General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 13 Democrats who just voted to move to debate on trade deal.
Senate votes to start trade debateIn a 65-33 vote, the Senate agreed to proceed to a package that would empower Obama to negotiate future trade deals with minimal interference from Congress and assist U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition.
Todays vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). And I look forward to continued positive engagement from both the president and members of both parties as we move forward on these bills.
Thirteen Democrats have voted in favor of moving to the bill so far: Sen. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Tom Carper (Del.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jeanne Shaheem (N.H.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
The chamber is expected to vote on amendments to the package Tuesday, a process that could extend into June depending on how many proposals Democrats want to consider on the floor.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,869 posts)beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)Tried to call Feinstein but couldn't get through. It's not like she actually cares about her constituents anyhow.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)didn't vote for her last time, and have no intention of casting a vote for her ever again.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)denbot
(9,901 posts)California deserves a progressive senator in her place.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)She has re-written the entire code of ethics for the US Senate, so that she can vote in costly and bloody wars that her scummy little husband can then profit from.
She apparently even reveals secrets about war strategies that she receives from her position in various committees in the Senate, to the husband, so he can get his ducks in a row and bid on projects in the affected areas.
catchnrelease
(1,945 posts)I knew she'd be on the list without even looking at it. She is disgusting.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He and Udall were among those who first warned us of the TPP. Apparently, they were able to get to him.
He has become too sleazy to support anymore. I will work toward his defeat next election.
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Oregon is a "Pacific Rim State", and depends on selling timber overseas.
But nafta sent the mill jobs away, now we ship out logs and buy back lumber
Angel Martin
(942 posts)the past is prologue with these people
fredamae
(4,458 posts)"But trade policy has been a consistent area of disagreement. Wyden has been a supporter of NAFTA-style trade agreements for 20 years, starting with a vote for NAFTA itself in 1993 when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since then, hes voted for every NAFTA-style trade treaty except agreements with Chile and Singapore in 2003 and Oman in 2006. Labor union leaders hold the agreements responsible for accelerating the offshoring of American manufacturing."
http://nwlaborpress.org/2013/08/back-for-august-recess-u-s-senator-ron-wyden-hears-from-labor/
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Ans:The Koch Brothers
fredamae
(4,458 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Well i guess you do.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)were Bustling. When a cargo ship came In we celebrated with a cocktail...and when a loaded one left? We celebrated with a cocktail...
Those days are Long, Long Gone.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)I don't even feel much like discussing this anymore; it feels too much like deja vu from almost 25 year ago.
All that's left to do now is demonstrate our objections to allowing corporations write the laws. This is what occurs when corporations are given personhood. Working people are the constituents of those Congresspersons who represent us. Corporations are NOT people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6667860
I'm done talking...it's past time to hit the streets, just like back in '92. I may be old and teetering, but I'm still able.
Let Mitch McConnell and his fucking "free" trade senators see who it is that he's supposed to represent!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Wyden is actually a pretty big free trade guy. He voted for CAFTA, for example which Hillary Clinton and most Democrats voted against. He's usually on the side of the trade agreements.
Who are your Senators and how did they vote?
pscot
(21,024 posts)And Microsoft. Washington is heavily trade dependent.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He' rock-solid on the issues. I wouldn't mind seeing him give it another go against Wyden.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Senators from Deleware vote for it. I thought they were pretty liberal. I guess I was mistaken.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the damn Blue Dogs. I've written them a number of times and they both give me bullshit rhetoric. The best I can get from them is that Washington the State relies on trade and this will help Washington industries. My Democratic rep is singing the same song. Notice they say "industries" which doesn't mean workers. Higher profits for industries doesn't equal higher wages for workers.
The Democratic Party used to look out for workers.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)But when they vote with the Blue Dog herd, that distinction gets blurred. The Democratic Party barely resembles the party of RFK, and it's as frustrating as it is heartbreaking. That probably explains why people are moving to support Bernie Sanders. He's one of the few honest, decent pols we have.
tennstar
(45 posts)Cantwell is a blue dog from the get go. Murray seems to go further and further to the right the longer she is in office.
