USPol June: Words no longer have meaning

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPol June: Words no longer have meaning

«‹›180 »

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

I'd like to know exactly what it was he said that made them feel that way...too bad none of it is public record.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 15:41

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Why is Obama pushing so hard for this thing?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:48

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

Radish posted:

Why is Obama pushing so hard for this thing?

I think that it's part of his whole "pivot to Asia" master plan and isolating China.

Edit: what are the GOP candidates saying about TPP?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:49

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

site posted:

Sooooo many to keep track of. It's driving me nuts!

Thanks

That seems to be by design.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:50

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 6 days!

Radish posted:

Why is Obama pushing so hard for this thing?

Because he is a liberal.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:50

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Wrap it up, tradeailures. TAA goes down 126-302. Kevin McCarthy says they're gonna do the remaining votes on the TPA anyway (even though it doesn't matter) and that "the world is watching".

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:50

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:52

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Alter Ego posted:

I'd like to know exactly what it was he said that made them feel that way...too bad none of it is public record.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/obama-hill-trade_n_7569168.html

quote:

Lawmakers leaving Friday's caucus meeting took issue with Obama repeatedly used the phrase "play it straight" in making his pitch: If you oppose fast-track authority, vote against it. If you support it, vote for it. But if you've supported TAA in the past, don't oppose it now just to sink the entire trade deal.

For Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and others there's nothing crooked about opposing TAA, if it accomplishes the goal of killing fast track.

"If you're against TPA and you believe that TAA is going to allow it a better chance to pass, from a legislative point of view, that's playing it straight. So in a sense, he was saying he didn't mind people opposed to him, but play it straight," Rangel said. "And some people were offended that he was challenging their integrity as it relates to TAA. But if a piece of chocolate is going to make you feel good, but it's got a poison pill in it, I don't see why you can say that the chocolate is good by itself."

"He was eloquent in terms of saying that he respected our opinion," Rangel continued. "Where he kind of went off is in believing that anyone voting against TAA was not playing it straight."

"He said you're not 'playing it straight' if you vote against TAA but you supported it in the past. � That's questioning someone's integrity," DeFazio said. "We're legislators. It's the only legislative tool we have to stop something that is otherwise inevitable."

"I don't fault him for trying to get what he wants, but I do reserve the right to disagree with him when he says 'play it straight,'" said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). "He cares about trade adjustment assistance, but he is using adjustment assistance as a bargaining chip to get what he really wants, which is TPA. Is that playing it straight?"

"I mean, come on. He reserves the right to play politics to himself? Come on," Ellison added. "And you can't take politics out of politics. That's just the way it is."

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:53

Arkane: Dec 19, 2006; by R. Guyovich

Should be safe for Hillary to take a position on TPA now

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:55

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Generally speaking in broad strokes I would rather China get so entangled with us economically that they wouldn't want to act against us in trade and resource disputes. The idea that we can somehow wage an economic cold war or proxy war with China seems like a fantasy in the first place since it relies on both sides playing the game civilly for the sake of saving face.

RuanGacho fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jun 12, 2015

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:57

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

RuanGacho posted:

Generally speaking in broad strokes I would rather China get so entangled with us economically that they wouldn't want to act against us in trade and resource disputes. The idea that we can somehow wage an economic cold war or proxy war with China seems like a fantasy in the first place since it relies on both sides playing the game civilly for the sake of saving face in the first place.

Your wish is my command and now it's the year 1994.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:58

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

And TPA passes 219-211. Boehner moves to reconsider TAA. And now we're gonna vote on that again, but not right now.

An interesting point to consider: Senate Republicans swallowed their objection to TAA in order to pass TPA, but House Republicans... House Republicans never change.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 18:59

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Remind me, why is TAA required in order to have the TPA vote mean anything?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:01

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

Joementum posted:

And TPA passes 219-211. Boehner moves to reconsider TAA. And now we're gonna vote on that again, but not right now.

An interesting point to consider: Senate Republicans swallowed their objection to TAA in order to pass TPA, but House Republicans... House Republicans never change.

So why doesn't this mean that TPA is law now?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:02

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

silvergoose posted:

Remind me, why is TAA required in order to have the TPA vote mean anything?

The Senate bill requires that the House pass all three measures: TAA, TPA, and (what they're voting on right now) TDE, or Trade Deal Enforcement.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:02

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

zoux posted:

Your wish is my command and now it's the year 1994.

I am skeptical of your ability to place anyone but yourself in historical contexts zoux :v:

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:03

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

silvergoose posted:

Remind me, why is TAA required in order to have the TPA vote mean anything?

So Congress could make a token gesture in the interest of workers instead of only liberalizing trade toward maximum profits.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:04

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Joementum posted:

The Senate bill requires that the House pass all three measures: TAA, TPA, and (what they're voting on right now) TDE, or Trade Deal Enforcement.

Ah. So if the Senate decided to pass the TPA with no TAA requirement, it could well just work, except then the Democrats in the Senate would filibuster?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:05

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

Joementum posted:

And TPA passes 219-211. Boehner moves to reconsider TAA. And now we're gonna vote on that again, but not right now.

An interesting point to consider: Senate Republicans swallowed their objection to TAA in order to pass TPA, but House Republicans... House Republicans never change.

This is like buying a car but refusing to buy a battery. :iiaca:

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:06

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

Joementum posted:

The Senate bill requires that the House pass all three measures: TAA, TPA, and (what they're voting on right now) TDE, or Trade Deal Enforcement.

Any chance of the Senate changing this and allowing separation of the measures?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:06

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

Trabisnikof posted:

Has Obama never lobbied before?

