How utterly @#$%ed up is it that two-thirds

[MannyGoldstein]

of Americans are against fast-tracking the TPP, yet our President is working to ram the thing down our throat?

Government of, by, and for which people? Certainly not us Proles; we are but mushrooms, fed @#$% and kept in the dark.

[zappaman]

1. "our President is working to ram the thing down our throat"

[LondonReign2]

25. Ah yes, the BOG smilie of last resort

So Obama ISN'T pro-TPP?

[ND-Dem]

57. +100,000,000. Thank you thank you thank you. I HATEHATEHATE those fugging smilies; they're so

stupid and so are the posts they're used in.

[sheshe2]

78. The BOG smilie

Bet you thought ProSense was a member of the BOG. Nope.

She was for Obama, never a BOG member. Silly how everyone that hates Obama thinks everyone that supports him is part of the BOG. Yikes!

How in the world can a Democratic site so disparage this President. He is our Democratic President and is pulled through the filth here. No. Do not tell me some people here are just holding his feet to the fire, they surpassed that years ago. Some here have beaten him with a whip, and hung him out to dry. Why? I don't understand why.

[ND-Dem]

82. there is a group of people who uses those things nearly every time they post. I don't know

who they are, but I hate their smilies.

Maybe the people you are talking about just don't like what the President is doing or expected better. Have you considered the possibility?

[sheshe2]

86. Lots of people use a smilie... no biggie.

There is a group that uses them. OMG! No Horrors!

I said....

How in the world can a Democratic site so disparage this President. He is our Democratic President and is pulled through the filth here. No. Do not tell me some people here are just holding his feet to the fire, they surpassed that years ago. Some here have beaten him with a whip, and hung him out to dry. Why? I don't understand why.

You say...

Maybe the people you are talking about just don't like what the President is doing or expected better. Have you considered the possibility?

Trust me, it has gone way the hell beyond that. The ridicule here. The worse than Bush. He is a POS. Perhaps some respect for this President, our First Black President is far to much to ask from Democrats on Democratic UnderGround.

[ND-Dem]

87. They use them to ridicule other posters in a rude and degrading manner.

Some people are OK with that and think it's "no biggie", but with regard to the President and other political figures: some people can't tolerate any criticism of their heroes.

I don't hold with mean spirited mockery; I'm very comfortable with criticism of policies and actions, even if the criticism is erroneous. The best way to fight it, if you don't like it, is correction of the facts and debate on the merits of the policies.

Is there some reason our first black President should be treated with kid gloves? He's not made of sugar; he can take it, I'm sure.

I don't mind debate from other posters on policies and actions too; but as with the President, mean-spirited, nasty mockery from supposed "democrats" is a bit much.

[sheshe2]

102. How do you feel about him called a POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then they double downed.

I don't mind debate from other posters on policies and actions too; but as with the President, mean-spirited, nasty mockery from supposed "democrats" is a bit much.

You are good with that????? Is that not mean spirited nasty mockery from supposed DEMOCRATS? I agree, it is a bit much.

[ND-Dem]

114. I didn't see that and I agree that at first glance it seems too much. Do you have a link?

[sheshe2]

132. Toss in a few buzz words, you'll find it.

Actually it was picked up by lots of sites.

[ND-Dem]

133. I thought you were saying it happened here at DU. If you're talking about the internet or

the country in general, I'm sure there are plenty of people making derogatory personal comments.

looked up page 1 on google; wingnuts, not democrats.

[sheshe2]

134. It happened here.

However, what is said at DU doesn't always stay at DU. Other sites less friendly to Dems....they are watching. I googled it once to find it.....

[ND-Dem]

135. The first page I googled didn't have anything like that, just wing-nut stuff from wing-nut sites.

It seems "it" was a one-off here at DU.

[sheshe2]

142. I found it.

122 recs 712 replys. Gotta run, late for work.

[ND-Dem]

140. I googled "obama" and "pos" on the site search here. I found people calling various

republicans "pos," but not Obama. again, I didn't go past the first page of hits.

If you want to link me, that would help. it's apparently not a common thing and you seem to have a specific incident in mind.

[Rex]

159. Here ya go, I know what sheshe2 is talking about so put these keywords into google search engine.

will pitt DU obama POS

I hope you have time to read a lot of information.

[sheshe2]

172. Thanks~

I was late for work and had to run. I wasn't sure if I should link it. I know others do yet, ya never know where your next hide will come from. Hey, I posted jury results in a safe haven and was alerted on, luckily no hide. Everyone posts jury results

[Rex]

179. I got your back.

[zappaman]

92. I wonder how many North Koreans know about TPP? n/t

[ND-Dem]

95. at least you didn't post the usual smilie.

[zappaman]

118. !

[ND-Dem]

93. worse than bush? BS. No one is ridiculing Obama at a personal level, like they did Bush.

I don't have to trust you; I can read the evidence myself.

Your definition of "respect" = sit down, shut up, don't criticize.

[sheshe2]

173. He has been called worse than Bush on this site.

you said

Your definition of "respect" = sit down, shut up, don't criticize.

Don't put words in my mouth, I am very capable of speaking for myself.

I hope you found that POS Op.

[madokie]

97. He's black She

Thats the problem many have with our President. Lots of dog whistling going on around here whether anyone wants to admit that or not.

[sheshe2]

98. Love you madokie...

I gotta go. I have to go to work in a few hours.

Thanks for your post, ya saved me from a angry retort and a hide.

[madokie]

101. The old love hiway goes two ways She

if it wasn't for a few here who can see the problem as it is I couldn't stand to be here at all anymore.

[sheshe2]

103. Back at you...

[BumRushDaShow]

107. Results of jury

On Tue Mar 31, 2015, 06:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

He's black She
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6440543

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Painting DU members as racist for not wanting a free trade agreement.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 31, 2015, 06:31 AM, 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: Sorry that the alerter can't handle the truth.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter must not have noticed that the thread wandered off from the TPP and into the realm of why some members continually bash the President.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think I will have a cheese omelet sandwich for breakfast this morning. Hit of Sriracha sauce... it will be tight. As for this alert... quit being so thin skinned.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF kind of alert is this?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post had nothing to do with TPP. It had to do with some reactions to TPP. Leave it.

