George Zornick reports at The Nation:
… Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown sent Obama a letter demanding that he release the bracketed negotiating text of TPP before Congress votes on fast-track authority. The duo noted that even George W. Bush released the texts of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas “several months” before Congressional action was required, and asked Obama to do the same.
In comments to reporters Friday, Obama said “The one that gets on my nerves the most is the notion that this is a ‘secret’ deal.” In a shot widely interpreted as directed at Warren, he said: “Every single one of the critics who I hear saying, ‘this is a secret deal,’ or send out emails to their fundraising base saying they’re working to prevent this secret deal, can walk over today and read the text of the agreement. There’s nothing secret about it.”
Warren and Brown took this claim on directly in their letter…
… As a result of your administration’s decision, it is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that members of Congress may “walk over…and read the text of the agreement”—as we have done—you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public.
While experts, the public, and the press are not allowed to review the latest draft of the TPP, executives of the country’s biggest corporations and their lobbyists already have had significant opportunities not only to read it, but to shape its terms. The Administration’s 28 trade advisory committees on different aspects of the TPP have a combined 566 members, and 480 of those members, or 85%, are senior corporate executives or industry lobbyists. Many of the advisory committees—including those on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, textiles and clothing, and services and finance—are made up entirely of industry representatives…
Warren and Brown also noted that the fast-track bill being considered in Congress now could be in effect until 2021, meaning future presidents (i.e., President Scott Walker) could use the authority it grants to ram through even worse trade deals with no amendments possible, and a low vote threshold.
The fast-track legislation has passed both the House Ways & Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and awaits full floor action in the coming days…
More information, including the full text of the letter, at the link.
Additional notes from the Huffington Post:
… Some of Obama’s claims about TPP on Friday took some creative license with the truth. He said that he wanted a trade deal that would allow American automakers to sell more cars overseas, without mentioning that Ford and autoworker unions do not support the pact. He also said that he had not included any language barring currency manipulation — a key tactic by which Japan and China undercut American production — because it might hamper the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy operations. That scenario would only be possible if the pact defined “currency manipulation” in a particularly bizarre manner…
The Obama administration has been negotiating the TPP deal since the early days of his presidency. Democrats and a bloc of House Republicans lead by Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.) are concerned that the pact — which has not been finalized — will exacerbate income inequality and undermine U.S. authority to write its own regulations, while Obama and Republican leaders say the deal will help all Americans by boosting economic growth. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other top corporate lobbying groups support the deal, while environmentalists, organized labor and many Tea Party organizations are opposed…
By focusing his attacks on Warren, Obama has elevated a quiet political quest to win over congressional Democrats into a prominent public debate with one of the most popular figures in his party, one widely seen as its standard-bearer on economic policy. Brown is one of the top Democratic experts on trade policy. His 2006 book detailing problems with the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts is celebrated by progressives….
So maybe this is more of the much-discussed Obama Eleven Dimensional Chess, by which the President subtly forces more transparency by attacking other Democrats to encourage Republican overreach, leading — eventually — to a better outcome, or at least one that can be presented as an improvement. In which case, I will be eagerly awaiting the release of the “bracketed negotiating text”.
Corner Stone
It’s kind of interesting how some people can simultaneously hold that nobody is allowed to know what’s in the TTP, yet they know the things in the TTP are disastrous.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
We’re in the posturing stage right now in preparation of the full fight that will occur after the deal is finalized.
Baud
One thing I’m unclear on. Is the fast track legislation itself subject to filibuster?
Gene108
Sigh…I hope this does not alienate a block of voters like Republican in fighting over immigration did in 2006 and 2007, when Congressional Republicans defeated Republican President George W. Bush’s attempt at immigration reform.
From a domestic policy perspective this seems like a foolish hill for Obama to chose to die on, so there better be a super good foreign policy reason for doing this.
JGabriel
Corner Stone:
Senators (and House Reps.), as noted above, can read the TTP – they’re just not allowed to discuss the details with anyone else. So it’s perfectly plausible that they can accurately tell us the deal is disastrous while simultaneously acknowledging that nobody else is allowed to know what’s in it.