Who is your rep? Mine is Heck
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)corporate ties. When she was first elected the Republicon, I believe it was Spellman got huge donations from Boeing, Weyerhaeuser, etc. and she went in big time debt. After she was elected she got those same corporations to pick up her debt. And she was an early member of the DLC if I remember correctly.
Sadly I agree with you re. Sen Murray.
My rep. is Rep Kilmer. He seems like a decent guy, I have spoken to him a few times, but not real progressive.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Still wish Dennis K. had moved there and run for that seat.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)vote for "free trade", going all the way back to NAFTA
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What's wrong with debate?
i thought that's what everyone was asking for.
Let's debate the merits.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Do you think they will talk publicly about what is really in the deal?
I seriously doubt it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Turn to CSPAN.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...into the pact, several months before it can be submitted to Congress for consideration."
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=0d838f3e-527e-43e0-9ebb-ab01a1e8ecd1
It will be public for at least two months before entering the agreement.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)fair to me...
We'd better get organized so we can mob this thing...put all our heads together.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)They have had a decade to craft it.
Sure that's fair and honest.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)for TPA. It's gives the illusion of choice where there really will be none.
Reading the agreement after TPA is in place is a good as reading it after TPP is in place because you can't do anything about then anyway.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)We don't have a representative democracy so we need to say it like it is. As you say, we are owned and subject to much kabuki...hope my ass.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)If it is all going to be open to the public, then why bother to be so secretive now?
Oh, I see, it will only be open to public after it is voted in.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Any trade pact, such as TPP, will have to be made public prior to submission to Congress for consideration.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)deal. There will be no stopping it. But then I am sure that doesn't matter to you.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)All the sudden the "pragmatic" and "reality based community" can't count to 51 much less 218 and/or believe a significant number of Congressional TeaPubliKlans are looking out for American workers and the environment.
You folks are being very, very, very dishonest because you have no interest in a debate, you want a dog and pony process that enevitably leads to passage based on the players on the board.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That's why it's important to GOTV.
Elections have consequences.
For the record, I do want debate. Trade authority is being debated right now and TPP will likely be debated in the future as well.
Debate is as American as apple pie. Don't like debate? Perhaps you could move to Russia.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)the environment.
You know good and well they have the votes, how fucking stupid strategically is that? What else you want to "debate" in such an environment? Abortion bans? Disbanding the EPA?
Want to have "an open discussion and an up and down vote" on anything else the TeaPubliKlans are drooling to pass?
Russia might not be so bad compared to the hell hole created once you get done with your "debates".
If by chance the deal somehow didn't meet your definitions of good for the country then how is it you are expecting to stuff everything back into and close Pandora's Box?
It is not possible to honestly argue that one wants to have a debate when they force a foregone conclusion regardless of the principle concerns because the control has been ceded to the motherfuckers who not only don't give a shit about the primary concerns but are the ardent enemies of them.
No one has to have a desire for totalitarian government not to be insane. There is no since debating going over the cliff or not when you have already set the dive in motion.
The only way to stop such a thing is for it to be so damn good that the evil asshole reject it for malicious reasons. What the fuck sense is that?
Folks on this particular line of reasoning sound stark raving mad to me but I might be missing something here that maybe someone could climb off their pedestal and explain how a bad deal is stopped in real life application.
Who are these pro worker, pro regulation, pro environment Republicans we can count on to safeguard our jobs and futures???
Why play this absurd game of being coy when logically you have to understand that you are committed. The very reasons such a deal can be terrible policy are left without a break other than in the land of the textbook hypothetical stop the spin or you aren't willful spinning then for the love of all that is good think.
