General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans are the enemy- except on trade issues
with ramifications for working people; who they've screwed repeatedly and plan to screw in the future. When it comes to the TPP, these staunch allies of the President, are thinking of the benefits it will bring to working people and the environment. Never mind that these same Republicans have done everything in their power to screw President Obama. And other allies of the President's are trustworthy too, right? Like the Koch Brothers subsidiary, Chamber of Commerce and corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Halliburton.
Congressional Democrats are the ones that are the liars and the enemy. They're just showboating for inexplicable reasons. It's not for money because the big .money donors are pro tpp. We've been told the base supports it. So what do they get out of it? It doesn't raise the profiles of most of them, and being threatened by corporate money interests and the WH can't be much fun.
Yep, republicans and corporations and bankster types are the enemy- unless they're allied with the President.
Welcome to topsy turvy land.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)And, despite the obvious instinctual "they never are", actually they're almost always right, like everyone else - it's just that they're very seldom right about things they disagree with the Democrats about. But to 99% of questions - "what colour is grass?" "Should we legalise murder?" - Republicans, Democrats and everyone else will give the same, correct, answer.
I should stress that I'm not arguing that they're right in this case - I don't know enough about the TPP to know if it's a good thing or not; as far as I can tell informed opinion seems to lean against it, and uninformed opinion is obviously overwhelmingly against it.
But using "the Republicans support it" as an argument against something does not work, and is a risky precedent.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)And your post proves to me what I have theorized for some time now.
1. I'm happy to agree with the Republicans whenever they're right.
And, despite the obvious instinctual "they never are", actually they're almost always right, like everyone else - it's just that they're very seldom right about things they disagree with the Democrats about. But to 99% of questions - "what colour is grass?" "Should we legalise murder?" - Republicans, Democrats and everyone else will give the same, correct, answer.
I should stress that I'm not arguing that they're right in this case - I don't know enough about the TPP to know if it's a good thing or not; as far as I can tell informed opinion seems to lean against it, and uninformed opinion is obviously overwhelmingly against it.
But using "the Republicans support it" as an argument against something does not work, and is a risky precedent.
Republicans are seldom correct on ANY issue which they have to deal with in their job function of representing the people of this Nation. No one is making any laws about the colour of grass.
And, should we legalize murder? I would claim Republicans do try and have in fact legalized murder in many instances.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)appoint more judges to the SCOTUS soon, a bad trade agreement will be the least of our problems!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)We need a politically left candidate who will win.
onecaliberal
(32,786 posts)If you don't think people are dying from lack of healthcare, I've got a bridge to sell....
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Noted
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)Is this a joke ???
Where they right about Supply Side Economics (trickle down) ?
Where they right about invading Iraq ?
Where they right about tax cuts for the rich ?
Where they right about opposing equal pay for women ?
Where they right about opposing same sex marriages ?
Where they right about ignoring Separation of Church and State ?
Where they right about opposing health care for all.
Where they right when they cut food stamps ?
Where they right when they shortened unemployment benefits ?
Where they right when they wrote the U.S. torture policy ?
Where they right when they enacted the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and
spying on U.S. citizens.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Yes, about political issues where there is significant disagreement, the Republicans are almost always on the wrong side, as I said.
But the vast majority of questions you could ask are not in that category.
There are far more possible questions that both Republicans and Democrats agree about - "should we introduce flogging in primary schools?" "Should we criminalise the wearing of purple?" "Should we nuke Seattle?" than there are disagreements.
But, because no-one bothers debating those issues, they don't attract any attention; when people say "issues" in the political context, they almost always mean "issues of debate or controversy".
If you automatically oppose the Republicans on every issue, you're going to end up arguing for dropping H bombs on the space needle.
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)I am still confused.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)knowing that they need to breathe air, eat food, and drink to stay alive, that they can correctly identify the colour of various objects, etc. Ie 'they're 'right' most of the time when it has nothing to do with actually helping other people via government action. In the context of a political site, it's one of the most pointless endorsements of Republican thought I've ever seen. In the context of a posting about their political thought in re 'trade agreements' it seems like a pitiful attempt to proclaim that they just happen to be right this time, when most Democratic politicians are 'wrong'.
I think Sherrod Brown is right on trade agreements.
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)It makes zero sense to me.
