I thought he TPP was a bad idea from the start.

Although, if Obama was against the deal, I wonder how many R-Tribe water carriers would be for it.  We will never know.  You know that, "If Obama is for it, then I gotta be against it" mentality. 

Luckily, Independents like me don't have to march with tribal leaders.

Goose wrote:

That's very short-sighted.
Free trade benefits us all.

Agree that free trade benefits us all, but the TPP appears to be one of those things where Obama and the republicans are saying, "trust us" and not being very clear on what this agreement actually does.

For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has some real problems with it.....

What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) Intellectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. Since the draft text of the agreement has never been officially released to the public, we know from leaked documents, such as the May 2014 draft of the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter [PDF], that US negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.

Why You Should Care

TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens.

The US Trade Rep is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the US entertainment and pharmaceutical industries agendas, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.

The TPP will affect countries beyond the 11 that are currently involved in negotiations. Like ACTA, the TPP Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that will be used to create new heightened global IP enforcement norms. Countries that are not parties to the negotiation will likely be asked to accede to the TPP as a condition of bilateral trade agreements with the US and other TPP members, or evaluated against the TPP's copyright enforcement standards in the annual Special 301 process administered by the US Trade Rep.

And Salon, one of Obama's biggest supporters in the websphere, calls out 10 problems with the TPP.

I just think we need to be told a lot more about this agreement before we can move forward with it.

I guess it all depends on how you define "FREE TRADE". Is "FREE TRADE" where one country manipulates it currency? Is "FREE TRADE" when one country exports over one billion dollars more a day to your country than your country exports to them? Or, is "FREE TRADE" where one country undercuts the price of a product (i.e. steel) and is even willing to sell it at a loss in order to gain the market. Sorry but I am with the Democrats on this issue. While my politcs are very conservative, this is one of the areas where I have great disagreement with most republican leaders. I don't necessarily believe that these Democrats are against "FRRE TRADE" - I believe they may be more concerned about "FAIR TRADE". Now, if a true "FAIR TRADE" and "FREE TRADE" bill is offered -- I will be all for it!

Last edited by JimmyBear (5/13/2015 4:06 pm)

I agree with JimmyBear here.  There is a difference between free trade and fair trade.  An important distinction.