General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How can a person who fights for the TPP be considered a friend of the 99%? [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)I want to see the agreement myself, and make up my own mind.
Further, you do know she grandstanded a bit in that speech? The reason that the bracketed text is not released is because all participating countries have agreed to keep negotiations secret--she's asking one guy if he will release something he does NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to release. It's great Senate theater, though--but it's hyperbolic. I think you're the only one that doesn't quite get all that.
Again, I'd like to see the material, too, but it's like asking the school janitor to suspend little Billy for smoking in the boy's room, instead of asking the school discipline committee--it isn't going to get the desired results any more than asking someone not authorized to release information to release it is.
You do know that Eliz. Warren once forced a battlefield program on the Pentagon that they didn't want and didn't need, that they'd asked be defunded, because she didn't want to be in a sketchy position of voting to eliminate an unneeded program that provided Bay State jobs?
People are human--they have interests. Her interests in that instance were local, and they ignored the larger interests of the country.
It is in her interest to be seen as the Banking Senator, the Take on Wall Street Senator, the Fight For the Fair Deal For the Little Guy Senator, and that comment was an effective way to make the point, even though she was asking the WRONG guy to do something he couldn't do.
I'm not saying she doesn't have a point about TPP, I'd simply like to make up my own mind. I'm also not saying we shouldn't continue to complain--along with people from other countries--to press for more transparency in the process.
The odds are, though, that you'll be railing about this for another year, because it is having trouble coming to pass, as my link illustrates. Too many disparate groups have varying objections, and they simply cannot come to agreement at all. That's part of the reason for the secrecy--they want to negotiate in a bubble, and not in the court of public opinion. I don't know if that's terribly smart, really, but there are players at the table with governments quite different from ours, or Canada's, who like it that way and don't want to have to deal with the complaints of assorted onlookers.
Demands by populations to make the process more transparent do not have to be accompanied by the Good v. Evil posturing you like to frame every issue with. Some people prefer discussions over calls to arms. In sum, your schtick is getting old.
I'd recommend that you grab the hose, and douse that snarky and dismissive Hair On Fire attitude you've got going on. This is going to be a long, long ride. It's not a "With 'em or Agin' 'em" scenario of the sort you love to construct. It's a vague and moving target. It's serious business, not a "Rally Your Minions/Talk in Cartoonish Generalities" issue.
I'm quite awake, thanks anyway (an example of your dismissive and cartoonish snark, that). I simply don't think your brand of humor and your immature divisiveness brings much light to go with the typically overwrought heat you're offering.