This line of argument is wholly irrational and irresponsible as can be. Total abdication of common sense.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)questionseverything
(9,661 posts)with lots of legal jargon to comprehend
what could possible go wrong?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)mock legal and corporate strategic scenarios, and have crafted the precise words which allow themselves to prevail against any challenge they could anticipate in those 10 years.
It's a shady lawyers wet dream to be able to have 10 years to plan all the strategic moves he will make against an adversary, then with that knowledge in mind, craft a contract which binds and commits his adversary using the precise contractual jargon of only his choosing and developed entirely by himself to embed as many well hidden legal land mines, then finally rushing the other party to sign before he can get up to speed about what he is signing.
It's a fucking bullshit cheesy scam.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)misinformation, so little time to answer the mountain of it.
Guess we better all rely on folks in the know we trust...and I trust Obama.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The deal has been in negotiation since 2010. The negotiators have themselves missed several of their own target dates -- they're now well past the time when they hoped to release a final agreement. Yet, for some reason, as soon as they finally come up with something, it then immediately becomes urgent, and must be railroaded through Congress, in an accelerated procedure that's not imposed for any other kind of legislation.
The extent of the reading and analysis required just makes the "fast track" that much more objectionable.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If members of Congress, and various NGOs that have expertise in particular areas (environmental organizations, labor unions, EFF, etc.) were given a full and fair opportunity to study and analyze this sprawling proposal, they'd be able to point out even more problems with it, and thereby lessen its chances for approval.
By contrast, if tight deadlines are artificially imposed, there's more chance that the proponents, who've had full access to the negotiations for years now, will be able to railroad it through.
If you put your faith in an alternative rationale, please feel free to articulate it. I've raised this question on DU more than once and never gotten a straight answer. All I ever hear about is the no-amendments part of fast track, not the "fast" part itself.
questionseverything
(9,661 posts)even the ones that raped children in front of their parents to make the parents talk
your trust is misplaced
haikugal
(6,476 posts)tennstar
(45 posts)How do you debate something you can't talk about.
Would you debate with your kids if they refused to tell you where the party was they wanted to go to?
They refused to tell you who the adult in charge was going to be?
Oh but they did share with you that the local beer, pot and rum dealers were sponsoring said party.
Would you debate it
Would you let your kid go!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They are debating the trade authority.
If that is passed, any final trade agreement submitted to Congress is also be debated and put to an up-or-down vote.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)even though they can vote on it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)What is your argument based on that the fucking Republicans will stop a deal if doesn't protect the environment or workers anywhere, especially here?
Go ahead and post your list of pro labor, environment minded, corporation regulating TeaPublKlans.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What are you gonna do about it?
There's only one thing you can do.
Vote.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Let's have a good "debate" on say a national voter ID law right now, I mean it is as American as apple pie right?
Should we have a nice "conversation' about a massive tax cut for the rich on an up and down, no logical possibility of a veto?
How about a good "debate' on abortion restrictions or a ban on a path to citizenship all with no possibility of a Presidential veto, you good with that kind of open dialog with a blind up and down vote right about now?
That limb you are out jumping on isn't visible with the naked eye.
I find it about impossible to see this as an argument in good faith, there is no way you believe it or if you somehow do it couldn't be a position arrived at with much contemplation.
Probably the real deal is no matter how horrific you'll retreat to "would you rather Mitt Romney or JEB be negotiating, Obama (insert Clinton for the coming blows) did they best that could be done or some such thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've voted for both of them since we moved to Washington in 1993. Now....?
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)excuse that they fear a Republican will defeat them. Bullshit!
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)msongs
(67,453 posts)ybbor
(1,555 posts)Not the citizens of the U.S. but the people they represent. This may be the only time I believe what yurtle says.
cali
(114,904 posts)those opposed to the tpa/tpp, use every delaying tactic in the book. the longer they drag this out the greater the chance to defeat it. Load that baby up with amendments.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Nobody can change their minds. They think like Republicans.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)world wide wally
(21,755 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)I won't waste my time calling any of them again.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Exxon Mobil
Goldman Sachs
Glaxo Smith-Kline
Koch Industries,
etc...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)Oh, good. More money gets funneled into our universities to retrain tech workers into the nursing or trucker field.
