Discussion for article #236199
Warren is right. If its so wonderful, let us read it BEFORE you cement in the terms of the deal with fast track. Obama is really wrong on his approach here.
3 Likes
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Big fight.
Now, can we propose a bill that forces all the GOP cocksuckers convicted of ANYTHING to have to serve their sentence HERE in the general population?
As a Democrat I believe Elizabeth Warren has her own agenda and she is too liberal for the rest of the country…she obviously has pissed Obama off.
1 Like
In 1956, Warren would have, like Eisenhower, been “liberal” enough.
1 Like
Obama is much more like Eisenhower,Warren is more like Humphery…
a good senator…
It’s just two politicians from different branches having a disagreement over the meaning of the same set of facts, each not being entirely upfront about their underlying agenda. It’s not personal, it’s just democracy in a system with separation of powers. We’re just confused into thinking it’s personal or a BFD of any kind because you basically have to be in your fifties to have any personal recollection of what normal democracy looks, of looked, like in this country.
And here’s the “hidden agenda” part neither is acknowledging, hidden in plain sight:
“The president has committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track. At that point, it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP. The TPP is basically done,” she said. “If the president is so confident it’s a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it.”
What Obama and Warren both know full well, and what neither can or will acknowledge in public, is that the idea that Congress can “fix” the treaty if it’s not perfect without blowing the whole thing up is a total fiction, a complete lie each of them are telling (or allowing to be implied, at least) for their own reasons.
Liz wants to be able to amend the treaty precisely because she knows full damn well that in any multiparty treaty, attempts by one party to change the deal after other parties have signed off on it will inevitably result in a collapse of the whole treaty. Which is what she wants. Even if it isn’t immediately fatal, post-negotiation amendments invite counter amendments invite renegotiation resulting in at least one major party saying “fuck it!” and walking away.
Obama knows that too. That’s why he wants fast track. That’s what he means when he says you can’t negotiate a multiparty trade deal without fast track. And what he’s not telling us is is that this is a geopolitical issue for him, not an economic issue. He thinks the net economic impact for our economy won’t be that big a deal one way or the other given how much trading we already do with these countries, but it’s us or China. Either we’re heading a trade bloc with these countries or China will. And yeah, he’s willing to trade a few jobs at the margin to keep that from happening because, long term, it means a lot of lost jobs and lost access to resources if it’s China.
And he won’t say “Amendments=Blow Up Whole Deal” either because it immediately ignites a media shitshow fail parade that ends up blowing up any possibility of getting fast track. And he knows that if he makes the current text (which is still being negotiated) public, it blows up the whole thing anyway, because someone somewhere, if not here, in one of the other signatory countries, will see its ox gored and have the clout to kill it in the cradle.
It doesn’t matter which “side” you think you’re on in this fight. That’s what’s really happening here, regardless of who you think is right.
13 Likes
Another lazy article about the “personal conflict” and devoid of facts. Anybody surprised?
How about a carefully researched article collecting all that we know about the deal, including proposals likely to have been included and naming the labor and environmental representatives that Obama invited to take part in the negotiations – if any were invited and if they were permitted to participate fully.
The Obamabots claim this agreement will protect labor and the environment, but I have not seen one shred of evidence that this is not another job-killing “free trade” agreement just like any Republican president would have negotiated. That it is expected to pass entirely on Republican votes re-enforces my belief that this is a Republican-style deal, great for bankers and big business and another nail in the coffin of the American middle class.
1 Like
You just outed yourself.
6 Likes
You complain about an article “devoid of facts” and call for one based on rank speculation.
5 Likes
And we have a sorry-assed media.
Obama And Warren Are Still Fighting Over The Trade Deal
4 Likes
NC Steve you couldn’t be more spot on and Lio too. And let’s face it, TPM is the media and their last story on this with its misleading click headlines garnered over 200 comments and this will probably do the same. There is no fight between Obama and Warren. They simply disagree on some of the issues in this trade deal. She is also being less than honest as she too is for trade. The idea that the “people” haven’t seen this deal as her reason for being against it is preposterous. Obama is right,she is a politician and this “so-called fight” with she and Obama is proof positive how she is using her political might. I say good for her to do what she has to do and good for him in believing he’s doing what’s right for the country. I trust him unlike the far left fire bagging emoprogs like GrievingforAnerica, Darcy and others.
