4 ms·
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership still faces months of debate in Congress[...]" So nothing is reached : my understanding of US politics (which is quite shallow I
by jmnicolas 11y ago
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership still faces months of debate in Congress[...]"
So nothing is reached : my understanding of US politics (which is quite shallow I'll admit) is that the congress majority will vote contrary to anything Obama wants.
- emodendroket 11y agoThat is, indeed, a pretty shallow understanding. On this issue Obama is essentially allied with a number of Congressional Republicans and in opposition to a number of Congressional Democrats.
- protomyth 11y agoAnyone viewing the Republican party as a unified whole is not really paying attention. Some will vote for it, and some will vote against. On trade treaties, some Democrats will defect and vote against regardless of the party of the President.
- tptacek 11y agoThat's true in general but not true in the case of free trade agreements. Obama's opposition is the party of free trade, and also the party of China containment. The fact that Republican opposition voted to fast-track the treaty augurs its support for the final version. This bill is mostly stuff the Republican party wants.
- pdkl95 11y agoThe sudden flip from "we're against anything Obama supports" to suddenly standing with Obama to support the TPP is highly unusual, and more than a little suspicious.
- abalos 11y agoOften I find that it's not the issues the parties disagree on that I need to worry about, it's those that get passed quickly and quietly through Congress.
- jazzyk 11y agoSpot on - see my post above (In this subthread).
- ckozlowski 11y agoI think the "against anything Obama supports" bit is probably a bit inaccurate if we were to drill down into the voting records in Congress. But do they have very clear and blatant interests? You bet. But it'll be a bit more complex than that I think, and I suspect you'll see voting coming down to a mix of local interests and public (including corporate) feedback. Party allegiance will be secondary to an extent, and you already see that in the article. Orrin Hatch is a republican, and he's already stating his opposition due to what are likely local interests in pharmaceuticals. Trump is blasting it, but almost undoubtedly because that's what his support base wants to hear. You'll have a lot of representatives and senators all saying that they have "deep reservations" until they get to see the final bill, and then some judgement call will be made between supporting their local industries vs the country's as a whole. And ya know, really, that's kinda how it should work.
- twoodfin 11y agoMaybe it was never the case that the Congressional GOP was against anything President Obama supported? For one thing, they helped him ratify earlier trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act act passed a GOP House (with a GOP majority voting in favor). And you can scroll back through this list to see more trivial examples: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
- jazzyk 11y agoBoth Democrats and Republicans will support whatever benefits their sponsors - big business. It is wrong, but why is it still surprising to so many people?
- mtgx 11y agoTrue. Except when big money tells them otherwise. And in this case, it will. Watch how around half (if not more) of the Republicans will support TPP.
- littletimmy 11y ago> The Congress will vote for anything that their corporate overlords want. FTFY