Obama signs trade bills into law, says tough battle still ahead
Source: Reuters
President Barack Obama signed into law on Monday legislation that gives him "fast-track" power to negotiate trade deals and speed them through Congress, but he said he still has a battle ahead to finalize the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.
"We still have some tough negotiations that are going to be taking place," Obama said at a signing ceremony for the legislation, surrounded by some of the lawmakers who helped him pass it after a six-week congressional fight.
Also from TheHill:
Obama signed the measure during a brief ceremony at in the East Room of the White House, where he hailed the bipartisan cooperation that was needed to get the legislation through Congress after an intense lobbying campaign that pitted the president against congressional Democrats and created a rare alliance with Republicans.
The president was surrounded by key lawmakers and members of his administration who kept this trade agenda alive through several procedural hiccups even though, he said, it had “been declared dead more than once.”
The trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, also known as fast-track, is expected to speed the completion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations with 11 other nations from the Pacific Rim to Latin America in the coming weeks.
Obama also signed a measure into law that provides $450 million to retrain workers who lose their jobs because of expanded trade and extends trade preferences for another decade to sub-Saharan Africa.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/246461-obama-signs-trade-bills
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/29/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0P92GP20150629
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
lark
(23,155 posts)reveals his true priority and stabs workers and the environment in the heart.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that have foreign workers come here as "indentured servants" to work at far lower wages with no rights, etc.
Read how TISA, one of those bills, that these TRAITORS as well as the one in the white house, will have enabled this over the next six years, long after Obama has left the presidency, and we perhaps have a Republican controlled congress and presidency, with a minority Democratic Party in the Senate without even the ability to filibuster these bills then.
http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-americas-authority-to-make-immigration-policy/
In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.
This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).
There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.
The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.
...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)lark
(23,155 posts)The little bit that's been leaked is pretty scary, what's been hidden so deep that we don't even know about it yet?
whathehell
(29,090 posts)Prescient professor of mine who warned our class on this THIRTY Years ago, in 1985. 
polichick
(37,152 posts)Hopefully enough people will wake up in time to prevent the next one.
He's good on social issues...They're free, and therefore take zero from the One Percent.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And that is why he doesn't get stuff for those of us negotiated properly like a public option when those who own him don't want it!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He is not. He is the elected head of state who makes decisions--good and bad.
He is a man. He is not property.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)and I DO mean that as a descriptive term of how corporate power OWNS our government, no matter what skin color, gender, religion, etc. those who are members of that government are who allow themselves to be corrupted through bribery.
Bribery IS ownership!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Other than engaging in policies which displease you, what evidence do you have that President Obama has committed the criminal offense of taking bribes?
Or do you just routinely accuse any politician that agrees with you of being a criminal?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It used to be what is defined today as "pay to play" "campaign contributions" to politicians to get back favors in exchange for them was considered bribery, before those who were bribed were asked to redefine them as NOT being bribery.
In my book, what is going on here still is bribery from the days that we didn't have such a corrupt government as we have today that doesn't even bother prosecuting ANY bankster to speakh of like even Reagan would have and HAS done in the past with the Savings and Loan crisis of his day.
And some crimes may be really still be bribery or other crimes of fraud, but they aren't prosecuted today as a part of the bribery game. Some have noted that many of the terms of past free trade agreements like Columbia have prescribed cracking down on corruption and other crimes there as part of those trade agreements, but even when they were committed, prosecuting them wasn't enforced, and therefore they weren't really an effective part of those agreements.
Who's responsible for NOT enforcing these laws? Obama?... Holder?... We likely won't ever know. Because part of this fraud is that it isn't being investigated or prosecuted at the highest levels where Obama is arguably as the highest official of the land responsible for the oversight (or lack thereof).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for CAFTA, getting reelected and promoted rather than meeting the anger of the people. I think when a person has voted steadily in one way since the early 90's, we can see that the voters really don't object. A few of Wyden's current critics have lavished praise on him over the NSA, but when he was doing that NSA stuff he was also promoting TPP and he'd already spent years voting for free trade agreements. Why would they praise him, if his actions scream of bribery and corruption?
