General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWeve never seen President Obama act like this
It looks an awful lot like panic. He's slamming his allies in a way I've rarely heard him speak in regard to republicans. He's pushing for the tpp much harder than he's pushed for anything else. He must have reason to be worried that his trade agenda is in peril. The weird thing is that it seems counterproductive to go on the attack like this. We know the WH is heavily pressuring congresscritters. That may work. It often does, but in a way, this makes me hopeful. It's sure not a plan to win over progressives
msongs
(67,420 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)Progressives have trashed the president since day one.
oh and Go Cowboys
ananda
(28,867 posts)But I have NEVER trashed him.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)I am mostly liberal but conservative on some issues and always a Democrat. I catch it for not being progressive or liberal enough.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I have criticised this President many times, and so, was I trashing him? ... What exactly does that mean, trashing? ...
I voted twice for the man ... What else must I do to stay in the good graces of the highly dogmatic BOG?
Whatever it is - I refuse ...
Go Yankees!
brooklynite
(94,602 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)them once they get the job. You're not a rare bird at all, most Democrats are Liberal on must issues and conservative on some. What gave you that idea?
Btw, welcome to DU.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... except for that last part ... oh, sorry we stole your running back.
I still can't figure out how that happened.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But the question that remains is ... will Philly have the offensive line to give him the space to run?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I have no idea what the plan is for the o-line, d-line, or anywhere else.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)administration THRASHED them for going AFTER REPUBLICANS.
You know, like General Betrayus! According to this admistration, that was a 'retarded idea'.
Still waiting for Rahm to show his face and tell us now that Liberals were wrong about Betrayus. And apolgize, properly this time.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Not gonna happen.
cali
(114,904 posts)He's attacking his allies in Congress
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)We're having a debate about TPP...that's a good thing IMO.
BTW, I wasn't referring to his allies Congress.
I was referring to the folks who have attacked Obama at every turn. They're the ones who will not have their feet kissed.
cali
(114,904 posts)like Ellison and the entire Progressive Caucus
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...but they ultimately accomplish nothing.
There are a number of folks inside and outside of Congress who know how to get things done, but this doesn't apply to the perpetually outraged.
Obama firmly believes the deal will benefit the middle class, while others think it will hurt the middle class. I've never thought of Obama as a person who wants to deliberately harm the middle class, but I would still want to see any final deal before it's voted on.
I'm not going to voice my support for it or bang my head against the wall in opposition.
I'm going to wait to see the details of any final agreement that is reached.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Pretty much anyone in congress can "get things done".
It aint hard.
It only gets hard when you look at which specific things you try to get done. Helping people? Thats hard. Dont run into many congress critters who have any desire to do that. Passing legislation that will help the rich get richer? Thats pretty simple. Pretty much all congress persons know how to do that.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)They certainly aren't shy about criticizing him.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)pure and simple
the word "panic" is laughable
Jesus, the coolest operator in the history human politics and all of a sudden he is panicking?
1monster
(11,012 posts)the way he can help laughing at his own jokes after people catch on to the punch line. He is a cool operator.
I acknowledge with no reservation at all that he has faced incredible opposition from Republicans, Tea Partiers, el als.
But that doesn't mean that I think he should be free from criticism, accountability, or having his feet, as he requested, held to the fire.
And any time I see someone bring out the "they don't like Obama" meme or the "hater's gonna hate" meme, or the "ya can't reason with them" meme, for the folks trying to keep Obama's feet warm, I know that they've got nothing to refute the doubts.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)and PRETEND to be doing it for the first time, each time they do it.
I criticize him all the time, but I support him too, big difference
sendit
(58 posts)His base is not seeing the same Obama they voted for.
ananda
(28,867 posts)I have criticized him and will continue to do so ...
... as part of my civic duty as a responsible citizen.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Any criticism of the leader is bashing or worse...nothing but praise is acceptable.
I hate liars
(165 posts)If you criticize Obama, you're bashing him.
Not so. All politicians take positions for and against ideas each of us deem important. The mark of a good citizen is to credit good ideas and criticize bad ones, regardless of the source.
I voted for Obama twice, but am critical of his soft positions on Wall Street corruption, healthcare profiteers, Social Security "reform", and others. Accepting bad ideas is an unacceptable price for voting a politician into office.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I agree with cali,
Dog Poop.
