• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Elizibeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?

Is Elizabeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?


  • Total voters
    14
The general public is too stupid to know what exactly it is about so lets keep secret? Is that what it is about?

It is pretty standard to keep things secret during negotiations. It will be public well before it gets voted on of course.

Neither can most of the people in congress and senate.If you remember correctly Nancy Pelosi said we got to pass it so that way we can find out what is in it.

I assume you already know this, but you're aware that was a hoax, right? She was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it.

You know this how seeing how you just said basically just said most of the public is too stupid to understand the bill? Or are you believing whatever the pundits on the left are telling you?

The public certainly doesn't have a good track record of understanding bills. The right in particular appears to be very easy to manipulate into believing that bills say even the exact opposite of what they say, susceptible to conspiracy theories about bills, etc.
 
It is pretty standard to keep things secret during negotiations. It will be public well before it gets voted on of course.

Lets use Obamacare, first all we knew about it is what Obama was preaching in all his public meetings / town halls. You know "you can keep your Dr and you can keep your insurance" lies.

I assume you already know this, but you're aware that was a hoax, right? She was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it.

A "hoax" if you believe that you will believe anything. She didn't know what the hell was in it nor did all the other liberals that voted for this failed bill. Notice the Republicans know what was in it and not one of the them voted for it. Even the Dems had to bribe some of their own to get the votes need to pass this failed bill.

The public certainly doesn't have a good track record of understanding bills.

How in the world could you when you have a president lying to you what's in it.

The right in particular appears to be very easy to manipulate into believing that bills say even the exact opposite of what they say, susceptible to conspiracy theories about bills, etc.

This is all mumbo jumbo. Obama goes around to all these town halls and tells lies and because he is a liberal you go and pat him on the back and say "good job"
 
It is pretty standard to keep things secret during negotiations.

It should not be secret at all.It is the public's business what they are doing.
It will be public well before it gets voted on of course.
It should be public during the negotiation phase.

I assume you already know this, but you're aware that was a hoax, right? She was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it.
A hoax? She said we got to pass it in order to find out what is in it.That is not a hoax.

The public certainly doesn't have a good track record of understanding bills. The right in particular appears to be very easy to manipulate into believing that bills say even the exact opposite of what they say, susceptible to conspiracy theories about bills, etc.

You know this because you read 100% of the bill and Understood all the legalese in it without any bias? Or you think you know this because of what some leftist pundit said to you?
 
IMO, very few of the American public are qualified to approve/disapprove of any trade deal ..They simply have not the time nor the facilities .. nor the knowledge ..Congress, OTOH, does - its what they do .

So If I were elected to Congress next year (Anyone can run for congress and get elected)... I would suddenly gain this extra-terrestrial knowledge through osmosis and become qualified?
 
A "hoax" if you believe that you will believe anything. She didn't know what the hell was in it nor did all the other liberals that voted for this failed bill. Notice the Republicans know what was in it and not one of the them voted for it. Even the Dems had to bribe some of their own to get the votes need to pass this failed bill.

You don't need to "believe" anything, the bill was in the Senate, not the House. Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House...

This is all mumbo jumbo. Obama goes around to all these town halls and tells lies and because he is a liberal you go and pat him on the back and say "good job"

What are you talking about? You don't seem to have a position on any of this. You just seem to be sort of whining in general.
 
A hoax? She said we got to pass it in order to find out what is in it.That is not a hoax.

Pay attention. Again: she was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it. The bill wasn't even in the House. It was in the Senate. You guys are so insanely gullible lol.

You know this because you read 100% of the bill and Understood all the legalese in it without any bias? Or you think you know this because of what some leftist pundit said to you?

The conspiracy theories about what publicly released bills say are hands down the dumbest lol. You can just look them up. What kind of hillbillie do those ones work on lol? You're posting on an Internet forum. That means you have an Internet connection lol.
 
You don't need to "believe" anything, the bill was in the Senate, not the House. Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House...

I have to tell you I love that word "was" not only for Pelosi but also Reid, I get that tingle up my leg.

You don't seem to have a position on any of this.

