Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 02:56 AM Apr 2015

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Thu Oct 22, 2015, 09:29 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
1. The bottom line is this:
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:07 AM
Apr 2015

Congress will get to have their say. The final deal, which is still being negotiated with our trade partners, will be made public prior to any vote.

Up-or-down vote by the legislative branch.

Period.

I'm not seeing the executive overreach in this case.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
2. And just how can they read thousands of pages of legislation to be able to
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:28 AM
Apr 2015

vote one way or the other? Do you KNOW that they will NOT be allowed to add amendments or take out anything that is BAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

So what were you saying? They can READ IT and just VOTE? That is not the role of Congress.

Please stop defending this, it is indefensible to take away or for Congress to GIVE away, the powers they swore to exercise on behalf of the American people.

We have Corps writing our HC bills, we have Monsanto writing our food labeling bills.

Why do we bother with a Congress at all anymore?

NOW we have Foreign Corporations writing our laws and an outrageous denial of access to what THEY are writing for YEARS.

If Wikileaks didn't provide us with those leaks the people would still know NOTHING about what Foreign Corps are setting up for us.

IF you want to live in a country where the people you elect are not allowed to represent you, I'm sure there are a few of them around. But THIS one is not going to give up those rights without a huge fight.

Bush tried this, in 2007 and Democrats rightly voted against it AND some more intelligent Republicans.

It is hypocritical for any DEMOCRAT to support this after all the arguments they made against it then.

And that power if they do give it to the Executive Branch will last for six yearsl.

So even if you trust this president with it, he will have it for only one year, and what if Kruz ends up with that kind of power?

I will be calling my Reps again this week to make sure they know if they vote for this, we will be out working against them as soon as possible.

More than 65% of the American people DO NOT WANT THIS. THAT is what should matter in a Democracy.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
8. Darrell Issa provided those leaks, not wikileaks:
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:23 AM
Apr 2015
05/16/2012

On Tuesday afternoon, Issa published the entire intellectual property (IP) chapter of the Trans-Pacific agreement as drafted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the White House agency responsible for negotiating trade deals. The document was previously available online through unofficial channels of questionable legality, but Issa's posting of the document dramatically increases the political pressure on USTR and the Obama administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
15. Then Congress can reject both fast track and TPP.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 11:39 AM
Apr 2015

When it comes to fast track and TPP, Congress could sit on their hands and do nothing...then they would not become law.

Pretty simple actually.

I'm still not seeing the executive overreach in this case.

Cha

(297,123 posts)
6. They're just being disingenuous.. did ya see Schumer's statement, Cali?..
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:14 AM
Apr 2015

“We are supposed to vote on (fast-track), tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before we’ve seen what the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is. I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has seen something exactly like it more than a dozen times during his 34 years on Capitol Hill


They're shocked!

Cha

(297,123 posts)
3. thanks KMOD.. from your link..
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:37 AM
Apr 2015

"Obama has asked Congress to grant him fast-track authority, too. He wants it so the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, which began five years ago, can close. He also wants Congress to grant this authority to him under new conditions, including that any final deal have strict, enforceable labor and environmental standards."

snip//

“We are supposed to vote on (fast-track), tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before we’ve seen what the (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is. I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has seen something exactly like it more than a dozen times during his 34 years on Capitol Hill


"So why is the left making such baseless, tea party-style claims of executive branch overreach?

Because it’s desperately trying to prevent a deal from concluding. Withholding fast-track authority looks like a winning strategy. Delegates of other countries involved in the negotiations — including Japan, Australia and New Zealand — have said that a final deal won’t happen without a guarantee of an up-or-down vote from Congress.

“You cannot conclude serious trade negotiations without fast track. It can’t be done,” says Craig VanGrasstek, a trade historian at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “It’s like a law of nature.” History bears this out, he says, at least if you look at prior multilateral negotiations. No fast-track equals no big, unified deal."

They're shocked!

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
4. Well, they made Mitt's day anyway.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 03:42 AM
Apr 2015

At last, a Benghazi that's getting some traction.

Hekate

(90,633 posts)
5. Thank you, KMOD. In other words, it's only been like this for EIGHTY-ONE YEARS.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:11 AM
Apr 2015

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)
7. Just because it started with Gerald Ford doesn't mean it's ok
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:20 AM
Apr 2015

After all, the corporate revolution started when Gerald Ford was president (with the start of the deregulation wave and the 1974 recession.)

merrily

(45,251 posts)
11. Every President, starting with and including Nixon, has de-regulated.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:33 AM
Apr 2015

Buns_of_Fire

(17,174 posts)
12. "We've always done it that way" starts wearing thin as a justification for bad policy.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 05:40 AM
Apr 2015

It's unfortunate that the President is caught in the middle of all this, but giving away the store to these greedy bastards has to stop sometime. I suppose this is as good a time as any to begin the process, and if it kills this particular deal, so be it.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
9. Poor Obama, getting his feelings hurt.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:37 AM
Apr 2015

msongs

(67,394 posts)
10. that's because Obama Inc. is a people - according to our friend Mitt anyway nt
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 04:45 AM
Apr 2015

midnight

(26,624 posts)
13. I wish fast track authority would be used to end poverty, debt, war, or provide a job
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 07:29 AM
Apr 2015

for all the unemployed.

Agony

(2,605 posts)
14. Yeah, reaching consensus is messy. Too effing bad.
Sun Apr 26, 2015, 08:09 AM
Apr 2015

"But it’s difficult for U.S. trade representatives to make credible offers if every deal goes back to Washington to get picked apart"

If the USTR didn't act like a dick when he came before congress while allowing select third party access to the process things might go better.

It is laughable that its proponents think it reasonable to RAM an "approximately" voiced agreement of this scope and scale through the political process in 60 days. That is a long term recipe for ordinary people to get badly hurt.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...