4 ms·

>US would be shooting itself in the foot… That’s very “on brand” for the US. All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas.

>US would be shooting itself in the foot… That’s very “on brand” for the US. All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP. TPP was opposed by both major-party candidates by the time of the general election; Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her position on it to pander to Bernie-inclined voters (or charitably, in order to better represent her constituents' views). Regardless, our withdrawal from it had nothing to do with "a change in party running the White House", and we would've likely withdrawn regardless of who won the election. It was just a consequence of the populist wave that swept America across the political spectrum (and is sweeping much of the world).
- tweedledee 5y ago
  I think it’s more likely Hillary would have just flipped again.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    That's certainly possible, but only if she felt like she didn't need the populist-left energy anymore (which is plausible).
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Indeed. Makes me think back to Clinton-trademarked "triangulation".
- cgearhart 5y ago
  I think it would’ve been unlikely for a Dem to torpedo such a signature piece of international policy as the TPP, even if they were mildly opposed to it. I never really liked it personally, so I wasn’t sad when it failed. But I still think the point stands: US foreign policy can shift substantially every few years depending on elections. See also: the Iran nuclear deal.
Causality1 5y ago
The TPP included some lunatic overreaches.
- cgearhart 5y ago
  I agree, and I was never personally a fan of it. Still, it’s a good example of how mercurial it can be dealing with the US when the government changes so frequently. Another good example is the Iran nuclear deal.

>US would be shooting itself in the foot… That’s very “on brand” for the US. All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP.

wutbrodo 5y ago

> All we need is a change in party running the White House to torpedo our own ideas. See also: TPP. TPP was opposed by both major-party candidates by the time of the general election; Hillary Clinton flip-flopped her position on it to pander to Bernie-inclined voters (or charitably, in order to better represent her constituents' views). Regardless, our withdrawal from it had nothing to do with "a change in party running the White House", and we would've likely withdrawn regardless of who won the election. It was just a consequence of the populist wave that swept America across the political spectrum (and is sweeping much of the world).

tweedledee 5y ago
I think it’s more likely Hillary would have just flipped again.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  That's certainly possible, but only if she felt like she didn't need the populist-left energy anymore (which is plausible).
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Indeed. Makes me think back to Clinton-trademarked "triangulation".
cgearhart 5y ago
I think it would’ve been unlikely for a Dem to torpedo such a signature piece of international policy as the TPP, even if they were mildly opposed to it. I never really liked it personally, so I wasn’t sad when it failed. But I still think the point stands: US foreign policy can shift substantially every few years depending on elections. See also: the Iran nuclear deal.

Causality1 5y ago

The TPP included some lunatic overreaches.

cgearhart 5y ago
I agree, and I was never personally a fan of it. Still, it’s a good example of how mercurial it can be dealing with the US when the government changes so frequently. Another good example is the Iran nuclear deal.