Sherrod Brown
Alan Grayson
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders;
They are all correct about the TPP.
Bernie Sanders has never voted for a trade agreement.
Alan Grayson said the TPP was a punch to the face of U.S. workers.
It truly is disgusting watching this country being destroyed piece by piece.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I have heard Republicans claim there should be flogging allowed in schools.
I live in Washington State and I have heard Republicans wanting Seattle and more generally the west side eradicated because it is a bastion of left wing loons.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)It is truly a 'topsy turvy land' when the Democratic base is 'conservative' (or at best, mindless cheerleaders) out to screw working people and the environment, while the republican base (especially its most 'conservative' wing) is - accidentally perhaps - 'progressive' and fighting for working people and a better environment.
It is hard to tell the players without a scorecard.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It seems like a hugely deceptive endeavor to call the TPP a trade agreement when so much of it deals with imposing regulatory frameworks and rules for many different industries (and if Big Business is so strongly for it the frameworks will be very loose and unenforceable no doubt). And, I strongly believe that these frameworks and rules will be heavily in favor of corporate interests and profits (which would preclude liberal/progressive wants and desires in most cases no doubt).
Certainly having Congressional Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce clamoring so loudly for this deal should dissuade most liberals and progressives from supporting it since this deal does, in fact, deal with so many different industries and areas of our lives.
The TPP is not one issue. It's a crap ton of them, and Congressional Republicans support it.
cali
(114,904 posts)I just read several articles about that. Fascinating stuff
pampango
(24,692 posts)Of course, specifics matter both with respect to the trade chapters and the other chapters. (Heck, specifics matter with any international agreement - like the one with Iran or with Cuba - or any labor contract or any agreement of any kind.)
A comprehensive agreement is not good or bad just because it is 'comprehensive'. It depends on what's in it.
cali
(114,904 posts)that comparisons are awkward and not that useful
pampango
(24,692 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Congressional Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are hungrily supporting this.
Corporate power over world governments (multinational corporations) seems to me to be at unprecedented levels.
The Republican Party today is NOT the Republican Party of the 1980's and before. Neither is the Democratic Party for that matter.
WAY too many flashing red warning signals here. Way too many.
pampango
(24,692 posts)You are right. The republican party today is not the one of the 1930's and 1940's anyway. (I'm not sure about it being so different from the 1980's.)
While they were/are both pro-corporate, the earlier version did it with high tariffs protecting the domestic markets for their corporate sponsors while modern ones do the exact opposite.
I wonder if FDR would have lowered tariffs in the 1930's and come up with the UN, World Bank, IMF and International Trade Organization in the 1940's if the republican party had not been opposed to all of them. (At least their fringe is still opposed to all of them.) Did he - would he have - really believed in internationalism no matter what or were his actions more a reaction against the policies he inherited from his republican predecessors? I have always thought he acted out of conviction but have not studied him enough to know that for sure.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)TODAY after how they've behaved since the 1940's.
pampango
(24,692 posts)My guess is that he would think that the concept behind the organizations is a good one and that they serve important roles just as he envisioned. But that they need to be governed by liberals because conservatives can drive almost any organization into the ground.
I doubt very much that he would support eliminating international organizations that govern global issues that affect everyone. He was not a big fan the idea of each country doing its own thing and everything will work out just fine.
Other than that he might be surprised that liberals (at least here if not in Europe and elsewhere) have turned against internationalism (joining conservatives who did not have to 'turn against').
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)station having discussions on TPP is MSNBC, so you know the billionaires want the opposition stifled. Seems to have a familiar ring to it, like when 'NAFTA' was passed.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Novara
(5,822 posts)....Obama is pushing so hard for this. I just don't get it. If it's so great, TELL US HOW IT WILL BENEFIT US. See - this is what's missing. I keep reading about how horrible this thing is for us, I read a shit-ton of criticism aimed at those who oppose it, but I have not heard ONE SINGLE EXPLANATION showing the American people why this is a good thing FOR US.
Methinks it's Obama getting this done before China has a chance to, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Do it before they do it. It isn't good for us at all - it's just proactively defensive posturing.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)take place with China rather than the US?
Why can't nations belong to multiple trade agreements?
rurallib
(62,387 posts)but there is never any reason why.
