General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYeah, He Went For It: President Obama Pushed The TPP And TTIP In the SOTU
which kind of makes his talk about addressing inequality, a non-starter. The baby steps he proposed last night aren't particularly meaningful in the real world in the first place, but in light of his pushing the TPP, and TTIP, they just look like cynical, self-promoting nonsense.
<snip>
In his State of the Union address to Congress, Obama sought fast-track authority to give lawmakers an up-or-down vote on trade deals as the U.S. tries to complete agreements with the European Union and Pacific nations.
<snip>
On trade, Obama said he will work with Congress to pass fast-track authority to help secure trade deals with 11 other Pacific-rim nations and the 28-member European Union. If completed, the deals -- which would be the largest trade pacts in U.S. history -- would link regions with about $45 trillion in annual economic output, about 62 percent of the world total.
<snip>
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-29/obama-seeks-trade-deals-sought-by-biggest-u-s-companies.html
There was a lot for corporations and those controlling them to like in the speech- from lowering the corporate tax rate, to easing environmental regulations for natural gas.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196790-natural-gas-big-winner-in-speech-to-green-groups-dismay
President Obama says some things that liberals seize on in desperation, but it's largely a smokescreen. He doesn't walk the walk.
Oh, and Afghanistan? That's his fucking war and it has been since he decided to "surge"- and send more soldiers to multiple deployments.
so yeah, I know this will piss off a lot of you, but these are facts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
And that was hardly the lone example of corporatist horseshit in that speech...
Fearless
(18,421 posts)
jsr
(7,712 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I watched the entire speech and not once did the words "fast-track" come out of the President's mouth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_print.html
way to duck the facts, pro.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)is 100 percent bullshit.
Still, carry on.
cali
(114,904 posts)Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.”
"what's bullshit is anyone denying he pushed it. chew on this quote again:"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024407635#post11
bobduca
(1,763 posts) indeed.mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)I accused someone else of that recently, but it seems to fit here.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)SOTU drinking games can take it out of a propagandist.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)if (poster.isOnBadList() || keywords.contains(todaysBannedConcepts)) {
post = selfLinkingPostTemplateWithMrRoffleWaffles(topic.url);
}
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)fast-track TPP. That's the way you say it Washington, I think you folks know all too well.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Denying it is ludicrous.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)overseas. He also asked for higher wages for American workers.
I strongly oppose TPP, but I interpreted Obama's failure to mention it as an admission that it is not going anywhere and certainly not going anywhere on fastrack.
I think he has figured that out.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)So yes, Obama pleaded for fast-tracking TPP and TTIP.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It doesn't. And he didn't.
gLibDem
(130 posts)Would have no clue about the phrase "Trade Promotion Authority". I include myself in that group.
So the President used a DC dog whistle. How ironic.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)it's kinda sad when all the apologists can come up with is "you misremembered what synonym he used when speaking about the concept"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)exact wording among the rhetoric.
Speak out, do you favor the "fast track" and do you favor the TPP? Or do all you do is pick at others words?
You pick on the posters words and say it's bullshit. The TPP will ruin American lives but that's not bullshit to you?
cali
(114,904 posts)"Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.”
"here have a quote. and he sure as shit did mention it:"
...you're giving me the same quote I cited: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024407635#post4
Again, the claim the claim that he said "he will work with Congress to pass fast-track authority" is 100 percent bullshit.
cali
(114,904 posts)why you'd deny that is just bizarre. Or not- considering your purpose here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)just that.
yikes.
Obama: Give me fast track trade
The White House is making a major push to convince Congress to give the president trade promotion authority (TPA), which would make it easier for President Obama to negotiate pacts with other countries.
A flurry of meetings has taken place in recent days since legislation was introduced to give the president the authority, with U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman meeting with approximately 70 lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate.
White House chief of staff Denis McDonough has also been placing calls and meeting with top Democratic lawmakers in recent days to discuss trade and other issues.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-house-works-to-convince-dems-to-give-obama-fast-track-on-trade#ixzz2rnf9IytF
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
ProSense
(116,464 posts)No, he fucking didn't. The claim is bullshit.
cali
(114,904 posts)and that denial is bullshit.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)Though he didn't use those words, his meaning was clear. He favors the TPP and the fast track it needs for passage. Do you dispute that interpretation?
cali
(114,904 posts)legal language for "fast track". that poster is fully aware of that fact.
tridim
(45,358 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Fast-track negotiating authority is granted to the President by Congress.
The President used the exact words "trade promotion authority" which is a fucking synonym for 'fast track negotiating authority'. So YES, he did ask for fast track negotiating authority in his fucking speech!