Gene108
@Corner Stone:
Would be easier, if the draft of the bill were made public. Or public enough to have a real discussion about it.
Having a trade deal with a few dozen partners is tough to negotiate, but we do have a right to be informed.
Southern Beale
Horrible person alert:
Idiot preacher Tony Miano, who used to host a show with idiot Talibangelical Ray Comfort, Tweets of Nepal disaster that he hopes no pagan temples are rebuilt and the people “repent/receive Jesus.”
What a fucking asshole.
Baud
@Southern Beale:
It’s really not shocking anymore.
BubbaDave
@Corner Stone:
There are tens of thousands of pages written by Doug Feith that are classified and will never be revealed to me, yet I can still be absolutely confident that they’re 99 and 44/100ths percent idiocy. Sometimes the authorship is all you need to know, and when I hear that 85% of those with seats at the table were corporate execs or lobbyists, that’s a sign.
Kay
@Baud:
You already know how I feel about this, but tell me how people are supposed to feel about this? :
They set this up as the administration and industry leaders negotiating a deal. You know what Baud? That’s not The United States.
People have a right to believe that someone is negotiating on their behalf. Not some later trickle down possible benefit as a result of the benefits to these industries and sectors. Not “concessions” to interest groups. Working people aren’t an interest group. They, too, are “the United States”.
I get that the industrioes and sectors will bemefit which is why they have been in on it from the beginning. I resent this notion that everyone else may or may not get some accomodatiuons in Congress, after we take care of the top priority American interests.
Cervantes
@Kay:
But people also have a right to believe that Santa Claus exists …
Keith G
Oh noes! Why are Warren and Brown being so mean in their posturing? The fact that executives of the country’s biggest corporations and their lobbyists already have had opportunities not only to read it, but to have input on its terms is how the new America is supposed to function.
And the fact that the public is prohibited by law from understanding what million dollar lobbyists already know is just part of America’s new secret transparency. Yay us!!
Call Senators Warren and Brown and tell them to stop being so mean.
p.a.
This is 11-dimension chess in the same way bailing out the banksters instead of the debtors was. He’s channeling Geithner and Rahm. For this he’ll go to the mat. For card check? Meh…
Kay
@Cervantes:
Yeah, well that isn;t what the President said, though, The President said it WAS being negotiated for the good of the whole country. So we’ll just ignore who wrote it and take his word on that.
Baud
@Kay:
I have no issue with anyone who is opposed to this thing as a matter of policy, and I have no issue with some of the rhetoric those opponents have used to try to build opposition to this deal. But I have yet to hear anything about the negotiation process that gives me reason to believe that there is something hinky about the way this particular trade deal is being negotiated.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: I’ve heard that said.
PeakVT
Krugman on the topic. Also, Baker.
Stillwater
@Baud: But I have yet to hear anything about the negotiation process that gives me reason to believe that there is something hinky about the way this particular trade deal is being negotiated.
Cart/horse problem there, no? Which is Warren’s point.
We actually do know something about it, tho. Leaks! Check this out.
Baud
@Stillwater:
No.
Stillwater
@Baud: How can you say you haven’t heard anything hinky about the negotiations when no one in the know can actually talk about what’s being negotiated?
Edit: Check out the link.
Baud
@Stillwater:
Logically. I can’t have heard of something no one knows about.
Baud
@Stillwater:
On mobile. Can’t check out PDF file right now.
John Revolta
I really want to believe that Obama is looking out for me. 80% of the time, I think he is. But sadly, I think there are times when even he has to take orders from the people who are really in charge, and I’m afraid this might be one of those times.
different-church-lady
@PeakVT: Krugman:
Well, there goes your cred at the Great Orange Satan. Be prepared for the indignant screeching of a hundred gnats, Professor.
The sound you’ll be hearing shortly is heads of a hundred gnats’ heads exploding as they try to get them wrapped around the idea of being on the same side as the Larry Summers.
Ah, so that explains why it’s become the latest “progressive” hill to die on; it has built-in exaggeration potential.
