Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Please join me in vigorously opposing the #TPP trade agreement."

[sabrina 1]

Bernie Sanders ‏@SenSanders 32m32 minutes ago
Please join me in vigorously opposing the #TPP trade agreement. pic.twitter.com/PaupxK1ZVm

:large

More on the TPP's potential disastrous affects at Bernie's website:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I stand with Senator Sanders on this, and many other, issues! Run, Bernie. Run! n/t

[appal_jack]

99. He should filibuster this 'trade' deal. And also run. k&r, nt

[Enthusiast]

2. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Thank you, sabrina.

[Dustlawyer]

11. All his posts should! I wish the other Progressive Senators and Congressmen and women were

out front together with him!

[sabrina 1]

25. Yes, any Democrat worth the title should be out there supporting Sanders on this issue.

Bill Moyers may have provided the reason why they are not. I am going to post his take on why so few of our Congress members are standing up for the people as soon as I get some time to do so.

[Dustlawyer]

33. Bill Moyers has been spot on all year and then some. His interview with former Texas state

Senator, Jim Hightower, earlier this year was one that demonstrated what we have to do to return Representative Democracy to the U.S.
Moyers is a man who has been on the inside of the media and government for 50 years, and when he says that we have lost our Democracy to corruption he knows that of which he speaks!

[bigwillq]

3. K and R (nt)

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Someone's got to oppose Obama on it. Bernie may be the only one, though. The 1% wants it, REAL BAD!

[sabrina 1]

26. I don't know why Bernie, who isn't even a Democrat, should be the only one to oppose this.

Didn't we elect Dems in a landslide in 2008 to get this job done?

Not arguing with you, sadly you appear to be correct. But surely there are SOME Dems who will support Sanders OPENLY on these issues?

If not, then what were we voting FOR?

[RiverLover]

41. He's not the only one to oppose it.

One of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s top priorities since coming to Washington has been opening up ongoing international trade talks to public scrutiny—she has, on several occasions, criticized the secret nature of the negotiations, and has pressed the administration’s trade representative directly about transparency.

On Wednesday night in DC, at Public Citizen’s annual gala, Warren spoke about the trade deals in some of her most direct remarks to date on the issue—and revealed some inside details about the debate in Congress.

...From there, Warren launched a direct broadside on the trade deals, which would include the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, and suggested it should be scuttled.

“Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen.”

http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/we-need-more-than-elizabeth-warren-we-need-warrenism/article_dbf86135-499f-530f-82d1-6a39c1bc7416.html

the TPP "could erode U.S. financial safeguards designed to prevent future financial crises." Tammy Badwin (D-WI) and Ed Markey (D-MA), neither of whom tried to help her stop the derivatives deregulation in the CRomnibus last week, both signed on to Warren's letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. "We cannot afford," they wrote. "a trade deal that undermines the government’s ability to protect the American economy."

In her letter, Warren raises concerns that the deal could include provisions that would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. policies before a judicial panel outside the domestic legal system, increasing exposure of American taxpayers to potential damages.

She also objects to potential provisions that she said would grant foreign companies access to U.S. markets without being subject to restrictions on “predatory or toxic financial products” and that would restrict the U.S. government’s ability to impose capital controls, such as transaction taxes, on international firms.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/12/can-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-and.html

[sabrina 1]

60. That is good news, but still nowhere near enough to stop this from happening.

As Warren and Sanders have pointed out, this 'deal' would give enormous power to Corporations some of them Foreign Corporations, over our legal system in terms of environmental laws eg.

As Warren says in your link:

“Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed.

We've already seen some of this with the Longshoremen and Foreign Corporations. A story that has received hardly ANY coverage at all.

It is like allowing an invading foreign army into the country and I do not hesitate to say that it borders on treason. Nor am I alone in that view.

[whathehell]

59. +100. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

76. What were we voting for?

A capital D.

An us-against-them mentality that resembles football loyalties.

We were playing team sports and not trying to fix our country.

And when any of us tried to point that out -- here on this site -- we got: "Oh, I suppose you'd rather have ....?!"

Naturally, that doesn't apply to all of us here, but too many -- then and now -- still play that game.

-----

It doesn't matter if the President is black or white or whatever.