All we want is a voice in our Party.
Unfortunately, Obama is listening to Republicans on this trade deal
and Schelling Liberals to STFU.
Just curious,
but are YOU lining up with the Republicans too?
Your posts here sure indicate that.
cali
(114,904 posts)And he won't with his attacks
sendit
(58 posts)We care about the earth , the waters ,the air , the trees , the animals that inhabit it
I feel no connection at all to this administration
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)restoring endangered species, keeping ecodiversity alive, having clean air to breath and clean water to drink and clean healthy food to eat? We are messed up bad
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)If he likes it this much, it may scare them like it scares me that Obama is on the side of the GOP.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He's fooled them and he's fooled us.
I knew there was an explanation.
hay rick
(7,625 posts)He definitely has me fooled.
Response to cali (Original post)
Vincardog This message was self-deleted by its author.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)spoken individuals who have gotten the attention Bernie and Elizabeth have, I call it progress. We won't turn the ship of the Democrats far in one election, but I definitely see that it is having effect. Hillary is backing up and tossing out a few Progressive memes. People really haven't heard a Liberal peep for a long time. So I'm embracing it with pride.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Hillary says the words but looks like, her mouth hurts saying them.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I get what you're trying to say, but you're just using a bad comparison there.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Seriously. Thank you for this. I'll try to keep this handy the next time someone wonders why there are so few posters of color here.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Response to Number23 (Reply #89)
Vincardog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)(as you called him, emphasizing "BLACK" for some reason) or anyone in his administration calls liberals "retarded."
Seriously. I am BEGGING you. I will wait patiently and earnestly until you return with a link.
And even though I still would have absolutely no idea what the living hell that would have to do with your "progressives are the new black" line, I'd still like to see what you're referring to before we tackle that issue.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Was brought on by my use of the phrase "The new black".
[link:http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/
Number23
(24,544 posts)Firedog Lake??! Holy Shit...
From your link (not that I believe a sentence that comes out of that publication):
The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obamas health-care overhaul.
Fing retarded, Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants.
Was he calling them "fucking retarded" or the ads? That is a legitimate distinction which FDL doesn't bother to answer. And even if he did aim the insult at the attendees, it clearly says liberal groups and White House aides were in attendance meaning both would have been the receiver of that insult. FIVE YEARS LATER, how come only one of these groups is still whining about this?
And in fact there is a five year old DU thread that asks that same question and comes to a completely different answer:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x154425
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)questionseverything
(9,656 posts)i believe it was cause we wanted the public option we were promised
Number23
(24,544 posts)questionseverything
(9,656 posts)u were on ur knees begging which puzzled me since i thought it was common knowledge about rahms contempt for the "libs"
Number23
(24,544 posts)"retarded" let alone liberals. This has already been covered in the thread.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. And you know it as well as I do.
It's just a place now to laugh and point at the natives. Screaming about their clout and power... on the Internet. Where EVERYONE is a warrior.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Critical though left the building sometime around the dean scream if I remember correctly and it has only gone downhill since.
It now seems to be about who can find the best outrage or headline.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)while progressive.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Black people in America. And maybe you should apologize to the AA posters who have already taken you to task, rather than doubling down.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Absolutely
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)the AA forum maybe your wrath would be warranted.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)the Progressive, maybe even the Moderate Wings want to slow it down. Because he doesn't have to run for re-election he can do by executive order some things he couldn't do with a Republican Congress, but this TPP ... the Republicans are unanimously on board. That, in itself, gives cause to pause.
2naSalit
(86,650 posts)almost like... I am sure that the major oiligarchs have a gun to his head as well as the rest of his family. He either does their bidding or get kennedy'd. There was a pretty informative audio/video on this site earlier this week which clearly indicated such.
Don't forget about that shadow government we heard via somebody's slip up during bu$hco years, it's not like they went away... just look at who bu$h3 has for "advisors" for pity's sake. That's what is really going on... "Yeah, Barry, you got the white house but you will still give us power over the world as we have been planning all these years, or else. Nice family you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to them."