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Offs...

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Can you believe this crap alert? Thankfully sanity still exists on DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

108. Wow

Apparently, one must tiptoe through certain threads.

[sheshe2]

174. BRDS!!!!!

Wonderful to see, yay 0-7 goes to the admins.

[zappaman]

79. What's the BOG?

Can I join?

[sheshe2]

81. Oh....zappaman.

Love ya~

[morningfog]

111. A bog is a stagnant, acidic environment where

little can grow but dead things won't decay.

[LondonReign2]

139. I'll answer that if you'll answer the question

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2015, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Does Obama support the TPP?

[sabrina 1]

147. Obama wants to fast-track the TPP which might have happened had it not been for the

huge opposition to a Secret Deal being passed without even Congress knowing what was in it.

Thanks to all who opposed it and who forced a delay in passing it.

And thanks to Dems like Wyden and Warren among others who have been warning us about it for years now.

The 'bog smilie' is the response when no argument can be made to explain why a Democrat would support policies that only Wall St could love.

I would hate to be trying to defend this abomination which is why I wouldn't, there is nothing I can think of that makes it okay for Foreign Corporations to be given so much power over the American People. Not a single thing.

[msanthrope]

29. Sometimes, you get an unintended peek. And you die

laughing, because you can't believe it.

[rhett o rick]

41. How rude. You have nothing to add but that rude emoticon? I guess Sid will be proud.

[sheshe2]

104. Sometimes that is all we have left Rhett.

If we did not laugh, we would only cry.

First Black President is being destroyed on Democratic Underground. He has accomplished so much. Credited for nothing. GOP wanted him destroyed the night of the inauguration. Some here are doing the same.

Something is rotten here. It is so sad. He is hated. Hated here. Not just disagreed with. He is hated. I have no clue why that is. Dear gawdess. Explain it to me. At DU, he is worse than Bush. Is it because he is black? Is it? I want to know. Tell me. Sometimes I think we come to a semi understanding. Then it is gone. I think it died tonight. I now know you and Manny are buddies. I hope you are both happy with the results of 2016.

I just went back and deleted the post I made to you. I thanked you for you kindness once. It is done now.

[Marr]

141. So you admit you have no real counterargument, and can only

suggest that critics of Obama's policy positions hate him personally, and are racists.

There really is no reasonable defense for Obama's demands for Fast Track authority with the TPP, so I can't say I'm surprised.

[sheshe2]

143. Not what I said....

Interpret as you wish.

[Marr]

144. It is exactly what you said.

But you're free to offer a substantive defense of Obama's insistence on Fast Track authority for the TPP, if you have one.

[sheshe2]

145. Later...

Late for work, gotta go.

[JDPriestly]

148. This thread is about President Obama's support and advocacy for yet another trade agreement

that will cost American jobs and diminish our wealth.

The Republicans are more likely to favor the agreement, so what does opposing the bill and the president's support for the agreement have to do with supporting the GOP campaign against Obama.

On behalf of the working people of America, I oppose President Obama's advocacy and support for the TPP.

That's what this thread is about: opposing the TPP and President Obama's advocacy for it.

During the 1960s, many Democrats supported President Lyndon Johnson's policies on civil rights -- signing bills against discrimination, especially racial discrimination and his social policies including Medicare. But many of those same Democrats, increasing in numbers as time passed, opposed President Johnson's policies on the War in Vietnam.

Similarly, I support many of President Obama's policies and actions, but I deplore the TPP.

It isn't written in black and white. It isn't either/or. It is written in black and white and gray and many other colors, and it is sometimes yes and sometimes no depending on the policy.

There is no point in a discussion board like DU if everyone simply says, "I agree with the President" all the time. It is our disagreements and our various and differing insights that make participation on this board worthwhile. Vive les differences.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. good gawd man. learn to cuss properly. sheesh. what kind of rant is this?

vanilla pudding? minus points for No Cuss words.

[daleanime]

3. Dollars over people....

[840high]

32. Always.

[Ron Obvious]

4. Two-thirds of Americans who are familiar with it maybe,,,

I doubt very much that two-thirds of Americans have even heard of it. I've brought it up numerous times and only get blank looks, even from fairly informed people. It's just never talked about in the media.

That's why this monstrosity will likely be passed.

[merrily]

14. Even if every USian were aware of it and called the White House and his or her Senators to

oppose it, it will become law. And many of those who vote for it will get their votes again next time, if only to make sure that his or her opponent doesn't get the seat.

That's one of many "beauties" of our system.

[bluesbassman]

5. But Manny, certainly the most transparent and arguably the greatest president of the past 50 years..

Would not be trying to ram this thing down our throats if it wasn't absolutely the best thing for us? Would he?

[merrily]

13. Not to mention that

we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[ND-Dem]

58. No, the greatest modern president. Greater than FDR even. His legend grows apace; pretty

soon it will be greatest; greater than Washington, Lincoln & fdr combined.

Because -- Lily ledbetter.

[sheshe2]

175. Really... that's all you got out of the last six years...that is just plain sad.

Here is a link for you.... I doubt you will read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110225726#post11 A small sample.

President Obama's Record on Helping Our Poor..

"Things Obama Has Done For The Poor That Never Get Highlighted" Or Acknowledged..

1) A $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps.

2) A $1 billion in funding for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) that is intended to revitalize low-income communities via "Job training and placement assistance", "Financial literacy programs", et al, to helping families become self-sufficient.

3) A $2 billion in new Neighborhood Stabilization Funds that will allow ailing neighborhoods be kept maintained.

4) A $1.5 billion in Homelessness Prevention Funds to keep people in their homes and prevent homelessness.

5) A $5 billion increase for the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income families save on their residential energy expenditures by making their homes more energy efficient.