The country is saved.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)do. They have no idea.
But then Dianne Feinstein is pretty much a loser on a lot of issues. On the ultra-right of the "I want money" party.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to trade legislation.
Note that only two of these Senators--Wyden and DiFi--represents a state where the other Senator voted no.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)The reality is, as much as the mainstream Democratic Party whines about Fox and its cohorts, they constantly use all the negative energy of the conservative media as free marketing. Instead of standing in true partnership with unions and working people and employing a strategy of forcing the rest of the world to democratize and grant workers real rights in exchange for access to American consumers, they've done the opposite beating up on the captured labor demographic as a way to reassure big business.
Again, this goes back to Clinton, Al From, Dick Morris, the DLC days. Third Way Dems first dared American workers to try to get a better deal with Republicans. Then, once they established that they could safely take minorities and labor for granted, they used right-wing caricatures of welfare moms or rappers to score points with the political middle.
It's clever, and it sure as hell works as a way to win elections. It just seems like doing the right thing and standing up for actual people would work just as well.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-democratic-party-would-triangulate-its-own-mother-20150514#ixzz3a9BKww5U
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Then they were good to go.
Good point. Taking us for granted.
underpants
(182,904 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)Duppers
(28,127 posts)F'n Damn. I thought they might do this.
appalachiablue
(41,177 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)tell my why this part is bad as it seems debating it is a good thing.
Pretend I am stupid if you won't believe that I've not been watching news, on DU much recently.
Thank you.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... it will get a very short debate and there will be no opportunity to modify it in any way.
In the normal process congress would have had ample time to debate it and amendments would be possible.
Fast track just makes it easier to railroad it through congress with little oversight or accountability. Without fast track this piece of shit legislation would have died.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)I have not been online much recently, or watching news, been busy dealing with death of my last parent so I appreciate the info.
dgibby
(9,474 posts)Wishing you peace and comfort.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)and the world goes on around us.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Sorry my friend
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... is 90 days of ELAPSED TIME. The amount of actual debate depends on the other items on the schedule and the usual wrangling and manipulation that goes on in congress.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Especially if it's just an up/down vote.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)They'll do as little as possible and people won't notice because it's summer...
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... is not particularly important when no amendments can be made. I expect the "debates" to be perfunctory and the piece of shit bill to pass.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)which may be correct but not necessarily. Congress can still shitcan it if they want to.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)to stop a bad deal. If the TeaPublKlans want it then they have it.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts). . . these 13 Dems are voting with the Prez because they actually support TPP? Just sayin.
Ill admit I do not know enough about it to be for or against it, so Im more of a fence straddler. But I must admit I do like the robust debate within our party.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... they are DINOs and more proof that it is pointless to have them in our party at all, they are just weakening the Democratic brand.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Fucking Washington Democrats. Even the Governor Inslee is a sleazy 3rd way politician killing Medical Marijuana so the for profit installations have all the control. Even Pricing.
Response to Phlem (Reply #35)
rurallib This message was self-deleted by its author.
tennstar
(45 posts)It seems like Washington is a giant hole that sucks the morals right out of people. Inslee is one of the zombies who returns Cantwell was that way from the get go.
Inslee is so far in bed with the shellfish industry who are spraying poison and dumping millions of tones of plastics in Puget sound, as well as destroying our tidelands in south sound which are the nursery for million of creatures including Salmon. Fyi East coasters your oysters are not sprayed!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)Who would you suggest run against her?
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'd like Washington voters to look at your options next election. D's don't mean much anymore.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)So Cantwell and Murray's support of TPP is not surprising. Just as Mary Landrieu's support of the oil companies in a state that drills for oil and has a lot of refineries is not surprising. Likewise Chuck Schumer's support of Wall Street since it's in his state.