I have no idea what you are asking me to take a position on.
 
Pay attention. Again: she was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it. The bill wasn't even in the House. It was in the Senate. You guys are so insanely gullible lol.

I see nowhere where she mentioned the Senate. Do you?? You make up a theory to cover for Pelosi, sorry you must think we're gullible to believe such Bull. I would suggest you guys are insanely gullible to even think we would believe such crap.

She said we got to pass it in order to find out what is in it
 
I see nowhere where she mentioned the Senate. Do you?? You make up a theory to cover for Pelosi, sorry you must think we're gullible to believe such Bull. I would suggest you guys are insanely gullible to even think we would believe such crap.

She said we got to pass it in order to find out what is in it

Again silly, the bill was in the Senate, not the House. That was what her whole speech was about lol. Don't believe everything you hear on Fox. It's just pretend. Videos of 5 seconds of a 30 minute speech out of context and whatnot... Just look it up if you seriously didn't know better.
 
Pay attention. Again: she was talking about the Senate needing to settle on a version and pass it so that the House could start working on it. The bill wasn't even in the House. It was in the Senate. You guys are so insanely gullible lol.
Do you got a video?Is that a no?

The conspiracy theories about what publicly released bills say are hands down the dumbest lol. You can just look them up. What kind of hillbillie do those ones work on lol? You're posting on an Internet forum. That means you have an Internet connection lol.

Since you did not answer I have to assume that no you did not read those bills and are relying on left wing pundits for your info as to what those bills contain.
 
Do you got a video?Is that a no?

A video of what?

Since you did not answer I have to assume that no you did not read those bills and are relying on left wing pundits for your info as to what those bills contain.

LOL. Ahh Republicans...

Again, you can just look up what the bill says. When somebody lays out a conspiracy theory about what a bill says, you shouldn't fall for it, you should actually read the bill. Understand?
 
A video of what?
Of your claim.

LOL. Ahh Republicans...

Again, you can just look up what the bill says. When somebody lays out a conspiracy theory about what a bill says, you shouldn't fall for it, you should actually read the bill. Understand?

Did you read the thousands of pages in those bills and understood all the legalese that those bills are written in? Because I am not seeing a yes.
 
Of your claim.

You want a video of the bill being in the Senate?

Did you read the thousands of pages in those bills and understood all the legalese that those bills are written in? Because I am not seeing a yes.

I mean, I'm a lawyer. Yes, I've read thousands of pages of bills and I understand the legalese. I've read the entire ACA and confirmed that all the ridiculous Republican conspiracy theories about what it said were false (obviously). I read relevant sections of a couple of the gun control bills that Republicans made up crazy conspiracy theories about. Again, of course, they were just made up nonsense... I mean, man, why would you buy into a conspiracy theory without even bothering to check it out first when it is so easy to check?
 
Again silly, the bill was in the Senate, not the House. That was what her whole speech was about lol. Don't believe everything you hear on Fox. It's just pretend. Videos of 5 seconds of a 30 minute speech out of context and whatnot... Just look it up if you seriously didn't know better.

Yeah, but she said "WE" she did not say the Senate has to pass it so we can see what's in it. She is not part of the Senate, so for her to say "WE" she surly is not referring to the Senate. Being she was Speaker of the House and saying "we" have to pass it, is a clear as can be.

However I will say, as dumb as she is, she may have thought she was the speaker of the Senate. Or she forgot were the bill actually was. Who knows what goes on in that woman's head.
 
Yeah, but she said "WE" she did not say the Senate has to pass it so we can see what's in it. She is not part of the Senate, so for her to say "WE" she surly is not referring to the Senate. Being she was Speaker of the House and saying "we" have to pass it, is a clear as can be.

However I will say, as dumb as she is, she may have thought she was the speaker of the Senate. Or she forgot were the bill actually was. Who knows what goes on in that woman's head.