Facts really easy to verify as opposed to political propaganda and bullshit.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)If this is passed, we better hope our voting machines are working properly in 2016.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Anything else you want to interpret for the rest of DU because you think we can't hear what the president said?
You honestly believe that we are 'interpreting' what the President said?
He said what he said. He used a synonym that is the exact legal term for fast track authorization.
Really, it is no wonder that this country is now as it is.
It doesn't matter whether we are dealing with Democratic voters or Republican ones. They care only about personalities and their team. They will willfully ignore reality staring them in the faces in order to maintain their illusions.
Well, you are also on my list of those who hear only what they want to hear and are a part of the problem, not the solution. 
Marr
(20,317 posts)They just vehemently deny things that don't reflect well on the President-- no matter how ludicrous that denial is. It's public knowledge that the WH has been pushing for fast track authority to pass the TPP, and Obama's language in the SotU wasn't even code-- but they'll deny it anyway because it doesn't look good.
They're very devoted to their chosen celebrities.
Really?
cali
(114,904 posts)period. It's irrefutable and it is the same thing as fast track. do educate yourself.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I mean you are trying to distance the President from TPP. 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)effect of the trade agreements on the lower classes. They wont discuss the TPP pros vs. cons, only disparage those that wish to discuss such.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)And if there is a TPP, the president doesn't support it.
And if the president does support it, we dont know anything about whats in it.
And if we do know whats in it, we dont know the details.
And if we do know the details, we dont really understand them.
And if we do understand them, the president is playing chess, letting the republicans walk into a trap.
And if the president is not playing chess, there may not even be a TPP, so why are you all spending so much time on it?
Now... Heres a link to your own post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024407635#post83
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)because they are paid to promote it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)or not? Is he pushing for passage of the TPP or not? The answer to both is yes and even if his rhetoric didnt precisely say such but we got the message.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)You've been shown exactly where about 6 times now so rather than rehash it again, I'm going to end with a QED.
cali
(114,904 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with the 1%. So their tactic is to ridicule and disparage anyone that tries to discuss these issues.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I suppose they teach this in think tank internet seminars.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)He can't get the TPP signed without it. He is touting the benefits of the TPP so that Congress will give him that authority. What is the point of denying something so blindingly obvious?
cali
(114,904 posts)he used the phrase trade promotion authority instead of "fast track"
"Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.”
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)It slipped right past me. What a bunch of double talk that last sentence is.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)I would rather he said "fast track" than use the flowery vocabulary to make people believe this is a good thing. I am from a town that lost 4 main foundry's in the early 90's to other countries.
Now the main employer is Jerry falwell's college GE and walmart. it never recovered from the companies that got sent away. And this TPP sounds like it will finish the job.
Dem Presidents Love Free Trade agreements. And Obama's claim that he will close tax loopholes for companies who shipped jobs over seas doesn't make sense if he is also for the TPP.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)The fact that talked about trade partnerships instead of "fast track" authority means he likely knows the TPP, TPIP and such are unpopular with progressives and liberals and so is couching the language in such a way as to make it sound like its better than what it is. A rather underhanded move.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's a sign of intentional deceit.
cali
(114,904 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)If you are not wearing blinders, it doesn't take long to recognize that the passion in his words are designed to placate the left, while his policy decisions and his staff appointments are consistently right of center, except for the occasional non-monetary, non-power related bones that he throws us.
cali
(114,904 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He knows he is unlikely to get fastrak. There are just too many people who oppose it.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)means "work with Congress to pass fast-track authority".
There's not even nuance or context needed, those words literally mean "work with both parties in Congress to pass fast-track authority"
TPA means "fast-track"
bipartisan means "both parties"
and of course he means both parties in Congress, it'd be highly-stupid-and-bizarre of him to mean both parties in the Kansas state legislature or both parties in a wedding venue that holds two events simultaneously.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)I interpreted it as he supports global trade to help small businesses and he is hearing the message from the Progressive Movement in and outside of Congress about protecting workers' rights and our environment.
This quote would make me ask the President, if I were a Congressperson, how he'd protect workers and our environment with what we know about TPP. And if I were them, I'd still oppose Fast Track and keep pressure on the WH about modifying TPP and other global trade agreements to improve protection of workers' rights and our environment.
pscot
(21,024 posts)It's a package deal. He knows that. He also knows it's unpopular. So he obfuscates. Obviously it worked in your case since you seem to imparted the notion that the people stlll have some say in the matter.
