You clueless Warren lovers don't get it..........

[Logical]

Warren HAS NOT seen the final TPP agreement. So she has NO RIGHT to criticize it! She has no idea what the final agreement will be so the stuff she has read means NOTHING!!!

But Obama, who has the read the same agreement, can 100% support it even though it is not final.

So it is THIS SIMPLE. If you read the preliminary TPP agreement and disagree with it then you're wrong because it is not final. But if you read the preliminary TPP agreement and agree with it then that is 100% OK.

Understand now??????

Carry on!!!

[Autumn]

1. Why do volunteers and donors from Organizing for Action get to tell him whats wrong with it

and we don't ?

[elleng]

2. Trying to be Logical, I guess!!!

[seabeyond]

3. why is it necessary to fabricate the argument in scorn, snark, mocking, hyperbole or whatever?

[Logical]

5. Because some people need hit over the head to understand silly arguments! nt

[seabeyond]

9. not if it is a fabricated argument. just swinging at thin air.

[Logical]

10. Nope, many here saying it is not final so she is off base complaining. nt

[seabeyond]

11. about it being secret... right? think you should finish that sentence. i dunno, on the side

of accurate.

[cui bono]

36. It is secret. It's been secret for years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6565355

[seabeyond]

38. this... is what i am talking about. that is a disingenuous argument. it turns me off.

like i have said, at this point i totally oppose tpp and with release i will probably continue to oppose tpp. i have reasons for totally opposing, cause i know some of the supposed "secrets" and do not agree with them

[cui bono]

56. No, it's not a disingenuous argument. We wouldn't be discussing the TPP at all if wikileaks hadn't

leaked info about it.

From the Charlie Pierce piece I linked to above:

In fact, there's been a lot that's secret about it ever since the negotiations began. It was negotiated behind closed doors, and for reasons that benefited nobody except large corporations and the politicians, dictators, and provincial satraps who do their bidding. (The fact we know much of anything at all is because the good folks at WikiLeaks threw some of the treaty out into the world, which is hardly a proof that the TPP isn't a "secret" deal. WikiLeaks doesn't do a lot of work with stuff that's in the public domain.) The congressional opportunities that the president is referring to are limited, and there's no good reason for that, either.

Did you see the video of Sherrod Brown?

Also, if you recall, it's not the first time Obama has had secret meetings with corporations. He had them with insurance companies when he was working on the ACA and continually denied it until he couldn't deny it any more.

[cui bono]

35. It's not a fabricated argument and it's analogous to what is going on here on DU.

The very people who tell us we're not supposed to criticize the TPP because it doesn't exist yet and we don't know what's in it are now calling it a progressive trade agreement and lauding Obama for pushing it, even though they don't know what's in it and it's not final.

That makes no logical sense at all and it's extremely disingenuous and dangerous.

[seabeyond]

37. they were not arguing that it cannot be criticized, but that it is secret, no info, people gagged,

and no opportunity to see, that it should be available in the workings.

not that people are not to argue.

so i disagree with the framing of the "argument" as the OP puts it.

[cheapdate]

44. Word. I've almost lost all interest for this topic.

All of the righteous indignation and bluster. The arrogant psycho-analysis. The proliferation of argumentative fallacies (e.g. genetic fallacy -- '"X" is also in favor of the TPP, so therefore it's a shitty deal.') Yeah, I'm about done.

(edit: in case I wasn't clear enough, whether "X" supports something or not says nothing about whether or not it's a good idea.)

[Number23]

61. You got that right. And the fact that the biggest shit stirrers and BSers here are absolutely

giddy with all of the drama and 55 OPs per day on this makes all of this both so incredibly dull and transparent at the same time.

Weekends on DU... somehow even worse than DU during the week.

[seabeyond]

69. you got that right. i am even on tpp fail side. and still, i am right where you are. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

48. the logic of a used car salesman

Salesman tells Logical this is the best car on the lot but doesn't tell you everything about it because if you knew too much, you'd never want to buy it.

Logical likes the salesman a lot and decides, based on all the good things he's heard, buys the car.