ETA:
That, of course is the 64 trillion dollar question, and standds without any snark from me. I include it here so as not to leave the impression I’m in favor of the TTP.
Major Major Major Major
@PeakVT: Thanks for the Krugman link, I think I’m generally in his camp: an ideal pact would be good, the one emerging perhaps not so much.
Kay
@Baud:
It’s also a little tough to take how Obama is decrying “politics” now that he doesn’t have another race to run. He and Clinton had a battle in the Ohio primary over trade, and he was 100% on board for “politics”.
“Labor” isn’t optional for Sherrod Brown in this state, and they won;t be optional for Ted Strickland either. They’re essential for people who need, and get, 51%.
Stillwater
@Baud: I can’t have heard of something no one knows about.
No one knows anything hinky?
Look, Warren’s point is that CCers are barred from talking about the contents of the treaty, hinky or otherwise. Your argument justifying your apathy re: it is that … no one is talking about the contents of the treaty, hinky.
That’s a big ole circle.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: By morans, no doubt.
Tree With Water
@Corner Stone: And visa versa, eh?
Baud
@Kay:
Doesn’t every president do this on every controversial issue?
Good. I hope they are rewarded for fighting for their constiuents.
Ruckus
The more I hear about the TTP and fast track the less and less I like it. And I wasn’t all that thrilled not that long ago. Read somewhere that long term, not much of value comes from the big trade agreements. For either side This one sounds like it gives big protections to large muti-national corps and at a possible huge cost to the vast majority of people of this country. I get secret negotiations, there are lots of pieces to anything this big. But President Obama is asking for this to become even less open and debatable. That may not be all that crazy, given our current congress. With one caveat, about the only people in congress I trust at all are against it. Seemingly everyone else thinks it’s great. I want to know more about it, I want my elected reps to be able to discuss it. Some like Baud say there will be plenty of time for that. This has been in the making for what 7-8 yrs? And they get 90 days to make a decision or reject it. Seeing as most of them seem to lack the basic ability to read, let alone make cognisant decisions, I see this sailing through congress like shit through a goose. What we have now, given nearly half of our population seems to be batshit crazy, may not be much of a democracy but this looks like making it worse to me.
Baud
@Stillwater:
Nothing hinky about that restriction.
Keith G
@different-church-lady: And yet, despite your selective harvesting of quotes, Prof Krugman is against the deal and he wonders why, to use your term, the Obama administration is choosing this “hill” to fight for.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: So, you’re a senator?
different-church-lady
@Keith G: Check the ETA
Corner Stone
@JGabriel:
What do you mean? I would think it’s obvious that people who can’t know what’s in the bill can’t advocate for anything based on the fact that they can’t legally know what’s in the bill.
It’s a little silly for people to argue against the “trust us” arguments of the people questioning why anyone who can’t see the bill would be suspicious of the bill.
Baud
@Ruckus:
For the record, I didn’t see 90 days was ideal. I simply said there would be a period of time in response to people who said there would be none.
Heywood J.
@Corner Stone: We don’t know exactly what’s in fracking solutions, either, but we can be fairly certain that you don’t want it in your water table.
The TPP, like GATT and NAFTA and all the rest of the “we’ll let you know the details after we bull it through” trade deals, will just put more money in the pockets of those who already have plenty, send more American jobs elsewhere, constrain IP and fair use rights, and so on. If it were actually beneficial, they wouldn’t hide it.
Corner Stone
@Tree With Water:
It’s interesting that people can know that things in the bill are disastrous and yet simultaneously argue that people aren’t allowed to know what’s in the bill?
Stillwater
@different-church-lady: you have to wonder why the Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting this through.
Yeah, this too.
Ruckus
@Baud:
My problem is not the process in which it is being negotiated. That seems pretty normal for these kinds of things.
My problem is who and what is being negotiated and that we are just supposed to sit back and like quite possibly getting completely fucked. See #31 for the reasons why.
Corner Stone
@Heywood J.:
I think it’s kind of interesting that people can simultaneously argue they don’t know exactly what’s in fracking solutions and at the same time argue that drinking the composition is dangerous.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: It’s perfectly logical to be suspicious of a “secret” deal.