To call Cantwell and Murray third way Democrats is intellectually lazy.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Last edited Fri May 15, 2015, 06:08 PM - Edit history (4)
Woo hoo.
And to think that the TPP is actually be more benefit than not, is intellectually dishonest.
Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)She competes with Roy Blunt to see who can embarrass the state more.
TBF
(32,102 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Jeanne Shaheen? Who's seat might easily go to an Republican? Heck maybe even Scott Brown?
Yah she definitely is one of the biggest problems we have.
TBF
(32,102 posts)perhaps you should get up off the floor and do a little reading:
The only press release Shaheen issued on Jan. 22 was one praising the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 42 years before. Why would she want her constituents to be unaware of her efforts to expedite the delivery of more natural gas to New England, which is the destination for the the New York pipeline?
We can think of a few reasons. This position contradicts the position of environmental activists who want no new pipelines of any kind for any reason. (They also deny that New England even needs more energy.)
Also, Shaheens acknowledgement that a) New England desperately needs more fuel, and b) pipelines are safe ways to deliver the fuel we need, undermines her purely political opposition to the Keystone pipeline and her attempt to straddle issue the Kinder Morgan pipeline. - See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150202/OPINION01/150209939/0/FRONTPAGE#sthash.ABFYucwL.dpuf
Yes it's important to keep Repugs out of seats - but if our dems vote the same way what have we accomplished?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And still would have a pipeline.
Maybe you should take your blinders off...
TBF
(32,102 posts)inaccurate snarky comment. The press release was about Roe v. Wade. NOTHING about the pipeline.
Again, if dems vote the same as repugs what is our purpose here?
You refuse to answer that question. I wonder why.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)perhaps you should get up off the floor and do a little reading:
Again...
If we had a republican in office in NH they probably wouldn't have written a press statement about abortion at all, or decried it.
And we would STILL have a pipeline...
Get it?
TBF
(32,102 posts)If a dem votes the same as a repug what is our purpose here? Why have two parties?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Do you only care about the pipeline because I don't.
TBF
(32,102 posts)but your disinterest in whether a pipeline goes through residential areas of New Hampshire is noted.
Here is information for anyone who might be interested: http://nhpipelineawareness.org/
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And one vote makes Shaheen just like a republican to you.
TBF
(32,102 posts)because it is important. Many issues are important despite your characterizations and attempted character assassinations.
And what democrats do and how they vote is important. It is especially important when they are pandering for pipelines and good with shipping jobs out of the country. YMMV (and obviously does).
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Honestly I am sick of the shit, character assaination? Please... It's called a disagreement. We are both just as guilty, get through it.
TBF
(32,102 posts)From "third way" dems that are nothing more than republicans who don't agree with the tea party on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. So if we're going to be honest here I expect it on both sides.
I expect those of you who don't care about income inequality to own it. Although we do see through it when you don't own it - and that goes straight up to Hillary.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You don't know jack shit about me, and it's unreasonable to accuse me of being something I'm not.
I am from Mass, I voted Warren into office. Before that I lived in VT where I voted Bernie into office, and my family served in the NH house. So I call bullshit on your smear.
I'm barely part of the middle class, I'm not rolling in the dough and I support a minimum wage increase.
Good try though.
TBF
(32,102 posts)which is what you're doing when you give these senators a pass? Honestly, we saw a lot of jobs go out the door with NAFTA. I would give some leeway to folks supporting these "trade" agreements if they actually cared what happened to the "collateral damage" (the labor that is laid off & has trouble finding new work) but they don't.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)doesn't fly anymore.
The stale, manipulative talking points have ZERO credibility anymore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)You work to get some progressive Senators elected in Texas?
TBF
(32,102 posts)what exactly are YOU doing?
