General Discussion

rogerashton

(3,960 posts)

138. I read your link.

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:10 AM

Apr 2015

If I understand it correctly you are saying that security is necessary because a Congressman has violated security. That's a good -- real! -- example of "begging the question."

A "free trade" agreement doesn't need 15000 pages. It would list the tariffs, quotas, and similar limitations on trade that are to be eliminated, and that might take a couple of hundred pages. The problem is that, to require 15000 pages, this must be a trade limitation treaty.

Well, free trade agreements don't occur in the actual world, as free markets do not -- all myth. But here's a question: is there anything, in your opinion, that is NOT a national security interest? I would say that economic security is military security. Otherwise, government secrecy is totalitarian.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

173 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Don't Sanders, Warren, or Grayson have Staff That Can Read the TPP? (Obama was Correct.) [View all] msanthrope Apr 2015 OP

Below is the link of Rachel maddow's interview with Elizabeth Warren on this issue diabeticman Apr 2015 #1

She's incorrect. Staff members with appropriate security clearance apparently can...per the Trade msanthrope Apr 2015 #2

The elected official must be present. TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #7

Of course. I can't imagine either Warren or Sanders not wanting to be there. They also get plain- msanthrope Apr 2015 #9

The legislation is huge and made up of hundreds of pages. newthinking Apr 2015 #14

Plain language explanations are availble for all chapters. Further....are you kidding me? If you msanthrope Apr 2015 #18

Boom! sheshe2 Apr 2015 #25

If Ted Cruz made these complaints, we'd laugh so hard we'd all pee ourselves. msanthrope Apr 2015 #38

Plain language. In other words, someone else's selective interpretation of selected parts. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #49

No--it's pursuant to the law..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #52

Would you sign an important legal document based soley on a summary created by the GoneFishin Apr 2015 #57

Don't get all accurate about this. merrily Apr 2015 #79

Oops. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #81

Glad you're duly contrite. Not to worry. All is forgiven. merrily Apr 2015 #85

How is the US trade Office the opposing party? And if I thought they were, then I'd msanthrope Apr 2015 #108

It's called an Executive Summary, and heads every complex document that ever crossed my desk... Hekate Apr 2015 #95

Correct. But that is generally not an adversarial process. This clearly is. I know many here are GoneFishin Apr 2015 #148

No, that is what staff is for. Anyone who gets elected should be in Congress. merrily Apr 2015 #77

If you need staff to read plain language explanations for you, because you msanthrope Apr 2015 #106

The "plain language" issue has already been addressed by other posters. It's a non starter. merrily Apr 2015 #113

I believe it's 15,000 pages Oilwellian Apr 2015 #51

Consider the fact that the trade representative weasels have had years to craft exactly the GoneFishin Apr 2015 #60

Oh please.You get all the staffers together from a bunch of Senators&Reps & give them each 100 pages Hekate Apr 2015 #68

Except they can't. Only staffers of Congress members on the Finance Committee riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #69

Any staffer with security clearance. Any member of Congress....that's how Grayson msanthrope Apr 2015 #109

That approach does not work with a long, complex, technical document. I'm not even sure it would merrily Apr 2015 #84

Actually, distributive proofreading works quite well when you set your mind to it Hekate Apr 2015 #90

you did that with international treaties of thousands of pages in legalese, with tons of merrily Apr 2015 #91

Why is it so unfeasible in your mind that a motivated group could do this research? Hekate Apr 2015 #92

Not what I posted at all. Too late/early for me to appreciate the straw man. merrily Apr 2015 #98

Not a straw man on my part, but if I misunderstood your intent... Hekate Apr 2015 #100

"proofing" or annotating any document by definition requires mark-up with pen/pencil or software package zazen Apr 2015 #134

Wait....lets not go there they said the same thing about health care bill.... Historic NY Apr 2015 #132

there is tape of Brown asking about this dsc Apr 2015 #145

Members have to babysit their staffers now, because of Darrell Issa--- msanthrope Apr 2015 #149

that is simply untrue dsc Apr 2015 #157

Do you really think Issa was the one uploading? We aren't talking about car theft..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #158

even if he ordered the staffer to do it dsc Apr 2015 #159

Well.....then the Senate should have addressed the breach at the time, not msanthrope Apr 2015 #160

No we shouldn't have stupid rules dsc Apr 2015 #161

It is unfortunate that Senators have to show up to work. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #162

their work is voting on things dsc Apr 2015 #163

Pay me 174k a year, plus perks, and I promise to find the time to read the msanthrope Apr 2015 #164

then you would be a piss poor Senator dsc Apr 2015 #165

He re-published an old draft that had been put out the year before riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #169

And who do you think was responsible for the leak the year before? Or do you just believe that msanthrope Apr 2015 #171

Warren was a professor of law at Harvard. amandabeech Apr 2015 #155

Too bad. Thank Darrell Issa for that. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #156