Just sayin', makes sense that he would uncharacteristically push this pile o'shit as hard as he can. I think that is also the answer to some other things we expected to change but didn't even though he was on board before he was sworn in.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)give me a link to post with the "audio/video on this site earlier this week which clearly indicated such."
Unfortunately I missed it and don't have as much time as I'd like to cruise all of the threads here.
Thanks in advance.
2naSalit
(86,650 posts)I waited a couple days before listening to it but I was not at all surprised by what the conversation revealed. Some call it bunko but I tend to disagree, I was around for the election of 1960 and recall many events and was in a place where I was privy to probably more info than the average voter at the time or since...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=260318
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm reminded of how the XL thing worked out: We didn't know what Obama was up to until it was all over.
I want to think this will be similar, Ju Jitsu, push one way to get an opposite result.
Cool stuff when it works.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)His "study" continues.
tridim
(45,358 posts)I am 100% positive it will be served again in the near future.
Don't fill up on bread, hair-on-fire DUers.
cali
(114,904 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)I have a special plate with your name on it.
cali
(114,904 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Brain surgery with three followups including a cranioplasty, all done at Stanford by the worlds best, is not cheap!
Glad to say I survived, only lost my sense of smell and some time.
Love the surgical teams and support staff at Stanford Hospital and Clinics!
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I can't even count the number of times the same bunch here on DU have set their hair on fire, went of on the old Obama is a terrible president, he don't like us, he will take away ___________, just fill in the blank, and when it never comes to be the majority of them will never admit they were wrong, nope they just wait till the next time to once again set their hair on fire and post BS with no actual facts, just rumors, leaks and other BS from some anonymous source.
They can't wait and see the final results, and then judge of he was right or wrong. Once I see it, then I will judge. I just can't see accepting "leaks, and rumors" as any real kind of proof.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,127 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)The White House floated Summers name and got a terrible reaction from those who spoke up, as citizens are supposed to do in a democracy, and nixed the idea.
From your link:
Keystone XL is not over. How long did it take for him to come out against it? I recall a LOT of protests at the White House regarding the Keystone XL. The public expressed their outrage, they were heard. That's what citizens are supposed to do in a democracy. Hopefully Obama sticks to this.
Chained CPI. Obama offered this up. It happened. What's your point? And now that it has been put on the table by a president in the Democratic Party - something that here to for was unthinkable - it is no longer the third rail. So the GOP was given the gift of an open door to going after SS since a Democrat already did it.
So if these are your examples, why do you think this is people running around "with their hair on fire" as if they are simply being hysterical for no reason? This is a democracy with a govt that is supposed to be of, by and for the people. The govt is supposed to govern by the consent of the people. If people don't speak out, how is that supposed to happen?
BumRushDaShow
(129,127 posts)The "point" is exactly what tridim posted. There were DUers who were convinced that the things I linked to were "done deals". And the "but people protested" argument won't fly given that we were told here that (paraphrase quote) "the authoritarian, corporate, Republican in office must serve his 'corporate masters' in order to enrich 'the 1%', so don't bother". It is will happen." (/end paraphrase quote).
And when none of these things came to be (like the Bush Tax Cuts that DUers threatened would not be allowed to expire in 2012 or that Obama was (paraphrase quote) "beholden to the MIC and would start bombing Iran" (paraphrase quote)), folks slinked away and started up the "TPP!!11!!!!!!" or "NSA!!!11!!!!" posts, not unlike Issa and Gowdy yelling "BENGHAZI!!11!!1!".
And as a point of note - I oppose these types of "multi-country, multilateral" trade agreements because they become so large and unwieldy and cumbersome, that all sorts of loophole shit can get inserted. If you are going to do an agreement, do it one country at a time,
IMHO.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I don't remember people saying it was a done deal as in there was a signed agreement with that in it. I don't read every post so someone could have said it, but I read a lot and I never saw that so I would presume it was a minority who said it.
If you're really going to liken NSA spying - which is real and a real problem and an expanded version of what BushCo was doing which everyone complained about - and the TPP - which is real and is being hashed out in secret - to Benghazi - which was a witch hunt - then I don't see the point in attempting to discuss this.