6) A $4 Billion program, The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, "authorizes funding for federal school meal and child nutrition programs and increases access to healthy food for low-income children."

7) As part of the HCR bill, subsidies will be available to the uninsured and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level($14,404 for individuals and $29,326 for a family of four).

8) Estabilished Open Doors to end the 640,000 men, women and children who are homeless in America by 2020.

9) Increased the amount of federal Pell Grant awards so that funds are available to those with less access to have opportunity.

10) Provided $510 Million for the rehabilitation of Native American housing.

11) Expanded eligibility for Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,400 per year for an individual).

12) Providing assistance to low-income workers through the Earned Income Tax Credit giving millions of working families the break they need.

13) Education being the way out of Poverty, kicked off the "Race to the Top", a $4.3 billion program, that rewards via grants to States that meet a few key benchmarks for reform, and states that outperform the rest.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/01/things-obama-has-done-for-poor-that.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/poverty

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/04/932367/-Things-Obama-Has-Done-For-The-Poor-

There's a lot more at the link.

[ND-Dem]

177. no, it's what i got out of one particular poster who insisted that obama was the greatest

president of the modern age.

and I thought it was ridiculous, yes, despite your laundry list.

just one example: #8, the "opening doors" program, which is supposed to end homelessness in ten years.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/22/96322/obama-administration-vows-to-end.html

you're probably not aware of it, but bush had the same 10 year plan...in 2000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-john-roberts/did-americas-ten-year-pla_b_1394905.html?

as you may have noticed, it didn't work; not a damn bit. my own small town used to have one homeless shelter; now it has two. that's how successful. maybe Obama will be more successful, but I can't say I've seen any evidence of it so far.

but it's nothing Obama thought of personally, it's not funded, and it doesn't seem to be an Obama priority.

just saying.

[progressoid]

6. The President, Democrats, Republicans.

All, NOT representing us.

[F4lconF16]

23. +1

It's time to face the fact that the US has never been, and under the way it is set up, will never be a representative democracy. The power structures are in place purely for the elite, have been for literally centuries, and will continue to be unless we can find a new way to run this place.

[Hoyt]

7. He's not working very hard, but if he wants other countries to make any

concessions, he can't very well say that our current Congress will debate and politicize everything from font size, to substantive policies, to whether Vietnamese deserve anything for surviving our bombs.

I don't think most countries would get serious about anything if they thought our Congress was going to take 10 years politicizing, playing to people's fears, and screwing around with any agreement that Obama might think is good enough for Americans and the world, assuming we get that far.

Obama won't get fast track, so don't get overly concerned. This will be an issue in the 2016 election, maybe even 2020.. You'll have plenty of opportunity to criticize Clinton over it.

[merrily]

11. LOL!

[Populist_Prole]

15. Oh for shit sakes

You're all but saying the US working class should get reamed ( again ) or have absolutely NO concern at the prospect of it to balance out some geopolitical dynamic that looks good in the abstract.

I wonder what "most countries" would do if faced with the spectre of more of the same of the trade policies that invite the erosion of their working classes? Perhaps they would take "10 years ( I don't know where you got THAT speciously dire figure, but then again, who gives a shit if it's to forestall bad policy? ) politicizing, playing to people's fears, and screwing around with any agreement" if they had more to lose than to gain.

I don't know whether to go Stockholm and wonder why you lament this agreement's increasingly decreasing chance of passing, or to wonder why you support this so strongly in spite of its perniciousness.

[Hoyt]

17. Most countries have similar agreements, and want more.

[F4lconF16]

24. First, just because a lot of countries do it does not mean that it's a good thing.

Second, the elites want more--not the people. A critical difference, and one that we've seen ignored on far too many issues.

[Hoyt]

26. Governments all over the world, like Germany, Britain, Japan, Canada etc., are all wrong.

Sure thing.

[F4lconF16]

27. Yes. Many, many, many times throughout history, they have been. nt

[Hoyt]

28. We are talking trade, I don't think they can all be wrong, while you are right.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. BY, OF, and FOR the PEOPLE. Yes, they sure are wrong when it comes to the US.

They can decide what's best for their countries. You can cede that decision if you'd like, but some of us aren't so willing to take it lying down.

[ND-Dem]

60. +100

[rhett o rick]

42. Really? That's your justification? This is crap and you know it. nm

[Hoyt]

46. Everyone of the 12 governments involved in TPP want it, depending on final draft.

And even more are involved in Trans-Atlantic agreement.. I guess you know more than any of them.

[rhett o rick]

51. So you can provide evidence of that? nm

[Hoyt]

69. Yeah, 12 countries are voluntarily taking part in the negotiations. Seems obvious to me, why not to

you?

[ND-Dem]

59. "Countries" don't "want" anything. Like here, maybe their business class does, and their

politicians do the bidding of the business class.

Ordinary people have different desires.

[Marr]

146. +1, Exactly.

[JDPriestly]

85. Most other countries do not have our balance of trade deficit.

They benefit from these agreements.

We are the BUYERS. They are the SELLERS.

These agreements CREATE jobs in their countries.

These agreements DESTROY jobs in our country.

That is why other countries LIKE these agreements and our country should HATE these agreements.

These agreements are GOOD for other countries and BAD for our country.

[Enthusiast]

89. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[Hoyt]

100. Yeah, tell Toyota, BMW, VW, Siemens, Rolls-Royce, Airbus, etc., to take their foreign plants

out of American and go home.. We don't want their jobs and investment because we are Nationlists that think we can rebalance trade by not trading internationally.Tell China to take their goods and investments and get out. Then, buy yourself a tent because that's what we'll be living in.

Do I need the sarcasm thingie?

[ND-Dem]

116. they come here for the cheap labor, same reason we go to china

[Hoyt]

119. Folks where I live would dance down the street for one of those jobs. I guess we should tell them

to go home, we don't need their jobs, tax revenues, etc., and those of the hundreds of suppliers that follow them with investment in the USA.