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)as well as two senators who voted against Fast Track. I do GOTV activities every single election. In some years I have organized GOTV activities in multiple precincts.
Here's the thing I find annoying. The reason those centrist Dems are so important is because huge swaths of the country, like your state, elects Republicans. You can go on about imperfect Democrats all you want, but right now you are electing Republicans, including at least one Tea Bagger, to the Senate from your state. I don't sit and wag my finger at Democrats who are less progressive than those in my state because I know the rest of the country, NH for example, isn't like MN. Yet people who live in very conservative parts of the country, who manage to elected few to no Democrats, are particularly prone to lecturing everyone else about the Democratic representatives they do elect. My suggestion to you and every other red state Democrat is to clean up your own house. If you want to make the party more progressive, elect progressives, or at least Democrats. If Texas ever does elect a Democrat again, that person will be a lot more like Shaheem than Franken, but that will still be a considerable improvement over Ted Cruz.
TBF
(32,102 posts)live in a red state? That's your position?
This party really is breaking apart isn't it.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Yet you sit there saying she is just as bad as a Republican because she isn't progressive enough for you, despite the fact your state is a Tea Bagger strong hold. So if you think they are all the same, by all means, work to see Shaheem and other impure Democrats ousted by the GOP. Then the GOP can get over that magic number of 60, but that won't matter anyway since they are all the same. There are so much the same you have to drive for hundreds of miles to get an abortion, while I can hop on city bus to get to a family planning clinic. But I guess that's better than having to face the indignity of a Democratic Senator who doesn't vote how you want 100 percent of the time.
As for this divide in the party, my branch elects progressives, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, and not really progressive but someone who can be influenced, Klobuchar. Yours elects Ted Cruz and John Cornyn; I myself don't think much of that particular branch of the party. Ultimately, however, it is up to Texas residents to choose their Senators, just as it up to NH residents to elect theirs.
TBF
(32,102 posts)that or aren't working hard enough. Or that we are electing teabaggers willingly. That is a huge insult to all dems in Texas and the hard work they do. Please proceed - you're doing a wonderful job with your persuasive efforts.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)at all. What I'm saying is that your branch of the Democratic party has gotten no Democrats elected to federal office, at least not in the Senate and very few in the House. You talk about a divide in the party, as though pure thoughts were all that mattered. The Democratic party is a theoretical construct to you. When you get some Democrats elected, then we can talk about this divide and how your Democratic representatives compare to others in the nation. As it stands now, you have no one to show for it. You can pretend to be on the left of the party all you want, but the fact is your representatives are on the far right.
Your assumption that my point was about how Texas Democrats feel couldn't be more wrong. In fact, my point is what matters is what they accomplish.
TBF
(32,102 posts)you really aren't going to attract voters to your third-way candidates with that attitude. Smh.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Is that who you are characterizing as Third Way now? Compared to who, your beloved reps? Texas is a perfect place to test your theory. Your party can run some leftist Democrats, and if that's what it takes to win seats, you'll prove your case.
As it stands now, my representatives are progressives and yours Tea Baggers. Blaming the victim? Give me a break, you're a voter and party activist claiming you know the secret to electoral success. Now prove it.
This lazy trope of Third Way every time someone brings up an inconvenient fact is weak and absurd given who my candidates actually are. You sit there preaching at the rest of the country while electing Tea Baggers. Put up someone to the left of Keith Ellison for Senate in Texas. Keith's a Muslim, a Third Wayer, in your estimation. Franken a Third Way sell out. So please, show the rest of the country how it's done.
You proved my point about the party being a theoretical construct to you. You haven't elected a single Democrat to the federal government but feel entitled to lectures voters all over the nation about how they aren't pure enough. How absolutely absurd.
That is what is so absurd about political discussion on this site. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality. You think you're some progressive wing of the party when you elect Tea Baggers, and you turn your nose up at "my Third Way candidates" who rank at the leftist scale in any accounting of ideological leaning of candidates.
