General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElizabeth Warren: Poutrage or Hate?
Wow Elizabeth Warren seems upset about this "secret" trade deal going down. So is it poutrage or hate? Is she a racist? Or is this something I am "allowed" to disagree with Obama on?
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-warren-opposes-obamas-nominee-tra
"I asked the President's nominee to be Trade Representative -- Michael Froman - three questions: First, would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text? Or second, if not, would he commit to releasing just a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. (Note: Even the Bush Administration put out the scrubbed version during negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement.)
Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made to the trade office's outside advisors. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisors that have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some labor and NGO representatives too. But there is no transparency around who gets what information and whether they all see the same things, and I think that's a real problem.
?
Mr. Froman's response was clear: No, no, no. He will not commit to make this information available so the public can track what is going on.
I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative -- A direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American people have the right to know more about the negotiations that will have dramatic impact on the future of the American economy. And that will have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on the environment, on the Internet."
progressoid
(50,013 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I'm pretty sure you can disagree with Obama all you like.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)And I agree with him.. a lot.
I'm just confused as to why when I disagree with him I'm a "hater" or "poutrager" but Elizabeth Warren is making a "principled stand"...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Namecalling and distraction are the first tools out of the box for the intellectually weak.
Just look at Michael Savage or any other OTT RW nutbag.
Moosepoop
(1,924 posts)Perhaps you come across as a "hater" or "poutrager," and she doesn't? Just throwing out possibilities...
BillyRibs
(787 posts)Same crap every time I complain about the POTUS too!
pnwmom
(109,024 posts)But many of the anti-Obama crowd here aren't Democrats. They are people who view themselves as better progressives than most Democrats and make that abundantly clear.
Like Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren is a solid Democrat, not a Naderite, or a "liberal" Libertarian, a Communist, or even a Green.
cartach
(511 posts)you made a reasoned argument for your disagreements.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Did I miss any of the talking points?
Thanks to her for not allowiing blind partisanship to stop her from doing her job.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Actually, she is a crypto-Jew anarchist conservative. She hates freedom.
Ford_Prefect
(7,927 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... like me. We are REAL "Mer-i-cuns.)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)Even in jest.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)has been thrown at Warren on this board for committing the cardinal sin of speaking to reality instead of in praise of Obama at all times. Same as with Grayson, Snowden, Greenwald, Cornel West, hell, even Harry Belafonte.
Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)Forgot your "the boxes in the garage" comment already.
Of course you cleverly avoided using his name, but you know who boxes in the garage refers to.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Progressive dog
(6,931 posts)You can deny this one too, but next time I expect you to actually know what it means.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Does she stop and pet their dog?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)... you wouldn't see the kind of reaction you do.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)It's not a fact that the NSA spying program has gone overboard? It's not a fact that the War On Drugs is still being fought and people who are legally supplying medical marijuana are being arrested? It's not a fact that we are supplying arms to Al Queada in Syria?
The fact is that now that Elizabeth Warren has a disagreement with Obama it's a "principled stand". Were it me making this "principled stand" against this secret free trade deal I would be called out for hating Obama or for poutraging. And I can tell you exactly why I would be "called out".. because it's a SECRET and I should just trust Obama. Like I should just trust the NSA.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"because it's a SECRET and I should just trust Obama"
like congress trusting Bush on weapons of mass destruction.
Some of us are probably not wearing our blinders properly. Thus the "hater, poutrager, no pony, etc..... names. Now fix it and get in line!
-p
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)redqueen
(115,108 posts)Skittles
(153,298 posts)you guys are a hoot
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The fact that the 3rd highest rec'ed thread at the moment is "If it's not racism, then what it is?"
It's called: Bad Policy. Probably Illegal too. But apparently we're not supposed to care about that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think that a certain, shall we say, sensitivity, has revealed itself today.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And it's probably long past overdue.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm genuinely sad to say I mean 'awful' in every sense of the word. Wish it wasn't so, but what can we do? It is what it is.