What is illogical is to claim specific parts of the deal are terrible while on the other hand claim that nobody knows what’s in the deal.
You gotta pick one or the other.
Kay
@Baud:
Obama can’t ignore the context of NAFTA. This isn;t NAFTA. I agree on that. All the “low hanging fruit” on free trade is already gone.
But this wide-eyed incredulity on how people don’t trust trade deals?
It is 100% rational for people not to trust trade deals. They were lied to and burned and they were told EXACTLY the same things. Do you know how many people were “retrained” in this state after job losses from NAFTA? 20,000. That was the extent of the massive and much-promised support they received.
Baud
@Ruckus:
That’s all I said.
I don’t believe that you should, in case my prior comments weren’t clear.
Stillwater
@Baud: Nothing hinky about that restriction.
No, nothing hinky about that at all. What is hinky, tho, is you basing your apathy regarding the TPP on the lack any negative information regarding the negotiations when you admit that such information cannot be legally disseminated. That is, you’re basing your argument on precisely the thing Warren is objecting to.
Gene108
@Kay:
The biggest reason I have read for supporting the TPP is that it is a lynch pin in Obama’s “pivot to Asia”, with regards to foreign policy.
This will give the US some sort of balance to China’s growing regional influence.
China already has trade deals and/or free trade zones set up witht many of the counties involved with this pact.
Kay
@different-church-lady:
What the Senators are saying is that they can review the specifics of the deal but they cannot debate them publicly.
OzarkHillbilly
@Baud: The Reps and Senators are supposed to represent their constituents, but in this case they can’t even ask how they feel about a particular piece of legislation? Even I smell something from the deep blue sea.
Heywood J.
@Kay: Yes, this exactly. I can’t afford a horde of lobbyists. That’s why I thought I was voting for someone to represent my rational self-interest to at least some degree. Apparently we’re just supposed to show up to the ballot boxes so that Apple and Merck can milk ever-sweeter deals out of the peons.
different-church-lady
@Kay: Yes. So senators have a rather more authoritative position on this than the BJ commentariat.
One would think that point would be obvious, but it would get in the way of a lot of ranting, so it is roundly ignored, if not outright contorted.
PeakVT
@different-church-lady: Still raises the question why this is so important for Obama. A minor net negative for the working class doesn’t seem like a policy he should be pursuing. Perhaps he thinks that all domestic policy initiatives are futile, and has given up on them, and still feels the urge to get something passed, and the TPP is part of the set of “something”. Doesn’t seem worth the effort to me.
So, why is this worth Obama’s effort or my support, other than your glee that passage will irritate “progressives”?
Baud
@Kay:
Agree. If this deal goes down, I will not shed a tear.
But if this deal goes down, we better make sure that the Dems win the White House because I’m confident a Republican president will negotiate something much worse, and that will pass.
Kay
@Gene108:
Well, then, Gene, Obama should say that instead of saying it is “for middle class jobs”. They dug their own hole. They said it was for middle class jobs and then stacked the table with representatives of these industries.
Again, what are people supposed to think? It’s a jobs plan negotiated exclusively by CEO’s? Great. People will love that.
Cervantes
@different-church-lady:
You actually wrote that?
srv
@different-church-lady:
Billary Foundation, how did that work?
different-church-lady
@PeakVT: I agree (and appended such to my initial post, if you haven’t seen it yet). I’m mystified by the thing.
I would also like to clarify that my glee extends only to “progressives”, and not progressives.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: You’re beyond ridiculous at this point.
You have to be a senator to know enough to be against the deal. Yet there is a law against anyone telling the American public the details of this deal.
And every leaked piece of info, see NYT et al, tells us that the available analysis is that MNC’s get what they want and we get fucked. When 85% of the people having their say on something are paid lobbyists for Big Corp it a should ring alarm bells when people start the “trust us” bullshit.
Baud
@Stillwater:
No. I’m basing my apathy on the current absense of evidence. If there is evidence that Warren can’t provide me right now, she’ll be able to provide it later, and I can reassess at that time.
different-church-lady
@Cervantes: What, too much of an insult?