It doesn't matter whether they are male or female.

It doesn't matter whether they break any kind of glass ceiling.

It doesn't matter if they give good speeches.

It doesn't really even matter what party they belong to (apart from the obvious fact that any decent people have long since been driven out of the GOP, so none of the ones that are left are any good at all).

It matters whether or not they sell us out.

And there are plenty of sell-outs with Ds by their names.

[sabrina 1]

78. Those who engage in those kinds of distractions know they don't matter. They are simply trying

to silence people.

And the more people refuse to be intimidated by those tactics, which is happening to a great extent, the more ineffective they become.

These are issues Dems claimed to be concerned about during the Bush years. Most still are, so anyone who is in any way trying to defend them now, isn't worth paying attention to, they are merely trying to derail and distract.

[stage left]

5. Proud to stand with Bernie on TTP.

Big Corporations don't need any more perks at our expense

[aspirant]

6. K+R with a big WHOOPIE for President Bernie

[gregcrawford]

7. Bernie is one of MY senators...

... and he's the real deal. I support his candidacy 110%!

The Trans-Pacific partnership is a corporate coup d'etat masquerading as a "Trade Deal." It makes corporations essentially immune from prosecution for any crime, no matter how heinous. It allows corporations to sue sovereign nations if they pass laws that MIGHT affect future profits. NAFTA already has such a provision, but the suits must be tried in the "offending" nation's courts. Under the TPP, these suits would be tried in corporate courts by corporate lawyers. There would be NO avenues for appeal. The environment, the Internet, copyright law, and civil liberties will all be adversely affected by this monstrous affront to democracy and the rule of law.

The TPP is treason on the grandest scale ever conceived by the minds of evil men. And Obama wants "Fast Track" authority to push it through Congress without debate or amendments. Do you really want THIS to be your legacy, Obama? Really?

[handmade34]

8. fortunately

at this point in time, Bernie represents the best interest of all citizens of United States America!!

[sabrina 1]

15. 'A Corporate Coup D'etat'! Exactly. And yet, we see people claiming that 'we don't know what's in

it' and attacking the messengers.

'The TPP is treason'! I do not think there is any other way to describe this.

It makes corporations essentially immune from prosecution for any crime, no matter how heinous. It allows corporations to sue sovereign nations if they pass laws that MIGHT affect future profits. NAFTA already has such a provision, but the suits must be tried in the "offending" nation's courts.

And from the leaks we've seen so far, some of these Corporations are Global. AND they can circumvent our hard fought for Environmental laws.

There is no way this should be allowed to pass.

[genwah]

27. About that Fast Track, if anyone here is a member of/fellow traveler with ANY of

the organizations listed here...

[WillyT]

9. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Jefferson23]

10. Highly recommend. n/t

[Ramses]

12. yep. Sanders is right.

Hillary Clinton, fully supports the TPP. She was an early backer of this secretive, job killing, regulation destroying plan.

[sabrina 1]

21. One of the many reasons why I will not support her, even if she is the nominee. I will focus on

Congress if that should happen, and the write-in option works for me wrt to a Presidential race where the people are given no choice.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Well, that's a disclosure ...

I guess no one will have to insult, or aggravate, you by asking by the secrecy of your ballot, and your intentions, again.

[Octafish]

46. Yes. Because nothing says 'Democratic' like voting for Wall Street.

Here's an idea: Why not write down the names of people who say they're Democrats, but when it comes time to vote, support the aims of the GOP?

Personally, I'm tired of doing the same old, same old, praying Wall Street really is Democratic, despite an unblemished record of greed, warmongering, and corruption, now really promises to share the wealth, this time, not like the other times with trickle-down, NAFTA and the Bailout and the S&Ls...

[sabrina 1]

47. No, it's not a disclosure. I've said that openly from the day she voted for the neocon war which she

knew they were lying about.

Is there some reason why you think I should NOT state my opinion on this? NOW is the time to let the party know that 'NO' we will no longer hold our noses, stfu and vote!

Interesting that you should think voters are the problem.

Telling the party how we feel NOW, is giving them the opportunity to provide candidates people can vote FOR.

