the ones who limited themselves to Fast Track authority. People who don't want Fast Track I suspect are just trying to tank the bill, because if Congress amends the bill it will take the other 12 countries (plus the observers) to start renegotiating.


These very same people though it was good that President Obama began the Iran nuclear talks in secret, because they knew that making them public would have led to their demise as several interest groups would have done everything to tank them.

Canada wanted to join the TPP early on. They were concerned they were going to miss out on something.

Reading some of the information out on the net.. it was really confusing as to what people were debating.. the details or the process..

30 days ain't shit.

... a "trade agreement" with a multitude of countries with input from zillions of corporations with something like the agreement with Iran is pointless. They are completely different animals.

in secrecy. Why are we doing it? Or, have we finally sealed the deal on being a totalitarian regime? I'm not making accusations but asking questions.

As the president explained today: any one of your members of Congress (535 of them) right now can walk over and read the entire document as it stands. Of course, the negotiations are ongoing on several issues. When those negotiations are competed there will be 90 days to read, and re-read, and discuss the competed agreement in its totality. And then they can vote against it if they don't like it.

Is there anything "totalitarian" about that? (Hint: the answer is no. Not that I expect you to change your mind.)

publishing it, letting Congress openly debate it, and let the American people tell their representatives what they think about it. Information is our friend. President Obama at one point in time promised to be the most transparent president. That is certainly one promise we know he has not delivered on.

with publishing it".

Publishing it has nothing to do with whether or not it's good or bad. It is because it isn't FINALIZED. Since Congress has 90 days to review the bill, releasing it now and starting the clock on debate (before the details are finalized) is dishonest. That is what you would do if the deal weren't good. Put out a rough draft that would appease most everyone and then change the rules before finalizing.

I don't know why some people are pushing what you are. 90 days is 90 days. It will be voted on 90 days after release. Does it matter if you start the clock ticking now?

You are also completely dishonest when you say that Obama hasn't delivered on his promise to be the most transparent President. That is a lie. He has, by all measures, been the most transparent Presdent.

Link: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

There's a sense here that, if this is a corporate giveaway that screws workers, the GOP will pass it and Obama will sign it. If the debate only begins once the administration presents it to Congress, the ability to derail it will already be past, particularly if McConnell takes the filibuster off the table. So the only hope is to try to gin up public discussion now.

You could ask: but why would President Obama conspire with the GOP to screw his own base? It's a good question, but if you look at how the alliances are shaking out on this, it's hard not to see it that way.

You could also ask: if we don't know what's in the TPP, why are we so sure it screws workers?

But then you have to ask: has there ever been a free trade agreement that hasn't?

and it is hard to tell them their fears aren't legitimate. Obama promised fair trade deals where things like environmental impact were in the language of the bill. Most suspect candidate Obama would not agree to this bill, but then again it is secret at this point and there are legitimate reasons to have strong relationships with these countries in the 21st century...

2008, while the TPP itself goes back to 2005. Part of the confusion stems from DU syndrome, they come late to a complex game with contradictory narratives already set.....