I sure don't.
And - just think - this is only one of twenty-eight chapters!

at Public Citizen and EFF.

Usually met with Oh, you just don't understand! and Obama would never give corporations the upper hand!
The waffling and stonewalling will get worse, because Hillary helped architect this thing and is pushing for it.
My stance is - I will not vote for anyone who votes for this. And this is not a one-issue thing. The TPP and TTIP and other agreements that are being updated will touch every aspect of our lives, and not in a good way.

we have ceased to be a nation and will have effectively become a corporate colony.

the this would signal end of our freedoms as we know them.

we wouldn't be citizens anymore (not that we have been considered as such after WWII) and we wouldn't be "consumers" anymore (a disgusting term that labels all of us as nothing more that users and exploiters), we would become corporate serfs.

I can't recall any dystopian fiction that matches up to this.

if you have read any thing in their own banking papers. from goldman sachs etc and the council on foreign relations papers and other papers from think tanks

This is just a big leap into their control over the planet

for 4 years after the final document was enacted or TPP abandoned. The final document will be available, if and when, Obama endorses it and submits it to Congress, with or without fast-track authority.


I agree with the US Trade Rep's (appointed by Obama) comments in the OP link:

"The United States Trade Representative’s Office dismissed such concerns as overblown. Administration officials said opponents were using hypothetical cases to stoke irrational fear when an actual record exists that should soothe worries.

"Such “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” accords exist already in more than 3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure access to international justice."

and I don't believe a fucking word out of the mouth of that piece of shit, Siddiqi or his corporate henchmen. fuck them.

Not sure who "Siddiqi" is.

Siddiqi is the USTR. Pretty basic info.

Michael Froman was sworn in as the 11th United States Trade Representative (USTR) on June 21, 2013. As USTR, he is President Obama's principal advisor, negotiator and spokesperson on international trade and investment issues.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials/united-states-trade-representative-michael-froman

corporate piece of dog shit who has been instrumental in the TPP negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_A._Siddiqui

it comes to his precious little TPP.

instead of an up-or-down vote.

Given the corporatist slant of centrist Democrats, I'm not so sure fast-track is critical. He'll get all the Republicans, and can probably line up enough centrist Democrats to approve the treaty without it.

If it's a bad deal, don't think he will submit it.

blind faith in a politician. cool, bro.

And more of them definitely isn't better.

reasons.

The difference between you and I? I provide links to support what I claim. YOU? Not so much.

http://www.cityam.com/212109/eu-backtracking-isds-most-controversial-part-ttip-could-be-scrapped

an Investment Court, which would essentially do the same thing as the language in the Wikileaked draft.

It's an improvement in the process, which sounds reasonable to me. But, it's not a major change.

classified for 4 years.

It's a good article in many respects and explains why TPP is important, why it's supposed conducted in "secrecy" (although it's not secret), where people disagree with certain aspects, etc..

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership

do they ordinarily classify the negotiations, and why?

Essentially, the "this is what we propose" document would be classified.

The actual treaty would have to not be classified in order to enforce it.

Boy, that was hard.

Additionally, the leaked document talks about how companies could seek judicial relief for regulations. How would they do that if it was classified? They couldn't know that judicial relief was available.

"Essentially, the "this is what we propose" document would be classified (but the final chapter would not be)"

So how, specifically, would a corporation seek judicial relief from a regulation if the treaty was actually classified?

know.

I conclude you have no intention of offering proof for your bullshit claim.

See, one document being classified does not magically mean another document will be. What one document being classified means is that the government does not have to produce it upon request.

This document being classified proves only that this document is classified.

For the fourth time: how, specifically, would a corporation seek judicial relief from a regulation if the treaty was actually classified?

Here, I'll copy the title again for you, highlighting the words.

From what I can tell, this has nothing to do with the American judiciary. Everything done in an ISDS "tribunal" is presided over by an ISDS "judge" (or whatver they choose to call him). American laws (or Japanese laws, or Australian laws, or whoever's laws) don't seem to enter into it.

So if a nation's laws are immaterial so far as the TPP goes, I don't see why American judges and the like would need to know any more than we unwashed masses do. Our courts have nothing to do with it.

And if it's run under the aegis of the UN and WTO, "enforcement" is their problem. (Which will make it our problem, but that's a different discussion.)

Am I reading this correctly?

They would be classified, and thus not available, if ND-Dem's rantings were true.

probably sooner, but certainly no later than when Obama submits it to Congress (assuming it gets that far).

The "classification" applies to the negotiation between the parties. But realistically, it's not even "classified" because we are looking at it right now.

I can certainly understand your reluctance to research any of this on your own... almost as much as I understand your need to label opinions you disagree with as "bullshit".