A year later, Logical has buyers remorse.

Poor Logical, he let the salesman do his thinking and didn't take time to do his due diligence.

[Logical]

51. Are you for Obama on this argument or Warren? nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

55. I like...

[Logical]

58. You and I are on the same side on this. You did not understand my post was sarcastic. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

68. uh...err...so was mine???

[Logical]

70. ok, missed it nt

[seabeyond]

81. what side am i on logical? is that all we need, a secret handshake? nt

[Logical]

87. Not even sure what you are talking about. nt

[seabeyond]

88. you do not know what i am talking about? you said the two of you are on the same side.

what side am i on?

[Logical]

89. I doubt you and I agree on much about TPP or Hillary or Warren. nt

[seabeyond]

91. give it a try. why assume? that is what i am battling. if i say anything, you and others put me in

you are wrong. i am sure.

yet you start whole threads, and make comments to me, that are skewed. so for the sake of oh.... honesty? awareness? knowledge? give it a try. see how far from you i am.

[Politicalboi]

4. We're not clueless

I'm concerned because the GOP loves the TTP. Warren is doing her job by looking out for US. More than what Hillary is doing at this time. She's still sitting on the fence. We also hear unions are against it too. And of course NAFTA.

[Logical]

7. Well, I was defending Warren! Maybe reread it! nt

[merrily]

53. I think that may have been just a general comment, not an accusation.

[2banon]

6. I'm thinkin' you forgot to include the "sarcasm" thingy? I read this like a parody..

I think you intended. Am I right? (I hope)

[Logical]

8. You are correct. Thought it was obvious! nt

[2banon]

17. Yes, it was to me. :)

[Logical]

19. :-) nt

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I love the sarcasm.. just would like to point out....

that a deal can be so terrible that even the preliminary guidelines are enough of a reason to oppose it.

I don't need the final deal, or even the secret preliminary deal to oppose this. I am against it.

[Logical]

13. +1000 nt

[rhett o rick]

14. LOL. Very good. I have been trying to come up with an analogy.

Those that use the argument that we've not seen the final draft therefore we are totally ignorant about what might happen is like they admit there is a train coming down the tracks at us, and we've hear numerous witnesses describe the train as big and dangerous, but they claim that doesn't mean the train will be big and dangerous when it hits us. They seem to think it could magically transform into a marshmellow train before it hits us. They use this logic to try to convince us to let the train hit before we jump to conclusions or off the track.

Sorry, kinda long but still working on it.

How about this. "Just because it looks like shit, smells like shit, has a sign that says it is shit, doesn't mean it isn't an ice cream cone. You won't know till you take a bite."

[Logical]

16. Great points! nt

[L0oniX]

25. Silly! If that bag is flaming and you heard a door bell before you saw it at your front door...

[rhett o rick]

31. If my authoritarian leader assured me that the bag didn't contain shit, and therefore I could stomp

on it, and I did, how would that be different than the TPP deniers today? Pres Clinton said that the NAFTA bag and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act bag weren't full of shit. Boy did he fool us. Now Obama says the TPP bag isn't full of shit as he sets fire to it.

[Enthusiast]

73. +1 an entire shit load.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[L0oniX]

79. ^^^this^^^

[RDANGELO]

15. what's the average wage of the countries in this Pacific region?

Maybe $1.00/ hr. That's what the workers here are going to be put in competition with. Unless there is something to offset the large differentiation in wages, you will see the continued downward pressure of wages here in the US which is facilitating the transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. I know there is nothing in the deal that does this, because if there was, the president would be talking about it.

[Logical]

18. So true!! nt

[Beaverhausen]

20. $100/hr?

????

[riderinthestorm]

22. More sarcasm and confabulation akin to what the TPP supporters are saying

its in the same spirit as the OP's sarcasm....

[Beaverhausen]

24. Actually not. Looks like it's been edited.

[riderinthestorm]

28. Ah well.

[L0oniX]

21. You've been reading way too many Manny ops.

[rhett o rick]

92. You mean more than one?

[bigwillq]

23. Obama got this, you heard?

Understand now?????