He's been in Congress since 1981. He's always voted exactly this way. Has it always been bribery? Or is it just that he has a rotten point of view on trade?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... is hard to guage at times, when you don't trust the oversight mechanisms, and what they vote for doesn't really make sense when you have a sense of what people want is the opposite of what they are voting for.
And you see things like Obama giving a speech at Nike on the TPA/TPP, and you have to know that this was a factor in two congress people's and perhaps Wyden's voting as well. I've at least heard that my congresswoman was neutral about it before the Nike speech then.
Were they "bribed"? Hard to say if they meet the legal definitions of "bribery"? Were they influenced some way to vote in a way that was against most of their constituent's wishes (except for the wealthier ones?). It sure appears like it to me. How they were influenced is another question. Now whether it was bribery or something else, I don't know. But it feels to me that they were "owned" by those influences, and I'll say that here.
I myself have also liked Wyden's stances on privacy, etc., but these other issues like free trade, and his 'deal' with Paul Ryan on negotiating Medicare "reform", etc. have me wondering WHY he supports them. I don't think most Oregonians want stances like open season on free trade bills. At least not from an informed perspective, that this whole process has seemed to INTENTIONALLY avoid with all of its secrecy!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to a politician, who then follows that policy, that amounts to bribery?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... then what would you call it? Minimally it is at least a STUPID way of legislating and supposedly doing your job representing what MOST of your constituents want.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)So, essentially you ARE arguing that any time a politician takes a stand that YOU think is bad for the country, they're guilty of bribery.
Here's an alternate hypothesis: The President disagrees with you. Not corrupt, just holds a different opinion than yours.
Did that possibility ever cross your mind? Or is it that you just can't imagine that anyone could possibly disagree with you unless they're evil, corrupt or ignorant?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It's not just ME that thinks it is a bad idea. There are many of us out there that have chosen to look where the media I would arguably has intentionally been AVOIDING talking about bills like this are having big concerns about it.
I've talked to Republicans who also don't like things like our soverignty being lost to the UN are just as concerned about our sovereignty being lost in ISDS courts and its expanding power from the previously problematic WTO courts created by NAFTA that haven't done us any favors versus the messes they've created too.
The president is entitled to his opinion too. But he is also charged with a responsibility to lead this country with DEMOCRATIC processes governing it. Meaning he's responsible for ensuring that the legal processes for legislating, administering and adjudicating our law are what our citizens have voted for representatives to represent their views on. That means that laws being put in place, even if he likes them (and has a right to like them), are items that he needs to, as a part of his job, share details of with the public so that they know what he favors putting in place is something they agree with and can support him doing. If he keeps them secret and just says "Trust me! I like this and therefore you'll like it too!" is NOT the way to be president in this demoratic country.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and conclusions re: the TPP.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that you feel that the other person has more legitimate reasons for wanting in place? Sell what is good about this TPA process why don't you. I've mostly seen "Trust me" messaging and no real "Here's why this is a good thing for you." followed by a good explanation why something like TPP is good for us and therefore what's being proposed was properly discussed with all appropriate parties, and they've done a good job at reaching a reasonable compromise so that we don't even need a lot of amendments, etc. there that supposedly are the "problem" that TPA seeks to keep from happening.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)TPA is much more defensible than any underlying trade agreement.
TPA means that when foreign countries conclude negotiations, they each submit it for and up-or-down vote at the legislative level.