Corner Stone
@PeakVT:
It doesn’t seem like a minor net negative if investors have an agreed formula and venue to sue governments to recoup losses if they enact public good legislation or regulation.
Kay
@Baud:
I think it’s a done deal. However. I hope Sherrod Brown extracts a HUGE price in exchange for this done deal, and if he has to do so using “politics”, well, he’s a talented poltician, so I have a lot of confidence in him.
Cervantes
@different-church-lady:
I could not care less about that — but as for this:
Did they have “a rather more authoritative position” on, say, the invasion of Iraq as well?
Keith G
Pharma corporations desperately want to clamp down on the production of generic anti-viral drugs used to fight AIDS in resource-poor countries.
But it’s just not an issue, say, in Vietnam. It is closer to home.
Referring to leaked info (bolding is mine):
–From Canadian AIDS Legal Network
Yeah. Too many lives are at risk for “just trust us”.
I just wanted to edit to showcase a quote from above…
sue sovereign governments over ”interference” with their “expectations” of profit.
Yes.
Corner Stone
@Baud:
After fast track authority is passed by a Republican Congress? At that point in time when no one can alter or filibuster?
Ruckus
@Baud:
Sorry but I’ve been following this somewhat closely, especially here on BJ and you seem to be commenting in circles.
Let me see if I understand.
1. We should just wait and let the process work.
2. There is plenty of time to pass or reject this even with fast track.
3. No one knows what’s in the deal so we can’t know if it is good or bad, that will come when the debate happens.
4. I never said I like 90 days as the debate limit.
As I said above, given our elected debaters, with a couple of exceptions and a deal that has taken 7-8 yrs to get this far, who has had the majority of input and I’d assume at least tact approval to get this far, my lack of enthusiasm is underwhelming to say the least. This is going to run to what, a few thousand pages and you expect our congress critters to have any idea about all the ramifications after 90 or whatever amount of time? A lot of smart people have spent a long time trying to make this into something and I’d bet half of that time was invested in making it harder to understand how much the citizens of each country involved will get to pay for this. And who they get to pay that money to.
different-church-lady
(Redacted: wasn’t supposed to post that until further consideration)
Baud
@Corner Stone:
I have no problem with opposing fast track on that basis. I simply said I am unaware if any actual evidence of impropriety in the negotiating process.
different-church-lady
@Cervantes:
They did. And they completely fucking botched it nonetheless.
But then again, by that time I don’t think any of them were voting on what they knew.
different-church-lady
@Ruckus:
And you don’t see that as a problem?
Cervantes
@different-church-lady:
Assuming you’re right, what, then, was the point of the following?
Baud
@Ruckus:
Ugh. I have to run off for a few minutes. Hopefully, we can pick this up later.
Heywood J.
@Corner Stone: I think it’s kind of interesting that you think that’s kind of interesting.
Kay
@Baud:
The worst part is, I think they were getting some traction with “retraining” in this state. It really IS good for skilled trades. My middle son started a skilled trades program in January. He finishes the first portion in June; the initial “credential”. He mentioned tonight he got a call from a compnay in Pennsylvania, on Saturday. He rarely speaks, so I had no idea people were offering him jobs, let alone calling from other states on a Saturday :)
Corner Stone
@Baud: I…uhhh…
different-church-lady
@Cervantes: I’d like to answer your question, but it would involve describing the boring inner workings of a rhetorical game being played with a certain other regular. This would be both (a) boring and (b) giving away the game.
Stillwater
@Baud: I simply said I am unaware if any actual evidence of impropriety in the negotiating process.
Well, that’s the circle Warren and Brown are POd about, but fine, you’re not worried. Corner’s point is correct tho: if Obama gets fasttrack authority it can’t be amended and it can’t be filibustered. So …. it’ll pass.
Read the link I supplied upthread, tho. I think there’s another one down lower (just above here). Check em out. Might change your mind regarding what you’re viewing as “impropriety”.