From my view, any time anyone makes criticism of great concern over something Obama is doing it is met with "hair on fire" and no real rebuttal. Usually it is accompanied by "it hasn't happened yet so you shouldn't express any concern". That just isn't how democracy works. In a democracy where the govt is to govern at the consent of the governed it is imperative that people voice their concerns. When they are noted and things are changed it is a great thing and exactly what is supposed to happen. When the people are told to be quiet, that is telling them not to exercise their responsibility and telling them not to participate in democracy. How is that a good thing?
Glad to hear you are against these types of trade agreements. On that we can definitely agree.
BumRushDaShow
(129,127 posts)It's one thing disagreeing - and even doing so very vehemently - (as many here feel very strongly about certain issues that they believe impact them in some way) and it's another when you have a peanut gallery of tiresome labeling of people who don't agree (but who may be willing to listen without the drama) or the incessant naming-calling (like a post I saw this morning calling Obama "Bushama" and other childish nonsense, in some cases with an argument that this is supposedly "satire".
There are a number of critical issues surrounding the idiotic "Patriot Act" that have (thanks to technology) made us into even more of a surveillance state than the past (I now have a damn fisheye camera not 10 ft from my front door). And we have candidates that are bought and paid for by the highest bidder... But there are other issues that were are near and dear to many that have been dealt with or are being dealt with, but are summarily dismissed by many of the DUers who vociferously argue that nothing has been done under this administration over the past 6 years (i.e., same-sex marriage is not their "thing" so it never happened or increased environmental standards for cars and coal, and the wilderness set-asides, is persona non grata). And when called out on it, the hair gets lit once more about the same one or two subjects over and over, the posts of which get hundreds of recs.
We all have our own issues but when you have the type of dirty rotten politics that has always existed, but that is now magnified due to 24/7 "infotainment" masquerading as "news", thousands of commentary blog sites that virally feed into one perspective, and billionaires who control organizations that create legislation for passage by the elected officials they bought, then you can see why the political strategy to bring about change becomes more complex, and cannot simply be resolved by histrionic posts on an internet forum.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)First of all, you say you don't want people using terms like "Bushama" but then in the very same post you said "hair gets lit" as if concerns aren't warranted. It has to go both ways.
And speaking of the extreme "positions", there is a thread with a pic and meme that says Obama is pushing for the most progressive trade deal ever. Someone reposted it in a reply to me elsewhere so I don't know where it was originally posted, but that's really ridiculous. In no way is the TPP progressive. And the silly teen magazine type OPs that have zero substance and just a bunch of pics to fawn over are surreal and look stupid on a political discussion board. Are we discussing policy or pledging allegiance to a personality?
And just as you say "the political strategy to bring about change becomes more complex, and cannot simply be resolved by histrionic posts on an internet forum" nor can PBO's legacy be etched by the constant blind trust and defending of him with no criticism of anything at all, and the attempt of branding him as progressive/liberal when he is no such thing. And in fact, that is a way to hinder change because it is making it seem as if we already have the left/liberal/progressives leading us in the Dem Party when it is far from that. Obama is a centrist and he is a self-described moderate Republican. If we want real change we need to get the party back to its liberal/progressive roots, and I'm all for that.
BumRushDaShow
(129,127 posts)Many who are on the different sides have not tried to "shut down" any debate by the other side. There is a difference between name-calling, such as labeling people with certain positions "authoritarian posters" or "turd way posters" or even "Paulites" or "Warrenistas", and pointing out the type of "argumentative tactic" where one tends to describe and predict an outcome of an issue to the most extreme possibility ("hair on fire" = magnification of an issue to an extreme using hyperbolic justifications).
I also believe that the characterization of "blind trust" is actually disingenuous to apply to even the most ardent supporters of the current administration. I expect that nearly all have some disagreements with certain positions that the President has taken over the past 6 years (I certainly do), but those positions (whether as a "compromise" because of requirements to have legislation make it through a heterogeneous Congress) have not risen to the level of declaring the President "the same as Bush" who essentially doesn't belong in office (entirely dismissing critical Democratic agenda items that have come to pass).
