7 ms·

Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? PS To those trying to claim he isn't a progressive... Obama may not be the p

• diogenescynic 11y ago
  You know it's mostly House/Senate republicans who are voting for it right? Strange bedfellows really.
  • fixxer 11y ago
    You're aware that the Executive Branch's vote is equal to the consolidated power of the Congress, right?
    • spacemanmatt 11y ago
      It still has to get to his desk, and that means a lot of Republican support. There's no dodging that.
      • fixxer 11y ago
        So the GOP is forcing his hand? He has no free will? Manchurian candidate?
        • spacemanmatt 11y ago
          That's ridiculous, and I didn't say or imply that.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
• bediger4000 11y ago
  Indeed. I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. Can a conservative republican explain why the Republican leadership is supporting this? I can't really understand why free market people would be in favor of state-granted and enforced-at-taxpayer-expense monopolies. Nor do I understand why extreme patriots would be in favor of Investor-State Dispute Systems. The latter seems like a sovereignty giveaway, to an unaccountable international body. In a way, ISDS seems like big government gone wild, but it's an unelected, unaccountable international government, which should offend small government types, too.
  • Zelphyr 11y ago
    Because they're all owned by the same people who wrote this agreement.
  • stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > I generally like Obama (except for Espionage Act prosecutions, continued existence of Guantanamo detention centers, and drone wars), but this one makes no sense. What's there left to like? Legal pot and gay marriage?
    • LinkDJ 11y ago
      Wait, pot became legal? Why didn't anyone tell me!
      • gcb0 11y ago
        don't know why you're down voted, but your irony is correct. pot is still very much illegal on the federal level... that's important because that's the level that handle your taxes.
        • jfoutz 11y ago
          Eh, i guess we'll see how it all shakes out in the next 5-10 years. Based on prohibition, the feds are in a tough spot. No support from local and state police, because it's not a crime. That said the feds could bring a lot of resources to bare against individuals. The targeted individuals would likely be screwed. Probably the biggest risk is Colorado fighting the USA directly. Perhaps it's not interstate trade so the US can't regulate, perhaps Colorado sues for lost tax revenue.
• thisisdallas 11y ago
  I'm by no means a progressive democrat and I am certainly no fan of Obama. In saying that, it's absolutely necessary to understand republicans are pushing for this just as much as democrats. It's not a red vs. blue issue, it's a red and blue issue. To answer your question, there are probably many reasons, but one reason is because corporations are paying politicians. Here is a story from The Guardian that explains the payoff http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations... Also, here is another story from the Huffington Post that describes the corporate influence on the TPP. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h... One last comment, while it is indeed up to our politicians to vote yay or nay on this, it is absolutely up to the people to keep our politicians accountable. Right now, the American people are for more concerned about feelings and witty social media posts to care about the TPP. When Americans stop caring about politicians and stop holding politicians accountable, it's quite easy for them to pull something like the TPP.
  • gcb0 11y ago
    no matter how much you care. if politicians can only run a campaign with millions of dollars, and that amount only come from corporations, and the corporations can see who voted on what it wanted, then the public is largely removed from politics.
    • zanny 11y ago
      That should not be news to anyone. The only thing that has recently changed is Citizens United makes it easier to just avoid having to pass through money through more middlemen to bribe politicians. Before radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the time to research politics voted. After radio and TV, only the rich elite who had the money to buy election ad slots got representation.
    • vgfbdgfhkzsdrhh 11y ago
      It is illegal for corporations to donate money to politicians. 61% of raised funds come from individuals donating up to $2600 each. 23% come from PACs (which themselves may only raise money from individuals, not corporations), and the rest comes from self-funding and political party committees. Edit: These numbers are from 2010 congressional elections. Also it's illegal for federal elections. State elections have their own rules.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Can a progressive democrat please explain to me why their hero is supporting this? Did Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren start supporting TPP when I wasn't looking? Or was "progressive" an elaborate typo for "centrist"?
  • fixxer 11y ago
    Ha. Fair weather fan.
    • spacemanmatt 11y ago
      Obama has always been a centrist, even though he campaigned as a progressive. Actions are louder than words.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      For that accusation to work (even ignoring the difference between being a "fan" of Obama and agreeing that Obama is a "progressive" rather than a "centrist", which are really orthogonal concerns), you'd have to have me ever claiming Obama was a progressive rather than a centrist.
• costolo 11y ago
  What are you talking about, both Sanders and Warren don't support TPP.
• JamesBarney 11y ago
  Sometimes I think that if a piece of legislation is not on the red vs blue divide its probably on the powerful elite vs little guy divide.
  • mplscoder 11y ago
    Centralization of power and control seems to be on a winning streak.