Response to pscot (Reply #59)
Distant Quasar This message was self-deleted by its author.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Congress has to pass Fast Track and they don't have to.
The Progressive Dems in Congress are standing firm. Call your Congress person and tell them to oppose Fast Track and oppose TPP in its present form. I did.
cali
(114,904 posts)and he used the phrase "trade promotion authority".
for pity's sake.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)He definitely asked for fast track authority in his speech. It's just that he used the words "trade promotion authority" instead - this is the technical term for fast track, which, conveniently, very few in his audience would possibly recognize.
Anyway, it's no secret that the White House wants this authority. The TPP literally cannot happen without it, because other countries do not want to sign an agreement and then have Congress try to make changes to it later. I don't understand why there is any confusion about this, at all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)what you've said sounds like a semantic quibble and a distinction without a difference. Maybe I missed the point.
Logical
(22,457 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)President Obama knows that many people think these agreements are a stinking pike of dung.
That's why he buried his (wrongheaded) statements about them after a string of platitudes about helping small business with loans. (And, iroinically, small businesses are among those who get hammered by these agreements.)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Oh never mind, so tired of this. 
-p
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)you can't dispute the facts- and joining a bizarro denial that he asked for the tpa in the SOTU, doesn't change that he did and he is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)none of the pro-TPA and TPP posters here will try to defend them. Their tactic is to ridicule all arguments against.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)supports what the President said during the SOTU and belies your entire premise...
the epitome of hypocrisy!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You imply that Sen Warren supports the TCP and TPP. If you have proof the Sen Warren supports the TPP, please reveal such. But that's really beside the point. Apparently you support the TCP and the TPP because Pres Obama does and you dont give a rat's behind about the lower classes that will suffer. Apparently your loyalty is more important.
You have nothing but that childish ridicule emoticon. Is that your "Group" signature?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)have some more:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)All you have is your ridicule. When all else fails, use ridicule.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ridicule is all you deserve...
by the way does Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders now support them since they both praised Obama's SOTU!
Your theory is full of holes!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)like the plague.
Let's follow your logic. Because Sen Warren and Sen Sanders praised Obama's speech, doesnt mean they approve of the TPP.
My theory is that those here that ridicule other posters for expressing their beliefs are not "politically liberal". They obviously dont have any arguments and fall back on ridicule. As far as anyone in DU "deserving" ridicule, you are wrong.
Be brave and give us your arguments for supporting the TPP.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Please explain how you have an opinion on the SOTU that differs from Ms Warren who is YOUR avatar...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that you side with the 1% on those issues?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)does it mean THEY support it too? This is the loony logic you are using!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)transparency record of the U.S. Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular — the Trans-Pacific Partnership,”
Now show some gumption and tells us whether you agree or not.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)does that make her two faced?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)issue of the TPP.
No Sen Warren is not two-faced and you are absurd to even suggest such.
And I guess after all your posts aimed at distraction, I am going to assume that you know nothing about the TPP other than it is being pushed by Pres Obama. And that is all you need to know. Your loyalty blinds you to reality. And you see, as a good minion, that your duty is to disparage all that dares to question the wonderfulness of the TPP.
I dare to say that you are not progressive as you try to portray via your name. Did you assume that name to convince yourself or others?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)one doesn't preclude the other!
Furthermore, WTF are you talking about with my name? Makes about as much sense as everything else you have said
Vanilla...my favorite scent...and Rhapsody which is
rhap·so·dy
ˈrapsədē/Submit
noun
1.
an effusively enthusiastic or ecstatic expression of feeling.
"rhapsodies of praise"
2.
(in ancient Greece) an epic poem, or part of it, of a suitable length for recitation at one time.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)name. He was trying to use the same lame argument. Since Sen Warren was polite in her comment about the SOTU speech, therefore, she apparently agrees with the president's stance on the TCP and the TPP. That is a lame try.
Anyone with half a brain opposes the TCP and the TPP. And I believe all the Republicans love the TPP. All the corporations love the TPP. Penny Pritzker (the Democrats answer to Mit Romney) loves the TPP.
But I am guessing you wont commit yourself.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy!
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)She did applaud his efforts to raise the minimum wage.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)She endorsed his words about helping the 99%...that was all. Do you think she endorsed fast-tracking TPP?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)So it's all about making his corporate donors happy. So he can get the same big speaking fees and Presidential library donations that Bill got. And make sure HRC gets the same.
jsr
(7,712 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It's okay to say 'screw the Afghanis' but I don't agree with that sentiment.
