was called off due to the shutdown. Non-essential, then good.

Thanks for the post, and good night.

around when it comes to the TPP.

Well worth reading the transcript.

No time right now, but later on I will.

to the public citizen pieces I've read. Great stuff.

Like when they sued the FDA and WON the case!

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2307

legislating through extortion - and then realizing the TPP will be doing the much the same thing, in the name of cold hard profit.

It is rather difficult to take anyone who says the president isn't a corporate stooge seriously.

I've tried to stay away from why the President has been pushing this so hard, but it's a very pro-corporate and anti-democratic "trade" agreement.

Frankly, it makes me incredibly sad that he's making this central to his presidency.

It's strange that the rabid right worries about people getting some medical coverage, but ignores something as serious as this.

Diversion seems to be a well used tool in DC in recent years.

Trade agreements cannot "Rewrite Swath of U.S. Laws"

The potential negative impacts are real, but this is no different from the RW claiming that the ban on arms sales affects gun rights in the U.S.

about the investment chapters in NAFTA and other trade agreements, pro. because that's exactly the effect that those chapters have.

The claim is idiotic.

Trade agreements do not "rewrite swath of U.S. laws" and they still have to be ratified by a supermajority in the Senate.

Senate. Its not voted on as a treaty. The NAFTA vote was 61-38.

Go read Chapter 11 of NAFTA and similar chapters in other trade agreements. If a foreign corporation claims our laws present non-tariff trade barriers they take us before a tribunal usually run by corporate lawyers and then we have to pay up or change those laws if the ruling is against us. A Canadian oil company won a big decision against the state of California recently from the NAFTA court.

I would love to see an honest debate on this issue. I have yet to find a supporter willing to do other than spout derision.

like state vs fed law

still has to be ratified by a supermajority.

Thus far, the Senate has rejected the arms sales treaty, the disablity treaty, and if the TPP is as horrible as the speculation predicts, I doubt it stands a chance.

Isn't that the goal, to kill it?

The trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama? Those DID pass.

If President Obama gets fast track authority a simple majority will do.

Permit me to simplify.

You can reverse legislation by legislative action, but you can't undo treaties unless you can get all the signatories to go along. Therefore the latter are far more binding than the former.

What about that don't you understand?

...and once they're ratified...?

Yeah, arms sales is going nowhere because assholes on the right thing the government is after their guns.

This treaty isn't going anywhere either.

"...arms sales is going nowhere... assholes on the right thing the government is..."

You're writing is usually flawless. Whiskey or gin?

Anyway, here's you whole post preserved.

Yeah, arms sales is going nowhere because assholes on the right thing the government is after their guns.

This treaty isn't going anywhere either.

That second sentence is the money shot, Pro.

intimating that we should stop discussing this issue because YOU think it's not going anywhere?

you will never get an honest answer from that poster.

..and Will makes that laughably obvious to the other readers of this thread.

It is good thing for DU
that someone directly rebuts this kind of nonSense for the benefit of the other readers of these threads, especially the multitude of new members.

Reduced to spewing nonsense.

To implement the TPP, the Obama administration seeks to gain “fast-track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review an FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote, as required for the ratification of a formal treaty.

And I'll hand it to her: she knows when to retreat.

during the Bush 2 Administration, for instance. In other cases, clauses in treaties that appear to be binding aren't, as they require follow-on national action that often is greatly delayed or simply doesn't happen unless a party presses the issue. For instance, reservations on national measures or restrictions put in place in the WTO are supposed to be lifted according to a set timetable, but in many cases they remain in place until the member gets around to revising, or lifting them, or revising its schedule - which can be years after the deadline passes, or never.

Treaty clauses that aren't enforced are unenforceable.

into Sensible language.

They become "the Constitution."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

I understand how treaties work. This one is related to trade. Yeah, NAFTA had negative impacts.

"They become 'the Constitution.'"

That's simply nonsense. That claim is why the RW nuts believe the NRA bullshit aobut the arms trade treaty being an attempt by the Government to take away their guns.

or wont you say?