It is kind of confusing wording to be sure. She meant "we" (the Democrats) need to pass it so that "we" (the House) can see what is in it. The bill was in the Senate, not the House, so it wouldn't make any sense otherwise. She explained it right away after Fox started running the clip out of context. And, if you just watch the whole speech, it is obvious that's what she is talking about. That's the whole point of the speech- she's urging the Senate Democrats to hurry up so the House Democrats can start working on it. The bill had been languishing in the Senate for many months at that point and she was getting frustrated with the delays.
 
It is kind of confusing wording to be sure. She meant "we" (the Democrats) need to pass it so that "we" (the House) can see what is in it. The bill was in the Senate, not the House, so it wouldn't make any sense otherwise. She explained it right away after Fox started running the clip out of context. And, if you just watch the whole speech, it is obvious that's what she is talking about. That's the whole point of the speech- she's urging the Senate Democrats to hurry up so the House Democrats can start working on it. The bill had been languishing in the Senate for many months at that point and she was getting frustrated with the delays.

First she should never have had to explain anything to anyone. Of course she had to retract her statement as she was dead wrong. She like you have to give cover for her gaff. People gaff all the time, accept it. She gaffed and had to try her best to cover it, hell Biden gaffs all the time and people just laugh. Pelosi has always had one ore out of the water.

Please give it up and just accept she made a major gaff. One that will haunt her forever.
 
You want a video of the bill being in the Senate?

I want a video of your claim that she was addressing the senate.No video confirms such a thing.

I read relevant sections of a couple of the gun control bills that Republicans made up crazy conspiracy theories about. Again, of course, they were just made up nonsense...I mean, man, why would you buy into a conspiracy theory without even bothering to check it out first when it is so easy to check?

When it comes to groups who have a history of infringing on the 2nd amendment I tend to seriously distrust them. They are not above lying their ass off.They will claim certain semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons and claim that certain standard capacity magazines are high capacity magazines in order to push a ban on those things. They will literally try to ban certain firearms while falsely claiming that no one is trying to take away your guns.They will falsely claim that you are paranoid for wanting a gun to protect yourself but yet they want severe restrictions or firearm bans anytime there is a mass shooting. So if a pro-2nd amendment group says a certain bill or treaty is dangerous to the 2nd amendment I will believe them. When the same people who tend to hate the 2nd amendment are proposing a treaty that has something to do with firearms I have no reason to believe them when they say it won't infringe on the 2nd amendment. Considering your political leaning you may think that my 2nd amendment rights are not violated as long as I am allowed to only own a musket, have a couple permits, went through a couple of back ground checks, paid a hefty license fee and so on.
 
I want a video of your claim that she was addressing the senate.No video confirms such a thing.

She wasn't addressing the Senate, she was talking about the Senate. I don't remember where she was speaking.

When it comes to groups who have a history of infringing on the 2nd amendment I tend to seriously distrust them. They are not above lying their ass off.They will claim certain semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons and claim that certain standard capacity magazines are high capacity magazines in order to push a ban on those things. They will literally try to ban certain firearms while falsely claiming that no one is trying to take away your guns.They will falsely claim that you are paranoid for wanting a gun to protect yourself but yet they want severe restrictions or firearm bans anytime there is a mass shooting. So if a pro-2nd amendment group says a certain bill or treaty is dangerous to the 2nd amendment I will believe them. When the same people who tend to hate the 2nd amendment are proposing a treaty that has something to do with firearms I have no reason to believe them when they say it won't infringe on the 2nd amendment. Considering your political leaning you may think that my 2nd amendment rights are not violated as long as I am allowed to only own a musket, have a couple permits, went through a couple of back ground checks, paid a hefty license fee and so on.

Again, just buying into whatever conspiracy theory comes along because it matches your emotional state about distrusting somebody or whatever is idiotic. That's how you constantly get tricked. They can just make up whatever they want about groups you don't trust and you believe it... Quit being lazy. Just look it up. If Limbaugh tells you some bill says something obviously ridiculous, don't just believe him, google the bill and read it yourself. Do that the next 3 times your right wing sources make some claim about what a bill says. All three times they will turn out to have been lying. Then you won't need to check again by the fourth time.
 