The alternative is that trade agreements would never be done, as each legislature would then add conditions to it, which means they'd have to conduct another round of negotiations, rinse, and repeat.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when it was secret, and there was no dialogue to speak of with those rerpresenting unions, environmental protection, and other government regulatory concerns, then perhaps we could trust a process like that to help accelarate such a trade deal in a positive fashion. But the way these "trade" deals are being negotiated with those that aren't responsible to citizens through their vote, and they expect us to have little say over what these deals mandate is in my book WRONG for a democracy to allow happen. It is being done that way by DESIGN to facilitate corporate 1%er power over the rest of us and is why we've gone downhill so much as a country the last few decades while this sort of trade treaty legislation has beeng going on.h
Maybe we'll go for a while where we don't have any good (or bad) trade treaties signed because of a vacuum of a decent process to write them that the TPA is "supposed" to provide us. But I think if we can clean up and have a more representative group of people like those elected to congress help build up such a process where enough of the appropriate parties are represented in negotiating these processes, and codifying a set of rules to have that happen down the road with future trade treaties, then we're going to keep going down this bad slope of us moving towards a system of corporate fascism that we are already halfway down to already.
I understand a solution is needed to find a way to keep the process from being too bogged down with negotiations. But to me the reason that is happening to such a large degree is because those initially doing these negotiations are the WRONG mix of people (likely due to the corruption of our government and its people already in place), and therefore what they come up with is usually something that isn't very acceptable for an elected body to just say "Hey, you did a great job!". Let's move on. The process for creating trade agreements now is broken, and we need to take some time to fix it, not just allow it to continue to break down our whole society in the process of blindly following a broken process.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the main reasons I oppose it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Arguably, it could then still get an up or down vote without a lot of processes for "amending it", etc. to bog it down, but it allows the minority party to stand against it if they feel that it is badly written and a majority party (that still has a minority of citizens' votes cast for it in the House's gerry mandered districts, and a minority of citizens votes casted collectively for ti when it controls the smaller states with lower populations, which is WHY we have filibuster rules to ensure legislation represents what a majority of Americans want).
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... are negotiated in secret.
The details are disclosed when the draft agreement is finalized.
It doesn't seem to matter how many times these facts are pointed out on DU - people still go on and on about "why is it being kept secret", as though this hasn't traditionally been the way these things are done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)THIS time, it's different.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)IN SECRET!???
http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-negotiations-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp-a-corporate-takeover/5335348
One-Sided Process
The TPP process appears to be set up to push corporate interests over other interests. The TPP is being negotiated in secret, so what we know about it comes from leaked documents. Even our Congress is being kept out of the loop. But 600 corporate representatives are in the loop while representatives of groups that protect working people, human, political and civil rights and our environment are largely not in the loop.
This one-sided participation unfortunately indicates that the interests of giant corporations are likely to override the interests of working people and those who want to protect non-corporate interests. Otherwise there would be more representation by representatives of organizations representing these concerns, and greater transparency into the process.
...
Yes, as I said, I understand why there have been efforts to try to streamline this process that could get more bogged down that it used to be in earlier times when "agreements" that were then called "treaties" were consitutionally required to have a 2/3rds vote in congress to pass. But recognizing that, couldn't there be some better effort to put in parties building this agreement that we have limited options to amend or look at up front be negotiated by a more reasonable balance of parties that represent all of our interests and not just those of the 1% and the corporate world? Even those that are part of our trade reps group that are negotiating with these corporate leaders are they themselves part of the revolving door process that has plagued our system in so many ways. We need to have some part of the process where perhaps congress doesn't have much input in to the treaty itself, but at least has the authority to help build the list of who's negotiating it and at least sign off on that list before they do so.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... yet another fallacy making the rounds on the internetz.
Given that corporations will be directly affected by the agreement, their input is of course sought. Would you negotiate an agreement to build a bridge or tunnel between two nations, and NOT seek the input of civil engineers, soils experts, etc.?
If you have concerns about how these types of treaties are negotiated, that's your prerogative. But for people to keep insisting it's "different this time" is nonsense. You also seem to be assuming - as many here do - that anything that is good for corporations is bad for the American worker. There IS a such thing as positive outcomes for both.
The only reason the TPP has become a hair-on-fire cause on DU is because Obama supports it. If he were against it, certain posters here would be up-in-arms about how he was quashing a great deal for American workers. THAT is really what's going on here.