As far as trade pacts go, anything that more solidly unites the world is, on balance, a good thing. Add to this the fact that few people understand all the details of the pacts -and, moreover, don't want to take the time to learn them- and most people simply ignore it altogether.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)13 years of war and it's literally insane to believe that we have.
randome
(34,845 posts)There are plenty of things to dislike about our involvement in Afghanistan. But Obama didn't put us there. I have no doubt he wants us out, as well, but I also have no doubt that he knows what would happen should we suddenly pull out.
It is not a pretty situation any way you look at it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)You'll still burn.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)And how long do you propose we stay to prevent the Taliban from coming back?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)at least more than most here
Trans-Pacific Partnership is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
Mark Weisbrot theguardian.com, 19 November 2013
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. He co-wrote Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border.
The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement among 12 governments, touted as one of the largest "free trade" agreements in US history, is running into difficulties as the public learns more about it. Last week 151 Democrats and 23 Republicans (pdf) in the House of Representatives signed letters to the US chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement. This procedure would limit the congressional role and debate over an agreement already negotiated and signed by the executive branch, which the Congress would have to vote up or down without amendments.
Most Americans couldn't tell you what "fast track" means, but if they knew what it entails they would certainly be against it. As one of the country's leading trade law experts and probably the foremost authority on Fast Track, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, put it:
(Fast track) authorized executive-branch officials to set US policy on non-tariff, and indeed not-trade, issues in the context of 'trade' negotiations.
This means that fast track, which first began under Nixon in 1974, was not only a usurpation of the US Congress' constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations"...
...How ironic that this massive transfer of power to special-interests such as giant pharmaceutical or financial corporations has been sold to the press as a means of holding "special interest" groups – who might oppose tariff reductions that harm them but are good for everyone else – in check.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
cali
(114,904 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)We are always pushing the idea that the U.S. should not consider itself anything special. And yet, when it comes to trade pacts, anything that impinges on our 'going it alone' strategy is out of style.
The world is slowly becoming more united. It's a long-term development but it's happening. 'European Union'? Why not a 'World Union'?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
bobduca
(1,763 posts)sounds like a grand idea when you spin it that way!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)As promised us by Poppy Bush...what is not to love about that?
But who will run this NWO?...not the people that is for sure...Oligarchy is in our future I guess.
pampango
(24,692 posts)A new band of conspiracy theorists perpetuated NWO paranoia in the 1950s, championed by the John Birch Society, named after an American intelligence officer and Baptist missionary killed during a melee with Chinese communists. Birch, often called the “first victim of the Cold War,” became a martyr for the far right. ... By the 1960s, Birch Society people and others of that orientation started picking up on ... It’s tied up with an anxiety not just about a loss of sovereignty but a fear of centralized government power of all kinds. (These days, the John Birch Society often comes up in articles and blog posts about the billionaire Koch brothers, whose father was a prominent member.)
As the Cold War receded into history, the New World Order was redefined again. In the 1990s, NWO conspiracy theorists believed the bipolar world—in which the superpower of the West faced off against the superpower of Communism—would be replaced with a one-world government established by the Cold War victors.
The populist right and the militia movement became obsessed by the phrase—and it entered the counterculture. "It summarizes this whole idea that not only are we losing our individual liberty to big government at home but we’re losing national sovereignty to some larger global force,” says Walker. “Conspiracy theories often take real trends and turn them into a metaphor where there’s a vast intelligence behind that trend. So someone writing critically about the NWO in a conspiratorial way and a non-conspiratorial way might be criticizing the same thing.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/05/the-evolution-of-the-new-world-order.html
Do you believe that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order, or not?'Very Liberal' : Yes - 12%, No - 69%;
'Somewhat Liberal' : Yes - 20%, No - 51%;
'Moderate': Yes - 23%, No - 56%;
'Somewhat Conservative' : Yes - 33%, No - 38%;
'Very Conservative' : Yes - 45%, No - 26%.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Not as described by the JBS....which was tied up wit Communism not Big Business.
And that is no secretive orginization...it is right out in the open.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a New World Order" (sic)
--Joe Biden April 2013
pampango
(24,692 posts)because of their repeated use by discredited groups, in this case like the Nazis and 'national socialism' and "New World Order" by the Birchers and other far-right groups.
Most liberals would support new international agreements that promoted (and enforced) effective environmental standards, human rights, labor rights and other progressive concepts to the chagrin of nationalists on the far-right, of course, who even consider the UN to be a 'socialist New World Order' in the making.
That's probably why "very conservative" folks believe that there is "a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order".