Ruckus
@different-church-lady:
I didn’t say only. I have my sources. And I’m not debating the details as all I’ve heard is “leaked” info. But I am debating the situation, the people behind the details and the possibility that our wonderful congress is going to have, in their world, the equivalent of an hour and a half to openly discuss this. There isn’t much I like rammed down my throat, least of all may be a shit sandwich. And this sure feels like that. Anyone have any info which might change my mind? Other than wait and see how bad it is.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: Point being you’ve been roundly called out and can’t give up your tedious attempts to make your ignorant comments into something other than they are.
Corner Stone
@Kay: Skills! Opportunities! Ladders!
Ladders of Skilled Opportunities! Opportunities of Skilled Ladders!
different-church-lady
@Ruckus: Well you’re probably both more honest and more informed than most of the others around here, which, in a roundabout way, is the whole reason I jumped on that opportunity to insult the generic entirely of this joint. Which, in consideration of your seemingly honest intentions, was not the best form on my part.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: If Pyrrhic victories are what get your LED all aglow, then treasure this moment.
Cervantes
@Ruckus:
Can’t answer that, but I would suggest to you that when a Nobel laureate and free-trade theorist par excellence says to be cautious about this thing, then your misgivings are more than justified.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: I don’t see how I’ve burned anything down by pointing your fallacious arguments back at you.
Was I supposed to be recruiting you to some point and now you’re going to refuse? Should I start rubbing the tears out of my eyes now or later that someone of your intellectual stature feels slighted by having their own disingenuous statements left hanging for the dubious jackals of BJ to see brightly?
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: No, you just go on being yourself. It was what you were going to do anyway.
Ruckus
@different-church-lady:
Didn’t take it that way at all. This is a debate based on little actual knowledge about anything other than the participants and the process of the debate. After looking back at the politics/policies/results happening during my lifetime, it seems to me that questioning our elected reps is not just a good idea, it is essential. The process of this trade deal takes that almost completely out of our hands. With fast track congress has 90 days to approve or not. Most of the idiots we have in congress can’t find their asses with both hands in 90 days, they are going to figure this out, inform us and give us time to argue with them before the 90 days is up?
different-church-lady
@Cervantes:
Well now, cautious… that’s like, an entirely different framework for our little tweetle-beetle-puddle-paddle-battle… In fact, I don’t think anyone here has yet to consider such an option.
different-church-lady
@Ruckus:
I like you. Come sit here next to me.
Ruckus
@different-church-lady:
Done deal.
kc
@Kay:
Preach.
kc
@different-church-lady:
LMAO!
different-church-lady
@kc: So do tell me how you know more about this than Senator Warren. I’m all ears.
Stillwater
@different-church-lady: When Krugman advocates caution, he’s certainly not talking to the electorate since we don’t know anything about it other than what’s been leaked. He’s talking to Obama and CCers. Not Cervantes or me or you.
Caution as it applies to the process, in the context of Warren’s complaints about transparency, reduce to CCers and Obama saying “trust us”. But why should we trust them regarding a treaty they won’t show us? Shouldn’t they trust us by making it public?
different-church-lady
@Stillwater: A perfectly good question. One that I share.
Tree With Water
E. Willies over at Daily Kos.com talks turkey:
“..If these trade agreements were really about increasing trade that would help workers, the environment, and business alike, why are unions and environmentalists not at the table? The answer is simple. These deals aim to maximize corporate profits. Any benefits for the environment and workers are secondary.
“Free trade” deals will never be good for America or any relatively high-wage country. It is basic arithmetic. An American engineer is no better or worse than a Chilean, Vietnamese, or any other engineer. The only difference is that the ones overseas will work for a lower wage. The fiduciary duty of corporations is profit maximization for shareholders. “Free trade” with countries that have low labor cost puts the American worker at a disadvantage. No amount of spin can change that. It is not a difficult concept and one wonders why the president gives the semblance of not understanding that”.
LAC
@different-church-lady: you have to find the irony of the world’sheavyweight drunk champion of not right getting right lecturing you to be very funny at the least.
different-church-lady
@LAC: I’d be wasting my time if I didn’t.