• snowwrestler 11y ago
  I'm not a progressive Democrat, but I understand why Obama is pursuing this deal. First, let's consider a contrast. Neoconservatives have for decades been obsessed with the Middle East. This is mostly because of its strategic importance as the source of oil. There presents itself now an opportunity to change this strategic focus because of two trends. 1) Domestic oil production is up; so is fuel efficiency; so is the development of alternate energy. 2) Korea, China, Vietnam, and other Asian nations have growing economies and strategic ambitions. In the future of the U.S., oil will be less important; Asian trade relationships will be more important. Thus Obama's "pivot to Asia." It has been mocked by Republicans, given the ongoing problems in both Russia and Iraq/Syria (both long-standing Republican policy bad guys). But really, something as big as the U.S. does not turn easily or fast. TPP is a major component in that turn. It will create or enhance special relationships with a variety of Asian nations. It will firm up relationships that are currently being challenged by China, which has the biggest ambitions of anyone these days. The details of the policy chapters are almost unimportant; they just need to be balanced well enough among all the parties, so that everyone gains slightly more than they lose. Trade agreements are, almost by definition, not optimal for any given single interest group or stakeholder. In terms of IP specifically, it's worth considering that the U.S. is far more dependent on IP than other nations. If you think about our most successful companies, many of them make nothing but IP: Apple, Google, Microsoft, TV shows, movies, recorded music, software, pharamceuticals, etc. So U.S. negotiators are going to try for max protection on those things. (Does not mean they will get it.)
  • api 11y ago
    A second point would be that China's consumer class is booting up. The US wants to position itself to sell into that, effectively to reverse the trade deficit.
    • marcosdumay 11y ago
      If the US government stops running those huge deficits, partially financed by foreigners, the US trade deficits will close naturally. I just don't know why you'd want to do that, and why you'd want to do that now. But run those deficits too far, and you'll be forced to anyway.
• snarfy 11y ago
  Democrat or Republican, this is about rich vs poor, and neither party represents the poor.
  • fixxer 11y ago
    I'm not poor and I'm against the TPP. My opinion has nothing to do with how it treats the poor. I don't like how it empowers corporate interests at the expense of individual rights.
    • zanny 11y ago
      Poor is relative. The rich at war with everyone are not the 6 figure developers, or even the one-time cashout millionaires who sell their startup to Google. Its the billionaires who control entire swathes of global industry and are ego tripping power maniacs who are addicted to it. Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams. Its even more the dynasties whose names are not national news because they own every news network or their best friend owns it. If someone else in the world makes as much as you do in a year in a day (or better yet an hour for 99.99995% of people), you are incredibly poor relative to them. And 99.99999% of humanity falls into that class of poor. The TPP is not being written for the betterment of the "rich" over the "poor". Its being written to make about 70,000 (overwhelmingly) men even richer than they already are, by subjugating national sovereignty underneath their corporate will.
      • fixxer 11y ago
        My point is that the narrative for my dissent from a bill with strong GOP support is that it violates individual freedom. You might argue semantics, but I claim my motivation has nothing to do with social justice in the progressive sense and everything to do with freedom.
      • spacehome 11y ago
        I read stuff like this a lot, and it sounds plausible, but how can you know this? Where can I go to read someone connecting the dots from billionaires working in secret to advance trade deals through corrupt politicians?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• afarrell 11y ago
  Because the US government wants more tax revenue and tax revenue comes from corporate revenue and the salaries/capital gains that flow from it. US companies tend to generate a lot of revenue from IP. Therefore, the US Government has an incentive to help corporations extract more revenue from IP.
• enlightenedfool 11y ago
  hmmm...because he's just another politician who hoodwinked people with great speeches??
• Zigurd 11y ago
  Gobs of Hollywood money. Obama honestly thinks this is good stuff because people in the passive content business are friends and donors and they like TPP.
• hackuser 11y ago
  Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). The possible exception is his initial campaign when he was an unknown quantity and, like all such politicians, everyone projected their "Hope" onto him.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Obama is not a progressive and I don't think he's been particularly supported by progressives (other than the fact that they tend to vote for Democrats). A lot of progressives supported Obama in 2008 primaries, especially toward the end of that season, because, as it was clear who the reasonably viable contenders were for the Democratic nomination, Obama generally seemed slightly to the progressive side of Hillary Clinton (which is perfectly compatible with him being a centrist Democrat rather than a particularly progressive one; I don't think anyone in the Democratic party has mistaken Clinton for anything other than a centrist for a long time.)
  • wfo 11y ago
    The 'you projected your hope onto him' suggestion is popular but doesn't really hold water. He explicitly said things that he did a 180 on. Many of them. For some I'm sure they projected hope on him, but many others who voted for him were just straight up betrayed.
• fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  He's not my hero. I didn't vote for him mainly because I'm not in a swing state; but if I were and you ran him against Romney and Paul Ryan tomorrow, I'd hold my nose and go vote for him. I might even go find myself an ACORN volunteer t shirt and go register a bunch of poors to go vote for him too. Go ahead though, and tell me how much better we'd all feel about TPP if your horse would've won.
  • fixxer 11y ago
    I haven't had a horse in any of these races. I despise them all; I especially despise those sad true believers out there that pin their hopes to an empty suit.