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)If the world is becoming more united, the terms on which this happens could not be more crucial. The way in which this agreement is being negotiated and pushed on the American people is completely wrong. (And to judge from what has been leaked so far, the final product is likely to be equally foul.) If that's how you want to bring about World Union, I want no part of it.
randome
(34,845 posts)...of any trade pact. But until there are large numbers of people protesting for this, it won't happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
pampango
(24,692 posts)on principal.
I agree that the world is more functionally united than ever before. Whether it is the environment, human rights, war, tourism, immigration or a host of other issues, things spill over borders like never before.
It is increasingly necessary for countries to cooperate rather than 'go it alone'. The terms of the negotiations that lead to this cooperation are, as you say, crucial. A discussion of terms is critical and the determining factor in whether an international agreement is worthwhile of not.
In general Democrats are more likely to believe in international cooperation, negotiation and treaties. Conservatives worry a lot more about national sovereignty and reserving the right for the US to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. "Cowboy diplomacy" is largely a republican fantasy.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's got a long history of undermining the economic well being of the vast majorities in all countries associated with it-- but don't let that stop you tooting it's horn. It's great for the 1%.
pampango
(24,692 posts)... their ideological foundations are based mainly on ideas of racism, segregation, xenophobia, and nativism (rejection of foreign norms and practices).
The antifederalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government.
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf
These are not right wing concepts. The right wing in the US is anti-internationalism. It wants us out of the UN, WTO and every other international organization and treaty it can think of. The right wants out of these international commitments because they believe they infringe on our national sovereign right to do whatever we perceive is in our interests without international consultation or constraint.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The world is slowly becoming more united. It's a long-term development but it's happening. 'European Union'? Why not a 'World Union'?
You're missing the part about how all the benefits go to international corporations and none of them go to the workers. This is an international version of the Republican's "race to the bottom" strategy for environmental and labor regulations:
1. Introduce legislation at the State level to prohibit state and local regulations from being more stringent than corresponding Federal regulations.
while simultaneously working to
2. Weaken/destroy corresponding Federal regulations.
The TPP prevents U.S. citizens from enforcing environmental and labor laws on foreign corporations operating within the United States. Protecting the environment and the rights of workers at one time was a priority for Democrats, but apparently not anymore.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)they have nothing but loyalty. They have no arguments, only ridicule.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)which by extension is a defense of global corporatism. "World Union" indeed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)think they mean. Too bad they missed the Jim Jones trip.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
it will stop in 2017 - it is utter hypocrisy and cowardice.....fuck them
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)That sounds to me like the claim that an authorization to use military force does not allow troops to be placed in combat. It has since one of the founding fathers used it to attack Tripoli.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)me like"? Does that mean you support the TPP?
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)whether or no I support TPP? D
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)provide us with some insight as to the advantages of the TPP for the American people. I think that's a fair question.
I would be glad to provide you with the disadvantages.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)but I'm sure you think it is.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that oppose it. Looks like loyalty wins out over principles.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)looks like ODS
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts) . Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.
http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039
The Democrats "that identify as liberal" may not be "real progressives". Or perhaps they are in favor of "fast track" but not the TPP itself. In any case it may not be as simple as "Real progressives don't support the TPP. "
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)those that are actively ridiculing anyone that speaks out opposed to the TPP have no argument in favor.
If there are progressives that support the TPP, I would love to hear their arguments. In fact I would love to hear anyone's arguments in favor of the TPP.
I have little patience with those that call themselves progressives but wont even discuss this issue.
LuvNewcastle
(16,855 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)is the the US has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon, and that the war will continue to continue unnoticed by most Americans.
randome
(34,845 posts)So you're right. Nothing will change. I don't know what the solution is. The Taliban is not an option, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)had the Romans left their legions in Britain?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You make it sound as though this is a humanitarian mission. It is not. What is it you think we're doing in Afghanistan? What should we be doing in Afghanistan?
Also, we're not winning the war. We control the city of Kabul. The Taliban has most of the rest of the country. If we leave now, or 5 years from now, the Taliban will take Kabul. We've won nothing but the scorn of most of the citizenry of Afghanistan.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)false years ago. I hope you dont think that Viet Nam is better off with our intervention, or poor Iraq. Your rationalization is straight from the Neocons play book.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)and as far as Afghanistan, he told us in 2008 that we should get out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan.
cali
(114,904 posts)that's what he said last night.
and he was fucking wrong about Afghanistan in 2008. I thought he was wrong then and I think that now- because it's in your face obvious.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)and I guess it does "fast track" trade agreements, but it also contained
Requires the convening of a Congressional Oversight Group to serve as advisor to the U.S. delegation in the negotiation of any tariff or nontariff trade agreement.