It seems that when it comes to definitions of what is "left/liberal/progressive" - there will always be disagreements as to what that means. Pointing to "FDR" as "the standard", completely leaves out the fact that he was one of the epitomes of the "1%", and entire demographics who were essentially "left out" of the party, and suffered under FDR when it came to race relations (where FDR made sure that my WW II Vet father stayed in a segregated army unit or signed off on the internment of innocent Japanese Americans and their children into what amounted to concentration camps). These sort of positions tend to be glossed-over and dismissed as "unimportant" or supposedly "acceptable by society at the time", to many when defining "left/liberal/progressive", because none of these events impacted them or their families/friends... IMHO, that's bullshit and it very much factors into my definition of whether someone is "left/liberal/progressive". Another example might be to point to Truman as the "standard bearer", under whom Taft-Hartley became law (despite his veto). Based on the types of idiotic arguments here on DU, Truman would have been thrown under the bus and lampooned for not "putting on his walking shoes" and waving his magic wand, because he "allowed" Taft-Hartley to remain the law (this argument being due to complete ignorance regarding how bills become laws). There are those who point to Kennedy (another "1%er), who ignored MLK's protests, bowed to Hoover's surveillance of innocent citizens, and eschewed anything to do with Civil Rights, where blacks were being lynched, bombed, and otherwise oppressed via Jim Crow laws (and much of what addressed these issues was enacted under Johnson). And those who point to Johnson - well yes except: Vietnam War. Still others point to Carter, but then between him and his primary contender Ted Kennedy, who was "more liberal", and how could Carter attract the white southerners while trying to hold the black vote?
All of this clearly illustrates what I have argued - each individual has a set of criteria to fit their situations and needs and that will never be homogeneous.
When one characterizes a President as a "self-described Republican" (who has never been or run as a Republican but who has pointed out how extreme the GOP has gotten since the days of Eisenhower, where DUers actually insist that Eisenhower was a "liberal" and considers "self described" as meaning "Ted Cruz style" nut)... but then ignores the individual who is oft-promoted here as the "true voice" of progressives, who herself WAS a Republican and voted as a Republican for most of her adult life including during the destructive Reagan era (and who still holds Republican positions such as promoting school vouchers) - this is why the hypocritical disconnect continues to occur here about what is actually being debated, and the acceptance that "no side" or politician is "perfect".
And what is oft-forgotten is that when it comes to what type of legislation gets passed, it is reflective of the type/positions of the people elected to the U.S. legislature from the states. When both your state parties are mired in corruption (like New Jersey or Florida or New York), then one has much work to do to change that in those states. When folks sit home during the critical state elections, then during census years, the GOP will ultimately re-draw the lines to force the candidates to the right. There are 31 GOP governors out of 50 states and 31 GOP-controlled state legislatures out of 49 bicameral bodies (where 23 of those states are all-GOP).
Hurling epithets at or protesting perceived demagoguery surrounding a President who must work with the legislators that the people allowed to be elected, does not bring about "change". Change comes from the electorate's engagement and local participation in deciding what the agenda should be in an environment where "outsiders" (like the Kochs) can come in and disrupt that process (e.g., when the Kochs pump money into local school board elections and otherwise interfere with local municipalities).
So IMHO, too much is spent on the "national" when the national only reflects what has been let to rot at the state and local, and that is what needs to be dealt with.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)All your posts above, well done. I always enjoy hearing what you have to say.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)And perform in a specific way. I think that's what the Iraq invasion was about: controlling resources.
It makes sense to put massive funding into battery research, and other renewable areas, but I have a hunch he is getting an earful of information along the lines of how we have just moments to pull things together or lose the economy. Right now if we get some kind of international trade agreement, as horrible as it may be in five years or so, it may forestall immediate doom.
I see it as a game of economic musical chairs.
If Obama were really strong enough to fend off his critics and advisers, he'd take the healthy, but seemingly illogical path. Kind of like what Iceland did.
I'm totally guessing. So it could be that he really thinks this tpp is actually good for us. That just doesn't add up, given how bright he is.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)equated with intelligence.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Why else keep it SECRET?
Publish the damned thing and let us decide based on FACTS.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Actually I think many DU posters give the President far too much credit.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Duppers
(28,125 posts)Sadly, most of the world is doing "short-term duct tape" now, is it not.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)More money than they could ever truly comprehend, yet they get up every morning and devote their time to getting a little bit more each day.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)for some reason they feel the need to deprive those with very little of even less.