Carry on!!!

[Logical]

26. More 3D chess I assume? nt

[L0oniX]

32. You laugh now but I swear it's real!

[Logical]

66. I don't disagree! nt

[sadoldgirl]

27. You forgot to state that

it is inconceivable that an economics professor could
understand a trade agreement. By golly, she is just
an egghead!

The fact that unions don't approve of the agreement
is just due to greed.

And the fact the Medicines sans Frontiers dislike it
so much shows that they should only stick to their
business and not meddle in politics.
(sarc)

[L0oniX]

33. Don't economics professors have tools to figure this out...

[Buns_of_Fire]

46. You'll shoot your eye out, kid. nt

[still_one]

34. Let's see, I can name economic professors that I have confidence in you would not agree with, so

That argument doesn't cut it. It reminds me of the labor secretary under bush being interviewed regarding the unemployment rate. After being asked to justify her answer, her response was, I graduated from Harvard.

To you second point regarding unions, you do realize that it was labor that helped Ronald Reagan get elected don't you. The so-called Reagan democrats. So that may not always be a good gauge of validity.

As for doctors without borders, that is their opinion, and based on the framework of the TPP everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, the final agreement will be made public, before the official congressional debate and vote, with at least 90 days to hear or voice pro or con arguments regarding it. I will hold judgment until That happens

[TheKentuckian]

78. We won't have the votes to stop it so what difference does the 90 days to read and debate make?

Even if every single Democrat was to hold the line, the TeaPubliKlans can ram in through.

Stop the spin, if you favor fast track you are pushing the final agreement and that is all.

[whatchamacallit]

29. We mixed it up the other day and now I'm recing your post

That's DU for ya.

[still_one]

30. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and to critisize it. However, when the final document is made

Public, and it will be contrary to some posts indicating otherwise, a more comprehensive and valid pro or con arguments can be made

This is not unlike the Iran negotiating framework. The framework does not represent the final agreement, that is being negotiated, so concerns by some that not enough protections are built into it or verifications are premature to say the least

[sendit]

43. Will it be made public before it's signed?

[still_one]

59. Yes, at least as reported by the New York Times

" The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that."


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/business/obama-fast-track-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0

The public, and people on both sides of the issue should have time to point out how good or bad the agreement is, and urge their congress person and Senators to vote Yea or Nay. It should be noted that the deal will not be subject amendments by the Congress, just for or against, but as I understand it that is the way trade deals have been.

[sendit]

39. So if it does have some of the things that have been leaked in the final

agreement Obama will sign then you will change your mind on it?

If it hurts American workers , unions , the environment then you would agree
that he , Obama sold out the American worker in this deal in favor of corporations ?


I'm like you
I want to see the final before he loses my support

[still_one]

62. For me I need to see where and what those items are. It should be noted that China is not part of

the TPP. At least an aspect of the agreement is to balance the increased influence of China in the region.

The main areas under concern for those opposing the TPP as I understand it are the following:

Recent trade agreements have hurt jobs, wages, and widened income inequality, and the TPP would degrade labor and environmental standards and raise drug costs. One side says that the accord includes protections drawn from the International Labor Organization, with strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent that, while the other side says it doesn't. We will need to see the final agreement I think.

I know there are other concerns also




.

[Vinca]

40. Here's an idea. Why not upload it onto the White House web site so we can all read it?

If it's so freaking wonderful, they should be proud to publish it for all of us to peruse.

[sendit]

42. Will they do that before he signs it?

There's got to be somewhere after it's finalized to read it before he signs it? no

[still_one]

63. Yes. See post 59

[TheKentuckian]

80. It doesn't matter, we do not have the votes to stop passage. The only practical check available is

to kill fast track.

Proponents are scamming and spinning. The Republicans want it and they have the votes.

[Logical]

49. +1000 nt

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Remember when Obama said he was "against" Citizens United???

I think he meant he was against citizens,
united.

