Skip to main content

View Diary: Wikileaks Releases Secret Draft of the TPP (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no excuse for the secrecy. None. (24+ / 0-)

    It's our "betters" figuring we don't have the right to know what they're negotiating, and if we did, well, we're probably too damn stupid to understand it anyway. And it's a Democratic administration doing the dirty work and hiding the details from us.

    How can they possibly justify the secrecy?

    •  A Dem admin of a still-loved ex-Pres (11+ / 0-)

      who happens to be married to the front-runner for the Dem nomination for the twenty-sixteen  Presidential election shat upon us NAFTA.

      And he still calls it chocolate.

      don't always believe what you think

      by claude on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:32:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's why I'm apoplectic over Hilary.... (16+ / 0-)

        You take all the issues where Obama has been less than the progressive ideal, and if you find one single issue where you can say with confidence that Hilary will be better on, and I'd be shocked.... While these negotiations are going on, Hilary is collecting six-figure checks from Goldman Sachs.

        This TPP, negotiated in secret, is a hill worth dying on if we have any hope for our party. I can't see it any other way. If we allow them to do this to us, what won't we allow?

        •  there is a whole mountain range of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, bastrop, SixSixSix, Rogneid

          hills worth dying on...

          Fortunately,  the new filibuster rule doesn't affect a Senate discussion  on this, I presume,  and it may well take a Socialist to save us from it.

          don't always believe what you think

          by claude on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:43:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most members of congress are in the dark as well.. (8+ / 0-)

            That's what I mean about the trend towards de-democratization. Lobbyists are writing the damn bill, and our Reps and Sens are just going to pass the fucker without having been a part of the negotiations, or hell, probably without even reading it. The party establishment is even shutting out their fellow elected officials. And most of our officials are too pathetic to do anything about it.

            •  That's all part of "normal" fast track trade (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              claude, SixSixSix

              agreements
              A big committee of industry representatives advise and are the only ones with access, not congress.

              BUT there is no fast track agreement now. It expired before Obama was elected and has not been renewed. The trade agreements he'd done under it were started and initially signed by bush before fast track expired so they were covered.

              But this one isn't. They tried to get fast track for this approved last summer but Elizabeth Warren asked lots of tough questions and others followed. They did not get it through.

              So all those rules with having to have limited debate, a quick vote, no amendments, no filibuster...
              they aren't in place.
              They are negotiating like it is
              but I'd be surprised if Congress passes it or politely follows the rules of it

              We have some strong outspoken Dems and we have Obama hating republicans. (Hopefully their not wanting to cooperate with Obama will be stronger than their love of  bade trade deals)

              I am sad Obama is doing this but I hope Congress will step up and black it.
              Hell all but 6 Dems voted back in 2009 to block Obama from closing Gitmo.  If they can oppose him when he is doing something good I hope they will do it when he is doing bad.

              •  Just to clarify your comment... (0+ / 0-)
                A big committee of industry representatives advise and are the only ones with access, not congress.

                BUT there is no fast track agreement now. It expired before Obama was elected and has not been renewed. The trade agreements he'd done under it were started and initially signed by bush before fast track expired so they were covered.

                So, Congress does have access to the negotiation process, and like, any draft language?
        •  Hillary's nomination will be the game (12+ / 0-)

          changer for many progressives. I absolutely cannot support her for president. So that leaves those of us who are trying to end the corruption within our own party no recourse but to find an alternate way to influence the decisions made in D.C.

          I am making every effort to see that Elizabeth Warren is given a chance to enter the race, if that is what she wants...I know she is saying that she has no intentions of running, but that could change if there is a strong enough grassroots revolt. Oddly enough, it is beginning to happen, but not from within our own party as much as from people who share the vision of OWS, or those who have made the decision that the future lies beyond the reach of both parties.

          We've made a lot of wrong turns since JFK's presidency. Let's hope we can regain control of our party. If not, then we might as well turn over control of the Democratic Party to Wall Street, because they've already made a huge downpayment on purchasing it...

          •  I wonder if our best chance of Warren running... (10+ / 0-)

            Is if we make clear we won't support Hilary. I believe I read that she had signed on to a letter urging Hilary to run, but maybe things need to get a bit more critical in the next two years to encourage a strong, progressive candidate to run. The way I see it, we'd better speak out and fight the inevitability of the HRC campaign now, before it's too late.

            I mean, while Hilary is giving a (well) paid speech to Goldman, Warren was giving a speech at the Roosevelt warning everyone that there has been no meaningful reform of the TBTF, implicit bailout, condition our finance industry has created.

            •  Well, if we don't make the (7+ / 0-)

              leaders of the Democratic Party aware that her nomination would be unacceptable, then we have no right to say our voices were ignored...

              They need to know that we will not tolerate four or eight more years of corporatist control of the party.

              I have found a number of organizations that are never mentioned in main stream media reports or on progressive blogs that are united in a common cause; ending the corruption that has been caused by the two-party system.

              And their numbers are large, and they're increasing fairly rapidly. I think the vast majority of people in this country are sick of both main stream parties.

              That is the most encouraging sign I've seen that we might be able to move the Democratic Party back to the left. But so far, the Democratic leadership is fairly arrogant in their dismissal of anything that doesn't agree with their vision.

              And I agree with your description of Hillary's obvious pandering to Wall Street (while Elizabeth Warren is working for the middle class).

              Incidentally, I recd. your comment, but all of my marks are not showing up, so I don't know if someone on this site has suspended my ability to reccomend diaries and comments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site