It is a psychopathic condition. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)More than anything in a long while. They are putting the heat on him the same way they did in order to make sure that the too-big-to-fail boys were bailed out and that no bankster criminals ever wound up in court much less behind bars where they belong.
Anything that the tenth-percenters and repukes want this badly should be avoided like the plague.
That the president is pushing so hard for it tells you who really pulls the strings when the rubber meets the road, to mix a metaphor.
Sorry, Mr. President. NO to TPP.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)He told everyone to pay attention and hold him accountable after his elections.
No one's really bothered to get serious about that until now.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Now we can see just how tightly he has been under their control.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I guess "the base" is useful for his election, but otherwise troublesome.
LuvNewcastle
(16,847 posts)We're never supposed to get a look behind the curtain.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... and from keeping DADT in place.
That must be it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Also because it will be available for America to read. Also they get a 90 day debate and vote. Also because it hasn't been finalized and if it doesn't seem like a good deal he won't sign it.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)BHO has more info just like Bush had more intel on Iraq.
BS is BS. That BHO is fighting so hard for this in a way never seen for a public option speaks volumes.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)If they wanted to.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is driving folks NUTS. I wonder why?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and does not know what to do about it.
He usually sets up Win-Win situations for himself. This really is out of character.
No matter what happens, he is going to take a loss here. Either his trade deal fails or his base turns on him. No third choice.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Like he said, he's "got no more campaigns to run".
All Obama has to worry about is his "legacy", in the
history books. And he's betting the history books
won't be written by the likes of Howard Zinn.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and without support from those who normally support him, those things won't get done.
There is also the influence he will have as a past President. He really does not want to lose his base. Not now, not ever.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)if he closes Gitmo, or busts up Wall St. or declares the War on Drugs a failure, etc.
just because of the TPP
hell that's what the GOP does, to "punish" and hold grudges .. not my style
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)since this trade agreement started way back under Bush and Cheney
I like him and believe he tries but the hidden powers that be are strong
and right now I can give a observation on this talk on trade and what his reactions were but
An interesting observation was his talk on Jimmy Kimmel
on UFO's ...... these talks are prepared on what questions will be asked.
Clinton's talk and Obama's talk on the subject can be viewed here.
no matter what you think of UFOs or not but how people can be observed to see what they are really saying or not.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113510081
Marr
(20,317 posts)I think this aggressive push is only unfamiliar because there have been so few things he claimed to want that actually wanted.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Obama isn't the only one acting differently. The republican M.O. has always been to insanely oppose anything that might actually do some good, that a Dem might get credit for.
Why isn't Fox raising hell about the TPP every day? And why would people like Sanders and Warren oppose it?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)the petty opposition games just like when Jeb and Pat Robertson got right on board with the Obama/Duncan program.
If it is unadulteratedly heinous enough they get quite cooperative.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thanks for the excellent post.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)For years, we've been bombarded with so many mindless feel-good pics, I'm having a tough time reconciling these not-so-happy Obama pics.
For good measure:
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's crazy to think progressives could not disagree with the President on merit and instead have to openly lie to attack him. It's terrible. I'd push back too. I never expected the day Elizabeth Warren would openly lie about the President. It's a crazy world we're living in. It really shows, that at the end of the day, a lot politicians on the left play the same bullshit game as the right - lie, and hope no one catches you.
cali
(114,904 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)That's what's insane. If the deal is so bad, then there is no reason to make up bullshit to slime the President.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Please document your claim.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I also had noticed that the ISDS was something used in NAFTA, and hadn't heard much discussion on it until reading the link you posted.
I do have to wonder whether Warren was intentionally slamming Obama though. I don't know where she got her information, but it was probably from some aid, or another, unless she read the document.
That's actually a good article, with comments and the follow-up that make it seem intelligently done.
Yikes, what a mess this has been. Suddenly I feel a bit easier about Obama's doing, until I see otherwise.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)"Warren spreads the fear of an acronym, ISDS, which is short for "investor-state dispute settlement" , a routine feature of nearly all modern trade deals that allows an international tribunal to address matters of dispute between investors from a signatory country and another signatory country's government."
To quote the DU Cannabis group, "Thats' some goooooood shit!"
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Why would she need to lie or mislead? She's popular because she knows finance and was a Harvard Law Professor. What would she possibly gain by misleading people or "lying" as the article by Tommy Christopher has the headline.