Number23
(24,544 posts)JI7
(89,287 posts)who support Obama than the issues itself.
shows to me these people really don't give a shit about the issues.
there was a thread about Valerie Plame's comments on Snowden and Prosense responded saying she had no problem with Plame's comments and she still got an asshole type response . they were probably upset they couldn't spout out the same stupid attacks at her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They are embraced by those who are more familiar to me, because the more familiar are liking what they are saying. But a lot--not all, but a lot--of the nastiness seems to be coming from what's "outta town" from my perspective.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)years. A whole lot:
Let's just hope they are not representative of the Dem Party itself because if so, the party is about to lose way more than the Independents and young people they lost in 2010.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That goes without saying.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Elizabeth Warren: Poutrage or Hate?"
...neither. Did someone say it was?
Senate confirms Froman as next trade representative
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023053523
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Although you seemed pleased with the pick. You made an OP about it. Do you agree with Warren?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you got your own PS answer complete with a link. Are you straightened out now?
TekGryphon
(430 posts)On either side.
The last few days I've logged in, instead of seeing the nuanced debate I enjoy, I'm seeing passive aggressive threads like this battling against imaginary cliques that I can't even see, or who seem so miniscule that they hardly warrant taking up front page space over day after day.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)If you simply look at the post count of those who object to the piling on by certain cliques, you may come to understand that they have experienced the piling on by certain cliques.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)They're doing the whole "I'm progressive, but..." game, and you know what, some of us don't buy the bullshit.
I suppose it's true to describe these groups of disruptors and 50-centers as cliques.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Seriously, I'm waiting.
It's perfectly acceptable to say "All in all, I disagree with the majority view in the U.S. that we should have anti-terrorism surveillance; I'm not worried about terrorism so I respectfully disagree with the President". While I disagree with that sentiment, at least it would have a modicum of acknowledgement that these are thorny issues. Instead though, the D.U. hosts counterproductive anti-Democratic party screamers - who are not interested in discussion, much less debate. They pull "facts" out of their ass, flat out lie, invent strawmen (like this OP did) because they don't want to acknowledge facts, and appear to be doing their best to drive people away from the party they pretend they're in favor of.
So, when are these constantly anti-Democratic "Democrats" leaving? Why are you even here? Have you considered RevLeft instead? It might be more your cup of tea.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #68)
Post removed
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Your reply is worthy of being an OP. I stand with you in the reality based community.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people. I fail to see where there can be 'side's when it comes to such a serious issue. There is a small group here who rather than discuss the issues, attacks anyone who tries to do so. They are not a 'side', they have no position on the issues, or at least they have not presented it. They are here to try to derail any discussion of the issues. Yesterday they sank to a new low. And we expect they will find a way to go even lower when this latest attempt also fails.
My advice to everyone who genuinely cares about these issues is to simply ignore them, not to engage them at all and to continue to discuss the issues they are here to distract from, and let them rant and rave in their own small echo chamber.
The fact is, if true, the recent revelations show conduct by secret courts and secret committees and multi billion dollar 'Security' Corporations, that is against the very principles we claim to care so much about in this country.
The ACLU has already filed one lawsuit, since we cannot get Congress to end the secrecy and explain to the American people why these Bush policies are still in effect AFTER the people voted out the party that initiated them.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Decided to finally start reading the LOTR trilogy. What did I miss?
TekGryphon
(430 posts).. what I'm getting tired of is logging in and seeing thread after thread with no discussion, just passive aggressive broad brush painting groups of people as racists, apologists, etc, etc.
It's not productive, and I think I'm not the only one getting tired of seeing it on a discussion forum that typically prides itself on holding a higher standard of discourse.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)write an OP about what you want to discuss.
Ignore those you believe are there only to disrupt, and focus on the discussion.
No amount of distractions will stop me from focusing on the important issues.
There have been plenty of OPs that were about the issues and had nothing to do with meta.
Trash the meta threads, I thought they were not allowed in GD anyhow, and look for the ones that are focused on issues. There are plenty of them if you look for them.
byeya
(2,842 posts)cannot stand to read the truth. Are they paid interlopers or just merely thick?
Anyway, keep on posting: It's good.
pscot
(21,024 posts)It's generating hard feelings, but some fools just can't help it.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Spot on.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)DU'ers are becoming more saavy, seeing through the BS and talking points being perpetually spewed by our resident 'conservative' third-way crowd...and THAT is a good thing.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)whenever he acts like Bush or even worse also have double standards for those they deem worthy to criticize him or not.
It would be comical if it weren't so irrational.
