are looking more like swiftboaters and the NRA to me.

Is this another case where the union leaders are saying, "we don't care if it helps the Republicans take another seat in Congress."

I applaud Rice for her guts and foresight:

"Rice Saturday responded, 'I'm not afraid to do what's right for the working families and small businesses in my district, even if it means going against political allies. If they want to come after me and that's the price I have to pay to help more people find good jobs and help our businesses succeed in the global economy, I'll pay it any day.'"

that the tpp, TTIP and TISA have the potential to do real damage just keeps mounting. They are largely corporate giveaways. And her bullshit is wholly unconvincing.

right?

You shouldn't either.

The country would be a better place if unions were stronger because there would be more pressure on wages.

That being said reasonable people can argue about the negatives and positives of free trade...

Unions are in a pickle...If you are a union that represents American widget makers and Filipinos can makes the same widget for a dime on the dollar you and your members have a problem.

We can discuss the solutions for days because there aren't any obvious ones.

from tariffs and such.

That's what they are.

reconsider.

The solution is not swiftboating good Democrats. Union members ought to be telling their union leaders just that.

even close to being showboating. Not even fucking related. unions have every right to oppose dems what don't support what they see as critical issues. I'd like to think that you just don't understand the term. But I'm sure you do.

Last edited Mon Jun 8, 2015, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

directly or indirectly?

I was thinking directly = you hiring someone and paying them out of money that would otherwise go to you. Indirectly = you working for some organization and hiring someone. Apparently, you have done neither. Yet you bash organizations that do hire people and create jobs. Now, I might well agree with you on how the corporate revenue is divided, but that is another issue.

thousands and on both sides of my family going back several generations. Of course I don't count that, but you did say indirectly.

to corporations, particularly in the long term when their kids get cancer or auto-immune disorders from fracking fluids in their drinking water, and mystery contaminants in poorly regulated and ambiguously labeled food imports.

And we already have a pretty good idea from NAFTA how loud will be the giant sucking sound of jobs and wages leaving the U.S. as a result of this piece of shit TPP.

Here it is from the USTR's Website. You are free to show language that supports your claim of "Bulls*&t."
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds


"Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
What is ISDS?

ISDS is a neutral, international arbitration procedure. Like other forms of commercial, labor, or judicial arbitration, ISDS seeks to provide an impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts. Various forms of ISDS are now a part of over 3,000 agreements worldwide, of which the United States is party to 50. Though ISDS is invoked as a catch all term, there are a wide variety of differences in scope and process. ISDS in U.S. trade agreements is significantly better defined and restricted than in other countries’ agreements.

Governments put ISDS in place for at least three reasons:

To resolve investment conflicts without creating state-to-state conflict
To protect citizens abroad
To signal to potential investors that the rule of law will be respected
Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so.


What are the major criticisms of ISDS?

For some critics there is a discomfort that ISDS provides an additional channel for investors to sue governments, including a belief that all disputes (even international law disputes) should be resolved in domestic courts. Others believe that ISDS could put strains on national treasuries or that ISDS cases are frivolous. Based on our more than two decades of experience with ISDS under U.S. agreements, we do not share these views. We believe that providing a neutral international forum to resolve investment disputes under international law mitigates conflicts and protects our citizens.

The most significant concern that critics raise is about the potential impact of ISDS rulings on the ability of governments to regulate. Those concerns are why we have been at the leading edge of reforming and upgrading ISDS. The United States has taken important steps to ensure that our agreements are carefully crafted both to preserve governments’ right to regulate and minimize abuse of the ISDS process. Those steps are described in detail below.

What rights are protected by ISDS under U.S. agreements?

In U.S. agreements, the investment rules enforced by ISDS provide investors in foreign countries basic protections from foreign government actions such as:

Freedom from discrimination: An assurance that Americans doing business abroad will face a level playing field and will not be treated less favorably than local investors or competitors from third countries.

Protection against uncompensated expropriation of property: An assurance that the property of investors will not be seized by the government without the payment of just compensation.

Protection against denial of justice: An assurance that investors will not be denied justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings.

Right to transfer capital: An assurance that investors will be able to move capital relating to their investments freely, subject to safeguards to provide governments flexibility, including to respond to financial crises and to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system.

These investment rules mirror rights and protections in the United States and are designed to provide no greater substantive rights to foreign investors than are afforded under the Constitution and U.S. law. For example, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Several of these rights – such as those relating to expropriation and denial of justice – are also longstanding elements of customary international law protections for investors abroad."



However you cut it, if these provisions were so onerous, no country would sign them. Yet, they are lined up for the TPP, TPIP, etc. They all can't be as stupid as you seem to believe.

current terms the U.S. cannot mandate labeling meat with country of origin despite the fact that no country would be singled out. It would apply to all countries equally.

And tobacco companies are fighting cigarette labeling requirements in some countries despite the fact that the labeling requirements would be applied equally to all.

You are peddling bullshit that sounds very reassuring to those who are weak minded enough to fall for your propaganda, but your corporate talking points don't wash in the real world. Luckily, most in this thread are too smart to fall for your white washing of this piece of shit, not-really-about-trade agreement.

of a label. Further the WTO finding does not prohibit us from requiring Canada or any other country from labeling meat. But Canada can impose tariffs as retaliation, if we do. So, they haven't superseded our laws. Foreign countries can also voluntarily label, and would do so if consumers stopped buying unlabeled meat.

Once again, it's clear you don't know what you are talking about, only what you read from some dumb "journalist" who writes for the gullible.

sovereignty to legislate unfettered.

Again, your prediction of what could happen or might happen is bullshit in the face of reality.