[ND-Dem]

121. so what? folks where *I* live think $10/hour is good wages. because that's what there is.

doesn't make it true, and doesn't counter my point. European automakers come here for cheap labor and US auto makers go to china (& elsewhere).

it's all part of global labor arbitrage by multinationals, and the purpose is to screw workers everywhere.

[Hoyt]

137. Good. I hope they move all their plants here. You can gripe away.

[ND-Dem]

138. our state minimum wage is $9.45. Works better than labor arbitrage.

it's the main reason anyone's paying $10 locally (except for the hospital and some government jobs).

[JDPriestly]

162. What do you propose to do about our oversized trade deficit and extremely unfavorable balance

of trade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_trade

In 2012, for example, we had the highest trade deficit or account balance listed in Wikipedia's list:

minus 440.400 billion dollars.

In contrast, China had a trade surplus or account balance of plus 213.800 billion dollars in 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

Those negative balances are debt. There are all kinds of phony explanations for it and strange language used for those negative balances, but they are debt. They give other countries and their citizens buying power IN THE US that Americans do not enjoy. Meanwhile, I look at my friends in their 50s and 60s and see that they are permanently unemployed. Several people who had good, strong small businesses have lost everything and are desperately hanging on.

Trade agreements have ruined some of my friends and their futures. I totally oppose those trade agreements. I fully understand the theory behind trade agreements. A very good economist has explained it to me. But I see what the trade agreements have done to my friends and my country and I oppose them.

Please explain to me how you would re-balance our trade numbers so that they are positive without completely impoverishing Americans and ruining our small businesses (and some of our big ones).

[Hoyt]

163. What do you propose, stop exporting and importing to rebalance trade?

[JDPriestly]

165. Make individual trade agreements with individual nations that permit a nation to drop out of

the agreement if that nation's trade balance becomes too negative.

We should have flexibility in our trade policy. Right now we are seriously in the red. That means that other countries can buy (and are buying) our assets with the dollars they earn from us but we have less and less leverage in terms of buying assets in other countries.

Our trade policies are foolhardy. Sure. I have credit cards just like the US has a credit account with other nations. But if I buy more on my credit cards than I can pay back, I end up on the streets. Explain to me how that can be different for a nation?

Right now, our credit cards or our credit in the international markets and especially with certain countries like Saudi Arabia makes us subject to their economic pressure. They could bankrupt us any time they would like. We are stupid to allow ourselves to buy more on our credit cards with foreign countries. That is no way to make friends. That is not the policy of a country that wants to be or fancies itself a world leader.

[Hoyt]

168. So, since you are so worried about the trade imbalance, do you also support austerity?

I don't think you stop trading with people unless you want to collapse, not to mention tick off other nations.

Tell China we are no longer going to trade with them, then grab a tent and as much catfood as you can buy and carry on your back. We took more than our share of world resources and wealth in the past. It's kind of like someone winning most of the money at a poker table, and leaving early.

Finally, what makes you think a country can't get out of a trade agreement. You might not be able to pull out immediately without incurring the world's wrath, but one could drop out over time -- assuming anyone is stupid enough to give up trade with another country.

[JDPriestly]

151. Before Reagan and free trade, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler -- the American companies

produced their cars in the US, paid livable wages, and we had a strong middle class. Stronger than we have today.

I recall watching a Senate debate about free trade in October/November of 1985 pn C-Span.

I will never forget it.

One of the senators predicted that if we allowed free trade agreements, we would become a nation in which work is one American handing another American a hamburger. We are close to that.

When I compare the prosperity of the post-WWII period, the growth to today's economy, I see as one who lived through all that time period, the damage, the horrible damage that free trade has done to us and the world. Free trade, as opposed to considered trade agreements that are bilateral and not permanent, is an abomination.

[JDPriestly]

149. Those investments were made without the "benefit" or detriment, in my view, of the TPP/

I am not nixing trade. I am not nixing bilateral trade agreements. Any such agreement should include a clause that allows us to reduce imports when our balance of payments or our local and national economy suggest the agreement is harming our country or endangering our sovereignty as a nation.

I am opposing trade agreements that benefit big corporations and take away from us the ability to control as needed what we import, when we import it and how much we import.

I am opposing trade agreements that set up trade courts to handle disputes that can be handled in our courts as provided by our Constitution, courts in which ordinary American citizens sit in the jury when a jury is desired. I am supporting trade agreements that respect and affirm our sovereignty as a nation. I am rejecting trade agreements that challenge the right of the American people at the local level and sometimes at the national level to determine policies that the Constitution and our democratic traditions permit the American people to make through representative democracy.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the TPP. (And don't argue I haven't seen the details. We all have seen enough of the details to know that the TPP is bad for Americans.) The individuals who negotiated the TPP primarily represented big international corporations and their lobbyists and friends. The rest of us were left out. There would and in my view should be no TPP as negotiated now in secret. There should be no TPP at all.

We can make individual trade agreements with individual countries as appropriate.

OUR FIRST PRIORITIES SHOULD BE JOB CREATION HERE IN AMERICA, REDUCING AND POSSIBLY ELIMINATING OUR OVER-SIZED, HUGE, POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DAMAGING TRADE DEFICIT AND PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AT HOME. The TPP will not further our achievement of those priorities. It will hinder it.

I strongly oppose the TPP.

I cannot take your posts seriously until you explain your view on our horrific trade deficit.

I live in California. I know what that big trade deficit means to our economy and sovereignty.

[Hoyt]

169. Oh boy, you are going to have fun with this- I quote from "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Economics."

Hopefully it was not written for me.

First the article discusses why some economists believe trade deficits are bad. I'll skip those since you appear stuck in believing that.

Then it presents this:

"Labor unions oppose trade deficits because they believe that when imports exceed exports, jobs are being lost to overseas workers, or soon will be. On the surface, it seems a reasonable argument, but the data on trade deficits and unemployment don't support it. In the late 1990s, when the trade deficit reached record highs, unemployment dropped to its lowest level in three decades. . . . . .


"Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment. . . . . . .

"Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy.