RedCloud
(9,230 posts)That would be breaking news. I don't recall "W" filling his cabinet with lefties.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)She oozes credibility, of course.
I hope you're not trying to compare credible figures like Elizabeth Warren to the likes of the mob on this site. The totality of their "work" has rendered their credibility on all-things Obama null and void.
Apples and oranges.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)has no credibility, but the people who support him do.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Some do, yes, because they do nothing but criticize. And do it before they get information, as if they are looking for something wrong and trying to wring all the wrong they can out of anything that looks like it might provide some.
And of course your leap there was inaccurate, and typical of that type of posting.
That is no better than when right wingers call us terrorists for wanting any limits on the government.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Again, the totality tells the story.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Because this is not 1980, and it is not Jimmy Carter chasing teddy Kennedy around the stage and egos
leading sense.
Everyone is on the same team when they are democratic office holders in the senate and Presidency.
Harry Reid is working with Elizabeth Warren who is working with Harry Reid.
Look at Max C. The person going to run for the seat, who all progressives like, is working with Max, because
he knows he needs Max's voters AND Max's support to gain the seat.
United WE stand
Divided WE fall.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)make a stand against something you don't believe in. Wow. I never would have guessed that judging from your regular posts.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Do you want another Sonia Sotomayer, or another Sam Alito.
President Obama gave us Sonia. Ralph Nader gave us Sammy.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I don't get it.
Isn't she really just a Teabagger?
If not, why not?
Can you explain why her dissent is allowed?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)reusrename
(1,716 posts)"I don't know!" is a perfectly acceptable answer to my question. I have no idea myself. That's why I asked.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)United We Stand, Divided We Fall.............
This is the intent of the RW. And there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and criticizing the president nor anyone else in the Democratic Party thats what I call a healthly Democracy. Usually on the right if you don't toll the line you are considered a liberual loving turncoat.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)It should be abundantly clear that her name will appear on no Democratic ticket. The Third Way Party suits wouldn't stand for it.
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)...where the executive branch is traditionally given a great deal of leeway (by the constitution, as our failures in trade were a big issue in 1787), and the legislative branch typically tries to curtail that, for political or other reasons.
I don't see hate or evil on either side, its just the day-to-day workings of government.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)What I do see is a double standard. Anyone who complains about policy on DU is unqualified and therefore a poutrager or a hater, but when Elizabeth Warren does it it's a principled stand.
A few weeks ago when I posted about this "secret trade deal" the thread was laughed at and dropped like a stone.
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)...which is pretty reasonable, and stated pretty reasonably. I'd like to see more objections of that kind here; more facts, more details, and less "all caps".
And less derision too on both sides; perhaps if all things were done with some civility and backed by good research and open minds there wouldn't be a "both sides".
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the authority to regulate commerce is in Article I of the Constitution.
Not Article II - so I'm unclear as to how the Executive is Constitutionally given authority over trade. The US Trades Representative was created by Executive order (a rather unilateral action).
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)From the Chamber of Commerce (a source of information in this case, though I am aware of their well-deserved reputation):
"To secure new market-opening trade agreements, Congress must renew the traditional trade negotiating authority that every president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has enjoyed. Sometimes called trade promotion authority or fast track, this trade negotiating authority gives the United States a seat at the table in international trade negotiations. However, this authority lapsed in 2007.
Trade negotiating authority is a historic compromise between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress authority to regulate international commerce, but it gives the president authority to negotiate with foreign governments. Trade negotiating authority permits the executive branch to negotiate agreements in consultation with the Congress; when an agreement is reached, Congress may approve or reject it, but not amend it."
http://www.uschamber.com/international/agenda/renew-trade-negotiating-authority
As I said, negotiating trade agreements is the president's job traditionally, after which congress can approve or not. George Washington sent John Jay to England to negotiate a trade agreement which favored Britain at the expense of France, which riled up many politicians of the time. Jefferson's ineptitude at trade negotiations led to the Embargo Act, which more or less prohibited foreign trade and hobbled the US economy. It was probably the largest failure of his presidency. Andrew Jackson successfully negotiated many favorable trade agreements on our behalf, in Europe, Asia and South America. And so forth. That's just how it works - it is the president or the administration of the president that is responsible, not congress.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)yes, Congress has ceded their authority in many ways - but it is not the responsibility nor the authority of the executive branch to negotiate trade deals - really. The Constitution is not just toilet paper and the authority rests with the legislative branch.
