Larry is coming y'all

[Jack V Savage]

I've been trying to communicate what's so confusing to me this whole time. It's two things:

(1) I could maybe understand the need to keep it secret during negotiations, but not after. Those deals aren't "in progress" after the agreement has already taken effect.

(2) Why do the drafts need to be kept secret for 4-5 years, but the documents don't? You're saying the documents are to be made public immediately, right? Not just after 4-5 years? So what's the difference and why release one but not the other?

1) If people know that immediately after the deal is passed, the shit they said during the negotiations would be public, they might adjust how they negotiate in order to play to their base.

2) The negotiating drafts have their asks and comments, which is what isn't publicized immediately. Obviously the final deal has to be public as soon as possible.

 

[Forkfoot]

1) If people know that immediately after the deal is passed, the shit they said during the negotiations would be public, they might adjust how they negotiate in order to play to their base.

And that would be a bad thing why? Sounds like saying "They might act in accordance with the will of their constituents."

2) The negotiating drafts have their asks and comments, which is what isn't publicized immediately. Obviously the final deal has to be public as soon as possible.

Ah k. I get this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And that would be a bad thing why? Sounds like saying "They might act in accordance with the will of their constituents."

It depends on what you think about politics, I guess. If you have the Tea Party/Naderite view that it's better to lose completely than make a mutually beneficial compromise that you're not 100% satisfied with, you'd probably want the negotiations to be public. Again, you can agree or disagree with it, but the thinking is that making them public hurts the ability of negotiators to compromise.

 

[Forkfoot]

It depends on what you think about politics, I guess. If you have the Tea Party/Naderite view that it's better to lose completely than make a mutually beneficial compromise that you're not 100% satisfied with, you'd probably want the negotiations to be public. Again, you can agree or disagree with it, but the thinking is that making them public hurts the ability of negotiators to compromise.

K thank you for explaining all that. I still think the whole thing's nuts, and greatly facilitates corruption and exploitation, but at least I understand it better. I appreciate your time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

K thank you for explaining all that. I still think the whole thing's nuts, and greatly facilitates corruption and exploitation, but at least I understand it better. I appreciate your time.

Sure. It reminds me of discussions about earmarks. People saw them as facilitating corruption, too, but getting rid of them has facilitated ideological extremism and brought us close to disaster a few times already. Kind of a pick your poison thing.

 

[basedgodfedor]

He's an all talk corporate shill like the rest of them.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It wasn't a typographical error, *!* corrected you, and you reacted with anger rather than by admitting it and correcting it.

More untruths from you.
It was a typographical error and you're trying to pin a faux victory on it.
You didn't correct me, you accused me of a position I never argued based on my typo.
I corrected you and myself. I'm the one who realized it was was a typo, acknowledged it, and corrected it.

Then you called me a liar, even though it was crystal clear to everybody reading that argument that I arguing from the corrected position all along.

Thats dishonest. You are a dishonest person.
People can read that part of the exchange here (and more if you really want to see Jack get humiliated again).

So, again, you're saying something that you know to be untrue. Why do you always do that? It's continually stunning to be how little regard you have for truth. I have never said that he didn't advise her while she was SoS. I said that your claim that he is currently advising her is false, which it is.

And when did I claim that?

Post 152.

Is this is over a typo? "has" instead of "had"? Or something else that I'm not seeing?

lmao, holy shit. Jack you are a truly troubled human being.

All this over a typo! Amazing. Rather than ask me to clarify my position, you go on this rant about dishonesty and integrity over a typo! LMAO!

Then, a day after I corrected the record...

You're playing games. Anung dishonestly claimed that Kagan is an adviser to Clinton (not that he used to work under her at the State Department), and bringing up Nuland is the same kind of smearing by association that you guys tried with so little success in 2008.

Huh? I think most people realize by now that IGIT is a troll.
.

Troll or not he's has been making a fool of you using facts for last few months.

 

[Jack V Savage]

More untruths from you.
It was a typographical error and you're trying to pin a faux victory on it.

No. You made a false statement (as we all agree, right?). I said it was false. You got mad. Much later, you decided to correct your post and claim that it was just a typo.

Troll or not he's has been making a fool of you using facts for last few months.

Nah, you just have a hard-on for me. If someone said, "Jack, I disagree with you and you make me angry," you'd go into the thread saying, "Oh sheeet, so-and-so is making a fool of Jack!!!!1!!1!!" It's cute.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

No. You made a false statement (as we all agree, right?). I said it was false. You got mad. Much later, you decided to correct your post and claim that it was just a typo.



Nah, you just have a hard-on for me. If someone said, "Jack, I disagree with you and you make me angry," you'd go into the thread saying, "Oh sheeet, so-and-so is making a fool of Jack!!!!1!!1!!" It's cute.

No. I made an argument based on facts that took a detour because you were arguing from one position and I was arguing from another.

I made an error that I found because you were making these accusations that made zero sense to me and the argument. I took ownership of that mistake and you used that to call me a liar, which is a dishonest statement.

The only reason I comment on your posts at all is to 1. Correct a blatant dishonest position and 2. To defend my position/character from your false representations.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only reason I comment on your posts at all is to 1. Correct a blatant dishonest position and 2. To defend my position/character from your false representations.

LOL! I bet you search for my name when you log on here.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Nah. Shoo fly