General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPetition To Hillary Clinton: "Ask White House To Stop Pushing For 'Lame Duck' TPP Vote in Congress"
Democracy for America
August 12, 2016
Stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership - a deal negotiated in secret that gives corporations unprecedented power - is one of the most important tasks we face in 2016.
But despite opposition from leading Democrats and progressives, the White House is pressing ahead.
They are reportedly planning to hold a vote on the TPP in the "lame duck" session after the November election, when Congress doesn't have to face the consequences of their actions.
As the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton is in a unique position to help us stop the TPP.
Her campaign chair, John Podesta, said "Hillary opposes TPP BEFORE and AFTER the election."
Now we need her to act - and help stop Congress from passing the destructive, job-killing TPP.
Join Robert Reich, DFA, and CREDO by signing our petition asking Hillary Clinton to publicly urge the White House to not hold a vote on the TPP - before or after the November election.
View petition at:
http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/hillary_tpp_vote/
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I WANT the Lame Duck Congress to pass the TPP.
Free Trade stops wars.
True Dough
(17,305 posts)It seems to me that a "lame duck" president should either be able to get his Supreme Court nominee approved and put the TPP up for a vote, or he should not be allowed to do either.
Can't have it both ways.
red dog 1
(27,816 posts)Obama trying to get his Supreme Court nominee approved has absolutely nothing to do with his wanting to get the TPP passed during the lame duck session.
True Dough
(17,305 posts)one enormously impactful initiative but not another? I'm not saying they are equivalent. The two are are apples and oranges but they are huge legacy decisions. I think it's fair to argue Obama should be able to pursue both actions or neither, based on being a supposed lame duck. I prefer the latter, for the record.
red dog 1
(27,816 posts)anymore than he doesn't have the right to try to get Garland on the Supreme Court during the lame duck session of Congress.
The whole point here is that legacy or no legacy, Hillary Clinton should ask him to not try to get the TPP passed after the election, during the lame duck session, because she now is the Democratic nominee for POTUS, and she might be able to influence him on the TPP issue.
I don't think there are too many Democrats who would mind if Obama did try to get Garland on the Supreme Court, during the lame duck session.
However, I think MANY Democrats would be very upset with him if he tried to push through the job-killing TPP during the lame duck session.
Is that the way President Obama wants to go out?
Making at least half of all Democrats, in and out of Congress, angry at him?
True Dough
(17,305 posts)Why do you think Obama is strongly in favor of the "job-killing TPP?"
And Hillary was initially pro TPP but then reversed course.
red dog 1
(27,816 posts)I don't care why Obama is strongly in favor of the job killing TPP, any more than I care why Hillary changed her mind about it.
The fact is: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, and she is staunchly against the TPP; so why would Obama go against her wishes, and the wishes of more than half the country, (including that asshole Trump & his followers) and once more attempt to pass the TPP in the lame duck session of Congress after the election?
True Dough
(17,305 posts)Obama has shown himself to be a principled individual for the most part. I hate to think he's doing favors for corporations instead of serving the interests of the American public. We know Bernie Saunders was vehemently opposed to the deal.
So instead of "who cares," I'm finally taking the time to read up on the TPP. It seems one reason why it's desirable to American political leadership is to bolster U.S. trade in Asia while preventing China from seizing too much economic influence in the region.
However, it's troubling to find out that the pact has essentially been negotiated in secret. Here's a detail made public that doesn't sound promising:
And here's the concluding paragraph of the same article from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-does-obama-want-the-trans-pacific-partnership-so-badly
On the other side of the coin, this column authored by a couple of economic scholars makes a case for the TPP:
This is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership is critical. The pact shows that major countries are prepared to slash many existing trade and investment barriers and promise not to erect new ones. Once ratified, the trade deal will become a magnet for more countries to join Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia and others. It will inspire competitive liberalization a race to remove barriers not only in Asia , but also in Africa and perhaps even South America. With inspiration from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the world economy could again be paced by fast trade and investment growth.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-isnt-a-bum-deal/
Although there's much more to learn, at least that scratches the surface.
JI7
(89,250 posts)Yes. It would be much more work than online petitions do i can understand why people would not want to