What they have chosen to do or not do with it doesn't change that authority, so let's keep that straight. I don't disagree that they prefer to close their eyes - and since 1960 have allowed the executive (via executive order, by the way) to manage the operation via the US Trades Rep - but that doesn't change the Constitutionally mandated authority.
The US Trades Rep is out of line on this. Full stop.
bhikkhu
(10,726 posts)The snipped part in the middle there is "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate", which has been the issue over the years. Advice might be listened to or not - there is no compulsion - and consent is simply an up or down vote. That's more or less what we have now.
The controversy historically was that it was often allowed for the president to make treaties and enter into international agreements on trade without senate approval. The history is more clear here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag21_user.html
In any case, the president does have the authority to negotiate trade agreements, granted by the constitution, and that's always been a part of the job description. Obviously congress is required by the constitution to approve anything before it becomes law, though that hasn't always been the case in practice.
on edit - one thing that might make that more understandable is that senators are elected to represent the people of their state in congress. The president represents the interests of the whole. Negotiating with a foreign power has always been done at the "whole" level, and that was the intent of the constitution. The articles of the federation didn't provide for that; individual states were on their own, which worked very poorly for virtually everyone (except perhaps France and Spain, who were able to take advantage of the disorganized mess).
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Here of course as usual the president is acting like a republican
allin99
(894 posts)Arkana
(24,347 posts)karynnj
(59,510 posts)No one has called Warren's stand anything other than what it is - a vote for transparency against a nominee who spoke against providing that. I assume that it also is a protest vote against a nomination with sufficient votes to pass without hers. If you want I could point to other such votes by various Senators or former Senators. (All having in common a vote against someone with a statement outlining a broader concern that is not really an objection to the person, who did nothing other than what he had to do. Forman could NOT commit to release something unless the security designation were changed.
It is kind of presumptuous to equate this to your own posts. The fact is that if Warren, Obama, or any other leader does something that people disagree with, they will be criticized - and should be. Where many object is when the criticism moves from criticism of an action (or actions) to personal attacks. People who disagree with what they see as personal attacks may themselves go to far - speaking of hate or "poutrage" It would be so much better if arguments stayed on the issues, but that is not always the nature of discussion boards.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)No criticism is allowed whatsoever without the sycophants piling on and hurling insults. Some of the very people on here who are trying to looks so reasonable and magnanimous toward Warren's "principled stand" are the very same people who go completely batshit in every thread, hippie punching in all directions like Jackie Chan in the Drunken Master. Oh, and don't forget blanket threads saying anyone who disagrees with NSA surveillance is a racist. Those were classic.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Skittles
(153,298 posts)methinks they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize hypocrisy and irony
karynnj
(59,510 posts)if the only thing you did was criticize Obama. (I criticized Ken Blackwell many many times - he's black - it's not racist to say that he cheated in the 2004 election. )
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Calling all DUers who disagree with some of this President's policies and appointees racists most definitely lowered the bar for any kind of rational discussion.
Eg, is there some reason why we can't find Democrats for a Democratic Cabiinet, Progressive Democrats, even one Progressive would be nice? Is anyone who objects to the multiple appointments of Republicans by this President, a racist?
Did Bush fill his cabinet with Democrats?
If we wanted Republicans in office we would have voted for Romney. This is a legitimate question. What is the reason for these Republican Appointments? Comey, Clapper, Hagel, Gates et al. Sometimes it looks like the old Bush cabinet. If someone's answer to this question is 'you're a racist' then it appears to me they can't answer the question either and have resorted to the lowest form of debate. Talk to THEM.
karynnj
(59,510 posts)Calling all DUers who disagree with some of this President's policies and appointees racists most definitely lowered the bar for any kind of rational discussion.
In fact, it basically ends any hope of rational conversation. It would be an extremely uninteresting board if no one ever raised a disagreement to any policy a sitting President has.
summer-hazz
(112 posts)like to know ..."where are the Democrats"?
I have said this before.. I voted for a Democrat
and got a Republican....
WTF?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Obama has done little to stop that.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Or something like that
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Remember how Congress and President Clinton pulled the wool over our eyes on NAFTA. Let's not let that happen again!