I beg you -- rogerashton Apr 2015 #130

Why do you need a security clearance in this instance? Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and msanthrope Apr 2015 #131

I read your link. rogerashton Apr 2015 #138

Have any of those on your list said THEY can't read it? morningfog Apr 2015 #3

They've complained about transparency---specifically, about not having staffers be able to read it. msanthrope Apr 2015 #6

It makes it easier to lie about it 4now Apr 2015 #4

What is the appropriate security clearance? n/t TexasProgresive Apr 2015 #5

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #8

I'm sure they do. joshcryer Apr 2015 #24

Confidential. joshcryer Apr 2015 #23

Jeez, I had that rating in 2 or 3 jobs just by virtue of working for the Big Boss. It means keeping Hekate Apr 2015 #93

That's why I was surprised the committee requires a babysitter. joshcryer Apr 2015 #94

Thank Rep. Grand Theft Auto---after he leaked on his website, the USTRO imposed that measure. msanthrope Apr 2015 #120

Holy shit, now it makes sense. joshcryer Apr 2015 #123

I started a new thread on this point. It's worth discussing..... msanthrope Apr 2015 #124

I GUARANTEE you that no one will credit Republicans. joshcryer Apr 2015 #125

It's Ratfucking, 101. The Republicans do wrong, the Democrats blame the President, who, at this msanthrope Apr 2015 #126

I didn't even know about it. joshcryer Apr 2015 #127

Wouldn't you expect frequent OP writers on the TPP to know this? I've written 2 OPs on the TPP, and msanthrope Apr 2015 #128

I mean, I don't know. joshcryer Apr 2015 #129

If it is classified "Secret," you would need a "Secret" clearance and "a need to know." Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #153

Wrong, Sherrod Brown explained all this regarding their Staff. Special clearance, unprecedented sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #10

I quoted the Trade Office itself. If Brown doesn't employ people with high enough security msanthrope Apr 2015 #13

Except that's a lie Oilwellian Apr 2015 #20

Which means staff does have access. Is Brown really complaining about having to show up for work? msanthrope Apr 2015 #27

Please do get real Oilwellian Apr 2015 #33

If the TPP is as bad as you say, isn't it worth reading in full? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #55

I smell a worm in Msanthrope StoneCarver Apr 2015 #73

Re-read the thread. Msanthrope is not being defensive but trying to make people see reason.... Hekate Apr 2015 #96

That's funny "I smell a worm in.." you. Cha Apr 2015 #103

We will see it. When it's done. In the meantime, our representative msanthrope Apr 2015 #107

Here's the video Oilwellian Apr 2015 #17

He's confirming that staff has access. Unfortunately, he has to show up to work that day, too. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #30

There's no reason why he needs to be there Oilwellian Apr 2015 #37

If Ted Cruz complained he was too busy to read a bill, we'd savage him. If Brown cannot show up to msanthrope Apr 2015 #42

Boom goes the dynamite. Nail, meet hammer. Got it in one. Hekate Apr 2015 #99

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Apr 2015 #45

So all our elected officials have to do is set in a secret room all day so that their staff can do jwirr Apr 2015 #70

Wait a second...if I were a Senator complaining about the TPP, I'd want to read msanthrope Apr 2015 #110

And what about all the other things they need ot do. What is reguired to read this thing is the jwirr Apr 2015 #141

Indeed. Blame Issa. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #142

Now that I have no trouble believing! jwirr Apr 2015 #143

Work isn't one issue, is your assertion that he should blow off all other responsibilities TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #111

Shouldn't he be reading it, too? At least the summaries? Especially if one is msanthrope Apr 2015 #114

Let's talk about WHY the need for confidentiality. MH1 Apr 2015 #11

Grayson has read it nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #12

Well, now Alan doesn't have to go the USTR--he and his aides don't have to leave the Capitol. msanthrope Apr 2015 #15

Another great Dem whom I trust on economics arcane1 Apr 2015 #78

We KNOW Warren (or her staffer) read it. joshcryer Apr 2015 #16

Indeed--what I find most surprising is that Bernie apparently doesn't have a staffer who can read msanthrope Apr 2015 #19

If that is actually true Bernie has a problem. joshcryer Apr 2015 #26

Security clearance? hay rick Apr 2015 #21

Currency manipulation, conterfeiting, and our drug supply aren't national msanthrope Apr 2015 #32

Those are the reasons why all those crooked big banks got shut down. Octafish Apr 2015 #76

That's exactly what it is Oilwellian Apr 2015 #40

Didn't seem to me that Bush had much trouble getting that unconstitutional POS passed. merrily Apr 2015 #89

Why are the lucky few who CAN read the TPP, then gagged? 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #22

You mean our elected representatives, and those with the proper security clearance? msanthrope Apr 2015 #29