Hell, I’m still wasting my time…
Corner Stone
@Tree With Water:
He clearly understands it very well. There are no tariffs being significantly lowered between these signatories, as they are already very low. This isn’t about finding consumers for American made goods in other countries. What are we exporting? Wages. That is what we are exporting.
Anyone who can’t admit that is the one being dishonest.
Corner Stone
@LAC: Jeebus, lay off the vodka for a change. At least try an attempt at coherence, for once.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady:
Ummm, that particular Senator is actually pushing back against fast track agreement for this deal.
So….
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone:
…you’d agree with me that she knows more about it than we do. That’s what you were going to say, right?
Baud
@Stillwater:
I think that’s the main disconnect for me here. I was not assuming that the trade deal would pass even if fast track passed. I guess I assumed that there would still be a large contingent of the GOP who would not agree to anything Obama wanted. But it’s quite legitimate to view the fast track vote as effectively a vote on the final deal, in which case I understand the concerns about process.
Ruckus
@Stillwater:
Of course the answer you are looking for is that we aren’t trustworthy. Or congress either.
That’s my take. We wouldn’t like it if we knew what’s in it, the only people that would are the people who wrote it. And if they are multinational corps and they are on both sides of the deal, that isn’t a deal. That’s a screwing for the vast majority, plain and simple.
Anne Laurie
@different-church-lady: Gotta admit — when you can’t quash an argument, you’re excellent at derailing it.
That’s why you get the big bucks, I assume.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: I think it’s obvious that if you’re going to cite a Senator as having more info than we do, and the one you pick is against the fast track authority, then it calls into question the coherence of what exactly it is you’re attempting to argue.
Or, at least, it should.
different-church-lady
@Anne Laurie:
Yes. I’m assuming the reason everyone here is confused is because I’m not actually picking a side. If that qualifies as ‘derailing an argument’ then I’m good with it.
LAC
@Corner Stone: Jesus, lay off the attempts to be funny while nervously gulping down your fourth drink. You can’t do both.
Corner Stone
@LAC: Get help for goodness sake. Your drunken rage venting isn’t benefiting anyone here.
Now, after you have a pitcher or so of cold water, anything substantive to add on this thread? Or just another drunken slurring shambles against me?
kc
@different-church-lady:
That’s right, backpedal away.
different-church-lady
@kc: So it’s all about the belligerence for you, eh? C’est la vie.
Ruckus
@Baud:
Progress.
My understanding is that the majority of republicans don’t think there is anything wrong with the deal and will vote for it. That’s a huge problem for me right there. As well, it’s only democrats who are questioning the entire thing, treaty and process. I’d be derelict in my duties as a citizen if I didn’t question this.
kc
@different-church-lady:
Troll on, brother.
LAC
@Corner Stone: and you really do need to stop pretending that you are in control, offer anything of substance, or are anything more than an angry drunk that spends an inordinate amount of time here. It is called denial and like the first stage of everything in your life, you need to move forward.
Baud
@Ruckus:
Completely fair. GOP support is a red flag on anything. And I hope anyone who is opposed to this deal isn’t letting them off the hook.
Corner Stone
@LAC:
No it isn’t. And it should be obvious to everyone except for the chronics like yourself that you have absolutely nothing to say about anything, just pop in to try and take shots at me.
I suggest you tell your sponsor that you have an ongoing obsession. You can’t possibly get free of the demons driving you until you’re upfront about your obsessive hangups.
Do you even comment here if it’s not about me?
Cervantes
@Stillwater:
Not clear to me what you’re saying here.
Who is it you think is asking whom to be cautious, and why?
Chris
@Kay:
This is pretty much my take on it too. I am open to reinterpretation whenever it does become public. Having said that;
When you see a deal that large multinational corporations have been allowed to read up on the process of and even shape while labor unions have been shut out of it, there’s nothing irrational about thinking something smells about it.
When you see Elizabeth Warren and (not historically a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-globalist) Paul Krugman being skeptical of a deal while the Chamber of Commerce and most of the Republican Party are for it, there’s also nothing irrational about wondering whether you’d rather side with the former.