No doubt, you feel more clever this way.

Neither have very good track records when it comes to "Free Trade".

Build in a kind of 'transparency delay' - giving members of Congress (who vote for it) time (4 years) to gin up a plausibly deniable reason to argue, "I was promised unicorns and rainbows, and was betrayed, just like my constituents were!"

the ability to blame the previous one.

A clue for you... The TPP doesn't exist. You are reacting to the sausage making in a leaked document that may or may not be real, not the bill itself. A technique Obama bashers have been using since the day he took office. Not a single dire prediction by your team has ever come true.

Textbook FUD and Obama bashing 101.

bullfuckingdogshit the TPP doesn't exist. And do try and face reality just a tiny bit. The leak is real.

fuck this denial shit. It's as disgusting as climate change denialism.

I know what the ISDS has done in countries like Ecuador. I know what a huge gift this is to corporations. Fuck that a thousand times.

President Obama is fucking flat out wrong.

And thus bash our President daily on DU for something that doesn't exist.

I sure do not bash President Obama on a daily basis. Not close. Just a flat out false claim. disgusting. And sorry, the TPP damn well does exist.

Take up your denial with Senator Brown or Senator Warren or Senator Senator Schumer.

Oh to blindly loyal to some politician. It must be comforting.

Denial? @ you.

I bet you're sick of it, I would be too if all I did was bash the President on a Democratic forum for something he hasn't done.

that's some industrial corporate strength denial, my dear friend.

And no, I'm not your friend.

Do you think Chained CPI exists?

it is a proposed trade agreement that President Obama supports- big time. He is actively involved in pressuring the Congress to give him fast track in order to pass it.

Do you deny that, my not-a-friend?

Do tell.

Obama will never support or pass something stupid. Why? Because he's not an idiot and because history proves it.

The actual TPP agreement does not exist. Congress has passed nothing and Obama has agreed to and signed nothing. Period.

even though he included it in his own budget?

That is what I'm getting at. Both are FUD.

Can you point me to the bill Obama signed that establishes Chained CPI as law?

train to hit you before jumping out of the way. Does this feigned naivete feel good?

Until then it is simply a leaked document that may or may not be real. AKA FUD.

Believe whatever you want. Obama will not support a bad deal.

than Bush's failure to get privatization through means he didn't want to privatize Social Security.

This is one of the most fantastically nonsensical "arguments" of all time. It is there in black and white in a budget submission, it is a FACT no matter what lame spin is used to rationalize and dismiss it to the memory hole.

We could use a little glasnost right about now.

efforts, nor a denial of any onerous terms exposed in the leaked documents.

The TPP deniers are full of shit and part of a continued ploy to slip it past us.
Fuck that.
I believe nothing they say about TPP.

Or at least "republicans oppose fast track because Obama is black"

So keep fucking from now on!

No wonder the President called critics "conspiracy theorists."

It'll make what used to be criminal, ripping off the work of the many and putting its wealth into the pockets of the connected few, all legal-like.

many of which have been implemented or he worked to do so, I don't think any of us believed transparency was going to be tops. He was saying that on the campaign trail because of how many young people he had the opportunity to get. No one who has given polotics a remote look believed he would make the Executive Branch transparent. I also don't think he needs to hang his head in shame. He is a politician, better than most, not as good as some.

The manner in which the TPP is being negotiated is disgusting and goes against the basic concept of how the federal government is suppose to act on behalf of the American people. Still, it is nothing new.

Should Obama have opened up the Iran negotiations to the public, as well? I think we know how that would have turned out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

Point 1: I was commenting on the ops thoughts about transparency and Obama. Your point here should be directed at the op. My point was clearly in very general terms. The op was directly referencing the treaty. In the past there have, without a doubt, been situations where the public was given time to see the sausage with respect to treaties. Not necessarily the making of the sausage, but the sausage itself. Point 2: No.

Not trying to be snarky at all. I keep reading what I wrote here and it keeps coming off that way. Just trying to answer your questions, one of which would be better directed at the op. Thanks for the response.

the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper, except when it comes to honoring international treaties. Who cares if they will destroy our judiciary system that protects environmental and food/drug safety laws? It's a new day. Here, have some poisoned peas.

Wow. So the admin says it's a good deal.

1. The first thing the administration says is that this is a good deal: when the text is finalized and released publicly, people will be surprised by how different from its predecessors this trade deal really is. They note that Obama ran for office promising to renegotiate NAFTA, and while that didn't happen, this deal fully reflects his thinking about what went wrong with NAFTA — particularly in the weak enforceability of its labor and environmental standards


Particularly love the passive NAFTA didn't happen. Try the President never even proposed anything.