?w=240&h=328
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Shoddy work...
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Surprised Manchin wasn't on the list.
DiFi can't retire soon enough for me.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)against these stupid trade deals
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She has GOT to go California!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)If it weren't this 13, it would have been another 13.
We have seen this con game now for years. The system is deeply and pervasively corrupt. Corporate money pouring into Washington to buy soulless, morally bankrupt predators to pretend to be our "representatives."
They and those who shill for them have sacrificed all claim to human decency or conscience. They are the "hollow men" of our generation. It takes a special kind of moral vacancy to participate in this sellout of democracy and human lives and futures, for the filthy paychecks they receive. There is no honor, none, in these con artists or their shills.
Enough is enough.
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/
Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how its played:
....
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, its Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, its Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and breaking with their party to ensure Michael Mukaseys confirmation as Attorney General; then its Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then its Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they cant blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they dont need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6668324
The initial vote was for show. For PR. What Americans heard was that Democrats stood up against this monstrosity.
Then they reverse course, conveniently. AFTER the accolades.
Just like Obama's lying, highly publicized speech pretending that he would rein in military involvement....
...followed immediately by two new wars in Syria and Iraq, funding carpet-bombing of captive populations in Gaza, and a trillion-dollar escalation in nuclear weapons.
Our corrupt Third Way Democrats are corporate liars, puppets for the One Percent as surely as are corporate Republicans. In this oligarchy, this fake democracy, we are ruled by lying propagandists and corporate criminals, who brazenly and deliberately advertise one agenda and pursue another.
Enough corporate corruption. Enough.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)to win the votes for their friends in big business.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)for both parties.
politicians with a tough re-election coming up, they get to vote populist.
the others, they have to vote corporate.
then for the next election cycle, they shuffle the assignments.
And a new group of politicians get to play populist, and rest have to vote corporate.
840high
(17,196 posts)TBF
(32,102 posts)Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Dianne Feinstein is the best we can do? Really? In such a liberal state?
randys1
(16,286 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"Todays vote moves us closer to achieving a positive outcome for the people we represent, said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)not seen one word on this legislation.
That should be the first item up for discussion a
AMENDMENT that says the public can read this piece of a DEAL-----how about that-----I think we deserve to be in the loop
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)according to my eyes. Now dems are culpable for moving along this disaster. (Although I thought Wyden was supposed to be one of the good guys.)
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)We need to get rid of the neo-liberal, 3rd wayers.
They are farther to the right than Republicans were 30 years ago.
I really want to see the two from Virginia ousted. We might as well have Republicans than these 13 traders.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I'd have voted yes to open debate, yes for cloture and no on the actual TPP deal.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)If they're so dedicated to promoting corporatist trade deals, let them get votes from the corporatists.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,233 posts)Or simply not voting?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They obviously feel my vote wasn't important. I let them know earlier this year that I wouldn't vote for them if they supported this. They made their choice. Let them get votes from the lobbyists who paid them. Or the Chinese. It won't be me
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)That's definitely a matter of opinion.
chillfactor
(7,584 posts)a debate is what we want...I view that as a good thing...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)especiall;y Bill Nelson. Dammit Bill, do you not udnerstand that the GOP is moving to hand your job to Rick Scott?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but they are really Quislings.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)soap opera that keeps showing the same reruns.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thanks for the heads-up, madfloridianita. Perhaps down the road they'll get all that they deserve.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)AAARRGGGHHHHHH
City Lights
(25,171 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
TBF
(32,102 posts)That is what happens when you try to stand up to the third-way. But we know their game & know they are really little more than republicans in disguise.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Much appreciated.
Feinstein and Boxer are my Senators. I contacted them, their votes were predictable (Boxer voted no). I've contacted Feinstein many times over the years (well actually her staff of course), always got the feeling that they coudn't care less. The state party has her back, as does the MIC, so she remains in power. I've never met anyone that said they like her representing them. Her constituents are the large campaign donors, not the voters.
still_one
(92,421 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are stuck in flat earth mode on this one.