"Perhaps the best view of trade deficits is the balanced view. If a trade deficit represents borrowing to finance current consumption rather than long-term investment, or results from inflationary pressure, or erodes U.S. employment, then it's bad. If a trade deficit fosters borrowing to finance long-term investment or reflects rising incomes, confidence, and investment—and doesn't hurt employment—then it's good. If a trade deficit merely expresses consumer preferences rather than these phenomena, it is immaterial. . . . . . . ."



Read more: International Finance: Trade Deficits: Bad or Good? http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html#ixzz3W0Rs8ZjO


http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html


I ran across this comment too, but it's just some comment to the question of whether Trade Deficits are Good or Bad. Again, I admit there is no consensus on whether a trade deficit -- particularly ours -- is good or bad.

"Trade Deficits are No Problem at All -- The U.S. experience, trade deficits for decades, proves beyond doubt that there are no problems with it at all. Our currency is very strong and our interest rates are very low because our huge imports inhibit inflation. The alternative - protecting domestic producers with tariffs, trade barriers or an undervalued dollar - would make our products uncompetitive on the world market and increase inflation while reducing our standard of living."

[JDPriestly]

170. Here is the case in the US:

Our " trade deficit represents borrowing to finance current consumption rather than long-term investment, . . . results from inflationary pressure, [and] erodes U.S. employment, [and] it's bad."

I have explained that in my circle of friends, I can see in several cases how our trade policy has caused businesses to fail, cost jobs and if you go to the grocery store, you see inflation at work. That's true of a most products other than electronics, at least most that I buy.

"Free" trade is costing Americans a lot.

I don't know how old you are, but I am 71 and can compare the situation now to the situation 40 years ago. We are in decline. We have lots of consumer goods on the shelves of the Walmarts in our country, but they are bought on credit, and we pay interest in one form or another for that credit.

"Free" trade is a losing policy.

[Hoyt]

171. Oh, I agree we are in decline. But not from free trade. I'm not far behind you and unless we find an

economy built on more than goods made here and our intrernal economy, life is going to be really tough. And us old folks are going to get a taste of depression living, which there will be no new "social security" like program to bail us out or help the youngsters - unless we trade or accept a return to a standard of living like the living in a very rural area during the 1950s.That's fine with me, but likely won't be acceptable to most.

[ND-Dem]

115. jacking down wages at home, not bringing them up overseas = more profit & power to the globo-

corps

[Hoyt]

120. Wages from those locating here are better than American businesses, especially small ones, pay.

Foreign wages will increase as those country's economies expand helping them locally, and helping them buy our goods.

May not be fast enough for you, but doing nothing won't make it happen faster.

[ND-Dem]

122. and worse than in their home countries. which is why they're here.

Global labor arbitrage is an economic phenomenon where, as a result of the removal of or disintegration of barriers to international trade, jobs move to nations where labor and the cost of doing business (such as environmental regulations) is inexpensive and/or impoverished labor moves to nations with higher paying jobs.[1][2]

Two common barriers to international trade are tariffs (politically imposed) and the costs of transporting goods across oceans. With the advent of the Internet, the decrease of the costs of telecommunications, and the possibility of near-instantaneous document transfer, the barriers to the trade of intellectual work product, which is essentially, any kind of work that can be performed on a computer (such as computer programming) or that makes use of a college education, have been greatly reduced.

Often, a prosperous nation (such as the United States) will remove its barriers to international trade, integrating its labor market with those of nations with a lower cost of labor (such as India, China, and Mexico), resulting in a shifting of jobs from the prosperous nation to the developing one. The end result is an increase in the supply of labor relative to the demand for labor, which means a decrease in costs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_labor_arbitrage

[Hoyt]

136. OK, say you work for BMW making $28 an hour, plus good benefits. You wanna send those jobs back to

Germany. Fine quit, find another job like it in SC, and try to convince other workers to do the same.

Jesus Christ.

[JDPriestly]

152. You are presenting a false choice and making a false assumption.

You assume that BMW pays $28 and hour with good benefits based on trade agreements.

We could just as well assume that BMW is paying well because it is selling its cars in the US and it makes sense, therefore, to make the cars in the US.

Saves on transportation costs, and BMW enjoys the loyalty of Americans who recognize that BMW makes the cars they buy in the US with American labor. And that BMW contributes to our tax base.

If we accept my assumptions then we do not need free trade agreements. BMW can invest in the US and produce products in the US without the TPP or any trade agreement. BMW can obey our laws, respect our democracy and remain a popular company with popular products in the US.

We do not need the TPP in order to encourage foreign investment in the US. In fact, the TPP will encourage more outflow of investment money than inflow. Just as NAFTA did.

Please stop using false logic. Please stop relying on false assumptions.

We do not need the TPP in order to encourage foreign investment in the US.

[Hoyt]

155. You are badly mistaken that we don't need trade agreement to attract investments, and invest in

other countries.

If we aren't buying their products, they can go elsewhere at some point. The TPP and other trade agreements aren't short-term propositions. The world is changing and we can't sit on our rears and let it pass us by.

Here's an article by Ezra Klein. I think it's pretty good and describes why this is more than a trade agreement for goods, as has been enacted in the past. It's not simply pro-TPP, either. Try to read it on balance.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership

Here's another article from economists.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/185531/%E2%80%98transpacific-partnership-an-agreement-that-even-liberals-can-live-with%E2%80%99

There is plenty more if you care to look beyond the scare tactics being employed by so-called activists.

[JDPriestly]

160. The only argument in those articles that is persuasive concerns China's dominance of world

trade. I do not think that TPP will in any way affect that inevitable dominance. We are just tagging along. It is a stupid thing to do.

We should build a strong economy here. We should at least be able to manufacture our own socks and not rely on the Chinese or people in other countries to produce them.

Republicans talk a lot about self-reliance. But thanks to our trade policies, we utterly lack economic self-reliance. And it is showing. The morale of our young people is far worse than I can remember. Same for the work ethic which used to be such a great advantage for our country.

