President Donald Trump

[chancellor]

I should've quoted this in my last reply, because I am in agreement with your criticisms of Obama on these issues. But how is he 'left-wing'? He's been basically a moderate Republican on many issues.

Depends on which moderate Republican you compare him too. If you mean Nixon, I'd concede you're pretty close - Nixon advocated for national health care and other significant government expansions that in a more modern sense fit Obama. Compared to John McCain, I'd put our past president well to his left on many issues. However, I'd be willing to compromise on "neo-conservative".

[Redbirds Fan]

But weren't the ACA and the bailouts the main issues that the Tea Party developed in response to?

Obama's opponents started from the premise that he was illegitimate (birtherism) and that they wanted him to fail. There was a lot of outright racism. You have to consider the possibility that some of the subsequent policy complaints were pretextual.

[overkill94]

Obama's opponents started from the premise that he was illegitimate (birtherism) and that they wanted him to fail. There was a lot of outright racism. You have to consider the possibility that some of the subsequent policy complaints were pretextual.

That's kind of what I had assumed but people seem to have such strong convictions that I thought it was something more substantive.

From a few people I've talked to, it seems that they're somehow projecting their personal failings on the president and think that Trump's plain speak means that he has their interests at heart and will magically make them rich or something. I'm not saying Hillary was a slam-dunk candidate and I don't know enough about politics to know how well Obama did as president but it seems the obnoxiousness from the right wingers is based more on racism/sexism/bigotry than any sort of informed opinion about Trump or the republican agenda in general.

[Hornsby]

I know that there are a fair amount of people in here who are more conversant than I am about the TPP, and some that are happy that the President has decided to pull the US out of the alliance. Now my question is this, what about the unintended consequenses? This is a document that has taken hundred of people years to formulate. Now suddenly, it's all off...or is it? Lots of speculation this morning from the other countries about China taking the place of the US. Isn't that one of the things the partnership was supposed to PREVENT happening? What happens when all of those countries start treating us not as an ally, but simply as a customer that they can charge whatever they like, or worse yet, not deal with at all?

I fear that this America First stance has bad repercussions that we haven't even scratched the surface on yet.

[Sour Masher]

I know that there are a fair amount of people in here who are more conversant than I am about the TPP, and some that are happy that the President has decided to pull the US out of the alliance. Now my question is this, what about the unintended consequenses? This is a document that has taken hundred of people years to formulate. Now suddenly, it's all off...or is it? Lots of speculation this morning from the other countries about China taking the place of the US. Isn't that one of the things the partnership was supposed to PREVENT happening? What happens when all of those countries start treating us not as an ally, but simply as a customer that they can charge whatever they like, or worse yet, not deal with at all?

I fear that this America First stance has bad repercussions that we haven't even scratched the surface on yet.

I agree with all this. I too don't know enough about TPP to know if it was a bad deal for us, and maybe this is the one area where Trump isn't a complete disaster, if he manages to work out better deals. But a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle seem to be worried about how pulling out of this long brokered deal will affect our standing and position with key trade partners.

Trump seems to be banking on the idea that they all need the US more than we need them, and that fact will force them all to the table for better deals, despite the bad blood this move may engender. Maybe he is right. It seems to be a risky move though, that as you say, could have significant unintended consequences.

[nots]

If you google 'Sanders on TPP', there is a link to his 10 points on why the TPP is bad for the US, US workers and unions. I invite you to read it. I'm not sure Trump would have the exact same 10 reasons, but there would certainly be a lot of overlap.

[senorsheep]

If you google 'Sanders on TPP', there is a link to his 10 points on why the TPP is bad for the US, US workers and unions. I invite you to read it. I'm not sure Trump would have the exact same 10 reasons, but there would certainly be a lot of overlap.

Here ya go...

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

10 Ways That TPP Would Hurt Working Families

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process. Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone.

2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.

This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those dealing with labor, health, and the environment.

3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.

NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.
The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.

4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.

The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other
trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the
nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing domestic courts.

5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.

The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood into the U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because of salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food imports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.

6. Buy America laws could come to an end.

The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and services that are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must be given equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products in America.

7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.

Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies they have for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 years or
more). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors without
Borders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.”

8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been successfully used to avoid financial crises.

9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.

10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that agreed to it.

[nots]

Here ya go...

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...ed?inline=file

Thanks for the posting this. I have to question how any mainstream Democrat could be against Trump's decision here, unless it's just a blind hatred for him. I don't believe there is a single elected senior Democrat in favor of the TPP.

[Hornsby]

If you google 'Sanders on TPP', there is a link to his 10 points on why the TPP is bad for the US, US workers and unions. I invite you to read it. I'm not sure Trump would have the exact same 10 reasons, but there would certainly be a lot of overlap.

I went and read it, but thanks to sheep for posting it as well. Yeah, it reminded me again why I didn't think much of Sanders as a serious candidate., very simplistically written with no real knowledge...as he himself writes:

"The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not".

So how does he know enough about it to write a 10 point rebuttal to a treaty he supposedly hasn't seen? He was a member of Congress, correct? Anyway, I digress...