The misinformation about how this treaty is being negotiated and how it will be implemented has been rife here on DU. And yet the non facts get spewed over and over, regardless of how many times they have been debunked.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)We have a track record with NAFTA, CAFTA, China MFN, Columbia, Korea, WTO, GAAT, to name a few, that have leveled our manufacturing industries and permanently exported good stable jobs overseas. The notion that the biggest trade deal of all, premised on the same corporate favoring model as the previous trade agreements, would be anything other than another hit to working families is ludicrous. History is not your friend here.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... on an internet message board.
You'll excuse me if I don't take your assessment of things seriously.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)BTW, got an argument?
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)I have always posted here under my real name.
An argument for what?
Joe Turner
(930 posts)My point is that TPP *on balance* is another in a long line of corporate written trade agreements that will hurt working people. What is your point, if you have any?
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... I post under my own name? Or did I "insult" you by saying I don't take anonymous posters on a message board seriously?
Joe Turner
(930 posts)You need to learn to defend you position other than saying someone should not be taken seriously because they are anonymous... which would describe 99% of everyone on the forum, and even you to some extent.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)… there for all to see:
You said: “BTW, got an argument?”
I responded: “An argument for what?”
Your reply: “Just what I thought: you have no argument.”
If you can’t even define what “the argument” is about, it would seem rather foolish to declare that I don’t have one.
Such is DU these days … sadly so.
bloom
(11,635 posts)"We have a track record with NAFTA, CAFTA, China MFN, Columbia, Korea, WTO, GAAT, to name a few, that have leveled our manufacturing industries and permanently exported good stable jobs overseas. The notion that the biggest trade deal of all, premised on the same corporate favoring model as the previous trade agreements, would be anything other than another hit to working families is ludicrous. History is not your friend here."
So what is your response?
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... of defining what "argument" he was attempting to discuss?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)http://www.usw.org/act/campaigns/fair-trade/resources/what-is-fast-track-or-trade-promotion-authority-tpa
o While there are 20 labor representatives that get nominal access to information about these agreements and the opportunity to comment on them, there are over 600 corporate representatives that participate.
Also, the USTR trade representatives that are supposedly negotiating in our interests have been heavily prone to the revolving door syndrome as well, and arguably are working for the corporate interests as well that they "at times" serve directly...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/11/26/heres-why-obama-trade-negotiators-push-the-interests-of-hollywood-and-drug-companies/
I and many others here are NOT saying that corporate reps shouldn't be involved, but with the ratio of their involvement to labor representatives, congressional reps, or those with environmental concerns that aren't even mentioned, then can't you see how a big bunch of us that such an agreement being built in secret looks like it would be heavily weighed to those corporations' interests versus everyone else's? If not I either question your intelligence or credibility.
It's obvious that the process will prioritize company profits and those who benefit from that over everything else. That means higher company profits will likely mean less money spent on protecting our jobs, our environment, our health, and everything else. Yes, helping corporations get higher profits should be a PART of the whole picture, but should not DOMINATE the decision making process at the expense of everything else. If you don't have other parties besides those just interested in corporate profits and power, that is all that you will get in such an agreement, and screw everyone else. That has been what has happened in the past with such agreements, so this isn't just "speculation" that this will happen. It has been shown to have happened over and over again and we shouldn't doubt that 'this time' will be different!
This article highlights the huge number of weaknesses the way this process is organized and why it's being kept so secret from us. The only people this process has been made to really satisfy are the big multinational corporations and their owners. Screw the rest of us!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/lets-take-apart-the-corpo_b_6575180.html
And those of us who are against this aren't against it just because we "hate Obama". I've supported Obama on many other occasions when he's done things that have helped our country improve from where it's been, even Obamacare, which though it could have been better, is better than we were, or where Republicans would have ultimately taken us if they were in power.