Is that the "fast track" you mean or is there another "bipartisan trade promotion authority" bill without Congressional oversight provisions?
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Congress is supposed to do more than "oversee" legislation.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)not really interested in your opinion on what Congress can and can't do.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Does that answer your question?
You are the one who brought up the language about congressional oversight committees. I'm curious why you think that's relevant, since it doesn't go to the heart of people's complaints about fast track.
cali
(114,904 posts)but the legislation authorizing it can vary in terminology.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)I resent this manipulation...
Thank you cali .. I appreciate your honesty.
cali
(114,904 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)No it wasn't
ProSense
(116,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Unicorns!
Carry on.
cali
(114,904 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Cali's paraphrase of what he said is accurate. Get over it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)What the hell is "puce"? and does it have to be green plaid? All green?
Mercy on this 75-1/2 year old hag..
For other dummies:
puce: (Merriam Webster)
A dark red
puce (Dictionary.com)
A dark or brownish purple (now there's a color you don't see often, sounds like serious laundry error)
If there's a plaid made of puce and green and the sky is that color we are in trouble...
cali
(114,904 posts)I believe the Victorians were fond of it.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)and received a response from only one of them. It was a form response that acknowledged my concerns but said the TPP was important for American businesses and that he was all for trade.
In other words - shut up because I can make some money on this deal and will fast track it despite the concerns of my constituents.
But I have two puke Senators so that is almost to be expected from them.
pampango
(24,692 posts)There are plenty of countries that do much, much better than the US (indeed there are few, if any, that do worse among developed countries) in terms of income equality and they do with it with many policies that have nothing to do with trade. The US can do the same. The TPP may be relevant to the equality discussion but it does not trump every other possible policy and make their promotion a non-starter.
Is the TPP our "Benghazi" or "Obamacare" which the right uses to rally opposition to the 'socialist in the White House'? Is it the symbol of everything that is wrong with Obama ("the corporatist in the White House" . The TPP is big, mysterious and thus easy to demonize like "Obamacare" and "Benghazi" (which is really just mysterious, not so big).
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The whole idea of thiose so-called "trade" agreements and many other related multilateral scams is to subvert national policies and regulations to the will of Big Capital.
The international bodies that regulate them can overturn many national policies if it is deemed to be not in the interest of trade.
This is NOT some empty, isolated issue that peopel are simply using as a stick to "oppose" Obama.
It is much bigger and transcends party politics.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I heard the hints in the speech without his mentioning them by name.
I like "Made in America" on more items, even in the US not just shipped out.
One good thing he said was that we needed taxation to favor US companies with good sized reductions and increasing taxes for those manufacturers who choose to open plants overseas.
About Afghanistan - he's changed a lot of the staff, and has more doves giving him advice. We sure don't want any more Cory Remsburg gallantry. I love that guy and his attitude of appreciation for any kindness done for him. It shows.
One thing in favor is restoring funds for research and protecting US inventors products, music, movie, medicines, etc. from being copied and made cheaply elsewhere. This alone would help the economy.
You keep your eyes open for all that can hurt, and I will do my best to see stuff that might help. DU needs both of us and our opinions, and my liking the President does not preclude me from liking people who don't, like you.
Had trouble with that Bloomberg link, froze me twice halfway thru..
cali
(114,904 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I didn't hear him say anything of the sort in the speech though. Perhaps the paragraph being argued over by you and ProSense is a subtle nudge towards that very idea, I don't know. I do know that he talked about raising the minimum wage... which, for me, and other people making less than ten dollars an hour, is a pretty big deal. Am I seizing on this in desperation? Perhaps, I've got to admit that I'm pretty desperate. Thanks to my Republican Governor, I can't get Medicaid. Thanks to my boss at work, we no longer have health coverage options for our employees. Also thanks to my boss at work, I don't earn enough for Obamacare to apply to me - I can sign up for a plan (catastrophic plan, I think they called it) and pay 300 bucks a month - nearly half my monthly income. I'd just have to give up my car (my only transportation to and from work).
No, I don't like the trade agreements, but the details I have heard (or read) of them are so incredibly vague that I have only a slight understanding of what they will do.