I don't believe in deceptions, not for any reason. I stated my position and I am far from alone, though some might feel intimidated into remaining silent about it, until the election comes, when they can state their opinion at the ballot box.

Better to tell the party now what we want, giving them the opportunity to LISTEN to the voters.

They ignored them before the mid terms. And then the voters ignored them.

Are you saying we should LIE about we feel regarding Corporate candidates being our only choice?

[rhett o rick]

55. I stand with you. I made a pledge to never support any Democrat that betrayed their

constituents, the Democratic Party, the American people, the people of the world, our troops and the poor innocent people of Iraq and bowed down to King George and gave him their blessing to kill in Iraq. They all have blood on their hands.

H. Clinton not only yielded to King George, she did irreparable damage by selling the Bush lies. Good people looked to her for the truth, not trusting Bush. There is no second chance for betrayal.

[sabrina 1]

58. Thank you rhett. I don't get the 'horror' that anyone would state the truth or that they should be

expected to just go along for the ride when it comes to elections. WE should have a say in who the candidates are. We have NO say and it is our own fault. Because we are expected to just wait for them to tell us who they have chosen, and we are taken for granted.

No way is that going to be the case anymore. But telling them now and meaning it, is giving them a fair chance, more than they give the voters, to realize that choosing Hillary means DEFEAT for them. Who do they think is going to vote for her? The base? Probably about half of them. She would need the full base AND way more than that, Independents, who are not likely to vote for her, and certainly I can't see her getting any Republican cross over votes, if that is what they are hoping for.

To be told you should not have a say in this, here on a Dem forum, is simply shocking to me frankly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. I'll ask you what I asked Sabrina ...

does that include Warren and Sanders? If so, check their votes.

[rhett o rick]

80. I think "they" want us to commit to "never supporting" HRC, so that if she wins the nomination, they

will be able to push us out of DU for not supporting the Democratic candidate. "They" would like nothing more than to purge or "clean house" (as one said to me) of all that don't don't agree with their world view.

I wonder how some rationalize that we should nominate someone that literally betrayed Democrats and supported George Bush and the REpublicans. Not only support but actively pushed the lies. What is seen in her that's so valuable that one could forgive the betrayal?

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. Ahh ... the evil plan has been revealed ...

"Okay, gang shift to Plan B ... Plan B. Confirm. Over."

[rhett o rick]

93. I think your post is a great example of what you guys have to offer here.

I will ask the question again. So far none of you guys will answer. "How do you rationalize supporting H. Clinton when she outright betrayed us in 2002?" In some ways what she did was more damaging than Bush. Democrats looked to her for the truth and she repeated the Bush lies. How in the world do you rationalize forgiving her? A Democrat that supports Republicans is worse than a Republican, yet some here worship her. Have you no principles?

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. What does any of that have to do with ...

your "they're out to get us" post that I responded to?

{Where's the "I'm desperate" thingy?}

[rhett o rick]

97. You guys think that you are soo very clever. But actually you are very transparent.

Obama can do no wrong and if he wants the TPP, then you are 1000% for it. If he likes fracking, then let's frack. Again, you are very transparent.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Yeah ... Okay ...

transparent.

[rhett o rick]

106. I rest my case. nm

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. Yeah ...

Okay.

[rhett o rick]

110. As yes, the "rofl" Group signature.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. I notice you keep avoiding responding to ...

my question:

And what does this have to do with your ridiculous claim that DUers are "conspiring to get (you) to commit to 'never supporting' HRC, so that if she wins the nomination, they will be able to push us out of DU for not supporting the Democratic candidate.

But I understand ... sometimes let our fullofourselvesness leak out into the open.

[rhett o rick]

107. And this is your Pres Obama's administration. Tougher on whistle-blowers and journalists

than Cheney's regime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026023511

Not that you guys will ever speak of actual issues.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. And what does this have to do with your ridiculous claim ...

that DUers are conspiring to get

(you) to commit to "never supporting" HRC, so that if she wins the nomination, they will be able to push us out of DU for not supporting the Democratic candidate.

That is at best, projection, if not just plain nutz.