But those of you who think we should just worship Obama and everything he does, just because "he's Obama", and "he's a Democrat" aren't giving us logic that makes sense in a democratic system. We are not just cheering our home football team here. We are wanting trying to exercise our rights and responsibility in a democracy to make sure that those who claim to represent us are doing their jobs doing so and holding them accountable if they don't.
About building a bridge the proper fashion? Ask some in the bay area where they outsourced retrofitting the bay bridge to a company using parts made and shipped in from China to "keep costs low"...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/10/1305808/-California-discovers-hidden-price-tag-of-outsourcing-Bay-Bridge-to-China#
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... gave yourself away here:
"But those of you who think we should just worship Obama and everything he does ..."
Your interpretation of pointing out the fact that there are those here who are "only against this agreement because Obama is for it" is that that translates into "I think (everyone) should just worship Obama."
'Nuff said.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It is that along with other bad things this treaty does to do that and things like undermine our sovereignty, etc. that have plagued so many trade deals in the past that we are against, not just because we want to "be against Obama"!
On the other hand, those that feel we should support Obama supporting this treaty simply CAN NOT give us a good rational explanation why we should support this treaty, other than we should just "trust Obama's judgement that it is good for us!". THAT blind belief is what is hero worship, NOT being against this trade agreement and in so doing being against Obama BECAUSE HE IS PUSHING IT, not just because we "hate Obama"!
Try to find some other way of explaining why we are wrong about this trade agreement, which so far just about all of who support it are absolutely FAILING to do, but do not try to position that we are being irrational about it just because we "hate Obama". I will not accept that kind of critique that is basically labeling us Republicans when we are just concerned about how it will screw most Americans and be AGAINST traditional Democratic Party values!
whathehell
(29,090 posts)but the overwhelming majority of his party, as well as EVERY Labor union in the country.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)not according to the polling that's out there.
Of course, most people think TPP is something you do to someone's house as a prank
whathehell
(29,090 posts)You know, the people's representatives?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And the president relied on the Republicans to get it passed?
Are you saying that the Republicans more represent the will of the people than elected Democrats do? I think you're in the wrong party if you believe that. Otherwise, how do you explain the votes?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on trade, and what sentiment there is generally trends slightly favorable to trade liberalization.
On the other hand, amongst those with the most at stake and those who have done the most research, there is generally intense opposition.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)We don't have a responsible "free press" in the corporate media. And they've intentionally been avoiding talking about the TPP or the TPA for years. If not for leaks from Wikileaks amongst others on what was going on with it, maybe even a lot of the rest of us wouldn't have a big opinion on it without knowledge that it was even being worked on. Many in this country are more in that latter category if they don't pay attention to any forms of alternative media.
randys1
(16,286 posts)
former9thward
(32,077 posts)Completely different world.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think we have to be careful what we call "hate" for a given individual and what we have in terms of feeling to a VERY flawed process that for some reason some people seem to feel is "good for us", despite our jobs heavily getting outsourced, our wealth distribution growing to record rates, as well as our trade deficit getting so large that many other countries are starting to own us here!
Why is that so good, unless some here are in that tier that seems to benefit from the profiteering that is benefiting a small segment that has a lot of control over our government with their money.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)A very willing puppet of Wall Street.
randys1
(16,286 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)They've been made into legal "indentured servants" too, and arguably are "owned" to a certain degree as well.
I consider those that do favors back to those who give them money to do those favors (what USED to be called bribery) being owned. I don't care what skin color, religion, gender, etc. they are.
There are many people in congress that I've described in exactly the same way as being owned who aren't POC... Please let's not have this be misdirected into something that this conversation isn't about.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Just like Bill Clinton did.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)I extend my thanks for the good things he's done, but am very unhappy with other things.
Looking forward to an honest man, Bernie Sanders.
randys1
(16,286 posts)A List of 291 Accomplishments by President Obama so far… With Citations
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)he revealed himself with the tpp fiasco
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)agreement that provides for corporate trade courts. It's just incomprehensible to me. Either somewhere some values are skewed or somewhere someone doesn't understand how these trade courts work or hasn't looked at the kinds of cases being presented to them, or is bought off or ignorant about arbitration procedures or just doesn't care. Something is wrong here.