They can allow international trade courts to overrule American or state law.

That's written into the agreements.

Here is an example based on NAFTA:

HEIR meetings are secret. Their members are generally unknown. The decisions they reach need not be fully disclosed. Yet the way a small group of international tribunals handles disputes between investors and foreign governments has led to national laws being revoked, justice systems questioned and environmental regulations challenged. And it is all in the name of protecting the rights of foreign investors under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The corporations -- American, Canadian and Mexican alike -- that directly invest in neighboring countries are thrilled that Nafta provides some protection. But foes of the trade pact say some of their worst fears about anonymous government have become reality. And as Western economies move toward more free trade and globalization, environmentalists, consumer groups and anti-trade organizations are increasingly worried about how the tribunals influence the enforcement of laws. The groups are gearing up for a fight at the Summit of the Americas next month in Quebec, where President Bush will be pushing a vast new Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would provide for similar tribunals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/business/nafta-s-powerful-little-secret-obscure-tribunals-settle-disputes-but-go-too-far.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

like Democrats all of a sudden, standing their ground and fighting for people and democracy, and then I read this OP and wake up into the bleak reality of rampant corporatism.

you will find that particular gem om page 8 of the leaked investment chapter.

"No party may impose or enforce a requirement to purchase, use or accord a preference to goods produced in its territory, or to purchase goods from persons in its territory"

look what happened in Columbia 2013 after trade act
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/30-2

same shit all over the place really. But it also seems many people in very diverse parts of the world are waking up to it. Now it's up to us to do so.

Happened in Mexico aftr NAFTA too!

Even if I didn't have a problem with the corporate rule we're under per se, it's that there is no organized global counterweight to their global concentrated power. Yet.

Unions over here don't even have the TPP sister, the TTIP on their radar, afaik. Trying to change that.

certainly cant leave EU alone - just wouldnt be right

...by the comedy in DC, our beloved leaders are putting the final touches on selling this country. Doesn't make a lot of difference if we collapse now or later.....does it?

so there should be plenty of time to see and discuss the thing before (and if) it has any effect.

not sure what would stop it being passed based on prior pacts

in that case, the Senate (and trade agreements are only voted on in the senate) only gets an up or down vote. No amendments.

Fast Track has to pass in both houses.

high-level positions, you said,

"what I don't fucking mean to do is unfairly slam Obama"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3748381

for appointing repubs. it had nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

generally and I pointed to the Republicans that Obama chose to appoint to high-level Republicans in his Administration. You were criticizing all Republicans. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023747456

I pointed them out, and the Republicans that he appointed to his Cat-Food Commission who want to cut Social Security, because they did not change their stripes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023747456#post18

You said that you considered pointing out such Republicans as a slam against Obama.

You were criticizing Republicans generally. When I asked whether it was OK to criticize such Republicans, you did not respond.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023747456#post31

Now, with your OP headline, "... Obama Pushes Secretive TPP Trade Pact ...," you seem to be criticizing Obama. Excuse me, but while I think that your criticism of Obama's actions is correct and your focus on this issue is very important, you seem to be slamming Obama.

But with his record as a corporatist I have to believe it's a done deal. Weird that a constitutional scholar would sign away our laws to foreign companies.

Shit in the other.....

I'm tired of these back room deals by this admin that fuck the US. Why must one decent act be followed by dozens of "go fuck yourself" acts?

where`s the tea party on this issue?

Ranting abut Benghazi and health care to keep us all distracted and on the defensive so we don't notice things like the TPP and other things that their corporate sponsors want.
The triangulation continues.

Nothing to see here!

We need to get this information to as many people as possible as quickly as possible before this becomes the law of the land!

some people didn't like hearing the truth.

Thanks for the thread, cali.

Trust me on this.

.
.
.

CC

It's already enough of a struggle to achieve strong voter turnout in a non-pres congressional election cycle like 2014.