That aside, we created the China that now looms over trade and our own economic success or failure. We created it with trade agreements. We thought we were buying a friend. We weren't. Nothing against the Chinese people, but China as a nation could care less about American workers. They run up a huge trade balance excess; we conversely run down a huge trade deficit. The greater our trade deficit becomes, the less desirable we will be as a trading partner, the less power we will have as a nation.

There is nothing more stupid than our current obsession with trading with China. We should be focusing on creating high quality jobs and products in the US. We can sell and buy from other countries, but our economy is declining because of our dependence on foreign manufacturing and on free trade.

No to TPP. We built the monster that is the Chinese economy. Now we will be devoured by it. No to TPP.

And I reiterate, nothing against the Chinese people.

[JDPriestly]

153. As a woman who sews, I would love to see the return of American jobs in the textile

and clothing industries in the US. I really miss the wonderful fabrics we used to be able to buy, the American made fabrics.

I have told this story many times on DU. I bought a used washing machine in 1985. I still have it. Works beautifully.

Of course it works beautifully. It was made by Americans in America, in Newton, Iowa to be exact. I assure you a product of that quality and with that sturdy design is not sold today. The products we get from other countries do not last as a rule. They are poorly made of cheap materials. Young people don't realize just how bad the things they buy really are. Reminds me of what I used to see in shops in Eastern Europe under the Communists when I used to visit there.

If we don't allow foreign imports to inundate our markets with poor quality, cheap goods, we will establish our own good factories to make quality products. American workmanship was excellent before we allowed other countries to import their junk. Sorry. But I have watched the deterioration in the quality of products sold in the US over my lifetime, and that deterioration is directly linked to the increase in imported goods.

[Hoyt]

161. Unfortunately, in some cases like autos, the poor quality of cars made here, allowed foreign cars

to take a big share of the market. Blame it on management, or whatever, but that is exactly what happened. Other than trucks, I hate driving American cars, but Toyota trucks are probably just as good.

I'm no longer sure most American made products are better when you consider price, sorry. Don't want it to be that way, but it is.

I prefer American made musical instruments -- guitars, banjos, mandolas, etc. -- but the quality of Asian instruments is amazing, especially when you factor in the price. People who can't afford an American guitar, especially if they have never had one, will be plenty happy with foreign instruments.

My Asian computers, phones, tablets, TVs, etc., last long enough for new technology to make acquiring another necessary.

While it's true, foreign workers like in China aren't paid fairly, they are doing much better than if we shut them out. Trade agreements ostensibly promote increased wages and workers' rights in other countries. Even if that is only marginally effective, poor workers elsewhere benefit when their economies grow, even if only because the government provides better services benefits, etc.

[JDPriestly]

164. My Maytag against your vague descriptions.

The problem with the American cars was the design. The Japanese designs were smaller and more fuel efficient. Design is not workmanship. In fact, the Japanese cars were not necessarily as strong or well made as the US products. They were lighter and more fuel efficient.
My Maytag washer is quite heavy. It needs to be because it has to withstand a lot of vibration.

American workmanship used to be along with German workmanship, the best in the world.

I prefer a Steinway piano but can[t afford it. Not fond of Yamahas at all.

The American fabrics we used to get were wonderful, especially the cotton. But that is all gone, in large part thanks to the competition from China and its cheap labor.

American labor will pay a heavy price for our trade policies. So will our small businesses.

Please tell me how you would reduce our negative balance of trade. That is key, and I have not read any answer from you on that question. Our dollar is necessarily backed by the American taxpayers. Read the Fourteenth Amendment, the part no one reads. Please tell me what you would do about tha negative balance of trade. Please.

[Enthusiast]

88. +1 an entire shit load.

[L0oniX]

125. LMFAO

[Phlem]

128. It's DJ Jazzy Hoyt! Spin it baby!

Scrichity, Scratchity, Bump Bump Bump, pump up the beat!

[PassingFair]

167. Where is that emoticon....

(your last sentence, not your whole post)

[DeSwiss]

8. Brother Manny.......

...it seems you need a little exercise:

[center]And a - 1, and 2 and 1, and 2 and 1, and 5 and a 1 and 47 and done.

[/center]

- Now, don't 'cha feel better? Hmmm?

Sure you do.

K&R

[MissDeeds]

9. It boggles the mind

K&R

[merrily]

10. The Senate will provide the Constitutional check and balance for which we are so famous

[BeanMusical]

12. Kick and R.

[Unknown Beatle]

16. But Manny,

Obama is playing eleven dimensional chess. A chess master would never give his moves to anyone except to his closest allies. That's why it's a secret.

[MisterP]

18. 60-90% of Americans (including NRA members) want peace, gun control, better wages,

non-extortionate education, less speculation, high-speed rail, single payer

the parties aren't designed to get votes in exchange for policies, they're set up to ensure that as little gets passed as possible--they're not even there to "win" any more, since party and candidates get beaucoups bucks even if they lose--there's always next cycle, and they usually don't have primaries to worry about--the DNC will notoriously give millions to RETIRING MCs because they know the people who'd normally complain would just blame some imaginary abstentionist campaign or mysteriously panic about a left-wing takeover (like, this is LITERALLY how they run elections in banana republics, but at least there you get 80K box lunches and 50K sodas for 15K "nonpartisan pro-democracy protesters" who were bussed in for free by the local neofascists and the local duopoly)

maybe they're not even primarily intended to generate policy for the donors!

[ND-Dem]

61. "this is LITERALLY how they run elections in banana republics" = +100

[MineralMan]

19. Is there a reference for that statistic?

Link, please.

[Andy823]

21. What I alway want to know

Is how many people actually were asked about this. Polls only hit a very small portion of the population so they don't really speak for ALL of the country anyway.

[MineralMan]

22. I'd just like to see where the OP got the numbers.

There must be a source. So, why doesn't he provide it? I doubt the figures, but can't check without his source.

[Andy823]

31. Well I could tell you

But I don't want to be alerted on by certain loyal posters.

