the issue that really tells you whether a politician is on your side or not

[paulkienitz]

Don't look to the divisive hot-button issues such as abortion or gun control or gay marriage or any of the other topics that parties count on to inflame their activist bases. Any pandering politician can easily take either side of any of those without being on your side when it counts. If you want to know who is really on your side, you need to find a policy issue where one side makes the rich richer at your expense, and the other side costs them money or power.

If you want a litmus test, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a pretty good one.

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. While I'm strongly anti-TPP, I disagree with this notion.

To every individual out there, there is an individual balance of what issues affect them most, what ones affect them but not as much, which don't directly affect them, but affect them through how other people are affected. We should not be forced to simply declare that any one issue 'doesn't matter'. They ALL matter. We may focus more on different issues depending upon how we see each one, our strategic beliefs as to how making gains in one helps another, or how well we think one is being handled already by other people who focus on them, but we can't afford to simply 'give up' on any of them, or declare that we can afford to have a single issue 'litmus' test.

[winter is coming]

3. The issue may vary from person to person, but the basic idea is sound.

Is politician X willing to go to the matter for ordinary schmoes when that's likely to have a political cost? Saying, "I support Y" after most of the public does and it's politically safe isn't nearly so impressive as doing so when it's right but not popular.

[geek tragedy]

7. If abortion and gun control are such electoral slam dunks without any risk, how

do you square that with what's happening in Congress and state legislatures?

[winter is coming]

9. ?? I didn't claim that abortion or gun control are risk-free electoral slam dunks. n/t

[geek tragedy]

10. The OP is arguing that abortion, guns, and same-sex marriage are distractions from

the 'real' issues

Do you agree that civil rights for women and GLBT Americans are just distractions from the issues that really count?

[winter is coming]

11. No, and I have no idea why you would think I do.

Go up a couple of posts and you'll see that I'm agreeing with the person who disagreed with the OP that the TPP is the only issue that matters.

[geek tragedy]

12. I didn't get that from what you wrote, but I apologize for jumping

to an erroneous conclusion.

[paulkienitz]

14. geez, you're both misstating the OP

I never said the other issues are unimportant or mere distractions, and certainly not that they're slam-dunky. I only said that they're not useful for knowing who your real friends are -- who you can trust not to sell you out.

[NCTraveler]

20. If they publicly support.

Womens unfettered access to abortion, strengthening gun laws, and gay marriage; they are my friend. " I only said that they're not useful for knowing who your real friends are"

[winter is coming]

22. Actually, your OP is ambiguous about that, largely because your conclusion that TPP

is the only issue where politicians might incur risk by supporting the individual over the state or corporations is erroneous.

[ananda]

4. The TPP and defense spending.

Those are the litmus tests for me.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that it reveals your own lack of actual involvement in

opposing TPP. The fact that you think LGBT issues and organizations are not a big part of that opposition but some free floating and unimportant side issue demonstrates that you have not been paying attention.
My LGBT labor groups were holding hearings about TPP back in June, at that time DUers who are today affecting great TPP passions were busy promoting the Pope. When I say hearings, I mean in the US Congress, along with LGBT Democrats who are among the strongest opponents of this piece of shit legislation.

It's one thing not to recognize your own allies, but to be unaware of who is taking action on your behalf in such a complex and wildly expensive political scenario is really very telling.

[paulkienitz]

15. how do you get that from what I wrote?

[Bluenorthwest]

21. I note you do not counter my observation. Because I was spot on and you know it.

Straight white men who think they have standing to tell women and LGBT who are friends are suffering from privilege toxicity. Get over yourself.

[geek tragedy]

6. Yet another person dismissing civil rights as a distraction, and making TPP a purity test.

If I want a litmus test, I'll go to a chemistry lab.

If I want advocates for civil rights for all, I will not look to the OP and those recommending this nonsense.

[paulkienitz]

17. I never said or suggested "distraction".

What I said is that just because someone agrees with you on those "values" issues, that doesn't mean they are in any way trustworthy. When such a politician takes your side on such a topic, their help is valuable as far as it goes, but implies nothing about their reliability elsewhere.

On the other hand, for a politician to be anti-TPP leaves far less room for doubt: it means they've gone all in, they've burnt a bridge, they're committed.

[geek tragedy]

18. so belonging to the KKK or FRC isn't a deal-breaker but supporting the TPP is. Gotcha. nt

[paulkienitz]

19. jeez, could you at least try responding to the text in front of you

instead of some imaginary position you want to read into it?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. First from June of last year....

" The United States is beginning negotiations with eleven other countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam—on a major trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) The final TPP would significantly expand access to markets and trade among the participating countries. While increased economic engagement has the potential to expand the freedom and equality enjoyed by LGBT citizens in countries like the United States, Canada and Japan to the other TPP participants, such positive steps are far from guaranteed. As Chad Griffin and the other LGBT leaders said in their letter: “In 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered a speech to the United Nations stating that the U.S. government would use every means at its disposal to protect the basic human rights of LGBT people around the world. Indeed, both you and Vice President Biden have spoken passionately about protecting LGBT rights around the world. It would be inconsistent with U.S. human rights policy to enter into a preferential trade agreement with a nation that so vagrantly violates the human rights of its citizens.”

The letter, which can be read in full here, was signed by leadership at Pride at Work, AFL-CIO, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and National Center for Transgender Equality. Also yesterday, 119 members of the House of Representatives also called on the Administration to address Brunei’s human rights violations before continuing trade negotiations.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/lgbt-leaders-urge-president-obama-to-address-human-rights-violations-in-bru

Then from last week:
"Pride at Work Oregon came out to protest Fast Track and the TPP at President Obama's visit to Nike in Beaverton today. We're winning the fight against bad trade deals thanks to the hard work of folks like this who are standing up and fighting back."
https://www.facebook.com/PrideatWork.National?fref=photo

http://www.prideatwork.org/

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The bravery of your drive by sneering is noted.

nt

[NCTraveler]

16. A really shitty shitty thing to say.

"Don't look to the divisive hot-button issues such as abortion or gun control or gay marriage or any of the other topics that parties count on to inflame their activist bases. Any pandering politician can easily take either side of any of those without being on your side when it counts."

Ask Matthew Shepard if it counts when politicians work their asses off to do the right thing when it comes to gay marriage. Speaking about those issues in certain ways has made society more accepting to a group that has been vilified and hated through history for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Your dismissiveness is noted.

People like you are why we are seeing our right to abortion scaled back in almost every state. Bet you are a man. Sorry you are concerned about their divisiveness.

"Any pandering politician can easily take either side of any of those without being on your side when it counts."
When does it count tough guy? Who has to be hanging off a fence dead before it counts to you?