He was actually present in the senate for like maybe three years so no.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:07

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Any chance of the Senate changing this and allowing separation of the measures?

Well, let's check with the gods of Neoliberalism. They say no.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:09

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Any chance of the Senate changing this and allowing separation of the measures?

No. It would lose too many Democrats.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:09

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

Joementum posted:

No. It would lose too many Democrats.

Were Senate Democrats betting that House Republicans wouldn't be able to get their poo poo in order, so it'd fail, or what?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:12

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

This whole war over trade has been one of the weirdest things I've seen in Washington for a while.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:16

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Were Senate Democrats betting that House Republicans wouldn't be able to get their poo poo in order, so it'd fail, or what?

Only a few Democrats in the Senate voted for TPA (Bennet, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Coons, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Kaine, McCaskill, Murray, Nelson, Warner, and Wyden) and they are pro-free trade, Wyden especially.

And now the House is adjourned. Gohmert Hour time!

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:17

silvergoose: Mar 18, 2006; IT IS SAID THE TEARS OF THE BWEENIX CAN HEAL ALL WOUNDS

Fojar38 posted:

This whole war over trade has been one of the weirdest things I've seen in Washington for a while.

By weird you mean, not *actually* 100% polarized by party?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:24

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

silvergoose posted:

By weird you mean, not *actually* 100% polarized by party?

Yeah but instead it's Obama and pro-Trade Democrats plus the GOP establishment versus Liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans. The Progressive-Tea Party alliance is especially bizarre.

I guess that if there's one issue that would do it it would be trade.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:26

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Pohl posted:

The cold war was a proxy war, which I think this entire thing qualifies as, no?
Also, sure the Ukraine needs weapons, if they are going to fight Russia. So we supply them weapons, and it is a proxy war.
That is what the cold war was.

No. There were multiple proxy wars within the cold war but the actual era was not a war at all.

RuanGacho posted:

Generally speaking in broad strokes I would rather China get so entangled with us economically that they wouldn't want to act against us in trade and resource disputes.

That already happened a few decades back.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:28

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

How soon we forget the Cola Wars.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:29

Too Shy Guy: Jun 14, 2003; I have destroyed more of your kind than I can count.

silvergoose posted:

By weird you mean, not *actually* 100% polarized by party?

I only have the loosest understanding of what's going on with all these T** bills, so I started looking up articles and trying to educate myself. After getting to the following two passages in the same article:

quote:

In a remarkable rejection of a president they have resolutely backed, House Democrats voted to kill assistance to workers displaced by global trade, a program their party created and has stood by for four decades.

quote:

Republican leaders tried to muster support from their own party for trade adjustment assistance, a program they have long derided as an ineffective waste of money and sop to organized labor.

I totally get where he's coming from.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:30

Bob James: Nov 15, 2005; by Lowtax; Ultra Carp

Nintendo Kid posted:

No. There were multiple proxy wars within the cold war but the actual era was not a war at all.

Oh, there was a war.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:31

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

The great fear seems to be that China is going to buy resources that the US feels it already has dibs on so I guess I don't understand the whole idea that TPP is going to somehow contain China.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:31

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

RuanGacho posted:

The great fear seems to be that China is going to buy resources that the US feels it already has dibs on so I guess I don't understand the whole idea that TPP is going to somehow contain China.

The White House wants to increase the amount of trade between the US and the rest of the pacific rim sans China in order to make those countries less economically reliant on China. It would counterbalance China's ability to use its economic position as a tool to coerce its neighbours because the US becomes a more feasible alternative.

The TPP is also going to pass eventually, even if it takes until 2017, so this whole song and dance is just kicking the can down the road in my opinion.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:35

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

Fojar38 posted:

The White House wants to increase the amount of trade between the US and the rest of the pacific rim sans China in order to make those countries less economically reliant on China. It would counterbalance China's ability to use its economic position as a tool to coerce its neighbours because the US becomes a more feasible alternative.

The TPP is also going to pass eventually, even if it takes until 2017, so this whole song and dance is just kicking the can down the road in my opinion.

Exactly. I'm not a huge fan of some of the provisions in the leaked outline, but the choice is not between this and a deal authored by Elizabeth Warren; it's between this or a deal that gives China control of Asia-PAC economies for the foreseeable future.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:38

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Joementum posted:

Only a few Democrats in the Senate voted for TPA (Bennet, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Coons, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Kaine, McCaskill, Murray, Nelson, Warner, and Wyden) and they are pro-free trade, Wyden especially.

And now the House is adjourned. Gohmert Hour time!

A few, 30%, tomahto, whatevs.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:43

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Joementum posted:

Only a few Democrats in the Senate voted for TPA (Bennet, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Coons, Feinstein, Heitkamp, Kaine, McCaskill, Murray, Nelson, Warner, and Wyden) and they are pro-free trade, Wyden especially.

And now the House is adjourned. Gohmert Hour time!

Which of those Dems would you trust to vote against a Senate bill stripped of the TAA? Which of them have said that the TAA is a rock-hard dealbreaker?

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:47

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Willa Rogers posted:

Which of those Dems would you trust to vote against a Senate bill stripped of the TAA? Which of them have said that the TAA is a rock-hard dealbreaker?

Well, none of them have answered that specific hypothetical, but every Senate Democrat voted against striking TAA when that amendment came up.

There's a non-zero chance that TPA could pass the Senate without it, but a much larger chance that TAA passes the House when Boehner brings it up again next week.

# ? Jun 12, 2015 19:52