3 Likes
Woooo, love you.
1 Like
Obamabot is a perfectly good term for people with an unreasoning trust of Obama. So when he says “these changes to Social Security are not a cut” they say “yes sir”; or when he says “I just got a deal with Republicans where rich people get tax cuts from here to eternity, and I got unemployment extended for a few more months”, they say “What a great deal.”
If Nike is saying the deal will “allow” them to make 50 jobs in the U.S. while another 500,000 jobs move off-shore, it isn’t a great deal, even if it contains some unenforceable pablum about treating the environment and labor with more respect.
Speaking of unreasoning, where do you get those numbers about Nike making 50 jobs in the US while another 500,000 jobs move off-shore. I suspect it’s from a dark place that doesn’t smell very nice.
1 Like
Warren asks why weren’t labor, environmental and civic groups allowed to sit at the negotiating tables with the scions of Walmart and Verizon who Obama has writing the agreement. I ask that too.
This is a dirty deal favoring the elite few. If it was fair for all Americans there would have been inclusive teams of negotiators from all aspects of American life sitting at the same table. Had there been we could have all sat back with some good degree of faith that they were working in the best interests of all Americans.
Obama is siding with the sons of Sam Walton and working with the Republicans who overwhelmingly support TPP.
1 Like
Scions of Walmart and Verizon are writing the agreement? Source?
1 Like
Manutgop is too lazy to research and present any facts herself, but demands that anybody not agreeing with her fantasies must. Pull this stunt once, it can be overlooked; pull the same stunt over and over and the ignorance is clear. Another libertarian troublemaker masquerading as liberal, perhaps?
Well said, and there are a couple of other aspects to this.
First, since the Republicans won control of the House in 2010, there has hardly been anything of legislative substance being passed, let alone discussed. Except for must-pass legislation on the budget and executive appointments, most activity revolves around dead-on-arrival stunts to repeal ACA, continual Benghazi and IRS hearings, etc.
So when something big comes along, it’s a Very Big Deal, and like you said, people are no longer accustomed to a functioning legislature.
And since his re-election, and increasingly with the Republican takeover of the Senate, Obama realizes the hopelessness of getting big things passed legislatively.
President Obama a few years ago assured a war-weary public that he intends to pivot from the Middle East quagmire to Asia and the Pacific. To many grateful Americans and skeptical allies, that announcement signaled an end to ill-conceived and unwinnable wars and fractured relations with our international allies, and an opportunity to blunt China’s rising influence in the Asian-Pacific region.
But now, many Americans have succumbed to fear-mongering over an international trade deal that its lead American proponent promises will boost worker interests and establish important protections for workplace safety and the environment.
And we also have an executive orders on power-plant emissions and immigration, a climate deal with China, an Iran nuke deal, an outreach to Cuba – all moving forward, and none of it moving through Congress.
Even though he is a lame duck, and with the opposing party controlling Congress, Obama is still setting the agenda on the most substantial issues of the day. To lawmakers jealous of their authority and stature, this is disruptive, an affront, and an interruption of and glaring counterpoint to their usual inaction.
1 Like
I actually haven’t made up my mind on this thing. If you dig around a bit, you find that Warren’s real fear is that six years of fast track authority give a hypothetical Republican president the power to negotiate a trade deal that creates a dispute resolution mechanism that gives foreign or multinational corporations a backdoor way to accomplish Republican goals like eliminating Dodd-Frank.
But, loathsome though the concept may be to some liberals, the geopolitical aspect is pretty damn compelling. This trade agreement is, as much as anything, about solidifying ties and increasing soft power with countries in our, what was the term, oh yeah, “strategic competition” with China.
1 Like