BobS
Here are a couple things worth reading –William Black’s views on Obama & the TPP and Elizabeth Warren explaining Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
Dude in Princeton
@Baud: Read the original post.
LAC
@Corner Stone: says the drunk who thinks his bullying is a contribution to anything. Why don’t you let someone have an opinion here and quit acting as if you are this poster’s bodyguard? You never do shut up and listen, do you?
And I comment enough. I just have a busy job and you have a hangover to nurse. You just miss it.
Dude in Princeton
@Corner Stone: Troll.
Kay
@Corner Stone:
Oh, God, I know. They started using “upskill” which is worse.
The Secretary of Labor is better than the Secretary of Education, though, so I’m trying to be nice about it.
Arne cross-examned a parent the other day. She was asking him about testing. Afer firing some questions at her, he shut her down with “facts matter” Zing!
He gets more horrible with each passing day. I have no idea why he thinks the mothers of 1st graders are his opponents.
Dude in Princeton
@Stillwater: Troll.
Dude in Princeton
@Gene108: Linchpin. JC.
Corner Stone
@LAC: It seems like the overwhelming majority of your comments are at or after midnight in dead threads. This is one of the few times you have taken shots at me that were before midnight Eastern.
I comment, and contribute, on a number of threads ranging from food to sports to politics.
All you ever do is come in on a dead thread and bite at my ankles. What have you had to say in this thread, for example, that was not related to me?
Do you understand anything about the topic of the thread? Any contentions or sources or points to be made?
No?
Hmmm.
BruceFromOhio
Out of the gate, this means it is bad for me, you, the people next to you, and all the rest of us who are not Chamber of Commerce members or top corporate lobbyists.
Further, if Senator Sherrod Brown says it’s a bad deal, that’s really all I need to know.
Renie
@Corner Stone:This is it exactly. ” What are we exporting? Wages. That is what we are exporting.”
This should be the tagline everytime TPP is discussed because this is the reality of it.
Ian
@Baud:
A legitame arguement. However, the service to the 1% still overcomes the 100% opposition to the democratic party.
PhilbertDesanex
I’m in late as usual…
‘Trust me’ they say.
I’ve heard that’s how to say fuck You in Los Angeles. …. .
how about they TRUST US and SHOW US?
FFS
LAC
@Corner Stone: I do see that usually the death of a thread occurs when you post. You are usually jumping in, insulting people for their opinions, and being an asshat. Seriously, you wasted a board thread arguing about your misuse of a word. Please…
My coming in when I do is because I do not spend every waking minute on balloon juice – I have a life and people in it who do not stand over me the next morning with a cup of coffee and a sad embarrassed face. Unlike you. So I hope that explains it you. It’s spring, get out more.
No doubt this will be penultimate post on in this thread and then you will close it with your usual drunken vitriol. See, that is how the word is used,Webster.
Corner Stone
@LAC: Given that I posted in this thread a number of times before you posted in the +100’s I guess you’re too stupid to give much credence to anything about.
And, unlike yourself, I actually know what words mean and have no problem using them to express myself appropriately.
Now. Anything to say about the actual thread topic going on here?
No?
Hmmm…
Corner Stone
I’ve always enjoyed fast track authority for international agreements.
Corner Stone
@LAC:
No, you’re just usually too drunk and cowardly to actually engage, so you have no choice but to ankle bite after midnight.
Post something in this thread about the TPP, about free trade, about Obama.
Anything but me.
No?
Hmmm…
Omnes Omnibus
To the extent that it matters, I am against any trade agreement that does not have strong and enforceable labor and environmental protections.
Tripod
@Kay:
What’s your context here? Looking at the research, 20K is probably about right for Ohio. I’m talking directly attributable to NAFTA. There’s a tendency to throw in manufacturing losses to the far east and automation into the NAFTA bucket and demagogue away.
I don’t have much use for anyone that snorts away skills training. For sure, delivery and career pathing are a mess. A hodgepodge of unemployment grants, union trade schools, community colleges and for profit tech schools.