Promoting FT will harm much of the recent goodwill toward the pres regarding the shutdown. It will frustrate voters into the line of thinking- why bother?

Every vote counts in these often close congressional elections. Turn-out is vital for Dems to win, especially to win big enough to retake the House.

TPP will stifle turnout and help Rethugs to dominate 2014.

knr

recommended.

I just posted an article about Representative Rosa DeLauro and her position on the TPP and fast track.

SOPA, forced food imports, financial regs undone, loss of right to sue, jobs outsourced... these are just some of the outrages contained in this horrific document. I can't believe PBO is pushing this.

This is something we may be able to unite with the right on. Many of them don't like NAFTA on Steroids any better than we do. (Seriously, they're always howling about the UN taking over the US government. This is almost as bad. Maybe worse? Maybe that's how we can sell it to them.)

Whatever we do, we can't let this thing get fast tracked. I've been writing my Senators over this but with the shutdown, things must be crazy. I know Senator Warren would most likely oppose this. Senator Markey too, but he's barely in office yet. (I saw acting Senator Cowen speaking on the shut down on TV so I don't think Markey has even finished setting up his office yet.)

Mass dems are hoping to get another progressive in the House of Reps but this is our third special election in almost as many years and it isn't going to be held until October 15th. Mass voters are weary. I'm worried about turnout.

Sh*tcan the TPP! It's got to become our next rally cry. (That is if they don't come after SS at some point in the near future.) There is just so much crazy stuff going on with our government that we can't take our eyes off them for a nanosecond.

and thanks for the info about the MA special election. I don't even know who's running. yikes.

You're so right. We cannot let the TPA pass!

Shitcan the TPP. I like it.

On edit, I just looked up the status of the new group and found this post,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593541#post7.

Thanks again.

It is critically important to every American who Works for a Living,
AND our Environmental Protections that this gets defeated.

If it was such a GOOD thing for us,
these "negotiations" would be Out in the Open, and not held in secret.

The scary thing is that President Obama KNOWS that these "treaties" will hurt the America's Working Class. He admitted as much during Campaign 2008 when he made the promise to "immediately" re-negotiate NAFTA if elected President.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises..

by Dave Johnson on the TPP. Very hopeful.

I'll check it out.

Nobody....I mean NOBODY I know outside of DU has ever heard of TPP or TTIP.
Even those active in our local Democratic Party who consider themselves "informed"
know nothing about these new treaties.

yes, we need to spread the information far and wide and far too many dems aren't aware, but people, including Congress critters are waking up to this.

Read Dave Johnson. I bet you'll feel encouraged- and no one, but no one, is better informed than Johnson or better at clearly communicating.

cheers and cheer up. we will defeat it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023790436

Another DURec here.

Does anyone know what Kerry will say when he's there?

We all have a right to know what's going on and this should be open and transparent*, but at the moment any statements about Obama and Kerry's stance is speculation, possibly with some hyperbole thrown in for good measure.

however, it's reasonable to assume this treaty isnt aimed at making the lives of the 99% easier when the only ones involved in negotiations are corporations. Dont you agree? Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that the Pres is working to complete this treaty. Dont you agree? He doesnt seem to be working to kill the treaty.

Is there a scenario that you can think of that has the treaty coming out in favor of the 99%? If so, I would like to hear it.

The writing is on the wall when we were told it's being negotiated in secrecy because they didnt want to alarm the public. In other words they know what's best for us and to leave them alone.

As I said above, I really hate the secrecy surrounding this and hopefully there will be more leaks soon.

When were we told the reason it's being negotiated in secrecy is "because they didn't want to alarm the public"? Has someone actually said that, or is it paraphrasing what Grayson and Warren have said?

Speaking of Grayson, if the draft he saw is "a gross abrogation of American sovereignty" I expect that President Obama would be fighting on behalf of American sovereignty, not against it. That is my assumption/presupposition and yours may or not be different. We will find out one way or the other eventually and when we do I'll revisit this conversation...