You can regurgitate some more canned talking points that now. Have a nice day.

meme of xenophobes. Ever hear of the Sovereign Nationalists here?

Truth is, if you don't trust foreign meat, then buy only USA labelled meat. It really is that darn simple.

Why do you pretend to be a Democrat?

Representative supports legislation that destroys jobs and harms Unions, Unions therefore oppose Representative. Quite simple. Not surprising in the least that you take an ant-Union, anti-Democratic stance.

I don't think we should be making laws to protect a small group led by so-called "leaders" who are willing to bash good Democrats thinking they can increase their membership. I'm more concerned about young workers in future decades. I think the TPP is for them, and will not hurt current workers.

I think the TPP will help far more than even the most pessimistic think will be hurt.

Unions are wrong on this issue.

Swiftboating: false framing
Making laws: false framing
TPP will create jobs: disingenuous at best
Bashing unions: Standard fare for you

Your attempt to use false framing to bash Unions, and Democratic positions in general, is tiresome and transparent.

Really, the only thing deceptive is you.

Obama's goals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026798607

something. We'd lose a lot of good government people if that were the law.

I do think Congress members should be limited. And I think Obama and Congress should ensure the final agreement is good for us long-term on balance. I believe they will do that.

Who would you prefer to negotiate complicated agreements with long-term implications? -- Somebody without any international expertise; who hasn't been able to hold a job; who barely made it through high school; who thinks the dispute resolution mechanism in the TPP is a new concept, not having been used as far back as 1959 in 2500 trade agreements, and that it is not under UN/WTO rules; etc.

That is seriously messed up.

across table from leaders from other countries. Sorry you can't see the distinction.

And, no matter what their credentials, they ought not be bashing good Democrats, to the point it makes it easier for Republican opposition.

handle the office of USTR...

Corporate shills aren't writing the agreement, but I suppose that sounds good to folks who aren't going to do any research on the issue.

...you say that like it's a good thing. Although considering the overall tenor of your posts on this site, you probably do think that.

In any case, your logic is upended. Saying that unions are "going after good Democrats again" implies that unions are obliged to support any Democrat, regardless of whether said Democrat reciprocates by supporting them and their issues. But the fact is, just like any voter or any organization, unions are not obliged to support candidates who do not support them. Period.

I for one am glad the unions are flexing their muscles. We need every damn scrap of muscle we can get, to turn this ship of state around. It's not going to be easy, and there will always be the clever dividers who try to convince us we should ignore the truth and replace it with some misguided sense of party loyalty, when the party itself has sold out to corporate $$$$$ and has zero loyalty to the rank and file.

So many of us wonder how people can vote against their own interests -- mostly we are referring to the poor and lower middle class voters who vote Republican, and mostly we blame Fox News and the like for misleading those people. But in this case right here we have a purported liberal trying to convince us we should vote against our own interests, in the name of party loyalty.

Those words you have bolded are just so much blather from a politician. I've seen very similar statements from the mouth of many a Republican. It's just political BS and anyone with an ounce of critical thought can see that.

Go unions! Give 'em the truth, and let 'em think it's hell.

https://kathleenrice.house.gov/voterecord/

Conservative Review gave her a 0% F.

https://www.conservativereview.com/Members/K/412647

More about her record:

https://kathleenrice.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=136

https://kathleenrice.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=120

Is there something else going on here?

Some things leave me scratching my head. Like this op in contrast with this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026799225

yet they support anti-democratic Third Way/DLC corporate candidates who will strive to maintain corporate control of government. Those right center Democrats who consciously approve of oligarchy, control of the US government by wealthy private interests, will rarely admit it on DU, because they realize that oligarchy is despised by the majority of DU members.

Like Shakespeare so accurately wrote, "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet".

The main body of center right Democrats is a group that consciously, or unconsciously, primarily supports laissez faire capitalism, and control of government and the economy by wealthy private interests, but who support liberalism in social issues. They may claim that they do not support global laissez faire capitalism and control of the US government by wealthy private interests, but they consistently support Democratic candidates who promote them.

Center right Democrats generally vehemently support these candidates. These supporters may not be "card carrying members" of the Third Way, but in principle, judging from their actions, it is clear that these center right Democrats support the candidates who promote the Third Way/DLC agenda.

Occasionally, a center right Democrat will proudly admit supporting the Third Way and their agenda, but this is rare. Like republicans and libertarians, these Third Way self-described Democrats acknowledge support of laissez faire capitalism, and promote oligarchical government in the United States and elsewhere around the globe as well.

The Third Way will support any social issue, the support of which will increase the possibility of their Third Way candidate getting the Democratic nomination, as long as that issue is within accordance with the agenda of the corporate entities/wealthy private interests that control the US government.

Some center right Democrats may be astoundingly ignorant and/or self-deceived about their own reasons behind support of Third Way right centrism, but it is what it is. Their actions speak for themselves, and denial is not just an incorrect spelling of a the name of a large river in Egypt.

The above, and the situation described in the passage below, are what democrats in the Democratic party, and democrats everywhere, are up against in our struggle to institute genuinely democratic governments in our country, and all the nations of our planet whose majority of citizens desire the right to control their own political destiny:

http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

Join the Democratic democratic revolution...vote for Bernie Sanders ~ Social and Economic Justice for All.

Fuck third way trash.

They just no longer try to be creative with their lies.

Dems' roots with labor are still fairly fresh, so we see some interesting contortions from those of us trying to run as Republican Lite.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-support-fast-food-workers

non-committal generalities.

inside a velvet glove on the side?

The 1% should be trembling with fear, not rubbing our faces in it.