The Cuba & Iran deals were NOT written by greedy Mega-corporate Lobbyists & lawyers 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #62

You really think big businesses aren't involved in our Cuba deal? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #112

Apples & Oranges 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #144

Kick....already reced sheshe2 Apr 2015 #28

Sheesh MFrohike Apr 2015 #31

So you agree that members always had the ability to review? And now that staff with the proper msanthrope Apr 2015 #36

I do MFrohike Apr 2015 #39

Link? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #43

Yes. You must have missed this (it even has an oblique Snowden reference) riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #47

Are you suggesting that is a quote from President Obama? nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #50

That's an excerpt from the linked article riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #53

I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. Cite it, msanthrope Apr 2015 #54

Unlike you in other threads that I won't call you out on, I can riderinthestorm Apr 2015 #61

I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. As proof, msanthrope Apr 2015 #116

Ugh MFrohike Apr 2015 #48

I overstated it MFrohike Apr 2015 #56

Wow, that's awesome of you to realize that you overstated your initial point and apologize Number23 Apr 2015 #170

Why are they acting so damn ignorant? Cha Apr 2015 #34

Money. You raise funds as you can....and the FDL wing always opens their coffers msanthrope Apr 2015 #46

Yeah, I know.. it's pathetic. Elizabeth Warren is no better than anyone else. Cha Apr 2015 #64

Why is this a secret to begin with. How is this democracy when congress onecaliberal Apr 2015 #35

I assumed this was probably the case, cheapdate Apr 2015 #41

K&R nt Andy823 Apr 2015 #44

What a fucking pantload. 99Forever Apr 2015 #58

+1000 nt 99th_Monkey Apr 2015 #63

... yep 840high Apr 2015 #72

"What a fucking pantload." Cha Apr 2015 #86

yup Skittles Apr 2015 #121

The 151 Democratic House members that signed a letter opposing Fast Tracking the TPP must think Apr 2015 #59

... bahrbearian Apr 2015 #65

It isn't that they can't read it-They aren't allowed to discuss it. midnight Apr 2015 #66

Why the hell not? All this secrecy. 840high Apr 2015 #74

That is Elizabeth Warren's point... And it's getting attention. midnight Apr 2015 #82

Kick, kick, I want to kick something. >sigh< Hekate Apr 2015 #67

Enough. MannyGoldstein Apr 2015 #71

If it's "human lives", as you claim, then shouldn't our Senators be reading it? Apparently Grayson msanthrope Apr 2015 #118

Very sad indeed Andy823 Apr 2015 #168

Somehow you imagnine this bolsters your argument? LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #75

This isn't the plans to prevent WWIII. So why is it being so protected and secret? Cleita Apr 2015 #83

Yeah, you better invoke the BOG 'cause you have nothing. When all else fails.. blurt out the BOG. Cha Apr 2015 #102

Desperation. His term is ending and they desperately need a colossal clusterfuck. great white snark Apr 2015 #136

Well said, snark! I miss you!! Cha Apr 2015 #166

Yep Andy823 Apr 2015 #150

"Hypocrits" comes to mind! Cha Apr 2015 #167

Absolutely. Are you upset that the Administration did not provide you a copy of the Iran deal msanthrope Apr 2015 #117

Let's see: National security vs. Trade agreement LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #135

Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and our drug supply msanthrope Apr 2015 #137

Please provide a link to the text in the agreement that supports your point. KeepItReal Apr 2015 #152

The agreement isn't online yet. But if you look at the IP chapter that Darrell Issa msanthrope Apr 2015 #154

You claim all this stuff is the TPP but can't link to the original source material KeepItReal Apr 2015 #172

it's all they have Skittles Apr 2015 #122

Why isn't it available to me and the rest of the citizenry to read online Cleita Apr 2015 #80

Oh, but you can read it! LondonReign2 Apr 2015 #87

I know. Ironic isn't it? Cleita Apr 2015 #88

It will get the same 60 day notice MaggieD Apr 2015 #101

+1 Historic NY Apr 2015 #133

So then why can I usually see what's pending online and not this? Cleita Apr 2015 #139

Because it's still in negotiations MaggieD Apr 2015 #146

Because it's not pending legislation. It's in draft still. nt msanthrope Apr 2015 #105

According to this it is pending legislation: Cleita Apr 2015 #140

Exactly. MaggieD Apr 2015 #97

It's no secret, then... Guess you've read it. I've read it, haven't you read it? Oh yeah, Kip Humphrey Apr 2015 #104

I will read it, when it's pending legislation. It will be available to msanthrope Apr 2015 #115

Same here. joshcryer Apr 2015 #119

LOL - not many, I'll bet MaggieD Apr 2015 #147

It's the secret shit that bugs me! ananda Apr 2015 #151

You forgot the photographic memory part... Agony Apr 2015 #173