3. That said, the unions really do know a lot about what's in this deal. And they still oppose it. Pressed on this, the White House's answer is one that liberals have heard from the Obama administration before, and that they never fail to find frustrating: TPP may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative.

Yes, yes.. Boogie Man China will dominate if we don't.

One really important dimension of the debate around TPP is intellectual property protections. This is an area where American businesses feel hugely disadvantaged overseas, and the administration thinks it's giving them a big win. But there are economists — Krugman is one — who think IP protections have already gone too far, and even if it gives Paramount or Pfizer a bit more protection, the result will be to make the world poorer without obviously making American workers much richer.

Oh, yes. Poor wittle American corporations. And not only will it not make American workers richer, it'll hurt sick people.

The result is that even where there is transparency, it's a form of transparency that can only really be navigated by politically sophisticated, highly motivated actors — which is to say it's a form of transparency that quickly becomes a venue for lobbying. That's one reason these deals end up including so much ... stuff. The process is constructed in such a way that the negotiators get a lot of special pleading from individual industries and interests. Responding to those requests feels like responding to the public, but it isn't, and it leads to deals jam-packed with individual provisions that look a lot like giveaways.

NO KIDDING

Piece of dog shit.

There's not one that I know of that is against it.

Things that are good for the 99% cost the .1% money (money that they could never hope to spend in their lifetimes) . Republican Senators fight that with everything they have.

Since we are not allowed access to the details of the TPP, I have to base my support or lack of it on what the politicians are doing. ALL of them.

Senators have had access to this in varying capacities throughout the creation of the TPP.

Of one thing I am certain: If I can't have access to potential legislation wherein ALL (or almost all) Republican Senators are for the TPP (which is vast and encompasses so much more than trade issues), I am AGAINST it. Especially when good, progressive Senators that have seen it don't think it's good either. Obama's position on it leaves me scratching my head.

I don't like basing my opinion on things where I don't have access to all of the facts, but this is just too important. It's too large and too encompassing. And, ALL Republican Senators seem to be for it. That's a very good reason to not support it since we can't even read it ourselves. Republicans are HORRIBLE these days, and they are voracious in their support of the billionaire class at the expense of every one else.

If they come out against Fast Track because they are racist (and that's clearly what that's all about; just saying "No" to anything Obama wants to do), that does not mean there isn't a good reason to object to Fast Track outside of that.

I found it ridiculous that this same contingent (that will oppose Obama on ANYTHING because they are racist) are at least partly responsible for us not currently having Chained-CPI. It does my head in.

Politics is absolutely insane.

Not exactly high praise to say the best-case scenario would have limited benefit.

Perhaps, protecting what we have is important long-term.

Actually, some responses provide a window into who is either way too gullible, way too corporatist (of third way or similar persuasion) or a shill for "free" trade. I won't presume to decide which is which. But perhaps they missed the bulk of the article that's inside the paywall, like this part on "mitigating factors, that have no real legal nmeaning:

There are other mitigating provisions, but many have catches. For instance, one article states that “nothing in this chapter” should prevent a member country from regulating investment activity for “environmental, health or other regulatory objectives.” But that safety valve says such regulation must be “consistent” with the other strictures of the chapter, a provision even administration officials said rendered the clause more political than legal.

One of the chapter’s annexes states that regulatory actions meant “to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety and the environment” do not constitute indirect expropriation, “except in rare circumstances.” That final exception could open such regulations to legal second-guessing, critics say.

complete with loopholes

it's appalling and the denial is just pathetic.

AFTER the TPP goes into effect?

Do any fans of the current president or likely-presidential candidate(s) care to respond to this horseshit?

Per President Obama.

And if you talk about that, you're an "Enemy of the State."

Per Cass Sunstein.

How 'bout them Wildcats?

maybe I am an Enemy of the State.

This is some of the paper such as we follow:

See, what have we been talking about on DU for over a decade Octa? Sure enough...Coke vs Pepsi wars are just a century away! And the yammering about it bringing out better trade standards...for who!?

The labor class is going to get fucked three ways from Sunday. Globally. And you think China is going to abide by any rules? HA! The companies won. Knew money trumped everything else. I guess it is up to everyone now to find that out too, the hard way.

No more sovereign rights for us as individuals (no matter what country you live in), hey didn't we see this coming and talked about it during the Citizen's United SCOTUS giveaway? Yes we did.

we must pass it, in order to find out what's in it........

Sound familiar ? that kind of bullshit is what turned the Senate over to the Republicans, and strengthened the republican majority in the House.

If they can't tell us what's in it, then it shouldn't even be voted on.

or a more compelling reason to oppose this travesty. "Trojan horse" doesn't even begin to describe it. Hope the POTUS is as well-compensated for his services to the plutocracy as the Clintons have been.