First she should never have had to explain anything to anyone. Of course she had to retract her statement as she was dead wrong. She like you have to give cover for her gaff. People gaff all the time, accept it. She gaffed and had to try her best to cover it, hell Biden gaffs all the time and people just laugh. Pelosi has always had one ore out of the water.

Please give it up and just accept she made a major gaff. One that will haunt her forever.

Oh, sure, it was a gaff. She doesn't deny that it was a gaff. She said it wrong, especially when taken out of context, and politicians should always be thinking about how every sentence sounds even out of context.

But obviously she wasn't actually trying to say that they should vote to pass the bill without knowing what was in it, right? That wouldn't even make sense. It isn't even possible to vote on a bill in the House until they have copies of it printed out distributed to the members and it has been read aloud, in its entirety to the whole House, and then read aloud to the whole House a second time right before they vote... In fact, they had the printed bill and it was publicly released, for weeks before she scheduled a vote on it. And it wasn't even in the House at the time, it was in the Senate- where it was also all written out and publicly available. The issue was that the Senate had several versions floating around that they were considering and they wouldn't settle on one final one, so the House couldn't start working on it.

So, yeah, if you want to say that she made a gaff and conclude that she is a sloppy speaker or whatever, that's totally reasonable. But to conclude that she was actually trying to get people to vote for a bill without reading it would just be silly.
 
Oh, sure, it was a gaff. She doesn't deny that it was a gaff. She said it wrong, especially when taken out of context, and politicians should always be thinking about how every sentence sounds even out of context.

But obviously she wasn't actually trying to say that they should vote to pass the bill without knowing what was in it, right? That wouldn't even make sense. It isn't even possible to vote on a bill in the House until they have copies of it printed out distributed to the members and it has been read aloud, in its entirety to the whole House, and then read aloud to the whole House a second time right before they vote... In fact, they had the printed bill and it was publicly released, for weeks before she scheduled a vote on it. And it wasn't even in the House at the time, it was in the Senate- where it was also all written out and publicly available. The issue was that the Senate had several versions floating around that they were considering and they wouldn't settle on one final one, so the House couldn't start working on it.

So, yeah, if you want to say that she made a gaff and conclude that she is a sloppy speaker or whatever, that's totally reasonable. But to conclude that she was actually trying to get people to vote for a bill without reading it would just be silly.

I'll bet no one read the bill that voted for it. Maybe some aid did, but some obnoxious 2,500 page bill now way anyone in the house or senate read it. Hell Obama was telling lies about the bill all along until it was public that people were losing their DR and their insurance.
 
I'll bet no one read the bill that voted for it. Maybe some aid did, but some obnoxious 2,500 page bill now way anyone in the house or senate read it.

Some certainly did personally read it, but yeah, it is the staff reading it that really matters. Not just "some aid" though, they have legislative lawyers who read the bills, and analyze the implications given the relevant statutes, regulations and court decisions. They also have subject matter experts that read the bills and analyze the policy implications. Those people each spend days working out exactly what it will do from a lot of different angles, talking to other experts, etc., then they present the Senator or Representative with a memo, which is many times the length of the actual bill, describing all those implications, and that memo is really what the Senator or Representative goes off.

Hell Obama was telling lies about the bill all along until it was public that people were losing their DR and their insurance.

The ACA didn't actually require anybody to change plans or doctors. In order to conclude that that was a lie, somebody needs to convince themselves that what they thought he meant was not just that the ACA wouldn't require you to change plans or doctors, but that the ACA would somehow prevent private insurers from cancelling plans and private doctors from changing plans. If you thought that was what he meant, yeah, that didn't happen, but is that really what anybody thought he meant? Seems pretty far fetched to me. And, regardless, even if you did believe that he was saying that was in the ACA, wouldn't you actually prefer that it not do that? So being upset that it doesn't basically nationalize health insurance companies and doctors to keep them from changing anything is also a bit suspect, when you wouldn't really want it to do that anyways, is also a bit suspect...

I dunno. It's one of those gaffes. It plays well in firing up the Republican base and they're more than willing to refrain from really thinking it through, so the Republicans use it, but it isn't an actual substantive issue.
 