[sabrina 1]

87. I sure hope the Dem Party hasn't sunk to the level of threatening voters that

to support their candidate. If that is the case, it sort of confirms the opinion of many voters that the candidate they are pushing, isn't very popular.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I'm referring to the back and forth we had ...

when you said you would not vote for HRC because see would not be likely to prosecute the torturers ... or, was it you wouldn't vote for anyone that does not state that they will prosecute the torturers? (I can't remember) and I asked whether that litmus test applied to all candidates, or just HRC. To which you went on to declare that your vote was your own and it was a secret.

Now, I who you will vote off (or not) is not so much a secret. Just making note ...

[sabrina 1]

88. I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have never refused to answer such

a question. I have stated my position on this multiple times, so it was not with me you had that back and forth.

But since you don't seem familiar with my statements on the issue, the answer is 'I won't support ANYONE who views torture as legal. Nor will I support, and never have, anyone who voted for Bush's war and general policies.

Which is the reason I supported Obama over Hillary.

So, what is your position on torture, on Bush's illegal war, on people who support Bush policies?

I have never said my vote is 'secret', I have stated that interrogating people, which I have seen here, is a despicable thing to do and they do not have to answer such questions. But when the question involves Issues and is directed me, I have never had a problem responding.

The reason is, I know where I stand on these issues so I don't have to hem and haw over them.

[rhett o rick]

53. It's interesting that no one, not Pres Obama or any of his supporters will argue the merits of

the TPP yet they think we should all just fall in line. That isn't the DEmocratic way.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. I think what you are confusing "arguing the merits" ...

with "agreeing to be sufficiently speculatively horrified."

I think it's difficult to argue (or, better, a waste of time to argue) the merits of shifting negotiating positions.

Kind of like arguing whether Seattle will beat New England in the Super bowl ... when, neither, has gotten there, yet.

[rhett o rick]

79. I assume that you would like to hold Boy Bush accountable for the lies he used to get

us into the Iraq War. If so, how do you rationalize giving H. Clinton a break on spouting the same lies? It's as if she is the only choice in the Democratic Party. Are you willing to give up your principles on the hope she will win?

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Actually, whether bush and/or cheney are ever prosecuted ...

for lying u the US into Iraq is pretty far down on my list of national priorities.

If so, how do you rationalize giving H. Clinton a break on spouting the same lies?

Which lies are you speaking about?

It's as if she is the only choice in the Democratic Party.

Straw man ... the only folks I hear promoting that are right wing pundits and the anti-HRC left.

Are you willing to give up your principles on the hope she will win?

What principles would those be?

[Broward]

13. How could any self-proclaimed Democrat support this crap?

[sabrina 1]

14. The answer to that question is, they could not! Not the party of FDR. n/t

[Just for Fun]

16. And today's Democratic Party is not the party of FDR

It's more like the 1980s Republican Party.

Really.

It's time for Bernie to step up and stomp Clinton and the Third Wayers into pulp and throw them over to the Republican Party where they really belong.

It's time to take back the Democratic Party and bring its progressive roots back.

Make it like 1960s all over again.

We need to find the next JFK - someone who truly believed in America, and Americans believed in JFK.

[sabrina 1]

19. The Third Way/DLC changed the Dem Party from the Party of the Working Class to the Party of

Big Money.

Now it's up to the people to take it back from the Corporatists, if they can.

I do believe that process has already begun.

It was slowed down due to the horrendous Bush years when all of us unwittingly helped the takeover of our party by voting for 'anyone but Bush'.

But those days are gone and clearly voters are refusing to hold their noses anymore.

We can do better than just 'voting for the lesser evil'.

I feel hopeful that things are changing for the better.

[daleanime]

17. K&R....

[kacekwl]

18. K & R...thanks..

Run Bernie Run.

[sabrina 1]

20. He said recently that he will make his decision by March, I believe.

IF he runs, get ready for the inevitable smear campaigns against him. Not only will he have to be strong, WE have to stand by him and slap down the lies and smears we are likely to be faced with.

Think tanks are already working on those smears. And imo, these Think Tanks are a blight on this democracy.

But we have seen how even good Dems ARE affected by the smears.

See what they did to people like Dennis Kucinich eg, and what they are trying to do to Glenn Greenwald.