Now let's see if House will get moving so Obama can see if he can finalize a good agreement, or have to say he tried but it didn't work.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)The bill isn't necessary ... Boeing and NIKE are both making oodles and oodles of cash in the current environment ... Yet they need more and more, and want the rest of us to simply receive less in wages and benefits so they can get that too ...
And those on this thread who praise the TPP and ridicule the rest of us ...
We know who you are here in DU .. If this leads to MORE job loss ... MORE displacement of families ... MORE growth of the poor classes and another reduction in middle class wealth ...
Expect us to discuss it with you here ... And let you know how we feel about your thinking and your ability to prognosticate .... You apparently believe that trickle down is the way to go ... Well, we will see about that, won't we?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)because of currency manipulation?
....
The Senate voted 78-20 on a broad trade enforcement bill that included a crackdown on countries that manipulate their currency. The currency provision would require the Commerce Department to investigate claims by American companies that competitor nations are manipulating their currency to promote their own industries. And if manipulation is found, the government would have to impose tariffs to raise the cost of imports to compensate for the currency price imbalance.
....
Even supporters said that vote was intended more to allow lawmakers to express their frustration on the currency issue. The real showdown will be over the Portman-Stabenow amendment attached to the trade promotion authority itself. If that reached Mr. Obamas desk, supporters say, the president would have to sign it.
....
The trade enforcement legislation includes the creation of an interagency trade enforcement center and a system to respond faster to unfair trade practices, like the dumping of exports at prices below the cost of production. Another provision would require the Customs and Border Protection agency to expeditiously investigate allegations of customs duty evasion. Still another would close a 75-year-old loophole that allows the importation of goods produced with child labor if a company cannot find those goods elsewhere.
....
The Obama administration is walking a tightrope. Congress could give Mr. Obama the authority he needs to conclude a Pacific trade agreement that he sees as a central element to enhance the administrations strategic role in Asia. But officials say that the demands imposed by Congress could scare off key partners such as Japan and Malaysia just as the deal comes into reach.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/business/senate-vote-currency-manipulation-fast-track-trade.html?_r=0
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)9. SECRET DEAL: Obama has angrily dismissed the notion that TPP is a secret deal, saying that everyone will have public access to the TPP text for at least 60 days before a final vote. This is not the point opponents are making. The vote on fast track would severely limit Congressional input into the deal. And right now, members of Congress can only see the text in a secure room, without being able to bring staffers or take notes, or even talk about specifics in public. That makes the deal effectively secret during the fast track vote. The president has only committed to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track, Warren told Greg Sargent. The President wants to filibuster-proof the bill in secret, then employ pretend transparency on TPP after that.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/
Another good point:
5. CHANGING LAWS: On the controversial topic of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), where corporations can sue sovereign governments for monetary damages for violating trade agreements that hurt the companys expected future profits, the White House has engaged in a shell game. They say, No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws. But the point of a corporation suing the United States or any trade partner is to put enough financial pressure on a government to force them to alter the law themselves. So ISDS doesnt cause a change in law only in the narrowest sense. Even third-party countries have curtailed regulations in reaction to ISDS rulings, as New Zealand did with their cigarette packaging law, awaiting the outcome of a dispute between the tobacco industry and Australia (a suit that continues despite an initial victory for Australia).
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)workers when their jobs are sent oversees and the wages for the jobs we do have left keep declining? And minimal interference from Congress? Congress represents the people(well they are suppose to anyway). When you cut Congress out of the negotiating process you are cutting the people out of the democratic process. I will not be voting for Cantwell or Murray when their re-elections come around. I've never really liked Cantwell anyway. I kind of like Murray, but I think she votes to spend too much money on the defense budget. Maybe we would have more money for education and other important domestic programs if we didn't spend so much damn money on defense.