Let the fight begin

[SuperHoosierFan]

Can anyone tell me why the bill can't be open and public. I do not understand why it has to be read in a private secure room. This is not a partisan question because both parties are allowing this to happen. Seems contrary to an open and free government.

No, that's not a partisan question. It's a question any American should be asking. Here's my non partisan answer.

It's because it's a shitty deal and some of the provisions said to be in this bill are absolutely ridiculous. For instance, there is said to be a provision where a supranational court will be established between the participating countries that will allow corporations to sue states if they lose profits due to things like environmental laws. Oh, and the taxpayers pick up the tab as always.

If a lawmaker who has read this bill stands up and says "screw this, I'm telling the American people what's in this bill. They need to know." I don't care if they are a democrat, republican, independent, Green Party, tea party, or whatever...they'll have my vote for life.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Can anyone tell me why the bill can't be open and public. I do not understand why it has to be read in a private secure room. This is not a partisan question because both parties are allowing this to happen. Seems contrary to an open and free government.

It's not actually classified secret now. It's what we generally call "sensitive - unclassified." It's being treated much like classified information is while negotiations are still going on. That happens all the times with US military sales to other countries as an example even though almost no sales are classified. Even so, many of the provisions are known and Representatives and Senators are able to read it for themselves if they want to. Some parts are still being negotiated with some of the countries and making it totally public now is thought to make the negotiations more difficult. However, once the agreement is negotiated and ready it is to be made public for at least 60 days prior to it being signed by the President - if the Senate approves it. Nothing about it will be "secret" when the final decision by the Senate is made.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, that's not a partisan question. It's a question any American should be asking. Here's my non partisan answer.

It's because it's a shitty deal and some of the provisions said to be in this bill are absolutely ridiculous. For instance, there is said to be a provision where a supranational court will be established between the participating countries that will allow corporations to sue states if they lose profits due to things like environmental laws. Oh, and the taxpayers pick up the tab as always.

If a lawmaker who has read this bill stands up and says "screw this, I'm telling the American people what's in this bill. They need to know." I don't care if they are a democrat, republican, independent, Green Party, tea party, or whatever...they'll have my vote for life.

Where did you get that? No way will Republican Senators vote to establish any "supranational court" with the TPP. Republicans don't even like the UN to have any real power over the US. I don't know what far left moonbat site you got that from, but I can't find anything about anything like any kind of court in any credible reporting about the TPP.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Can anyone tell me why the bill can't be open and public. I do not understand why it has to be read in a private secure room. This is not a partisan question because both parties are allowing this to happen. Seems contrary to an open and free government.

We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

Signed
TrustMe Pelosi

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

Signed
TrustMe Pelosi

That was one of the dumber things she's said and she's said a lot of dumb things. That really doesn't apply here. What they're voting on now (Trade Promotion Authority - TPA) just authorizes the President to present a negotiated TPP for an up or down vote by the Senate (i.e. no changes made). The provisions of the TPP will be known and we can rest assured the Senate will talk about this until they're blue in the face because that's what they do, then they will vote yes or no. Unless a Senator decides to be willfully ignorant about "what's in it," they'll know what's in it when they vote for or against it. So will all of us that actually want to know what's in it as well.

 

[Rockfish1]

We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

Signed
TrustMe Pelosi

Like so many things that Republicans "know", what you "know" about what Pelosi said is wrong.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

That was one of the dumber things she's said and she's said a lot of dumb things. That really doesn't apply here. What they're voting on now (Trade Promotion Authority - TPA) just authorizes the President to present a negotiated TPP for an up or down vote by the Senate (i.e. no changes made). The provisions of the TPP will be known and we can rest assured the Senate will talk about this until they're blue in the face because that's what they do, then they will vote yes or no. Unless a Senator decides to be willfully ignorant about "what's in it," they'll know what's in it when they vote for or against it. So will all of us that actually want to know what's in it as well.

Here in Kentucky, virtually everything gets an up or down vote - we have a Constitutional provision that prevents most poison pill provisions:

Section 51. Law may not relate to more than one
subject, to be expressed in title – Amendments must
be at length. No law enacted by the General Assembly
shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be
expressed in the title, and no law shall be revised,
amended, or the provisions thereof extended or
conferred by reference to its title only, but so much
thereof as is revised, amended, extended or conferred,
shall be reenacted and published at length.

Getting a bill out of committee for a floor vote is the magic, but once its out there, our representatives have to vote yes, no or "chickened out."

As for federal legislators being "wilfully ignorant" of what's in a bill - Yeah, I'd bet on that.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Like so many things that Republicans "know", what you "know" about what Pelosi said is wrong.

"I can see Russia from my backyard" is taken verbatim, no hyperbole allowed, no context needed, sound bite only. But Pelosi idiocy now requires and is allowed the context of a whole speech.

Different rules.

You can - and will - rationalize anything for your team, including semen stains on the dress of an intern with whom your guy never had sexual relations. His lies are OK, even under oath. Obama lies are OK. "Like it? Keep it. Your costs will go down $2000 per year if you make under $250,000."

By the way, what do YOU think Pelosi meant in her speech when she said "Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting." You think she wants a government that tells you what to eat? Is that even a reasonable question? A government that controls diet? GREAT IDEA! I hear the chocolate ration went up AGAIN! Doubleplusgood. Very exciting.

 

[Ladoga]

So Obama does something that Republicans like, and the response is: "Obama is an uppity Negro." And you guys don't understand why the GOP is regarded as the old white man's party. Maybe it's because people see you as you are.

Would you like to retract, edit or put up the goods? BULLSHIT! Bring a link to any Republican speaking of the President having made the statement you put in quotes. Or stand there a proven liar. Oh, and a horrid racist, too.

 

[Rockfish1]

"I can see Russia from my backyard" is taken verbatim, no hyperbole allowed, no context needed, sound bite only. But Pelosi idiocy now requires and is allowed the context of a whole speech.

"I can see Russia from my house," was said by Tina Fey, and not by Sarah Palin. I've never said otherwise. And you're still wrong.

 

[U81Too]

This makes me feel a helluva lot better:

"Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime."
​

I just thought Obama was a jerk to Republicans. Nice to see that his brand of arrogant self-referential wisdom applies to all political stripes. Yep, the guy really knows how to bring people together.

​

It is nice to see reminders that Obama isn't all the way to the left. There is some grass growing between the left field foul pole and Obama. If he showed a little less arrogance to all sides, he would have been a more effective leader.