So I do not underestimate what Bernie would face IF he becomes a challenge to the 'preferred, corporate candidate'. And I'm sure, neither does he.

[hay rick]

22. K&R

[Martin Eden]

23. Why is Obama pushing for TPP?

If what Sanders says is true, what, specifically, are the reasons Obama supports it?

He'll be out of office before the consequences of TPP are fully felt, and his personal wealth is pretty much assured.

Does the president genuinely believe this will benefit the people who voted for him?

[sabrina 1]

24. Good question. And I don't know the answer. Why did Clinton approve of NAFTA?

There are probably things we do not understand. Maybe some day we will have the answers.

But I trust few politicians anymore. However, Bernie is one of the few. And not because of what he is saying, but because his statements coincide with what we know already.

The mystery of why someone like Obama might be pushing this may be solved one day.

Meantime, the PEOPLE are who we need to be concerned about.

And so far, only a few elected officials appear to be concerned about them.

Bernie is one of them.

[Babel_17]

39. Imo, the theory is about getting in front of the inevitable

Rather than let a building collapse, you do a controlled demolition. Rather than have your city blown up by invaders, you declare it an open one.

Arguably, imo, some Democratic strategists see some policy decisions as unavoidably going the Republicans'/big businesses' way due to historical inevitability. So, the thinking goes, concessions can be gained by getting out in front of the inevitable. "Concessions" can stand for many things.

I guess you can't talk about that without talking about bigger pictures. I look at the bigger picture from the perspective of being on the outside. And I see our party as being in trouble as we transition from our policies of the past to our supposedly pragmatic policies of the present.

[raindaddy]

45. That's a radical "transistion"

Allowing corporate lobbyists to write secret trade agreements that undermine US workers and the environment. They've already transformed themselves into the Republican light party...

[sabrina 1]

49. All i can say to that is, the party obviously needs new strategists. They are out of touch with the

people, insulated in their DC bubble if they think that policies that rob the people of a decent living, that promote Wall St corruption at their expense, that give tax breaks to the wealthy at the cost over a decade of two trillion tax dollars under the pretext of creating jobs, that never came about, and then EXTEND them under another pretext, that it was the ONLY way to get rid of DADT, when we KNOW that could have been accomplished easily in Jan. 2009.

Since polls show that Progressive Policies are popular across the board, it would seem to me the Dem Party would jump on those stats. Instead they are ignoring them.

There is a reason for that. And it's not that they are stupid.

The problem for them now is, neither are the voters as, apparently, they had assumed.

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. Keep calling your reps, sens, and wh to voice your opposition.

[Katashi_itto]

30. Vote Hillary! She Helped Write It!

GO HILLARY!

[X_Digger]

31. I agree with Sen Sanders. What is he going to do besides talk? n/t

[sabrina 1]

38. That's the wrong question. He is doing his part. The question is, 'what are WE the People going to

do to help him?'

He is using his megaphone to educate the people. But one person cannot fight these huge Corporations alone. However, if enough people show support for them, that will enhance their power to fight these corporate entities.

Don't ask what your country or Senator can do for you, ask 'what can I do for my country/Senator'.

[X_Digger]

40. So the answer is.. stand and talk?

Not filibuster, not whip up votes for a protest vote? Organize a march? No? Just talk..

That's nice, and all, but..

[sabrina 1]

50. Is it? Where did you get that from? How about calling YOUR Rep and asking them to support

Sen. Sanders? Even if that Rep is a Republican. That is another mistake we make, only calling Dems. Call ALL of them.

Sanders is an Independent. How about finding a Dem who can 'whip up votes'? Maybe Pelosi eg?? Or are you suggesting Dems are not in agreement with Sanders on this? How about Republicans?

How about rather than being snide, you try to help Sanders get support. THAT is why is asking us DEMS because we can assume that Repubs are not going to help him.

Maybe you think the people have no role in this, that people like Sanders are supposed to do it all by themselves.

Well, I disagree. He is leading the way, now it's the job of the voters to start working to help him.

Unless, of course, you agree with the TPP. If that is the case, ignore everything I said.

[X_Digger]

51. No, I'm saying that Senator Sanders (like Senator Franken, frankly) -- likes to talk..

I remember Senator Franken talking about how he was terribly against the Comcast merger, and he extolled people to do something.