[rhett o rick]

43. Maybe he got it wrong. Why don't you do the research and prove him wrong? nm

[sheshe2]

44. IMHO

An Op should try to post some facts and links, not just toss stuff out and see what hits the fan.

A simple question. Why can't the Op post a link to his research? Why do responders have to prove him right or wrong. Why do responders have to prove or disprove his point. This is just another Obama bashing thread. I know it, and if you were being honest you would know it too. The Op needs to state a fact, backed with links, then we could have a discussion. Yet he doesn't. He never does, Rhett.

[rhett o rick]

52. The best way to prove an OP wrong is to post some facts. Responders don't have to

but it would be more effective than just disparaging the OP.

[sheshe2]

56. I just asked a question, silly me. No I did not disparage the Op.

Me, I thought it would be more effective if an Op stated some facts backed with links. I thought that is what Ops were about. So you are telling me an Op needs no facts, yet posters need to do his research. He comes here fact free and we have to come up with proof. Got it!!! OPS need no facts or links only those that respond. That just damn silly, you gave a twisted answer.

Forget it, done here. I will not say more. I asked a question. I was polite, I will not continue and be alerted on here. I always am. I am always alerted on here. Trust me I know.

No more!

[MineralMan]

110. It's up to the OP to support his claim. I asked

if there was a link. I can't see the problem with doing that. Maybe you can explain.

[Hissyspit]

33. Yes.

http://fasttrackpoll.info/phone/index.html

[Hissyspit]

36. Um, no.

1. He didn't pull them from his ass. I just showed you. Yes, he should have backed up his assertion in the OP.

2. It's a perfectly valid sample size:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Soc_participants.shtml
(...while there certainly could be other problems with the poll.)

3. There are other arguments against whether his point is made. I did not address those.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. You and MineralMan need to learn how to search the Internet.

It was embarrassingly easy to find the results of the poll. Before you endeavor to malign someone else, it's probably best to perform a rudimentary search so that you don't end up looking foolish and petty.

[sheshe2]

47. a simple question with all due respect.

You and MineralMan need to learn how to search the Internet.


It was embarrassingly easy to find the results of the poll. Before you endeavor to malign someone else, it's probably best to perform a rudimentary search so that you don't end up looking foolish and petty.

If it is so embarrassingly easy, why does the Op not post this? I am confused here. Op makes a statement, no back up and people responding are the ones that need to provide proof? Isn't the point of an Op to provide back up. A link? Something?

Or do we just settle for %^&***&^^%$%$.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

48. I'm not the OP, but I assume he was using the number as the basis for discussion.

The number itself isn't very controversial, at least not more than any other polling. So far as I know, the 2/3's number isn't being questioned in other venues. My guess is Manny just wanted to talk about the disconnect between the White House and 2/3 of respondents in the poll with respect to TPP fast track.

[sheshe2]

49. Thanks for your answer....I appreciate it DisgustipatedinCA

I just wish the Op posted facts with links and not rely on responders to write his Op for him. He could easily have posted links. Sorry, no. I believe this just bashes Obama without a link to the facts of said polls. The Op just says

our President is working to ram the thing down our throat?

Maybe it is just me, yet I find that a crude way to describe it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

53. Mister man non sequitur du jour

outside the wall much?

[MineralMan]

112. How is asking politely for the source of a statistic

used in an OP a non sequitur? I don't follow this issue closely. So, I asked a question about the statistic.

[Rex]

158. Well you know how sometimes people just forget all about web searches!

Selective memory etc..

[Rex]

157. I guess it takes too long to google something.

Found it in about 1 minute of looking, but you probably didn't know about web searching. From the wording of your post.

[NCTraveler]

20. You must have been a hoot when certain civil rights polled really poorly.

Not even a close way to make a good point. One of the beauties of a representative republic is that it does not work as your described. It is often a drawback, too.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Do you see any differences between civil rights and "free" trade?

That being said, do you have the national polling data for civil rights legislation when it passed?

[Nye Bevan]

30. I'd be amazed if more than 10% of Americans even know what "TPP" stands for.

Even the Democrat running for Congress in Staten Island didn't know when asked in an interview.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Yep....

Most Americans have no idea what TPP even is. So the notion that 2/3 Americans are against fast-tracking TPP is bullshit. Most Americans probably don't even know what the hell fast tracking is.

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. Interesting, eh? No idea you say???

Why would the
DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT
not speak out on this issue???

Hmmmm???...
Not really!

[Cali_Democrat]

62. The "establishment" knows exactly what TPP is

I was referring to the average American who would rather watch American Idol or The Kardashians rather than follow TPP.

[ND-Dem]

65. Oh bull.

[Cali_Democrat]

66. You think the average American knows about TPP?

I highly doubt that is the case.

[ND-Dem]

67. I think your description of the 'average american' as someone watching the kardashians is

bull.

Invoking the distinct smell of class bias and bullshit stereotypes.

[Cali_Democrat]

70. Americans, in general, are easily manipulated and dumber than a sack of hammers

when it comes to public policy.

That's why 70% thought Saddam was connected to 9/11:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Bush and the neocons were able to use American stupidity to their advantage and invade Iraq.

[ND-Dem]

71. good thing we have people like you to help us dumb fucks.

you just keep telling voters how stupid they are. that should win over a lot of people to the Party. But maybe that's not the goal.

[Cali_Democrat]

74. Happy to help. nt

[R B Garr]

68. Exactly. Half the country doesn't even bother to vote.

[ND-Dem]

73. Maybe they have their reasons. But folks like you wouldn't think to ask the people you

consider beneath you in every way.

[R B Garr]

75. What? That makes no sense.

It's just a fact that half the country doesn't vote. I'm sure it has nothing to do with me, though.

[ND-Dem]

77. "It's just a fact". like air. there's no reason for it, people are just stupid. it's a law of

nature.

the bell curve.

some animals are more equal than others.

[R B Garr]

80. Good grief.

I never said anything about stupid people. Maybe they are apathetic about the process because they don't think their vote will matter. Maybe they are victims of voter suppression of some sort. This could take a long time speculating why half the country doesn't vote; however, I'm still sure it has nothing to do with me or "people like me."