And since every program PBO has wanted to pass Congress has had nothing but lock step Republican opposition....then, why now would Republicans be on board to give PBO "Fast Track Authority" for TPP when they hate him and want nothing he does to succeed?
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Is this going to be one of those questions that ends with an answer?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The Corporate loving Third Way Democrats are glowing in neon. I'd like to thank Obama for bringing them to the attention of the nation.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)He's invested a LOT of political capital into this, and probably did NOT expect the pushback to come from his own party.
Perhaps this is a sign that the Dems are starting to become more progressive, or at least rejecting of the "free trade" nonsense that brought us the likes of NAFTA.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Maybe give them some information? How does criticizing the critics move the dialog?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to their "fundraising or membership list."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Our "Transparency President" is clearly AWOL on this one.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I won't share what they are, because I don't need the grief from the peanut gallery. But anyone who thinks back to the times Obama's been angry should be able to figure it out.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Some readers might have thought the "peanut gallery" was just a BS excuse on my part. Now they have an inkling as to,what I meant.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)International negotiations are.
The angry meme is a dog whistlers wet dream, no more no less.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Fabulous.
Just nail my point home.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So maybe stop asking such loaded dog- whistle-y questions? People notice.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)"...slamming his allies in a way I've rarely heard him speak in regard to republicans."
Frankly, BHO has continually shown his true colors by his cabinet and advisor choices (Tim Geithner, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emanuel, Jack Lew, Penny Pritzker, James Clapper, etc), by such actions as prosecuting whistleblowers, putting everything on the budget bargaining table including SS, abandoning any effort to fight for the public option; and by the vast discrepancy between his words and his actions.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)
In any way, no matter what it takes, I want a monkeywrench thrown in the works. I like Pres Obama, but if he's willing to jeopardize his legacy on that mess, so be it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)madamesilverspurs
(15,805 posts)I'm outta here.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... with his reaction to Republican attacks on the Iran nuclear framework.
He sounds comparatively casual about Iran.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)He didn't.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)It's just been turned against members of his own party, and not Republicans. Why is that?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)there's meaning behind that. I am surprised he shouted out a dishonest attack on the most honest woman in congress all the more reason Elizabeth should run.
djean111
(14,255 posts)It must be disconcerting and annoying as hell to see that even when people who really do want Warren to run, and who really do accept that she is not going to run, do not shrug and join the HRC camp. Because the support is not personality-driven, and thus harder to try and stamp out or bring to heel.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... will be that message to her that running for president in 2016 is a battle she can win, and that perhaps it is such an important thing to happen for America's future too, and will be the event that gets her to announce soon, even if she may have had doubts earlier that kept her out.
So, Obama, you may be helping put Warren in to the 2016 race by pushing this BS, and also galvanizing other primary battles around the countries for many congress critters that seem to value a corporate "retirement" over service to their country in congress (DeFazio run against Wyden please!).
So, Hillary Clinton, by not taking any stance on TPP, on an action you can actually SHOW some action to back up your manipulative campaign words saying you are more for populist issues that help the middle class, you are FAILING us, and opening up the door for a good primary battle from those that are backing up their words with actions on rejecting the TPP.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Remember how thorougly congress read the Patriot Act before they voted almost unanimously to pass it?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)like he's having an esoteric conversation with the 1%, and is disregarding us because of fear more than guilt .
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Trying to explain it early on was very difficult. Now, more and more are realizing they've been had by a brand name, basically. The biggest wake-up call should have been when he mentioned liking Reagan. Any self-respecting progressive should have had alarms go off at that moment.
The truth is, he has done some good that we would never have gotten under Republicans, but he cozies up to the Republicans FAR too much and passes things they want far too often, as well. Now, he is spoon feeding them what they want and telling even some moderate Democrats to basically STFU and take it. Now is when more and more people will wake up and see we are being sold out in the worst possible way.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)ms liberty
(8,580 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)ms liberty
(8,580 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Possibly a bit too much. Humans are fallible, as Manny showed when I misread his post earlier.
cali
(114,904 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)feeling the need to post 10 anti-tpp/anti-President Obama threads, every day, saying the exact same thing.
cali
(114,904 posts)It won't effect me personally. I simply believe, for reasons well and repeatedly enumerated, that it's bad news
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That will, certainly, be Armageddon for American labor and National sovereignty, as you repeatedly warn, won't affect you personally?