Nevermind that Senator Franken was/is on committees that can actually *do* something about it.

I assume Senator Sanders is in the same boat- tends to do a lot of talking, not a lot of walking. And even the talking is rather non-specific.

I'm right behind ya, Bernie, Fuck the TPP.

Now what? Whose door needs to be knocked on? Will he be there with me when I knock, or is this a cat belling thing?

(And yes, I've read Senator Sanders' full statement on the TPP. It reads like a book missing the last page.)

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

So.. TPP bad. We agree. Now what?!? More yelling?

[ronnie624]

64. He's doing the only thing he can do:

trying to inform people about the TPP, in an attempt to gather the support necessary to oppose it. That's what politicians do; they talk with the hope of convincing people to support the things they believe in.

What the hell else, would he do? Your questions are puzzling, to say the least.

[X_Digger]

89. That's it?? When the senate comes back in session, be could be on the floor throwing a cog in it.

Or he could be directing people to hit up the US Trade Representative's office. Or he could be calling a press conference in front of the White House.

When did we let our politicians become just mouthpieces- talkers rather than do-ers?

We elected Jackie Stump to congress in my corner of Southwest Virginia-- via write-in campaign. Jackie was on the floor all that next year; when he wasn't gumming up the works to bring attention to labor getting it's teeth stove in, he was organizing citizen rallies.

Bernie talks a good game, where's his skin innit? (As they'd say in Grundy.)

[sabrina 1]

65. He's using the mike he has to get information out to the people. How many Americans

even know about this? Too bad all of Congress isn't doing the same thing and even MORE people would learn what is going on.

But he tells us, we tell others and the word gets around.

Use the Social Media and it will travel even faster.

You can't people motivated until you first get them educated.

He's doing his part, I assume he will not vote for it if he is asked to do so.

Now we need to do our part.

Who else is speaking as strongly and loudly as he is about this?

Upthread I learned that Elizabeth Warren has major concerns about it which she too has articulated. Along with a few other Dems.

But not nearly enough considering the consequences of this legislation to this country.

[rhett o rick]

77. Seems you're disparaging the ones that are at least speaking out. What are other reps doing?

As far as what should be done now I would think that you know all our options.

[X_Digger]

90. Fuck the talk, gum up the works if they have to.

Have you read Senator Sanders' milquetoast PDF (above)?

Hell, he doesn't even give people reading it an indication of who to contact if they don't like what they read!!

[rhett o rick]

91. So you are waiting for someone to lead? It's not his place. Join moveon.org, or DFA or another

progressive group. They will tell you want to do.

[X_Digger]

92. I'm not waiting for anything. I'd like Bernie to join us and do more than yap! n/t

[rhett o rick]

94. Which Rep is doing more? What specifically do you expect him to do? nm

[X_Digger]

96. Fuck that 'better than the other guy' bullshit.

Oh, you've only got cow shit up to your chin, unlike everyone else who has it up to their noses?

Well lah-de-fucking-dah. You're still standing in shit.

How about crawling out of the shit and leading a march? How about getting on the floor of the senate and refusing to yield? How about asking everyone (including himself) to camp out at the US State Department's office on Trade?

Meet at Asst Sec Bill Craft's office, and call the press, eh? Think that'll do more than +1'ing some facebook post, yah?

[rhett o rick]

98. I am surprised I haven't put you on ignore before this. You have nothing to add here but

garbage.

[X_Digger]

101. You feel free. And continue to finger wag at people who don't just pay lip service. n/t

[RiverLover]

32. ...

Go Bernie!!!!

[sabrina 1]

34. Amazing isn't it, how they get away with it?

And they wouldn't if everyone was united but they know how to divide and conquer.

[ancianita]

35. I'm with him, and he can oppose it, but I don't see how any of us will even get a say about it.

We're just not in on governance anymore. The Princeton/Northwestern study from this past April proves it.

[Babel_17]

36. Thanks for the opportunity to K&R this

The treaty, which is expected to come before Congress in 2015, was written in secret with the help of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies. The American public and members of Congress, however, were locked out of the process.

*

I'd like to offer a slogan: "TPP, DOA!"