[ND-Dem]

64. +100. Yeah, I find it pretty interesting that our "leaders" don't feel it necessary to inform

the public on these matters.

[Oilwellian]

91. Most Americans do know, at this point,

that each free trade agreement we enter into, means more lost jobs for Americans. THAT is common knowledge.

[treestar]

72. +1

And it would only prove they've managed to scare everyone about it.

[L0oniX]

126. Toilet Paper Patrol.

[cascadiance]

129. Here's what the "toilet paper patrol" should do to edumacate those that don't understand...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/trans-pacific-partnership-could-be-acta-plus-legal-experts-fear/

[L0oniX]

166. Great find! +1

[bigwillq]

35. K and R

[NaturalHigh]

37. Recommended.

Thanks Manny.

[JoePhilly]

45. Two thirds of Manny's personas say what?

Sometimes it gets confusing.

[JoePhilly]

176. Cosmic kitty's post should not have been hidden.

A weak attack on Philly is no reason for a hide.

Philly is tough enough to handle it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. posted to for later.

[sheshe2]

76. You sure you want to.

[JDPriestly]

83. K&R.

Barack Obama ought to realize that NAFTA has harmed the American economy very badly and that the TPP will do the same.

Is he really so beholden to the corporations that want NAFTA and TPP as to be willing to hurt America to get the TPP passed?

And i understand there is also a TPIP that will harm our country too?

Why is Obama in favor of these agreements? The argument that they will help our economy is, based on the evidence from past trade agreements false. What is Obama thinking?

[daredtowork]

84. I think this relates to Citizens United and election funding

I just saw something similar in my small town of Berkeley. The City Council attempted to cobble together an imitation criminalization-of-the-homeless law after such a law had been rejected by the voters. People came to the town council meeting and spoke one after another against this move and the direct defiance of democracy that it represented: the city council meeting ran to midnight with all the speakers. Yet in the end the city council just ignored the will of the people and did what a few big property owners (who must be lining a few council member pockets) asked them to do.

Democracy means nothing in Berkeley anymore. Voting means nothing. It's pathetic.

[ND-Dem]

94. +100 "First they came for the homeless, but I was not homeless...."

[Enthusiast]

90. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Thanks, Manny.

[great white snark]

96. You are outraged hear you roar..and roar..repackage and roar..same outrage different roar.

Other than the perpetually disgruntled nobody cares until we see a final draft. Until then you are the ones happily "ramming" conjecture.

[sheshe2]

99. ...

[ND-Dem]

117. plenty of people care. and the leaked draft = no longer conjecture.

[djean111]

127. And you have to click and comment because?????? Soooo easy to skip this stuff, if

you disagree or whatever!

[neverforget]

178. I'm outraged that you're outraged!

or something like that

[djean111]

181. Bwahahaha! Yes! Nailed it. I will be forced to borrow that, neverforget, because that seems to be

rife here. Don't care for Hillary's policies? Outrage! Buy organic food and take supplements? Outrage! Don't like what has been leaked about the TPP? Outrage! One would think DU is a lot more powerful than it is, or something.

Quite the authoritarian undercurrent. What is puzzling is that the authoritarians must be aware that they can never stomp out dissent, so perhaps their objective is to just not have dissent show up on the internet, or something like that. Puzzling. But that would explain things like the thread hi-jacking. Which is so obvious it has no effect at all any more, except for a laugh at the regularity and the grim determination.

[Quantess]

105. Our President works for the elites

D or R, our government works for the elites. That is all.

[WillyT]

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

[tritsofme]

109. Yeah right, I would guess 3/4 of Americans have no idea what fast track is

[raouldukelives]

113. Whatever shareholders pay for, we all get.

For every person legitimately opposing the destruction of our democracy, labor, education, environment and future there are scores investing in the very corporations pushing this to ensure those against it fail and that they in turn will be richly rewarded for the effort.

[ND-Dem]

123. +100

[L0oniX]

124. Stupid little serfs need not worry. The big shots are deciding everything for us.

[ND-Dem]

131. they're so smart. we're so dumb. and lazy. and fat. i heard it at DU.

[libodem]

130. You could just

Fucking spell out bullshit, Manny. It is bullshit.

[Rex]

150. We shall see.

I wonder where all this passion was back in the 80s when it was needed and could have stopped the corporatist takeover of our nation?

Better late then never I guess.

[ScreamingMeemie]

154. Speaking for myself only, back in the 80s, it was 10-18.

Cast my first vote in 1988.


Thank you.

[Rex]

156. Me too, but I knew at 13 Reagan was evil to the core. That the GOP were all corporate sellouts.

And was equally shocked that good men and women did nothing to stop his destruction of the country. I just missed the cutoff and had to wait until 1992.

[Hoyt]

180. Sounds like vile fear-mongering to me, I don't think he is trying to ram it down our throat.

First, Congress has to give him "fast-track" authority -- which is questionable.

Then, He has to get a final agreement and decide whether it is of value to the American people long-term -- that is also questionable. Then he would submit it to Congress for debate. At that point, everyone gets to see the final agreement and debate it. And all this has to happen quickly or the TPP will become part of the 2016 Presidential debate.

He is certainly making a rather meager effort asking for Fast-track, since that is the only way to get a final agreement that is worth presenting to Congress. The other countries are going to lose interest if they think our Congress is going to pick it apart for several years debating font size, placement of periods and commas, policies, ways to bash Obama and the Democrats, etc.

With all that said, it's doubtful whether a final agreement will be available for Obama to approve/disapprove, send to Congress if he thinks it's good for America, be debated by Congress, and finally get Congressional approval -- which is also doubtful because Congress feels about as you when it comes to Obama.

[99Forever]

182. If I understand it correctly.

This monstrosity also has Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton's fingerprints all over too.

Could someone please explain to me why it is that I should vote for that woman in any election, for any office, at any time, least of all POTUS?