My guess is that if the US wants to join later we will be welcomed with open arms.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... of the people who put him if office and who will pay $250K speaking fees when he leaves. And I'm not talking about the voters.
Imagine if he could have mustered this amount of passion and energy to get us a public option. Guess what, the people who put him in office weren't so interested in that.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If China gets a trade deal first, it's Communistic trade all over SE Asia
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because you haven't been listening, or have chosen not to hear the explanations that President Obama (and various members of his administration) have provided.
Novara
(5,822 posts)I admit I don't understand it. I've heard pros and cons about protecting intellectual property - the most recent con I read was that generic drugs would be all but impossible to obtain globally (Doctors Witout Borders are against it for that reason). This puts money back into Big Pharma, who already seems to be doing just fine, thank you.
I also hear that labor costs are increasing globally, possibly making manufacturing here more sensible when you consider logistic costs like shipping and fees. But the TPP doesn't guarantee factories will be built here. This is speculation.
I've read conflicting information about "making" trade partners adhere to our environmental protections, but yet they can sue us if doing so cuts into their profits? How does that make any sense? Which is the truth here?
Intellectual property - yeah, I can see protecting that, but again, this will benefit those at the top, not the middle class. Like Monsanto, which is already evil. I can just imagine them applying their same strong-arm tactics that they've used with American farmers on a global scale.
There are strong opinions about this and it isn't always easy to separate fact from opinion. So then I look to see who is for it and who is against it. Republicans are for it, which should tell me all I need to know. Doctors Without Borders are against it, as are several environmental groups. That should tell me something too. In addition, the people I DO trust on the economy - like Elizabeth Warren - are against it. Paul Krugman is against it:
<snip>
I encourage people to read Krugman's article. He isn't screaming NO! but he makes some good points, mostly, is this really necessary?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because I do not know what is in the agreement.
The question you asked was about not having heard an explanation for how TPP would be good for the American people. President Obama (and members of his administration) have done so.
Novara
(5,822 posts)I think I'm getting more like Krugman on this - is it going to substantially improve on what we've currently been doing? No? Then why do it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Novara
(5,822 posts)Because for every argument there's a counterargument that makes a lot of sense. In addition, the administration is telling us to trust them, we'll like it when we finally see it. Well, I don't do blind faith in anybody, honey. If they're promising that it will look different when it's done, I will wait until then and review it then - I won't just trust that I should accept this in its unfinished state now. And again, is "hurry up so China doesn't do it before we get to" a productive strategy? I'm not convinced. I agree that if China negotiates trade agreements before we get the chance to do it the environment will suffer, but I'm not convinced fast-tracking this is the way to go about preventing them from doing that. Aren't there other mechanisms?
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)Obama is a moderate Republican.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)since the all these ttp hating Republicans control both houses of congress, guess you have no worries of ttp passing,,,,,,,, geeez
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hey! Didn't they completely collapse the economy last time they had a chance?
Huh? What? WTF?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)rurallib
(62,387 posts)starting with NAFTA one would think that extreme caution and a full airing would be mandatory.
Yet here our leaders go again claiming how great this one will be.
I have theories on why Obama os so gung-ho for this deal. Most of them have to do with campaign money. It is a shame.
bullwinkle428
(20,628 posts)to stop every single thing he wanted to accomplish as part of his Presidency.
Until the TPP came up. Nary the slightest peep from them. Telling, no?
Autumn
(44,985 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is what shills do.
There against it against it against it...until the money shot and then they say OK we will let him have this one.
That is how the con is played.
Autumn
(44,985 posts)What the fuck am I supposed to vote for?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that is moderately progressive on social issues that the powers that be don't give a rat's ass about.
On economic issues -- sorry, there is only one choice and has been pre-approved by the banksters.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)and "welfare to work". Past is prologue.
Stop confusing me with facts.
I still have hope that when the public is shown the entire bill and it's discussed fully in the House, that some changes will be made to make it palatable to Americans. Keep the good and throw out the bad, like bath water.
There is some sort of trade bill required to keep up with the world's business, but Soloman died, some time ago, I believe.
Keep pitching. It'll keep our attention focused on it.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Yet another blatant example of the utter hypocrisy of so-called progressives to support this, when we all know that they would be howling if a Republican was ushering this in. Just like the drone strikes.