What are you telling us?
cali
(114,904 posts)I haven't said it's Armageddon. I have expressed concern over the ISDS.
No, it won't concern me personally. My father manufactured computer peripherals and printers. btw, he opposed nafta, despite his business relying heavily on exporting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Then, you haven't been reading your own posts, Mr./Ms 1%er.
cali
(114,904 posts)Mr. Maker-of-false claims.
And I'm not a member of the 1%.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The computer peripheral and printer manufacturing daddy threw me off.
And regarding my false claim regarding your posts ... well ... perhaps you should re-read them.
cali
(114,904 posts)Don't you have some political idolizing to get back to?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)instead of producing the facts to the public to show how his allies are wrong, you know that what he is pushing is bad and that his allies are correct in their criticism.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)malthaussen
(17,204 posts)But I have to ask if the poor puppy shouldn't have been put down anyway.
-- Mal
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Content mirrors my own thoughts exactly.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Even when he signed Paul Ryan's budget last year too many people left him alone. He's finally gone too far.
Aviation Pro
(12,172 posts)...and unshackled from the tyranny of running for election again.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)They were right about that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)They promised us that it would be "clobbering time" with an unchained Obama.
But it seems the wrong people are getting clobbered.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)What do the Japanese think of President Obama?
What are they saying about him in the newspapers over there?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I can't remember anyone giving me their candid opinion about Obama, though. Japanese tend not to be critical of foreign leaders unless they are doing something really egregious. And perhaps they might also be afraid of offending me if they said anything critical of Obama.
As for the newspapers, I have to admit that I haven't been paying much attention to the Shasetsu (Op-Ed) pages of newspapers, although it's pretty easy to find articles that report on such things as American opposition to TPP, even within Obama's own party (like the one linked to below).
http://www.asahi.com/international/reuters/CRWKBN0NF04C.html
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That they are very polite to Americans and don't offend Americans easily, if at all.
When my brother worked in Japan in the early 1980s he said that many of his new found friends at work went out of their way to avoid discussing President Reagan or American foreign policy with him mostly because he had told most of them that he was a Democrat who had voted for President Carter both times.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Every President since the 80s has been judged on how happy they can make money for International Corporations that stopped being "American" long ago.
Initech
(100,081 posts)Maybe he figures that he doesn't have anything to lose at this point, so fuck it.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)When he was strong-arming everyone into supporting healthcare "reform" that did not include a public option.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . that the people in one's life who are most worthy of one's trust are those would never dream of making demands of it. If, in fact, Warren and Brown are lying as the President suggests, then it is within the President's ability to demonstrate that be releasing the text of the entire document. Even apart from the parts of the TPP draft that have been leaked to date, the fact that he is resisting doing so, expecting the public and most of Congress to simply take his word for it. and at the same time is so uncharacteristically energetic in his attempts to impugn the integrity of critics who are, on most other issue, staunch allies, speaks volumes.
Another thing I learned a long time ago is that when faced with a choice about whom to believe among two parties, each of whom is accusing the other of lying, one rarely goes wrong by asking oneself one simple question: which party stands to gain or lose the most both by misrepresenting an issue, and/or by falsely accusing the other party of lying? Frankly, if the deal is all it is cracked up to be by the President, then I can see nothing that Warren or Brown would have to gain by opposing it. But I can certainly see that a President, now in the home stretch of his Presidency, casting about for a new 'legacy' since the future of his single biggest achievement is in doubt, I can see where he would have plenty to lose if the deal falls apart, and thus plenty to gain by falsely characterizing the deal's opponents as lying.
For me, then, the determination whom to regard as being the most credible between the PResident and Senator Warren is not even a close call.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We are getting crushed by China and other Asian markets with trade deficits and Asian currency manipulation. And he knows the TPP is going forward with or with the US involvement.
I think he is naïve that the can reform trade with the TPP. But I believe he thinks he can.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)He said he's going to make you pay, for what you've done,
he's got a gun, so run, joey, run joey, run.
I tend to get silly when I'm up too late. Sorry.
G'night.