Overall, Cali, the raising of the minimum wage - if he can manage to accomplish it, is a very big deal for me. It might make enough of a difference for me to be able to pay for some kind of health coverage. It might make enough of a difference for me to start paying a little bit towards some debt, maybe think about going back to school one day. So this is what I'm going to focus on. If I'm seizing on a smokescreen in desperation, fine.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)You may have missed this one but you are getting the same treatment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024353639
Yeah, he went there. Those are indeed facts. Rec
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Wish I could say I was surprised. I'm not. And yes, he was pushing for the TPP and fast track authority, and it was very clear what he was referencing even if he never used the phrase fast track (which is starting to become a hot-button issue) Just enough cover for those who want to to be able to defend the indefensible. He knows just how unpopular this is with his base but how much certain special interests desperately want this.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)and now their self appointed ringleader / hack is screaming down any dissenters as per the usual.
Polluting discourse is their goal.
cali
(114,904 posts)"fast track" is the slang phrase for trade promotion authority.
the polluters of discourse are fully aware of that.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)And yes, he used words that mean the same thing and indicate his support. But I do think he didn't use those two words because Fast Track as a concept has gotten some negative pushback. Anyone paying attention knew what he was talking about. The calculation is that enough people probably aren't, or may have heard "fast track's bad" but may not be much more up on the issue than that.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)than labeling posters. Always impressed by the issue-orientation here at DU rather than the "Oh yeah. Well, your mother dresses you funny" still of discourse you get at so many other sites on the internet.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Who amongst the corporate-backed loyalist brigade are discussing the TPP issues? please provide links!
pampango
(24,692 posts)a member of the "corporate-backed loyalist brigade"? That term only applies to those who do not meet the standard of "legitimately defending" their view on an issue?
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Because if one were making an honest argument in favor of the TPP one would necessarily need to own a corporation that stands to gain from said trade deals. So I was honestly asking for a discussion of the TPP in positive terms by a self-reported democrat on this board. I've yet to see anyone argue from anything other than a mushy centrist view that we should give half of what republicans want on the basis that its good bipartisanship.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Given your repeated and pathetic attempts here to connect tea party Republicans with Democrats who are opposed to these job-killing "free trade" treaties (and the majority of Democrats are, in fact, opposed to these treaties.)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Clearly tea party republicans (voters, not politicians) oppose trade treaties, indeed trade in general, more than Democrats or independents. I don't see why that is even surprising. The right tends to be more nationalistic and "us vs. them" (based on things like race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.) than liberals.
You counter that a majority of Democrats in Congress have opposed these same trade deals. I have acknowledged before, and will again since it seems to need to be repeated, that you correct in that.
The polls I cited did not claim otherwise. Those polls were of voters not of the politicians who represent them. (That republican politicians often do not vote the way their base wants them to is not really in dispute.) Do you deny that the polls show that among voters (non-congresspeople) that tea party believers oppose trade treaties to a greater extent than Democrats or independents? Heck they oppose immigration, immigration reform, trade, climate treaties, weapons control treaties, etc. - almost anything and everything that has to with foreigners.
Your posts and mine can both be accurate since we are not really posting about the same people.
cali
(114,904 posts)being dishonest and pretending that trade promotion authority isn't fast track- which is precisely what it is.
JEB
(4,748 posts)with the rusty bipartisan corporate wire brush that is TPP. It will be good for someone.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)It's called the Third Way Democratic Party. Slimy as can be.
cali
(114,904 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)It's just OLDS = Obama Loyalist Derangement Syndrome.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)TRoN33
(769 posts)We shouldn't allow Hillary Clinton to be our next President. Bernie Sanders/Alan Grayson would dominate the politics in 2016 and they should be President Sanders and Vice President Grayson.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Just because it is President Obama that wants it doesn't automatically make it a good thing.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Disappointing, but expected in this corporate controlled world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)tariffs with the others.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19663-the-trans-pacific-partnership-a-trade-agreement-for-protectionists
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
TBF
(32,088 posts)is control of the internet/privacy issues.
The global capitalists will send jobs wherever they want whether TPP is passed or not. We will continue to see better living conditions in parts of the world that get these jobs, and more strife here (lower wages, continued downswing in what constitutes "middle class" in this country). Ultimately the only way to fight back is to align ourselves with workers in other countries and fight back together. But we need the internet to do that - if they shut us out of that we are done.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)what`s really disgusting is nafta and these new trade policies were and will be signed by a democratic presidents who thinks that selling american labor on the open market is going to make this country whole.
there`s more i'd like to say about this but somethings are best left unsaid
cali
(114,904 posts)AzSweet
(102 posts)....to see if he was going to mention it, and sure enough, he did. Was so disappointed to hear. Anyone who didn't know what he was referring to are either in denial, or wasn't paying attention. As much hope as we ALL put into seeing the President, and his reelection, he sure has disappointed so many ....and, as much as I hate to say it...Tweety is right...its like he said "Thank You" after the election, and goodbye...lost all connection to us who worked for and believed in him...and turned into Mr.Wall St....not in his words, but his actions.....
truth2power
(8,219 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are the same ones proclaiming they didn't watch the SOTU themselves....but not because they couldn't.
cali
(114,904 posts)I didn't watch it either- I listened to it instead.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so you can drop your shields...
cali
(114,904 posts)because you can't come up with a viable defense.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't throw the babies out with the bathwater either....