Oddly enough, I would think that he and Trump would probably agree on much of what's in the Sanders outline here...hurts American workers, hurts American taxpayers, hurts American consumers, etc. What it doesn't do, IMO, is to look at some of the positives that the agreement may bring. You're never going to get an agreement that 100% of the parties agree to 100% of the time, which is why it took so long to negotiate. My main issue is why not look at it, long and hard, before you decide that it needs to be trashed? Have a panel of people that YOU trust tear it apart and give you the positives and negatives, not in a knee jerk manner. Anyway, I'd like to see a thorough vetting of the issues, but I guess that everything is going to be done with this false "1st 100 days" calendar. He's certainly not the 1st President to rush into things, and I'm sure he wan't be the last...

[nots]

I went and read it, but thanks to sheep for posting it as well. Yeah, it reminded me again why I didn't think much of Sanders as a serious candidate., very simplistically written with no real knowledge...as he himself writes:

"The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not".

So how does he know enough about it to write a 10 point rebuttal to a treaty he supposedly hasn't seen? He was a member of Congress, correct? Anyway, I digress...

Oddly enough, I would think that he and Trump would probably agree on much of what's in the Sanders outline here...hurts American workers, hurts American taxpayers, hurts American consumers, etc. What it doesn't do, IMO, is to look at some of the positives that the agreement may bring. You're never going to get an agreement that 100% of the parties agree to 100% of the time, which is why it took so long to negotiate. My main issue is why not look at it, long and hard, before you decide that it needs to be trashed? Have a panel of people that YOU trust tear it apart and give you the positives and negatives, not in a knee jerk manner. Anyway, I'd like to see a thorough vetting of the issues, but I guess that everything is going to be done with this false "1st 100 days" calendar. He's certainly not the 1st President to rush into things, and I'm sure he wan't be the last...

You realize that Hillary claimed to be against the TPP as well, right? That means the only 3 realistic Presidential candidates all arrived at the same conclusion, including the one who called it the 'gold standard' of agreements, that it was garbage.

[Hornsby]

You realize that Hillary claimed to be against the TPP as well, right? That means the only 3 realistic Presidential candidates all arrived at the same conclusion, including the one who called it the 'gold standard' of agreements, that it was garbage.

I really don't care what's said in the heat of a campaign, it's mostly pandering at that point anyway. I just want a thorough vetting of ALL issues before deciding that something is inherently bad for the country.

I can't say that aligning with Russia, while China slides in and takes the US slot in the TPP strikes me as a great economic harbinger for the United States.

[senorsheep]

Bernie wasn't the only one complaining about the "smoke-filled back room" tenor of the trade negotiations. Elizabeth Warren was all over it as well, among others.

After two decades of NAFTA, I think most folks are pretty sour on trade agreements that benefit global mega-corporations and the investor class while hammering American production workers and exploding our trade deficit. To my knowledge, the president never made a compelling case why TPP would be any different. Frankly, I'm astonished that so many Democrats were willing to sit idly by while this moved forward.

[nots]

I really don't care what's said in the heat of a campaign, it's mostly pandering at that point anyway. I just want a thorough vetting of ALL issues before deciding that something is inherently bad for the country.

I can't say that aligning with Russia, while China slides in and takes the US slot in the TPP strikes me as a great economic harbinger for the United States.

Well, Trump and Sanders have been against these trade agreements since at least 1992 and NAFTA, so I imagine they have vetted the entire issue thoroughly, but I guess Hillary arrived at the same conclusion about the same time Sanders poll numbers reached their apex, so I can see your point there. Also, I do appreciate your willingness to brush aside campaign rhetoric-- does that extend to Trump's statements as well?

[DMT]

Bernie wasn't the only one complaining about the "smoke-filled back room" tenor of the trade negotiations. Elizabeth Warren was all over it as well, among others.

After two decades of NAFTA, I think most folks are pretty sour on trade agreements that benefit global mega-corporations and the investor class while hammering American production workers and exploding our trade deficit. To my knowledge, the president never made a compelling case why TPP would be any different. Frankly, I'm astonished that so many Democrats were willing to sit idly by while this moved forward.

Really? Many Democrats only criticize things when the Republicans are doing it. Executive privilege, privacy, bank regulations, drone strikes, etc were all issues that Obama should have been getting heat from the left. Granted, I think part of their hesitancy to be overly critical stemmed from their recognition that Obama had to exert so much effort fighting the obstructionist Republicans.

[senorsheep]

Really? Many Democrats only criticize things when the Republicans are doing it. Executive privilege, privacy, bank regulations, drone strikes, etc were all issues that Obama should have been getting heat from the left. Granted, I think part of their hesitancy to be overly critical stemmed from their recognition that Obama had to exert so much effort fighting the obstructionist Republicans.

Well, hey, I assumed that maybe some significant percentage of Democrats still had the principles and backbone to oppose their president when necessary. Silly me.

TPP is probably the one Obama initiative Republicans didn't try to obstruct. Most of them thought it was pretty swell until Trump said otherwise.