The Link
(757 posts)She wouldn't be a Senator if Obama hadn't abandoned her as nominee for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Now it turns out she is a racist too.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He does or says. Fail. You will be disappointed in her first. She is a senator and will vote for some impure compromised bill.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)nuff said.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)It makes no sense, and sounds like weird right wing faux martyrdom.
I don't think many people, especially on DU, are looking at this through the lens of racism. Except maybe you.
Actually, this is the first DU post I've seen that connects racism to support or disagreement with the free trade agreement.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It's a sarcastic response to the thread claiming outrage at the secret NSA phone spying program is the result of racism. I see how you could be confused if you missed it.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)is a racist.
Disagreement is still allowed, but be aware that all who question will be flagged by the NSA for not accepting the perfection of our Glorious Global Plutonomy.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)After all. Best choice we've made in a long time.
watoos
(7,142 posts)The issue is the TPP, period. I'm against it. If this passes there is a Euro-trade deal next. I still like President Obama, the rest of this name calling is nonsense, or trolling.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Out of public view the Obama administration is negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a US-led free trade deal with several Pacific Rim countries. Six hundred US corporate advisers have had input, but so far the text hasnt been shared with the public or media.
The level of secrecy is unprecedented. During discussions paramilitary teams guard the premises, helicopters loom overhead, and theres a near-total media blackout on the subject. US Senator Ron Wyden, who chairs the congressional committee with jurisdiction over TPP agreement, was denied access to the negotiation texts.
In a floor statement to Congress Wyden said, The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of US corporations like Halliburton, Chevron, Comcast and the Motion Picture Association of America are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.
The deal would give multinational corporations unprecedented rights to demand taxpayer compensation for policies they think will undermine their expected future profits straight from the treasuries of participating nations. It would push Big Pharmas agenda in the developing world longer monopoly controls on drugs, drastically limiting access to affordable generic meds that people need. The TPP would undermine food safety by limiting labeling and forcing countries like the US to import food that fails to meet its national safety standards, and ban Buy America or Buy Local preferences.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-trans-pacific-partnership-obamas-secret-trade-deal/5329911
MADem
(135,425 posts)constantly. She doesn't come to DU and start nasty threads about him, relentlessly, constantly, day in, day out.
If she did, she'd still be a Republican, at a minimum. And she most certainly wouldn't be my Senator.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to make the messenger the message? The former bears no logical relationship to the latter. We can't discuss the TTP rationally anymore than the NSA because they're secret. The issue is government secrecy, not Elizabeth Warren.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Nothing fishy about your post or about Elizabeth Warren.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)and criticizing the Obama to remove him from office & eliminate the fed govt.
Some people can't tell the difference, however.
Jakes Progress
(11,124 posts)I know that is something many here do not recognize or value. But I trust her more than the administration.
summer-hazz
(112 posts)so do I...
Where are the Democrats?
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)Response to SomethingFishy (Original post)
DirkGently This message was self-deleted by its author.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)The ONLY totally honest politician for the 99% in Washington.
JI7
(89,287 posts)against anyone who likes Obama.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Indeed!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I trust Elizabeth Warren to do the right thing on the behalf of the 99%.
Response to SomethingFishy (Original post)
another_liberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
BrainDrain
(244 posts)in a long time. Why not ask if you like hot sticks in your eye or under your fingernails?
Why not ask an intelligent question like, do you agree with what Sen. Warren asked, and agree with the concept of more transperency or not.
STOP with the bullshit strawman arguments and questions.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If you are implying that the Senator is pouting or hates President Obama, you are missing the real point. Warren is trying to protect the livelihoods of the vast majority of Americans who would be screwed by this kind of trade pact. Senator Warren is right to oppose anyone who supports secret trade negotiations. From what has been leaked about the Asian tree trade treaty, it's clear the deal would be at the expense of middle and working class Americans.
The President proposed and sponsors this behind-closed-doors rip-off, and he is wrong to do that. President Obama needs to stop listening to advisers from Goldman Sachs and Walmart, and start listening to a few progressive, liberal economists instead.
Civilization2
(649 posts)These types of deals that effect the entire country and the world need to be PUBLIC,. not corporate eye only. Democracy my ass.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and doesn't understand how government works.