*Bold added by me

[sabrina 1]

37. I like that slogan: 'TPP, DOA'!

We CAN do it! But only if we are all on board. Sadly lately, even some on the Left have been attempting to diminish the harm this legislation is likely to do to the Working Class in this country.

[RiverLover]

42. Many Democrats are fighting the TPP, which is why it needs the GOP to pass.

The Obama administration, though, has not had the support of Democrats in the United States Congress. Senior Democrat Representative Sander Levin has expressed reservations about the process and the substance of the TPP. Senator Elizabeth Warren has worried about how the TPP will affect the financial regulation of Wall Street. Other Democrats have additional reservations about the TPP. Senator Ron Wyden is of the view that the fast-track regime needs to be overhauled and modernised. Three House of Representatives Democrats — Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Alan Grayson (Fla.) — maintained that there are insufficient votes in the House to pass the trade promotion authority to secure the approval of the 12-nation TPP. De Lauro commented: ‘Fast-track doesn’t have support in the current Congress and won’t have support in the next Congress’. She declared: ‘The votes are not there.’

Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has said that he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be. However, there are significant divisions within the Republicans over the TPP. There could well be insufficient support within the United States Congress for a trade promotion authority.

<<<<Edit of a TON of good info on the TPP>>>

....On the 17 December 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren and a number of her colleagues, Tammy Baldwin and Ed Markey, wrote to the White House, outlining a number of concerns in respect of the TPP. Warren commented: ‘We are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could make it harder for Congress and regulatory agencies to prevent future financial crisis.’ She observed, with her colleagues: ‘With millions of families still struggling to recover from the last financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, we cannot afford a trade deal that undermines the government’s ability to protect the American economy.’

Warren, Baldwin, and Markey highlighted concerns with three specific provisions that could be part of the TPP. First, the Democrat politicians raised concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process: ‘Including such provisions in the TPP could expose American taxpayers to billions of dollars in losses and dissuade the government from establishing or enforcing financial rules that impact foreign banks.’ Warren and her colleagues warned: ‘The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis.’

Second, Senator Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues were concerned about including provisions in the TPP that would commit the American financial sector to ‘market access’ rules. She observed: ‘Such rules could be interpreted by international panels to prohibit basic, non-discriminatory restrictions on predatory or toxic financial products — such as particularly risky forms of derivatives — because those restrictions deny access to the U.S. financial markets.’ Warren and her colleagues observed: ‘To protect consumers and to address sources of systemic financial risk, Congress must maintain flexibility to impose restrictions on harmful financial products and on the conduct or structure of financial firms.’

Third, Warren and the other Democrat politicians were concerned about the inclusion of terms in the TPP that could limit the ability of the government to use capital controls: ‘If the TPP were to include provisions from past pacts that required unrestricted capital transfers, it could limit Congress’ prerogative to enact not only capital controls, but basic reform measures like a financial transactions tax.’

The group also requested that the United States Trade Representative provide Congressmen and women with ‘all U.S. proposals and bracketed negotiating texts relating to the three provisions.’ The group wanted transparency in respect of the TPP’s chapters on investment, financial services, and dispute settlement....

https://medium.com/@DrRimmer/senator-elizabeth-warren-fights-the-white-house-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-3cd7bb0a1c91

[sabrina 1]

63. Very good information, thank you. We may have to depend on some Republicans opposing it also, as

Dems are not united on this, and are in the minority even if they were.

Surprised to see that Republicans are divided on it. I'm sure they want to give away MORE, though I shouldn't be that cynical I suppose.

President Barack Obama has said that he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be

Why does this president so often go against the people who elected him? I would LOVE to see him treat the Republicans withj the same disdain he has so often shown towards those who supported him.

[pampango]

71. "Fast-track doesn’t have support in the current Congress and won’t have support in the next Congress

Agreed.

The only ones who support 'fast track' authority for Obama are the Democratic base and we know how little influence they will have in the next congress.

Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

[RiverLover]

72. The Democratic base is AGAINST Obama's TPP

Obama Ready To Defy Base In Order To Advance Trans-Pacific Partnership
In a speech before CEOs of major U.S. corporations, Obama indicates he's ready to go head-to-head with Democrats, labor unions, and environmentalists on trade deals.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/obama-ready-defy-base-order-advance-trans-pacific-partnership/199643/

[pampango]

75. Not according to polls. n/t

[DeSwiss]

43. The very fact......

...that such ''legislation'' is even considered for passage, demonstrates quite clearly the utter contempt and hatred with which the American people and indeed all people, are held by the 1%ers.

And -- that the 1%ers are not at all concerned about ''losing the liberals'' in the Democratic Party. Because, where you gonna go?

The people should be in revolt (and some are!), but instead many still cling ever so desperately to the belief in ''laws'' that only seem to work against them. Or are ignored altogether when they impede or threaten the 1%.

Elections that never seem to change anything, nor change the cast of the real players who lurk behind the scenes and really run things.

- And so here we are. Clinging ever so tightly to the hope that the corrupted and twisted system that brought us to this horrid place, will now somehow and for some inexplicable reason -- stop what it's doing and save us.

We would have been better off going-out like the dinosaurs.......

[RiverLover]

44. +an insanely large # !

Depressingly true, but thank you for stating so eloquently what should be obvious to the thinking person, Deswiss.

[JEB]

48. We may not be that far behind,

the dinosaurs, that is. Thanks for such clearly stated insights.

[sabrina 1]

57. What a great post. Should be an OP on its own. True, we are hoping that we can achieve

something good using the very system that is so corrupted to do so. Imo we could, if enough of our elected Dems at least, would get behind Sanders and take every opportunity to back him up on this and on SS eg, in the media. People ARE influenced when they hear something over and over again.

Bernie cannot do it alone, he needs the help of others. Outside the system, he could do nothing at all. There is a faint chance that maybe from the inside, change IS possible so long as we have people like him, but a whole lot more of them.

[TheKentuckian]

102. Damn straight

[SamKnause]

52. K&R

Was there a petition at the link ???

I did not see one.

[sabrina 1]

54. No, but I think he wants people to call and write their Reps.

[SamKnause]

56. Thanks

[aspirant]

74. Previous OP

Tea party groups are pushing ObamaTrade, if you like your job you can keep it

After new years I'm calling my repub Rep. stating the above and asking if he supports ObamaTrade.

[Michigan-Arizona]

61. K&R n/t

[JDPriestly]

62. Yes to Bernie Sanders. No to TPP.

[BeanMusical]

67. Kick and R.

[paleotn]

68. Sanders is correct once again....

...no TPP, damn it!

[Scuba]

69. Kickety kick kick.

[raouldukelives]

70. K&R Not only will I join you, I won't work against you.

And sure, it is a lost cause but sometimes those are the only ones worth fighting for.
The well funded voices supplied by Wall St investors will win.

If somebody told me I could spend my life laboring for a movement whose end goal is clearly & unmistakeably the death of democracy & democratic values as well as the irreparable destruction of our biosphere but in return I can share in some of the proceeds? Well, who wouldn't jump at a chance like that?

I don't even think they see it. The banality of evil personified.
All because they can't be bothered to consider, even for a moment, the chair they hold in the corporate orchestra performing the sweet sounds of propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

73. I don't know how they sleep at night. To be able to do so requires suppressing

human traits, such as compassion, empathy and deciding that doing what is right is more important, regardless of the consequences, than doing harm to other people.

I wonder if deals are made BEFORE elections, where the aspiring candidate is guaranteed enough support to win, IF they understand that certain things will be required of them in return.

I get the feeling that the TPP is a done deal and only HUGE opposition from Congress and the people, can stop it.

[bigwillq]

86. Kick (nt)

[MrMickeysMom]

103. I see I'm #150 on the Recs at this point...

Living in PA and seeing what NY has done after careful analysis, I have two goals in 2015:

1) Do my part in getting PA to ban fracking

2) Same with TPP

We have to keep saying over and over… You can't ignore the risk analysis and you can't ignore sustainable energy being directly equivalent to more sustainable jobs.

The biggest reason should be our own extinction on this planet with this filthy oil and its transport offshore. The planet will survive, but will your children's children's children?

[TheNutcracker]

104. Run Bernie Sanders! America needs you....

more than the ever needed anyone.