Marr Apr 2015 #48

What the hell good is a review if you can't do upaloopa Apr 2015 #15

Fast track is out of committee but has not been voted on, it's passage is far from certain.... Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #59

I do not see how one considers this is a lie Samantha Apr 2015 #25

They can see it - 15,000 pages but they cannot take notes, bring in any staff to help remember jwirr Apr 2015 #30

The corruption is so transparent it's laughable. 15000 pages. Damn! It shouldn't be legal. stillwaiting Apr 2015 #42

members of congress could see TPP by appointment magical thyme Apr 2015 #33

+ a whole bunch cali Apr 2015 #38

Here's another question. Why are the Republicans so gung-ho to help support something Obama wants? Marr Apr 2015 #39

By "us" she means Democrats in the House and Senate and it's absolutely true. pa28 Apr 2015 #40

Problem is, that isn't what she said. nt okaawhatever Apr 2015 #45

Fast track removes the filibuster .... 4139 Apr 2015 #53

The Senate and the House have been briefed on the TPP Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #55

I am still learning about Warren and interested in what she has to say in spite of her fans here Number23 Apr 2015 #61

Yea it seems rather basic that they could reject it treestar Apr 2015 #64

Well ... if she's asked, I would have strongly advised her not to go down this road. ucrdem Apr 2015 #68