[Logical]

52. Good one! nt

[still_one]

64. Let me understand this, are you blaming Obama for Citizens United?

[cantbeserious]

45. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Support Obama On TPP - The 1% Obviously Need More Wealth

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Actually, Hillary wants Obama to clear this so TWO Clintons aren't responsible for screwing workers.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

50. Bottom line: Warren called Obama's bluff

Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown to Obama: Let the American People See the TPP Text

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/25/1380311/-Elizabeth-Warren-and-Sherrod-Brown-to-Obama-Let-the-American-People-See-the-TPP-Text


It's not 3-D chess, after all!

[cui bono]

57. That is awesome. If there's not an OP on this you should post one. n/t

[Cleita]

54. So if he has thoroughly read what's there, he should insist it be make public instead

of asking us to trust him. Shit I wouldn't trust Jesus Christ on this until He told me everything he knows about it.

[Logical]

60. True, it would make it simple. nt

[still_one]

67. It is going to be made public before the debate or vote. See post 59.

[TheKentuckian]

82. So what? We then would not have enough votes to do shit about it.

You are selling a pig in a poke and desperately smearing lipstick on it.

[still_one]

84. Don't trade agreements require 2/3 vote?

[TheKentuckian]

85. They SHOULD but we have somehow scrapped the treaty process prescribed in the Constitution

and with fast track legislation are functionally making the bar lower than it is for regular legislation to a simple majority vote with no amendments.

If fast track is passed then not even if every Democrat holds the line (like that would ever happen) then the Republicans can still easily pass it even if a few of the more vulnerable to Teabbager primaries fall off.

[still_one]

86. Geez, then my assumptions were not correct. Then unless a miracle happens, if the deal is bad

it is a done thing.

Maybe it can be delayed until the next election, and we might get a Democratic majority in the Senate to prevent it if it is bad. Wishful thinking I guess

Thanks for information

[Jesus Malverde]

65. Lulz

[Major Nikon]

71. Results...

On Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You clueless Warren lovers don't get it..........
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026566508

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"clueless Warren lovers " should not get a pass on the DU!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:59 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Though I disagree with the poster 100% that is no reason to hide the post
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It would have been better without the quotes, but then the best you'd have is misdirection.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Talk. Debate. Converse. Don't just try and hide.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is totally rude and written by a jerk. But there's nothing in it that doesn't pass all the time on both sides, so I feel I have to let it go. I won't shed any tears if the others vote to hide, though.

[Logical]

72. Wow, I guess someone does not know I was supporting Warren supporters. Weird. Thanks for posting. nt

[djean111]

76. I cannot believe anybody did not know that was snark. Yikes!!!!!!!

On the other hand, some others at DU actually have expressed that Warren supporters are clueless or worse, so there's that.

Good OP! Conundrum indeed. But not accidentally a conundrum, in Washington.

[Logical]

77. Not sure why Obama is acting like this about the TPP. Really defensive. nt

[Enthusiast]

74. Well done, Logical!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Logical]

75. Thanks!! :-)

[rock]

83. Illogical

If I have a pig in the poke that I'm selling, then you have not seen it and have no idea what it is. How can you criticize what you cannot see. Understand now?

[L0oniX]

93. Are we allowed to criticize the part about who and what is keeping us from seeing it?

Not that anyone needs permission from anyone to criticize it.

[rock]

95. Of course, criticize anything but the pig which you cannot see

Obviously you can criticize the circumstances which keep you from seeing it else we'd all be walking around with pokes under our arms (supposedly containing pigs).

[doxyluv13]

90. Your logic is faulty, maybe you should draw a Venn diagram

You way Senator Warren knows nothing, but you are wrong. She knows there's no provision to bar currency manipulation--the administration had admitted that.
She knows the TPP allows business to sue if government action's affect their "expected profits".

Those alone are reasons to defeat this awful deal and they are not changing.

Where your logic goes wrong is in your assumption that reading the whole agreement is the only source of knowledge about it.

[L0oniX]

94. Bwahahah so reading the agreement is not worth it because it's not the only source of knowledge?