And this is a very sad day for American working people. A very, very sad day.
It is an even sadder day for our democratic traditions. A really, really sad day. We should leave the WTO and NAFTA and the rest. That is if we want to sustain the kind of representative democratic government under our Constitution that we now have.
TPP is a corporate coup.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)and frankly I hope Obama gets his ass kicked.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)things he's done, besides addressing economics for the middle class and poor. We are now a socially progressive country, of course we'll all be poor soon but hey, who needs food, and shelter, and water, and clothes, and,................
Jeezuz. Again the not too bright are easily swayed and distracted.
I wish sometimes that I was completely ignorant and stoopid so I could have a moment of bliss. This knowing shit hurts.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to instruct him to have a decision happen on those two big cases shortly after the TPA bill was passed to help facilitate this "distraction", to minimize the scrutiny that the TPA vote would get without something else getting "media focus" the coming week or so. It REALLY wouldn't surprise me if he didn't and it also wouldn't surprise me that he would just say yes to these corporate interests too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
"Corporate America pulled strings on the Supreme Court to distract everyone from something they didn't give a shit about in the first place!"
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Coulda fooled me! So you think he cares more about us little guys than Corporate America?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)if it weren't for the SSM decision, people would be somehow giving a shit about TPP.
Which is fucking laughable.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)should prove my point that it was even a big distraction for many here on DU... I suppose if you only listen to Korporate media, you probably think that nobody ever gives a shit about free trade screwing us and that the protests in Seattle for NAFTA were just the set for a big hollywood scifi movie and that Ross Perot was just a figment of our imagination, and that no one really had anything to care about to vote for the guy huh?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)it was one of the most monumental landmarks in LGBT civil rights in American history and something a hell of a lot of people have been fighting for for decades.
Posts about TPP are damn nearly a daily basis on DU, but since we took one day--one fucking day--to celebrate a truly worthy achievement for our LGBT brothers and sisters, we were "distracted."
Grow up, and stop throwing fits because someone discussed something you don't consider important.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)What I AM saying is the timing of when they went down... Right after a decision that had Obama's base the most upset with him than perhaps through his terms as president seems not too coincidental to some of us here.
And these decisions were decisions that didn't hurt Korporate Amerika and satisfied the base on social issues, the same way that Third Wayers want us to focus on these issues and IGNORE the economic issues that have screwed Americans more than they have since the Great Depression of last century!
There has been so much focus by Corporate power to downplay and avoid talking about the TPA and TPP that wouldn't have had much attention it weren't for the likes of Wikileaks and Anonymous. Trying to control big news events where they can control them to have them happen on the same days when big decisions that can disaffect the base is not too surprising to me.
Remember when Justice Colleen Kollar-Kotelly threw out one of the last attempts to bring about an Sherman anti-trust action against a big company when she basically threw out most of an earlier court decision against Microsoft a few days before the midterm 2002 election? Convenient timing there too. Not enough time for the alternative media to really analyze what was done to have it used against those politicians supporting Microsoft staying "big", and yet a decision like that gave weekend GOTV people supporting Microsoft more incentive to vote for an administration that shut down those who would "mess up" Microsoft too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/02/business/us-vs-microsoft-overview-judge-backs-terms-us-settlement-microsoft-case.html
And she already had in fact got nominated to the FISA court before issuing that decision, which she would later head. Nice favor given back to her for her actions in 2002 in my book!
bloom
(11,635 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)That's just Kabuki shit to make the populists feel like they mattered in the decision making.
That shit'll be rubber stamped through by the whole rotten damned machine of republicans, the corporatists and turncoats of the democratic party, and business lobby with their MSM minions.
But yeah, mark me as yet another poster in this thread that damned sure hopes it's a tough-ass battle ahead. I'll go down swinging if I can smack just one corporatist upside the head.