Will there EVER be a President that completely satisifies you or me? No there won't......
Apparently not even Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are qualified anymore since they BOTH praised the President on the SOTU!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you want to say those who think different than you are wrong for x,y,z reason, feel free.
But don't resort to that kind of gratuitous attack.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)So what's your point?
cali
(114,904 posts)Distant Quasar
(142 posts)I just don't understand that mentality.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)try to do something to stop them, although we have allowed them to gain too much power now to have much hope of succeeding.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not having set up a dark lens through which to see everything and not having made the entire world turn on any one particular issue.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)How do we, the average Joe/Jane, make money off of it? If it's going to happen anyway and these third World slaves are going to be doing all the work, we need to figure out how to rake off of it.
What companies to invest it, which funds are going to grow. That sort of thing.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)We can fight it and we can win.
Or we could roll over and passively accept it. Up to you.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)But this IS absolutely a done deal. The Reaganites get what the Reaganites want. There will be token resistance and maybe even a little genuine resistance from a few House Democrats that will go unheeded and unheard in the corporate media. But at the end of the day it will be fast tracked and unfilibustered.
We need to figure out how to make money from it.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)IMO that is a pitiful stance....
"Hey, American wages are officially going to compete with slave labor. Let's figure out how to make money from it."
Average Americans seem to no longer matter.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's reality.
The smart thing to do to survive would be to figure out how to make money off of it. Because we need to face the facts that our owners are never giving the country back to us.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I so enjoyed reading through this thread. The doggedness of the apologists is astonishing. The shrub's apologists had nothing on Obama's bots.
Parse or no parse of words, Obama has been all in on trying to ram the TPP through and that sure isn't the act of any populist.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)the rest of us know what's up.
He will push for Fast-Track on the TPP...
He will also approve the northern portion of the Keystone Pipeline.
Bookmark it.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
Doh! they're all on my ignore list!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...in any capitalist system. For example in this case: one side speaks for healthcare, while the other side speaks for the companies that gave you the cancer.
- As with all dissociatives, he isn't lying since there are in fact two distinct personalities involved here.
[center]Healthcare, insurance and drugs | 
| Monsanto, nukes and fracking[/center]
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
and cali, it's not been many times you Actually had the facts. You just dance with pretending them.
cali
(114,904 posts)oh, and try addressing the facts. oh never mind, just do your little BOG thing.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Enjoy your stay.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I've been enjoying my stay for a decade. thanks.
now do you support the tpp or is it just that you support and would support anything that this President proposes? Never mind, that was rhetorical.
It's clear that you'd support ANYTHING that President Obama proposes.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)President said without countering the argument. The President is pushing the TPP so when he started talking about fast tracking trade deals it isnt hard to figure out he was talking about the TPP. He certainly wasnt telling us he was opposed to the TPP. Just because he didnt specifically refer to the TPP doesnt mean he didnt speak to it. Now, do you have a counter argument or just ridicule? (it's a rhetorical question)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)whatever they are are bad, bad, bad.
Even though we don't know how bad. But we know they're bad.
Trade is bad, too. We should join with our teabagging brethren to call for pre-Depression isolationism so we can start making phones and plastic toys here again. Solves all of our employment problems.
And tear up the hundreds of agreements we already have around the world because trade agreements are bad. No real reasons why, or numbers to demonstrate it, but we say trade is bad and so it is bad. Somehow, it's not simply related to our domestic problems, but a major cause of them. Exactly how is never made clear, but it must be.
Notably, Korea and China are not part of the TPP, and any arguments for or against it should really include reasons why. But, that might involve actual thought. And with thought perhaps comes understanding. And silence.
This whole anti-TPP argument has become a mantra, and pointless.
cali
(114,904 posts)no trade isn't bad. the tpp and ttip aren't so much trade agreements as they are further license for corporations to profit.
furthermore, yes, it's bad that it's so secretive. It's bad that corporate entities and their representatives have had so much input.
do some research. there's nothing to defend in the "trade" agreement.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)