Last edited:
She wasn't addressing the Senate, she was talking about the Senate. I don't remember where she was speaking.
Then there should be a video of her talking about the senate. The video does not exist because she was not talking about the senate. It's why she used the word "we".


Again, just buying into whatever conspiracy theory comes along because it matches your emotional state about distrusting somebody or whatever is idiotic. That's how you constantly get tricked. They can just make up whatever they want about groups you don't trust and you believe it... Quit being lazy. Just look it up. If Limbaugh tells you some bill says something obviously ridiculous, don't just believe him, google the bill and read it yourself. Do that the next 3 times your right wing sources make some claim about what a bill says. All three times they will turn out to have been lying. Then you won't need to check again by the fourth time.

Calling it a conspiracy theory just because it does not agree with your political beliefs does not make it a conspiracy theory.Anti-2nd amendment trash will claim all day that gun control bills do not infringe on the 2nd amendment.
 
Then there should be a video of her talking about the senate. The video does not exist because she was not talking about the senate. It's why she used the word "we".

You aren't listening to what I am telling you. The bill was not in the House. Period. It was in the Senate. And nothing about the bill was secret or something, it was all public record, published all over the place... And, again, it isn't even possible to pass a bill without knowing what is in it. Again- they have to circulate the print version, then read it aloud TWO TIMES before they can even vote on it...

Don't make me repeat all that again. Stop and read it over carefully, then let me know if you have any further questions.

Calling it a conspiracy theory just because it does not agree with your political beliefs does not make it a conspiracy theory.Anti-2nd amendment trash will claim all day that gun control bills do not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Again, that's just plain dumb to make up a conspiracy theory about what a bill says... Again- the text of the bills is public. What do you not understand? If you say "I think this bill says X" and the bill doesn't say that, you just look stupid. There is no fuzzy "I think it says this and you think it says that" area where conspiracy nuts can hide. The conspiracy theories are just plain wrong as anybody with a brain can immediately see. It's the worst, dumbest, kind of conspiracy theory out there...
 
Some certainly did personally read it, but yeah, it is the staff reading it that really matters. Not just "some aid" though, they have legislative lawyers who read the bills, and analyze the implications given the relevant statutes, regulations and court decisions. They also have subject matter experts that read the bills and analyze the policy implications. Those people each spend days working out exactly what it will do from a lot of different angles, talking to other experts, etc., then they present the Senator or Representative with a memo, which is many times the length of the actual bill, describing all those implications, and that memo is really what the Senator or Representative goes off.

With that said, with all the scrutiny the bill went through the Supreme court has no choice but to rule against Obamacare regarding the states and the subsidy issue.


The ACA didn't actually require anybody to change plans or doctors. In order to conclude that that was a lie, somebody needs to convince themselves that what they thought he meant was not just that the ACA wouldn't require you to change plans or doctors, but that the ACA would somehow prevent private insurers from cancelling plans and private doctors from changing plans. If you thought that was what he meant, yeah, that didn't happen, but is that really what anybody thought he meant? Seems pretty far fetched to me. And, regardless, even if you did believe that he was saying that was in the ACA, wouldn't you actually prefer that it not do that? So being upset that it doesn't basically nationalize health insurance companies and doctors to keep them from changing anything is also a bit suspect, when you wouldn't really want it to do that anyways, is also a bit suspect...

I dunno. It's one of those gaffes. It plays well in firing up the Republican base and they're more than willing to refrain from really thinking it through, so the Republicans use it, but it isn't an actual substantive issue.

You sure go out of your way to defend a proven liar, remember Obama got the liar of the year award. You will convince no one except yourself.
 
Last edited:
IMO, very few of the American public are qualified to approve/disapprove of any trade deal ..They simply have not the time nor the facilities .. nor the knowledge ..Congress, OTOH, does - its what they do .

most of the people in congress voting for any trade deal have no idea what is in it, like the ACA...these trade deals are written by a few people who know its in and outs.
 
Back
Top Bottom